Since when does one get to ignore civil litigation because he's broke? That OJ was "broke" allegedly doesn't mean that he can't be sued and it doesn't mean that he can't be found liable for his wrongdoing. If he's truly "broke" the judgment is irrelevant to him, because he has no assets with which to pay it. The notion that OJ Simpson is broke, however, seems outrageous.
That's not what the criminal jury found -- it wasn't asked to find that. The criminal jury was asked to find whether the State of California had proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ Simpson caused the deaths of two people. The jury found that he had not (and, frankly, I don't have a quarrel with that outcome). But the jury had before it all of the evidence that you're concerned about -- it wasn't excluded -- and it simply decided that the evidence was insufficient to erase all reasonable doubts about Simpson's innocence. It decided nothing more.
The civil jury had the same evidence before it, but had to decide its question -- did OJ Simpson cause the wrongful deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman -- by a preponderance of the evidence only.
If your concern is that the civil and criminal standards are different, you're only about 500 years too late to make that argument. If your concern is something else, you're so absurdly wrong as to make further comment on your ridiculous statements a waste of time.
I don't care about the current trial. My only point here is to ridicule you for your completely made up assertions about basic issues of cons utional law.