INNOCENT UNTIL..........

Here's an odd thing.
Our justice system works on the presumption of innocence and it is the duty of the prosecution to prove guilt, not the burden of the defence to prove innocence. A jury of twelve good men (and women) must be persuaded of guilt. And the standard is high. The burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. No room for doubt. Certainty. "So that you are sure".
Now, how is it, that, after a jury's deliberation beyond two hours and ten minutes, a judge may accept a majority decision?
Let's suppose nine of the jurors are convinced of the defendant's guilt. Three are not. Assuming that those three are "reasonable" there must by definition be reasonable doubt, and therefore an acquittal is the only possible verdict.
Suppose it is the other way around. Nine say not guilty. Three are convinced of guilt. The only possible logical verdict is an acquittal.
The numbers don't matter. If eleven say one thing, and one says another, it is only logical to conclude that there is some room for reasonable doubt.
If the dissenting minority of jurors are not reasonable, then they should not be jurors.
Puzzling.
A puzzle with huge consequences.
I wonder what our real de facto burden of proof truly is?