'beyond reasonable doubt' is the metric used still surely? So perhaps not absolute certainty, but if there's enough evidence to suggest it might be true, and there's perhaps nothing stating otherwise, then does it need to be questioned by the public?
For instance, do we know what he admitted to in his police interview, if anything? I imagine his social media posts, text messages and the like were all examined.
It's about motive at the end of the day. So you're right, swearing doesn't prove anything substantial.
But when you look at the fact it was sustained behaviour, his reversal back and forth into people, striking paramedics with his vehicle, you have to then believe or strongly suspect it was fuelled by a certain level of rage?