The verdict is not that "he didn't do it" but that there wasn't enough certainty to say that he *wasn't* guilty (beyond reasonable doubt). I'd like to see him claim compensation - and have to prove his innocence.

sorry - correction: not enough certainty that he *was* guilty ... duh.

Whilst I get the distinction and I get where it is coming from, I remind you of the presumption of innocence.

Like you I highly doubt whether he will succeed in a compensation claim as the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities and at this stage I do not think that he can pass that standard.

However, I am yet to read the judicial decision of the court so I may be being premature.

Recent blog post: David Bain Not Guilty

It's so hard to comprehend how a jury of 12 can unanimously decide that he is guilty (back in 94), only for a similar jury to unanimously disagree later on. It's not the judicial decision I'm interested in, it's what the people of the jury (both past and present) would say to you if not under oath!

Each jury had slightly different evidence presented to them, from what I understand the difference could have been the difference between reasonable doubt and lack of it, alongside different arguments.

I am sure that each jury took their role seriously and made the most sincere decision they could given the evidence and arguments they were presented with.

I have been reading the 15 or so judgements currently available on Brookers around this case and I expect that when I read this decision alongside those a lot more will make sense.

Given the seriousness of the accusations and the consequences if proven it is only right that the crown can succeed only if they establish their case to a very high standard and it is apparent that they did not. This is not the jury's fault.

Recent blog post: David Bain Not Guilty