Right now you have no facts, so it would be your duty to acquit if you were on the jury. But that would be based on the presumption of innocence, not on reasonable doubt.And because of all the possible ways it could have gone down, right off the bat I've got enough "reasonable doubt" that, without the guy confessing to being a murderer, I'd most likely vote to acquit if I was on his jury.
After evidence comes in, you might think there was a real possibility that the NWC did not commit a criminal offense, which would be reasonable doubt.
All we have right now are news reports. Who knows if any of that information could be evidence at trial?
Right now we're still at the probable cause phase. Might not go further than that...