The verdict came in on October 3, 1995. You probably remember where you were, or you've seen the grainy footage of the courtroom frozen in time. When the clerk read "not guilty," it didn't just end a trial; it split American culture in half. Decades later, the question of did OJ Simpson kill Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman remains the ultimate Rorschach test for how we view the legal system, race, and celebrity.
It’s messy.
If you look at the DNA, the answer seems obvious to many. If you look at the LAPD's history of corruption and the mishandling of blood samples, that certainty starts to leak away. It wasn't just a murder trial. It was a collision of a beloved American hero and a police department that was basically on trial itself after the Rodney King beating. To understand what really happened on Bundy Drive, you have to look past the "Trial of the Century" theatrics and actually dig into the physical evidence that the jury ultimately rejected.
The Blood Trail and the DNA Problem
The prosecution's case was built on a "trail of blood." This wasn't just a drop or two. We are talking about a literal path of DNA evidence leading from the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman at 875 South Bundy Drive all the way to OJ’s bedroom at Rockingham.
On the back gate at the crime scene, investigators found blood that matched OJ Simpson’s DNA profile. The statistical probability of it being someone else's was one in billions. Then there were the drops leading away from the bodies, to the left of the bloody shoe prints. Those also matched Simpson. Inside OJ’s white Ford Bronco? More blood. On his driveway? Blood. In his foyer and on his bedroom floor? Even more.
🔗 Read more: Aditya Roy Kapoor Height: What Most People Get Wrong
But here is the thing that people often miss: the defense didn't have to prove the DNA wasn't his. They just had to prove it shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, the defense’s DNA experts, were brilliant. They focused on "eddy currents" of contamination. They pointed out that LAPD criminalist Dennis Fung handled evidence with soiled gloves. They highlighted how a vial of OJ's reference blood, drawn by nurse Thano Peratis, seemed to have missing volume—about 1.5 milliliters was unaccounted for.
If the police had his blood in their possession before the crime scene was fully processed, the defense argued, they could have planted it. That seed of doubt grew into a forest.
The Gloves That Didn't Fit
"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." Johnnie Cochran’s line is arguably the most famous closing argument in history. But the back-story of the glove is way weirder than just a tight fit.
The prosecution, led by Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden, believed the gloves found—one at the crime scene and one at Simpson’s estate—were the "smoking gun." They were rare Aris Isotoner Lights, size extra-large. Nicole had bought a pair for OJ in 1990.
When Darden asked Simpson to try them on in front of the jury, it was a disaster. Simpson struggled. He made faces. The leather looked stiff and small.
Why didn't they fit? There are a dozen theories. Some say Simpson stopped taking his arthritis medication, causing his hands to swell. Others point out that the gloves had been soaked in blood and then frozen and thawed, which naturally shrinks leather. Simpson also had to wear latex liners underneath to prevent contamination, which added bulk. Whatever the reason, the visual was devastating for the prosecution. It made the question of did OJ Simpson kill Nicole look like a farce to the people sitting in that jury box.
The Mark Fuhrman Factor
You cannot talk about this case without talking about Mark Fuhrman. He was the detective who found the "bloody glove" at OJ's house. On paper, he was the star witness. In reality, he was the prosecution’s undoing.
The defense team, often called the "Dream Team," uncovered tapes of Fuhrman using horrific racial slurs and bragging about planting evidence in other cases. When Fuhrman took the stand and was asked if he had planted or manufactured any evidence in this case, he exercised his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Think about that.
A lead detective on a double murder case refusing to say he didn't plant evidence. For the jury, which included nine Black members who were intimately familiar with the LAPD's reputation for racism, this was the end of the line. If Fuhrman was a liar and a racist, nothing he touched could be trusted. Not the glove, not the blood on the fence, nothing.
The "Other" Evidence: Shoes and Socks
While everyone focuses on the gloves, the shoes were actually more damning in the long run. The killer left prints in the blood at the crime scene. These weren't just any shoes; they were Bruno Magli "Lorenzo" style boots, size 12. At the time of the criminal trial, the prosecution couldn't prove OJ owned a pair. Simpson even called them "ugly ass shoes" and denied ever owning them.
Fast forward to the civil trial a couple of years later.
New photographs surfaced of Simpson at a Buffalo Bills game wearing those exact, rare shoes. This was a massive turning point. In the 1997 civil trial, the burden of proof was lower—"preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt." With the shoe photos and the fact that Simpson had to testify himself (which he didn't do in the criminal trial), the jury found him liable for the deaths.
He was ordered to pay $33.5 million to the families. He never paid most of it, but the legal "guilt" was finally established in a different court.
The Nicole Brown Simpson Narrative
Nicole’s voice was largely missing from the criminal trial, even though she had been documenting her fear for years. She had a safe deposit box containing photos of her bruised face and letters from OJ apologizing for "the incidents."
She had called 911 multiple times. In one famous recording from 1993, you can hear OJ screaming in the background while Nicole tells the dispatcher, "He’s going to beat the shit out of me."
The prosecution tried to use this to show a "pattern of domestic violence." The defense argued it was irrelevant—that being a bad husband doesn't make you a murderer. Honestly, this is where the cultural divide gets really sharp. If you see the murder as the final act of a long-term domestic abuse cycle, the answer to did OJ Simpson kill Nicole becomes a firm yes. If you see it as a separate event, you might look for other suspects, like the "Colombian necktie" drug cartel theory the defense floated.
Why People Still Argue About It
The case is a rabbit hole. There are people who are convinced OJ’s son, Jason, did it. There are people who think Faye Resnick’s drug debts brought killers to the door. But the evidence against those theories is thin compared to the DNA mountain.
What really happened? Most legal experts believe the prosecution simply over-tried the case. They spent months on grueling DNA lectures that bored the jury, while Johnnie Cochran told a compelling story about a frame-up.
The jury didn't necessarily think OJ was "innocent." Many have said in interviews since that they simply didn't think the state proved its case without a doubt, especially with the Fuhrman scandal hanging over it.
What You Should Do Next to Understand the Case
If you really want to get a handle on the nuances of the evidence and the social impact, don't just watch the memes.
- Watch "OJ: Made in America": This five-part documentary is the gold standard. It doesn't just look at the murder; it looks at the 30 years of Los Angeles history that led to the verdict.
- Read the Civil Trial Transcripts: If you only know the criminal trial, you're missing half the story. The civil trial is where the "ugly ass shoes" and the direct questioning of OJ actually happened.
- Research the "EDTA" Debate: Look into the presence of EDTA (a preservative used in lab vials) found in the blood samples. This was the core of the planting theory and remains one of the most technical, hotly contested parts of the forensic record.
- Examine the Timeline: Map out the "missing 45 minutes" between when OJ was seen at his house and when he hopped in the limo for the airport. This window is the entire crux of the physical possibility of the crime.
The OJ Simpson case changed how we watch news, how we process forensic science, and how we talk about domestic violence. Whether he did it or not, the trial exposed cracks in the American foundation that still haven't been patched up. You have to look at the "not guilty" verdict not as a declaration of innocence, but as a failure of the system to provide a clean, untainted narrative.