>There is no objective definition of reasonable doubt.
And I never claimed that there is, I clearly referred to its creation i.e. the _existence_ of reasonable doubt that can be objectively identified through specific factors such as conflicting evidence, inconsistencies in testimony, lack of evidence, or any other substantial issue that undermines the certainty of a defendant's guilt.
The degree of the perceived doubt is what's subjective.
>DNA evidence of someone other then the accused but not the accused at the crime scene wouldn't introduce reasonable doubt if there was a video of the accused committing the crime, so it doesn't inherently introduce reasonable doubt, but only if the evidence against the accused isn't strong enough, which is again subjective.
The presence of forensic evidence[0] such as bloody shoeprints, fingerprints, and hair at the crime scene that does not match Marcellus Williams directly introduces reasonable doubt. This isn't about subjective interpretation but a factual mismatch that challenges the prosecution's assertion of his guilt. When critical evidence linked to the crime does not implicate the accused, it inherently raises questions about their involvement, thus fulfilling the criteria for reasonable doubt under the law. This is a clear and objective basis for questioning the conviction.
>Responding to an admission of subjectivity ("to me") with "your subjective opinion is irrelevant" only discourages humilty.
I don't see how this has anything to do with humility, it was more like "there objectively exists contradictory evidence that can't be simply downplayed by personal opinions"
[0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/09/23/missou... - "Among the evidence police collected: bloody shoeprints and fingerprints, a knife sheath and the suspect's hair collected from Gayle's shirt, hands and the floor. Missing from the house were Gayle's purse and jacket, and her husband's laptop."