Voice0fReason
The Scottish Not Proven verdict is completely pointless, I'm glad England doesn't have it
It's not pointless because (IMO) it provides victims and victims' families with more "closure" than a "not guilty" verdict.
While an educated person will realise that "not guilty" is not the same as being "innocent". It seems to be common perception amongst uneducated or ill-informed people that a not guilty verdict does mean "innocence" and they also equate the outcomes of trials as the "truth". It is worse still for those witnesses and victims who are branded "liars" by the uninformed public when a "not guilty" verdict is delivered.
The high evidentiary bar required for a criminal convictions means that most guilty criminals do in fact get away with their crimes.
Aside from the lack of evidence in this fictional case, it does illustrate how flawed our criminal justice system is. Not only the wayward deliberations of the jury, but also the fact that the defence can just invent another suspect to introduce reasonable doubt.
On the flip side. A person who is wrongly accused may have "damning" evidence against them simply because the police (during the course of their investigation) created a narrative to fit the evidence. You can find patterns everywhere if you look them, and an innocent person might genuinely struggle to remember or explain why or what they did, thus making the person look dishonest or evasive.
As Tom Clancy would say... The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make sense.
I think you should have to undergo some basic training on cognitive biases before you can sit as a juror, and maybe a test to ensure you are capable of assessing the facts and evidence before you.