In Dookheea vs Queen  HCA 36 - re the third element that apparently was the entire crux of the trial: to "have a reasonable doubt that an intention to kill or cause really serious injury was present at the time Mr Dookheea killed [the deceased]." Asking as a juror faced with an upcoming criminal but still hypothetical trial: 1. How is it possible to know (how would one determine) a state of mind? What (in the trial evidence) establishes that. 2. Didn't the prosecution make that decision when they charged defendant with murder instead of manslaughter? 3. In that trial [still reading the details] if found not guilty, would defendant go free, or default to guilty of manslaughter?