He’s gone now. OJ Simpson passed away in April 2024, taking whatever secrets he had left to the grave, yet the question—did OJ Simpson do it—remains the ultimate American Rorschach test. If you were alive in 1995, you remember where you were when the verdict came down. It wasn't just a trial. It was a cultural earthquake that cracked open every fault line in the United States: race, fame, domestic violence, and the sheer power of a high-priced "Dream Team" of lawyers.
Honestly, the evidence was a mountain. But the jury saw a molehill.
To understand why people still argue about this at dinner parties thirty years later, you have to look past the "Juice" persona. You have to look at the blood, the gloves, and the incredible series of blunders by the Los Angeles Police Department. This wasn't a simple "whodunit" for the people in that courtroom. It was a "who do you trust" situation. And in 1990s Los Angeles, nobody trusted the cops.
The Physical Evidence That Pointed to OJ
The prosecution, led by Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden, thought they had a slam dunk. They really did.
Blood was everywhere. We’re talking about a trail of DNA evidence that led from the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman at 875 South Bundy Drive all the way to OJ’s Bronco and his bedroom at Rockingham. There was a trail of blood drops to the left of the shoe prints at the crime scene. DNA testing—which was brand new and basically "space magic" to the general public in 1994—matched that blood to OJ Simpson. The odds of it being anyone else were one in billions.
Then there was the glove. A dark, leather Aris Isotoner, size extra-large. One was found at the feet of the victims, soaked in blood. The other? Found by Detective Mark Fuhrman on OJ’s property, behind a guest bungalow.
It wasn't just blood. It was hair and fiber evidence, too.
Hairs found on Ron Goldman’s shirt and inside a dark knit cap at the scene were "consistent" with Simpson’s hair. Fibers from the glove matched the carpet of OJ’s 1994 Ford Bronco. To a prosecutor, this is the holy grail. You have the guy’s blood at the scene, the victims’ blood in his car and his house, and his clothes at the scene. Case closed, right?
📖 Related: Brandi Love Explained: Why the Businesswoman and Adult Icon Still Matters in 2026
Wrong.
Why "Did OJ Simpson Do It" Became a Debate About the LAPD
If the evidence was so strong, why did the jury return a "not guilty" verdict in under four hours?
The defense team—Johnnie Cochran, F. Lee Bailey, Robert Shapiro, and Alan Dershowitz—didn't try to prove OJ was an angel. They didn't have to. They just had to make the jury hate the messengers.
Mark Fuhrman was the messenger.
F. Lee Bailey’s cross-examination of Fuhrman is a masterclass in legal destruction. He cornered Fuhrman on his use of racial slurs, which Fuhrman denied under oath. Then, the tapes emerged. The "McKinney Tapes" featured Fuhrman using horrific, racist language. Suddenly, the man who found the "smoking gun" glove on OJ’s property was a documented racist.
The narrative shifted instantly. It wasn't about DNA anymore. It was about whether a racist cop could have planted the glove to frame a Black superstar.
"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."
👉 See also: Melania Trump Wedding Photos: What Most People Get Wrong
That’s the line that lives in the Hall of Fame of legal slogans. When Christopher Darden asked OJ to try on the bloody gloves in front of the jury, it was a disaster. OJ struggled. The gloves looked tiny. They looked stiff. Whether they shrank because they were soaked in blood and then dried, or whether OJ was wearing latex gloves underneath, or whether he was just acting—it didn't matter. The visual was more powerful than any DNA chart.
The "If I Did It" Controversy and the Civil Trial
For a lot of people, the question of did OJ Simpson do it was answered not in 1995, but in 1997 and 2007.
In 1997, the Brown and Goldman families took Simpson to civil court. The burden of proof is lower there—preponderance of the evidence instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt." That jury found him liable for the deaths and ordered him to pay $33.5 million. They saw the photos of OJ wearing the rare Bruno Magli shoes—the same ones that left prints in blood at the scene—shoes OJ had previously called "ugly" and claimed he never owned.
Then came the book.
If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer.
The title alone felt like a slap in the face to the victims' families. Simpson claimed it was a "hypothetical" account. In the book, he describes an accomplice named "Charlie" and details the night of the murders in a way that felt disturbingly real to many readers. He describes Nicole falling and Ron Goldman's "karate stance." It was bizarre. It was chilling. And for many, it was the closest thing to a confession they would ever get.
The Theory of the "Other" Killer
Some folks still hold onto the idea that OJ didn't act alone, or that his son, Jason Simpson, was involved.
✨ Don't miss: Erika Kirk Married Before: What Really Happened With the Rumors
Bill Dear, a private investigator, spent years pushing the "Jason did it" theory. He pointed to Jason’s history of mental health struggles and his training as a chef (access to knives). However, it's worth noting that the LAPD never considered Jason a suspect. There was no physical evidence linking him to the scene, and OJ himself never pointed the finger at his son, even when his own life was on the line.
The reality? Most experts, including former lead prosecutor Marcia Clark in her book Without a Doubt, believe it was a solo job fueled by years of domestic abuse.
OJ had a history of hitting Nicole. The 911 tapes are harrowing. "He's going to kill me," she told the operator in 1993. When we ask did OJ Simpson do it, we have to weigh that history of violence against the "charismatic hero" image he projected on TV.
Where the Case Stands Today
OJ Simpson is gone, but the fascination isn't.
The trial changed how we consume news. It gave birth to 24-hour cable news cycles and, arguably, the Kardashian era (Robert Kardashian Sr. was one of OJ’s closest friends and defense lawyers). It showed us that even with a mountain of science, the story you tell is what wins.
If you’re looking for a definitive "yes" or "no," you won't find it in a court transcript. You find it in the evidence.
The DNA matches.
The history of abuse.
The Bruno Magli shoes.
The failed glove demonstration.
The racist detective.
It’s a mess. It’s American history.
What You Can Do Next to Understand the Case Better
To get a truly nuanced view of the evidence and the social climate that led to the verdict, you should look into these specific resources:
- Watch "O.J.: Made in America": This Ezra Edelman documentary is the gold standard. It spends hours explaining the racial tension in LA and why the city was a tinderbox waiting for a spark.
- Read the Civil Trial Transcripts: If the criminal trial felt like a circus, the civil trial was about the facts. Look for the testimony regarding the Bruno Magli shoes.
- Examine the 1993 911 Calls: Listen to Nicole Brown Simpson’s voice. It provides the essential context of domestic violence that the criminal jury largely ignored.
- Study the "Glove" Forensics: Research how leather reacts to being soaked in blood and then dried. It explains why the "fit" was such a contentious point.