I think in both cases the OJ verdicts were accurate.

OJ was found criminally “not guilty”, not necessarily because he deserved to win, but because the police had so badly screwed up the case that they deserved to lose. On the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty”, OJ was not guilty in that particular trial.

On the other hand, in the civil trial, OJ was shown by a preponderance of the evidence to have done the crime. Which is also quite correct.