The legal standard for guilt in a criminal trial is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." There is a lot of room between "likely" and that very high standard. It

The legal standard for guilt in a criminal trial is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." There is a lot of room between "likely" and that very high standard. It is perfectly consistent to think someone more likely committed a murder than didn't, yet still have a reasonable doubt. So I really don't think there's any shame here.