[morphing libertarian]

Oj was not guilty. However it was never shown that he was innocent. Had he proved he was out of the area he may have been found not guilty AND would have shown his innocence.

If guilt is not established beyond a reasonable doubt it means you are not guilty, but doesn’t establish that you were innocent.

[OneWingedShark]

Oj was not guilty. However it was never shown that he was innocent. Had he proved he was out of the area he may have been found not guilty AND would have shown his innocence.

You are not using the definition given:

Definition of INNOCENT

1. 1. free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil : blameless
   2. harmless in effect or intention ; also : candid
   3. free from legal guilt or fault; also : lawful
2. 1. lacking or reflecting a lack of sophistication, guile, or self-consciousness : artless, ingenuous
   2. ignorant ; also : unaware
3. lacking or deprived of something

If guilt is not established beyond a reasonable doubt it means you are not guilty, but doesn’t establish that you were innocent.

Not according to the definition given above, see the underlined portion. If this is incorrect, then by all means tell me why this definition is incorrect/bad; otherwise, you have not only confirmed my usage but yourself given example of it: (OJ was innocent, that is free of legal guilt).