Not guilty - we think.

A couple of years ago I posted about a decision to refuse compensation to a man who had spent six years in gaol for a murder in respect of which he was originally convicted but then had that conviction quashed and two subsequent new trials failed to reach a verdict, and I questioned whether the adage "innocent until proven guilty" actually meant anything.  Now we have the case of Barry George, who was convicted and later acquitted of the murder of Jill Dando, and who also has been refused compensation for the eight years he spent inside.  Same considerations apply as in the earlier case - indeed even more so, as he was specifically found not guilty at the retrial, but his case raises an even more worrying concept, because, if I read it right, the court's decision was based on the fact that, in the court's opinion, there was sufficient evidence at the retrial on which a jury could have reasonably found him guilty.  But the fact is they didn't!  So does that mean that trial by jury - the cornerstone of our system - isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and that their decision can be ignored if it doesn't suit?