>Surely if what you say is true, the courts would have found him guilty, no?

What are you actually arguing, other than pointing out that he was acquitted? A jury's determination of a person's guilt in a particular case doesn't tell you what the law is, or what it ought to be.

Edit: gnode, that’s not true. Only determinations of law, which are only made by judges, are precedent. A jury verdict, which only determines questions of fact, is not precedent at all.

In a common law system, findings of a court set precedent for future trials. So yes, juries do tell you what the law is by telling you how to interpret it.