1. We believe that based on the evidence presented to the juries in both trials, both verdicts were correct.

2. Some civil trial jurors said during voir dire they believed O. J. Simpson was guilty; the judge failed to assure an impartial jury.

3. The judge excluded much defense evidence at the request of the plaintiffs.

4. To repeat the above another way, the jurors were not presented with the entire body of evidence which the criminal jury received, and which convinced them there was indeed reasonable doubt about the state's case.

5. The defense was not allowed to admit evidence which showed the dangerous lifestyle Nicole Brown Simpson was living which would have supported possible alternate theories for her murder. (Such defense evidence about either Nicole or Ron Goldman's personal life was considered to be in "poor taste" by the media.)

6. The jurors apparently dismissed much of the evidence which was presented to them by the defense.

7. The jurors admittedly speculated on a number of details in order to arrive at their verdict. (The law does not allow jurors to speculate about anything).

8. Several of the plaintiff's key witnesses changed their testimony from the criminal trial to the civil trial, and in a material (significant) adverse effect against O. J. Simpson.

9. Since the burden of proof in a civil trial ("more likely than not") is lesser than that in a criminal case ("beyond a reasonable doubt"), these factors guaranteed O. J. Simpson did not have a chance to win the civil case. We believe this was in effect a violation of his civil rights. Our purpose here is to demonstrate the final item listed above.