Nothing to do with the dictionary definition of "innocence". It is a legal concept.
By default, if the Defence could not mount a strong enough case to eliminate the possibility of a "reasonable doubt", then the "Guilty" verdict couldn't get up. Hence, Pell is now entitled to be considered "innocent".
He could have been tried for the same offence which was "sexual abuse of children" by using a different case than the one used, (viz the Choir Boys case) and the alternative of the Eureka Swimming Pool, Ballarat, where accusations of abuse were made by children and the manager of that swimming pool.
