> I don't read that as assuming someone is not innocent until proven otherwise at all. I read that as "Holding back information that may be pertinent in an investigation will be looked upon poorly".
Could you explain how one can exercise their right to silence without holding back information?
They're different concepts but they're very tightly coupled (hence why both were being discussed here). If you could be presumed guilty then your right to remain silent would be rendered moot. And the entire reason the right to remain silent was established was so that innocent people wouldn't be deemed guilty (and thus punished, tortured, etc.) merely based on being coerced into testifying against themselves. Without it you would be as good as guilty.
They aren't that tightly coupled. The presumption of innocence is a pretty much universal legal concept. The right no remain silent is right specifically granted by law and not nearly as universal; the specifics of how and where you can invoke that right vary from country to country.
The US right to remain silent is different from the presumption of innocence.