Report comment

Surely the real problem here is the system. If the prosecution does not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt the accused is entitled to be acquitted. This is what appears to have happened here. It is a flaw in our system in my opinion that the jury cannot say either " not proven" or "innocent". This void in the verdicts which can be given leaves room for these speculators to carry on speculating as to Brooks' 'guilt' in lay terms, or otherwise.

"Not guilty" simply says, not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and nothing more, despite the legal fiction of implied innocence following therefrom. That is completely illogical and a non-sequitur.