[raganwald]

My first instinct was to crack a joke along the following rough lines:

I like this idea of debating what we can infer beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence. But just to be sure we're both playing the same game, let's agree on a common set of rules. I'll start by proposing that instead of judging who wins according to up- and downvotes from thousands of anonymous Hn readers, we pick twelve reasonable people to read the evidence and listen to our arguments We can appoint an experienced referee to keep us on track and instruct our panel of twelve. Your turns. What other rules should our game have?

Snark aside, I'm uncomfortable arguing someone's guilt in such an unstructured fashion. That's what our courts are for.