I'll answer, the case is for the prosecution to carry the burden of proof beyond a reasaonable doubt. They failed. The LAPD botched so many aspects of the case and their credibility was lacking; LA prosecutors made multiple miscalculations and the jury were justified in finding that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the same as the jury saying OJ didn't do it. OJ did not have the burden to prove his innocence. A civil jury found he did it (preponderance of the evidence standard).
Two friends I know, at the highest levels within the manhattan DA's office were convinced if this happened in NY he would have been convicted. More professional detective work, where pre-arrest ADAs ride along with the detectives to make sure evidence chain of custody is followed, etc., etc., Better vetting of prosecution witnesses. Much better handling of expert witnesses. Sharper cross examination. Finally, no tactical mistakes during trial.
OJ was lucky he was tried in LA not NYC.