Wrong. I'm not a juror but even a juror will go through same process even if they are told they don't. We all form intial opinions.
Maybe I can diagram it for you
1. No opinion + evidence = initial opinion (The prosecution presents its case)
2. Initial opinion - alternate explanations = final opinion.(Defense anwers)
I am at stage 1 because the defense is still presenting. So far what the defense has presented under "alternate explanations" is zilch in my mind. The trial isn't over but I don't expect to hear from a child or parent regarding playing there. Even if I did, I doubt that would be enough to explain the physical evidence in the RV but it would certainly help.
Re: reasonable doubt
We've all speculated as to what the term 'reasonable doubt' means. Here, from pp 52-53 of "Criminal Law," Professor LaFave's hornbook (not to be confused with "horndog") is what "reasonable doubt" means:
"There must be an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge." Reasonable doubt is "that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge."
LaFave is the expert's expert on criminal law in this country.
Just though you all might find this instructive/helpful/interesting.
As an aside, VRWC_minion, it is not the job of the defense to "prove" anything, including how the hair got into the MH. It is the job of the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that DW kidnapped and killed Danielle. They have shown that she was kidnapped and killed, but they have not shown a) who did it OR b)when it was done OR c)how it was done.
There are holes in the prosecution's case big enough to drive the MH through. Irrespective of your "feelings" about how one should view the presumptions and burdens of proof, DW is innocent, in a legal and factual sense, until the prosecution produces enough evidence for the jury to find, to a moral certainty, that he was the one that kidnapped and killed Danielle. They have completely failed in that regard, and it is my prediction that DW will be found innocent of the charges.