Plenty of evidence was presented. The jurors just decided to do the same silly thing the OJ jurors did.
I strongly disagree. In the Simpson case there was overwhelming, reliable evidence. In the Jackson case almost every prosecution witness gave testimony the prosecution didn't expect, or was extremely unreliable. In the Simpson case, jury nullification was the only reason for the jury to ignore the evidence. In the Jackson case, a conviction could only have been the result of jury nullification.