The most pertinent portion of your post in bold.
You're correct, none of us know. Yet we are all convinced.
Experts testified both ways...making it totally unclear. Most certainly a "shadow of a doubt" exists. This cannot even be debated, yet jury came back with a guilty verdict. We all know this verdict was arrived at to prevent blowback against jurors and to prevent cities across the country from riots and anarchy.
A sad day, because the prosecution did not prove guilt of the crimes charged beyond a shadow of a doubt.
It is always so easy to tell when your cult has been feeding you bullshit and you go an repeat it. Did you even watch any of the testimony?
There is no "beyond a shadow of a doubt" clause in the US legal system. It is only because you weren't convinced that you can't come to a conclusion. That is how little you trust anyone. You have mental issues of course you can't believe in the conviction.
Reasonable doubt - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org