Interesting speculation. Do you have any evidence besides a differing opinion on the verdict?
No more than there was in the OJ trial. This was a case of an unformed and/or biased jury.
For example, OJ was taking arthritis medicine, and leather shrinks and hardens when it gets wet. Facts.
Because the infamous gloves were blood soaked, and there could have easily been an arthritis condition during the trial, this "evidence" should have been thrown out, but it wasn't. It was the so called "proof" that OJ couldn't have done it. In this case, it was the "proof" set a guilty man free.
(Bias is another flaw, but we have what we have.)