You mentioned the "not proven" verdict in a previous post. The meaning of the "not proven" verdict is that the jury thinks that the defendant is probably guilty but the prosecution has not presented sufficient evidence. There is no punishment, but the stigma remains. Unless I misunderstand your position, that is not what you mean when you say that your verdict is "not proven."

To bring in another legal concept, at least metaphorically, I don't think that it is any defense for Darcy that he was only trying to get Bingley to leave him alone when he insulted an innocent stranger -- intention follows the bullet (or in this case, the insult). If A is trying to shoot B but misses and kills C, then A cannot argue that he is not guilty of intentional homicide on the basis that it wasn't C he was trying to kill. Similarly, Darcy cannot plead not guilty on the basis that the object of his complaint was really Bingley, since it was Lizzy that he "hit." Whatever the provocation on Bingley's part, it was ungentlemanlike of Darcy to take his pique out on a stranger.

I'm not sure why you think it takes exceptionally fine hearing to overhear someone whose back is to you, but I suggest you try it out. Turning one's back does not reduce the volume significantly.