OJ has no self awareness.

[Igel]

48. It's been said many times.

"Not guilty" is a legal verdict. There can be a lack of evidence, there can be a biased jury.

The moral verdict people often confuse with it, especially when they're on the defendant's side, is "innocent." Juries don't find people innocent. They find them guilty, or failing that, they find them "not guilty". Just meaning that the jury didn't find the person guilty. It says nothing about innocence. In very, very rare cases a judge will speak from the bench to say that the person was innocent--that the evidence was so circumstantial in favor of conviction, and so overwhelmingly against conviction, that the suit shouldn't have been brought and the suspicion engendered by the charges and the trial are utterly baseless and to maintain them after the trial would be injustice itself. Very rarely. But only after the legal "not guilty" verdict is back, lest he bias the jury.

Note that many white police officers are found "not guilty" when it's clearly documented by witnesses and video that they killed a person. Zimmerman clearly killed Martin. "Not guilty."

There's a world of difference between the legal and the moral judgments. "Not guilty" =/= "innocent."

Otherwise, we're left with utterances like, "Zimmerman was found NOT GUILTY of murder. Period."

Yeah, that doesn't sit well. But it's as true as any other "not guilty" verdict is. Sometimes the person that's not guilty is also innocent; sometimes not. Different question.