THE FINDING of the Santa Monica jury that O.J. Simpson was responsible - "liable" - for the killing of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman is a staggering reversal of the not guilty verdict of his criminal trial.
Simpson does not face prison following this verdict but does face paying damages to the families of the two victims.
How could two juries, both in the Los Angeles area, come up with diametrically opposed verdicts? Which of them is right? And how much has the race or colour issue to do with the contradiction? Almost everything, it would seem.
Polls already taken suggest that most people in the US have already made up their mind about O.J. Simpson's guilt or innocence. The latest verdict will only confirm their existing beliefs or throw them into new confusion.
The executive producer of the widely-watched Court TV channel, Mr Erik Sorensen, said "99 per cent of the American public has already decided if he's guilty or innocent, regardless of the civil trial and its outcome".
Opinions on Simpson's guilt or innocence following the 1995 criminal trial differed sharply according to race. An ABC News poll had found that 77 per cent of whites surveyed said Simpson was guilty and 72 of blacks said that he was not. Those figures tell their own story.
The hugely divergent reactions to the acquittal of Simpson for the appalling murders of his estranged wife, Nicole, and her friend, Ron Goldman, were a shock to an America which was trying to believe that race relations were steadily improving.
A former activist with the National Council of the Churches of Christ who follows racial trends, Mr Kenyon Burke, said the reactions to the first verdict were a "wake-up call. We can now see how wide the racial gap has become."
But the race question seemed to figure very little in the civil trial compared with its preponderant role in the criminal one held in a less affluent part of Los Angeles. There Simpson's main lawyer, Mr Johnnie Cochran, first ensured that there were eight African-American women on the jury and then hammered away at the scenario that Simpson was being framed by a racist Los Angeles - Police Department.
Even Mr Cochran had been surprised at the findings of a jury consultant who used a "focus group" to test likely behaviour of black and white jurors before the criminal trial. Only three of 200 blacks polled thought Simpson was guilty.
The civil trial took place in a white suburb and the jury consisted of nine whites, one black, one Hispanic and one mixed-race Juror. The black juror was dismissed when it was discovered that her daughter worked in the district attorney's office which had prosecuted Simpson in the criminal trial.
But any attempt by the Simpson defence to play the racist card was quickly squashed by Judge Hiroshi Fujisaki. He allowed no discussion of allegations that LAPD detective, Mark Fuhrman, had tried to frame Simpson by planting evidence.
Butt in other ways, the judge was ready to allow evidence barred from the first trial by Judge Lance Ito. Judge Fujisaki allowed jurors to be read extracts from Nicole's diary recounting beatings by her husband. He also allowed the jurors to hear the dramatic tape-recording of Simpson whimpering on a car phone during the "Bronco car chase" as police tried to persuade him not to carry out his threat of suicide.
In the criminal trial the almost instant verdict of the largely black jury after hearinig nine montha of detailed evidence told its own story. The Cochran portrayal of Simpson as a victim of racist prejudice had been swallowed with little regard for arguments about blood-stained gloves and whether the former football idol had time to get from the scene of the crime to his home.
This time Simpson had to give testimony and be cross-examined, unlike the criminal trial when he chose not to take the stand. While Simpson kept a calm demeanour during his evidence, the contradictions in his previous testimony about the cut on his finger and timing of his movements on the fateful night became more apparent.
This time the families of the victims were seeking financial compensation on the grounds that; Simpson was responsible for their deaths But he did not face a jail sentence even if the claim succeeded. It sounds like double jeopardy - that he was being tried for the same offence twice - but it was not.
It was also going to be easier for a jury to reach a decision. In the criminal trial the jury had to be convinced "beyond reasonable doubt" that Simpson had killed the two victims.
In the civil trial, all that was needed was that "the preponderance of the evidence" showed that he was responsible for the killings. If nine of the 12 jurors agreed this was the case, that was enough.
It will take another series of hearings to decide on the level of "punitive damages" that Simpson will now have to pay the families of the victims. A total of $12 million dollars is being mentioned as likely.
But can Simpson pay this. His once extensive wealth, which was estimated at $11 million, has been run down over the past three years since his arrest in June 1994. Legal costs, upkeep of his once large estate, child maintenance and loss of income from advertising commercials has reduced his estate to zero, his lawyers say.
He has at the same time, according to a Time/CNN investigation, been able to stash away $2.5 million in pension and retirements funds that cannot be touched.