Ah, but that's what juries are for, to decide the undecidable. On a report of the evidence we see no way to decide the case. This looks a likely acquittal but this jury sees the defendant and the other witnesses, their bearing, their tone of voice and how they answer questions, and that really does make a huge difference
When tape recorded police interviews came in, counsel for the defence knew exactly what was said, rather than what a detective had written down as said. Often those written words consisted of denials and statements of innocence, All good. May well be acquitted. But the tape interview had the tone of voice and the manner recorded, not just the words. And you could hear the defendant was lying though his teeth, though his words were of innocence and denial. And the jury heard the tape and could hear all that too!
And, of course, all twelve might be out to get any man who has hunted foxes!