There's an important legal difference between "innocent" and
"not-guilty".
It isn't a crime to be rich, eccentric, or a celebrity or to lead a
controversial lifestyle. In the United States, if the government
chooses to accuse you of a crime it has the obligation to convince a
judge and/or jury that you are guilty beyond any "reasonable" doubt.

The difference between "innocent" and "not guilty" is a legal
difference, not a moral difference, but that's why our system says that
the accused will be tried in a courtroom and not in a church.

Personally, I'm not absolutely sure that MJ is really innocent......but
I'm ready to accept the well-considered opinion of twelve people (who
have spent the last several weeks hearing and evaluating the evidence
on a full time basis) that the prosecution failed to present a case
that transcended "reasonable doubt". They were there, they heard the
evidence, and they are surely better prepared to render an informed
opinion than the rest of us with only well-filtered, carefully spun
snippets from the news.

Being weird doesn't make him guilty, it only makes him weird. The
outcome is sort of like OJ- even if he did it, (and a high percentage
of people will continue to suspect that he did) the prosecution failed
to present enough compelling evidence to convice the jury. "Not guilty"
(but maybe "not innocent" as well).