This is an excellent question! :clap::clap::clap: You're really catching an important point here.
"Not Guilty" is a verdict that means the jury found that the prosecution did not prove all of the elements of the charged crime to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's all it means.
"Acquittal" is similar to "Not Guilty" in that the prosecution is acquitted and the prosecution will not continue to go forward.
Neither of the above means the defendant is innocent if the actual facts of what happened were known to all.
"Innocent" means the defendant/accused actually did not do the crime. The "true" facts would show that this defendant did not do the crime.
The criminal justice system is just a public resolution forum to address criminal violations. We, as a society would rather a guilty person goes free than innocent people are convicted and punished. Therefore, we set the bar very high to prove the crime; beyond a reasonable doubt. When the verdict is "Not Guilty" or "Acquitted" it just means that society will not go further in prosecuting this crime and the defendant will not be subject to punishment by the State.
Thank you so much for answering my question so thoroughly. Now, I can fully understand the difference.
What I just can't understand is how could JB say KC is "innocent" if KC told him the "true" facts and/or he looks at the evidence. It seems to me that he runs with "lies" just about as far as KC does....