LC is innocent until proven guilty, correct? And she has been charged with 3 counts of murder in the first degree… correct?

Here is the definition provided by the CW court of law:

Section 1. Murder committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, or with extreme atrocity or cruelty, or in the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable with death or imprisonment for life, is murder in the first degree. Murder which does not appear to be in the first degree is murder in the second degree. Petit treason shall be prosecuted and punished as murder. The degree of murder shall be found by the jury.

Has the CW met this burden beyond any reasonable doubt thus far?

If they have not yet, do you expect something forthcoming that will be provided to alleviate reasonable doubt?

Or, is it at all possible that because we all already know WHAT she did, that the collective expectation is that the burden is on HER to now prove why her motives and actions were justified?

Is it possible that because there are no doubts about the facts within the actions that it’s created confusion to who holds the burden to prove the why?

If it remains the burden of the CW to prove that LC’s why beyond a reasonable doubt fits the above charge, verbatim, how can so many of you state with such certainty that LC is guilty? What can you provide me that I cannot refute with the reasonable doubt supplied by her defense?

Is there instead a possibility that none of us will dispute the facts of her actions - and because of this, it’s created confusion as to who now holds the burden?