Harry Redknapp found not guilty?

Oh to have been a fly on the wall in the jury room listening to the deliberations over the verdict in the Harry Redknapp tax evasion trial! Just why did the jury find Harry not guilty? Was it because:

• Every UK taxpayer is now entitled to be paid free of tax into their Monaco bank account?
• The bank account was in the name of Harry’s dog and therefore nothing to do with him?
• Anyone with a basic salary of over £4m a year pays enough tax on that already and therefore shouldn’t have to pay tax on any additional bonuses?
• Only those who can read and write properly have to pay tax?
• Anything appearing in the News of the World was assumed to have been a pack of lies and therefore Harry must have been lying through his teeth when he told the NOTW journalist that the payment was a bonus for selling Peter Crouch?
• Harry’s just a likeable old geezer and likeable old geezers don’t have to pay the right amount of tax?

Or is it just one of the wonders of the English jury system?