"Innocent until proved guilty" means that until you have been found guilty you have to be regarded as innocent; when you have been found not guilty that status is confirmed. No one is ever "found innocent".

Of course at the same time "not guilty" means that the jury decided that there was a reasonable doubt, and that there are not enough grounds to justify a guilty verdict - there's nothing inconsistent about deciding that there isn't a strong enough case to convict someone, and believing that they probably did commit the offence with which they were charged. But "probably" just doesn't cut it in matters where life and liberty are involved.

The alternative would be for juries to find people guilty beacause they have to just think they probably did it, even if there isn't enough evidence to exclude a reasonable doubt. Which is what happens only too often - and there are a lot of innocent people who have experienced that, and spend years in jail as a result.

That jury heard the evidence, every bit of it, and none of us did. They decided that there was a reasonable doubt, in face of all the assumptions about Jackson's guilt put across by the media throughout.

If being weird means you belong in jail, there's an awful lot of people ought to be in jail, and not just in California.
...........................

I noticed where the prosecutor, asked about the length of the trial had taken commented that it would have been a lot quicker "in the South", with an implication, it seemed to me, that down there they know better how to deal with...