I'd just read that in Scottish law they can return a verdict of "not provable"

[captain queeg]

Which basically means the jury thinks the person is guilty but don’t find definite evidence. I think that would be useful for someone like TFG who takes any verdict in which he is not declared guilty to be full exoneration. I don’t know if the Scotts use a not guilty as well. And of course I have only read this in passing and may not really understand how it works. But certainly “not guilty” does not equal “innocent”. Maybe some lawyers here can enlighten me further.

[Tetrachloride]

1. Isn't a "hung jury" essentially the same ?

It is trial by jury. As long as the juror individually votes their conscience after due consideration, if a hung jury is the result, ….

[Meowmee]

3. No

Not proven = not guilty so the defendant goes free without possibility of retrial.

[Meowmee]

2. It is called not proven

And is supposed to have the same consequence of not guilty.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-59636522

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. Yes, not the wording in the OP. Big difference!

"Not provable" = not guilty, will never be guilty, the prosecutor is nuts and incompetent to have brought this to trial.

Not provable does not exist in law anywhere.

"Not proven" = We think they are guilty, but the prosecution did not prove it to the level required by law.

As you say, legal consequences are the same as not guilty. However, the community will know and might boycott or shun.

[Meowmee]

5. Yes I think it depends on the case

It may not always be that they think there is guilt but it is not proven according to law but that they think there was justification. But if innocent ng is better since np can lead to what you said.