The idea of a civil trial apart from the criminal trial seems to be a peculiarity of U. S. law. Does it exist anywhere else?

Its sole purpose seems to be to extract money ('damages') from a defendant and makes a mockery of the concept of double jeopardy. In Simpson's case, he was fortunate that some retirement funds are excluded from these judgements.

U. S. law should prohibit this perversion of justice (only possible in some states? I am unclear on this).

Admittedly, it is difficult to get a racially balanced jury in the metro area of Los Angeles. If the case had been filed in Santa Monica (where the crime occurred), the jury make-up would have been mostly White. The prosecution filed the case in downtown Los Angeles, where the population is mostly Black.
If the jury had been balanced to the proportion of the major groups in metro Los Angeles, it would have been 42% white, 34% Latino, 17% black, and 7% Asian and Pacific Islander.
The actual jury ended up 9 Blacks, 1 Hispanic and 2 whites, the approx. balance in the judicial district in which it was tried.

Following Alice's logic (jury "making a statement against white police"), if the case had been tried in Santa Monica Simpson would have been convicted because he was Black, regardless of guilt.

The L. A. Police, by the way, are 47% White, 34% Latino, and 14% Black, the rest Asian or Pacific Islander (2001 figures).