Innocent Vs. Not Guilty

I'll preface this post by saying I am not a lawyer or a master of the English language by any means. I'll also go on to say I have not been following the Michael Jackson case that much. But I am annoyed by the T.V. reports and new articles saying he was proven innocent. I don't remember too much from the two business law courses I took in college, but I do remember that a trial does not prove someone is innocent. It just proves they are not guilty. And there is a difference. Not guilty simply means that the prosecution has been unable to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocence implies blameless.
Also, the words "innocent until proven guilty" are not in our constitution. It is implied from the Fifth Amendment which states:

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

And believe it or not the concept of innocent until proven guilty was not created in 1776. The idea can be traced to ancient Greece, Rome and it could be argued back to Deuteronomy.

So, Michael Jackson may be innocent, but our courts only found him not guilty.