As to backwards, I was referring to the fact that the state must prove their case, the burden is upon them to do so. You, I believe, placed undue emphasis on the jury's ability to think of alternatives, distorting things to the point that the jury is required to accept the state's version of what happened if they can't figure out an alternative explantion. This would seem to beg prosecutors to seek only unimaginative jurors, which I believe they do, but for other reasons.
As to specific wording, I believe it actually varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But hey, I'm no lawyer. I just read a lot.
"Are we a bit paranoid?"
I don't know... are we? You wrote in your post that maybe a "lawyer" could correct you and I inferred from that statement that you don't think I am an attorney.
You would make a great juror to kick off a jury. Your verbal contortions are way off. Lawyers look for people capable of understanding critical and unemotional thinking. And you demonstrate the opposite. You are, however, a defense attorney's dream juror. All wrapped up in emotion and believing you have knowledge from "reading a lot."
Have you listened to jury instructions in a capital case? Do you have the written instructions given to this jury or any jury about what "reasonable doubt" is? YES, their doubt, if reasonable, MUST fit the evidence. The burden of proof is on the government but the burden of reasonableness is on the jury. You can't just sit in a jury room and say, "well, I have doubt." The doubt has to be explained and be in sync with the evidence.