Duoy! The term used in law is REASONABLE doubt, not insano unrealistic crazy a** tiny itty bitty shadow of a doubt. For a jury to find REASONABLE doubt, they MUST be able to concoct a REASONABLE alternative explanation of how the crime COULD have happened under a scenario other than the accused having done it. To say a satanic cult kidnapped her or whatever is NOT REASONABLE. Anyone can tell that Ben-Affleck-look-alike is guilty. He acts guilty, which is evidence. It is called "consciousness of guilt." How would YOU act if your 8-months pregnant wife disappeared? Would you testify in your own behalf? Would you beg, plead, cry for justice? Or would you just sit with a stone face acting as if the proceedings do not affect you. He's guilty and should get the death penalty. What a waste of time this is. You pulled me in with the idiocy of it all. Dummy me.
Perhaps a lawyer will find it necessary to correct me, but no, you have it backwards.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" refers to the requirement for the prosecution to PROVE exactly how, why, and when the alleged crime took place, by the alleged criminal. There are elements of each crime, which the prosecution must prove, BARD. If all are not present, i.e. one or more are mere supposition, coincidence, or unprovable, then a jury is supposed to acquit. That is their job. That is why a jury that convicts in such circumstances is dangerous.
Remember, our system is supposed to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. Not to be confused with us "civilians" out here. We're free to say kill the sucker, he's gotta be guilty. Those folks entering deliberation in the jury room must be held to a higher standard.