REASONABLE DOUBT AS A LOOPHOLE

 For years, we’ve heard of criminals avoiding conviction due to "reasonable doubt." I’ve personally dealt with two people who constantly switch roles in conversations, creating confusion and making it impossible to track who said or did what. 

This allows them to deny their actions and leads others to think I’m mistaken or imagining things. It reminds me of a movie where a psychologist and her sister schemed to steal a patient’s husband. After one of them killed the patient, both confessed in court, sowing enough doubt that the jury couldn’t convict either, and both went free.

 My question is: Does the law have a way to handle such manipulative tactics, or does it let criminals exploit the justice system further?