So the courts didn't determine he did it by the only standard that actually matters, guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is not a contradiction to say he could'

So the courts didn't determine he did it by the only standard that actually matters, guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is not a contradiction to say he could've been guilty by preponderance of evidence and innocent because of reasonable doubt. You either trust the high standards of criminal culpability, or you don't -- in which case why do you believe his other guilty verdict can be trusted?