Only because that particular jury could not bring in a criminal verdict.
The jury still found that it was highly likely he did it, so does it matter if the law restricted the verdict they could bring in? It is still just as good evidence for his guilt as the criminal trial was. In fact, in might have been a better verdict, because of all the incompetence the criminal trial showed. We know that the criminal system has found innocent men guilty, so its just as likely that it has found guilty men innocent.
We have one jury that says he was not guilty, we have one that says that it is highly likely he did it. I think people just have to decide for themselves which jury reached the right decision.
The jury still found that it was highly likely he did it, so does it matter if the law restricted the verdict they could bring in? It is still just as good evidence for his guilt as the criminal trial was. In fact, in might have been a better verdict, because of all the incompetence the criminal trial showed. We know that the criminal system has found innocent men guilty, so its just as likely that it has found guilty men innocent.
We have one jury that says he was not guilty, we have one that says that it is highly likely he did it. I think people just have to decide for themselves which jury reached the right decision.