Of course at the same time "not guilty" means that the jury decided that there was a reasonable doubt, and that there are not enough grounds to justify a guilty verdict - there's nothing inconsistent about deciding that there isn't a strong enough case to convict someone, and believing that they probably did commit the offence with which they were charged. But "probably" just doesn't cut it in matters where life and liberty are involved.

That is OK as far as it goes and in truth - it does not go very far to protect children from abuse. For there will always be reasonable doubt in these sort of cases where the main witness is a young victim and the older perpertrator has most of the legal and other advantages.

For when (as here) the jury members are allowed to explain their thinking afterwards - this probably causes us yet more concerns. This jury seemed relctant to judge the defendent (on the evidence provided) but very willing to judge certain key witnesses (when there was equally reasonable doubt).

Janet Arvizo was not on trial but this jury seemed to have judged and convicted her - mainy it would appear for the crime of 'clicking her fingers at and directly addressing the jury. In a contest which seemed to be one of who was the weirder between her and MJ - at least she was put on the stand and cross-examined. It perhaps would have been more fair and the outcome less unsatisfactory - if MJ had been subject to the same examination?

Perhaps when it is a case of one person's view against another - if the defence are permitted to only try to destroy the credibility of prosecution witnesses - the understanding should be that defendant should also have to take the stand and be cross-examined?

It seems to have escaped this jury's notice that Janet Avizo was not the victim of child abuse and was not even present when this (alegedly) took place. Her young children and MJ however were present.