If no other post confirmed your assessment, the below post most certainly does.
OJ wasn't found guilty simply because the evidence wasn't compelling enough to convict him - PERIOD. Had less to to do about with him being Black than it did about the evidence as presented in the case. While race did play a role, it wasn't the primary factor in acquitting him.
Sure, there were some Black people who cheered for him, but you have to understand the racial atmosphere that was prevalent in LA at the time. With all the local police cracking down on gang violence (and as we know most LA gang membership consists of Blacks and Hispanics), and the subsequent racial profiling that ensued - some of it unwarranted - it's no wonder many Blacks felt vindicated in some measure. However, if you watched the trail or read any of the books covering the matter, you'd know that as far as the trial was concerned, race wasn't the prominent issue of concern during the trial, but rather the evidence itself, or rather the lack thereof.
He could never be placed at the murder scene at the time of their deaths.
No murder weapon was ever found.
The DNA evidence was inconclusive.
The blood splatter patterns under expert testimony was rendered inconsistent with how blood normally splatters when people are murdered in the manner described by the prosecutors.
The physical evidence presented - the gloves - did not come close to fitting the alleged murderer.
The evidence was circumstantial, but not conclusive. As such, the jury rendered a not guilty verdict.
Again, I believed the man either did it or knew who did, but a jury of his peers hearing the testimony and reviewing the evidence thought otherwise. And for the record, I am BLACK!!! So, you can throw that absurd racial partiality crap out the window.