Quote Originally Posted by johncar54 View Post
Mick, With him having been accused and found not guilty by a jury, what happens to or should happen should his accuser ?

A jury finding does not prove that a person is innocent, but that there was insufficient evidence to prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that the accused was guilty. As such, in law, they are presumed to be innocent.

That does not necessarily mean that the accused is innocent, which was shown very clearly in the case of O J Simpson, who was acquitted by the ‘only twelve people in the USA who thought he was not guilty’. He was subsequently found to be responsible for their ‘wrongful deaths’ and damages were awarded in the civil court.

The same situation exists when a person is acquitted on appeal, i.e. that the conviction was unsafe. That quite often happens when information comes to light after the conviction, which if known at the time might have influenced the jury to acquit.

The ‘complainant’ is not necessarily lying when a person is found not found, guilty.

without any phsyical evidence how can a jury find him gulity ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ then?