"Well... the long and short of it is that the Prosecutor didn't make a convincing case."
You mean like OJ?
Lots of physical evidence of the crime in that case . . . blood, shoes, the famous glove, etc. Motive, opportunity, presence, etc. Classic circumstantial murder case. The jury rejected physical evidence on the basis of a crackpot theory and the "N" word.
The real problem of course was the DA's ridiculous stipulation to a change of venue to central LA. He lost the case right there. Sending two lightweights in to try it didn't help, he needed a couple of cagey old senior ADAs with a cumulative 50 years or so of trial experience. The trial judge was also a stagestruck idiot. Very bad rulings from the bench and total failure to control his courtroom. That combination of bad decisions led to an acquittal despite the evidence.
This case on the other hand was a classic "he said, she said" with no physical evidence of the alleged act itself. (The books, paintings, photos, other settlements and all the rest of it are not evidence of THIS alleged crime.) The only relevant evidence was the testimony of the parties, and that is one hundred percent a credibility issue. If the jury weighed the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses and found it wanting, then under the law given to them they have a duty to acquit.