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.
My understanding is that there were 17 witnesses who indicated at some point in their testimony that Jackson had molested the boy. The testimony of one alone might be questionable, but when you have that many, it seems clear to me that Jackson was a pedophile. The jury should not have let him off because the testimony of one witness, if standing alone, was questionable. They failed to look at all the evidence.