Excellent point about presumption of innocence that is often misinterpreted. Also because guilt cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt does not necessarily mean the accused is innocent, as you mentioned, and hence the “not guilty” rather than “innocent” verdict.
Now I have a question for you. In the Kate Steinle case in San Francisco, the defendant was found not guilty because the defense claimed the shooting was accidental and the result of of mishandling the gun. Shouldn’t he have been then convicted of involuntary manslaughter? Isn’t this the textbook definition of it? Was jury nullification the only reason for this verdict? I have read dozens of articles on the issue from all sides and I don’t believe I read one that finds the verdict was correct.