You are still completely missing the point. A jury decides how much evidence is enough. But a guilty verdict is not "proof" of guilt. The very fact that people get exonerated after being found guilty is proof that it isn't.
How much evidence does a prosecutor need to lack before you will think the defendant has the right to be declared not guilty?
I can do something you have demonstrated you are incapable of doing, answer a direct question easily and quickly. That's what sets conservatives apart from Liberals.
However, I will wait until you've answered mine.