No there wasn't. The conspiracy case was laughable - seriously, if kidnapping means eating at fancy restaurants, getting spa treatments and dental work for the kids, then feel free to kidnap me anytime. Secondly, the key witnesses were all admitted liars - there is no reason for a jury to believe them. Thirdly, if you are going to admit prior acts try to make sure that the alleged victims testify for the prosecution and not the defense. Now the alcohol charges may have had more substance but that wasn't that much.
You miss the point, and I am not surprised. The judgement should have been mixed, as you admit. Combine that with a lot of evidence that circumstancially leans towards guilt, and you don't have a real jury verdict. This jury did not want to be the ones who convicted Michael Jackson, so... what's the harm in letting him go? He won't do it again, will he? The argument was never over the evidence, but the ramifications of the verdict.