On the other hand, reasonable doubt mixed with reasonable suspicion is exactly the kind of effect I like to achieve in my writing. I often aim for precisely that verdict: not guilty, but not innocent. Why would I want this, as opposed to a strong, clear verdict in either direction? Because characters and stories are complex.
Now. This is not to say that I never draw moral, legal, or ethical lines in the sand. Some might be surprised at my starkly conservative stances on some issues, or at my strong feelings about ethics in writing (based on some hard lessons over the years.) Especially when people are at risk of being harmed.
When I say I want unclear verdicts for my writing, I really just mean that I want my readers to feel challenged. I want them to question and think. To be surprised at how tough it is to figure out the truth - to be surprised at themselves.
This is also what I meant when I said - years ago, when I laid out my theories on writing as a forensic science and art - that it is my duty to both meet the burden of proof and turn around and destroy the whole case. I am prosecution and defense. I wrestle with myself. My writing is adversarial. It fights with itself.