Does the absence of lingering doubt from a recitation of evidence the defense offered in an attempt to raise reasonable doubt raise a reasonable doubt?

Defendant argues that the omission from this recitation of evidence the defense offered in an attempt to raise a reasonable doubtsuch as the fact that 9 of the 12 latent prints found at the scene were never identified and his sister's testimony that she had purchased the gold chain defendant wore at the preliminary hearingdemonstrates the court did not properly consider lingering doubt. We draw no such inference from the foregoing record. (Cf. People v. Ruiz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 589, 625, 244 Cal.Rptr. 200, 749 P.2d 854.) In stating "there is no lingering doubt," the court plainly did consider that factor. And it was only logical to recite the evidence negating lingering doubt, since that was the court's finding. (See also Babbitt v. Calderon (9th Cir.1998) 151 F.3d 1170, 1179.)