The question has haunted American pop culture for over thirty years. Did OJ Simpson kill Ron and Nicole? Even after his death in 2024, the debate hasn’t really cooled down. People still argue about it over drinks, in law school classrooms, and across endless true crime subreddits. It was the "Trial of the Century," a media circus that basically invented the way we consume celebrity scandal today.
But if you strip away the flashy suits, the racial tensions of 1990s Los Angeles, and the "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" theatrics, you're left with a brutal double homicide. On June 12, 1994, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman were found slashed to death outside Nicole's Brentwood condo. The scene was horrific. It wasn't a "clean" hit. It was a rage-filled, messy, violent struggle.
Honestly, the distance of time has changed how we look at the evidence. Back then, DNA was this weird, sci-fi concept most people didn't trust. Today, we use it to find our ancestors and solve cold cases from the seventies. Looking back at the trial now feels like watching a movie where you know the twist, but you’re still trying to figure out how the characters missed it.
The Mountain of Physical Evidence
When people ask if OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole, they usually start with the blood. The prosecution, led by Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden, presented what they called a "trail of blood." It started at the Bundy drive-way and led all the way to OJ’s bedroom at Rockingham.
DNA testing was in its infancy in terms of public perception. The defense team—the legendary "Dream Team"—did a masterful job of making it sound like voodoo. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld attacked the lab procedures, not the science itself. They pointed out that LAPD technician Andrea Mazzola wasn't wearing new gloves every time she touched something. They talked about the blood vials. Detective Tom Lange carried OJ’s reference blood in his pocket for hours.
That’s a big deal.
In a modern courtroom, that might get evidence thrown out. But let’s look at the numbers. The blood found at the scene matched OJ Simpson’s DNA with a frequency of 1 in 170 million. That's a lot of people, sure, but it’s not nothing. Then there was the blood inside OJ’s Bronco. They found a mixture of OJ’s, Nicole’s, and Ron’s blood on the upholstery.
How does that happen?
The defense argued it was planted by Mark Fuhrman, the detective who found the bloody glove. They leaned heavily into Fuhrman's history of racist remarks. It worked. Once the jury believed a cop could be corrupt enough to plant evidence, the DNA didn't matter anymore. It was "fruit of the poisonous tree."
🔗 Read more: Does Emmanuel Macron Have Children? The Real Story of the French President’s Family Life
Those Infamous Bruno Magli Shoes
One of the weirdest parts of the whole saga involves a pair of shoes. Rare ones.
At the crime scene, the killer left behind bloody footprints. The FBI's shoe print expert, William Bodziak, identified them as coming from a size 12 Bruno Magli shoe, specifically the "Lorenzo" or "Lyon" style. At the time, OJ denied ever owning such "ugly" shoes. He looked the jury in the eye and basically said he’d never wear them.
Then came the civil trial.
A photographer named Harry Scull surfaced with a picture of OJ Simpson at a Buffalo Bills game in 1993. He was wearing the exact shoes. Size 12. Bruno Maglis. Then more photos showed up from other photographers. It’s hard to explain away photos of yourself wearing the murder shoes you claimed you never owned. In the 1997 civil trial, this was a nail in the coffin. The jury found him "liable" for the deaths, which is the civil version of guilty, and ordered him to pay $33.5 million.
The "Other" Theories: Was It a Hit?
You've probably heard the rumors. Maybe it was a drug debt? Some people pointed at Faye Resnick, Nicole’s friend who had been staying at the condo and struggled with addiction. The theory goes that hitmen came for Faye, didn't find her, and killed Nicole instead.
It sounds like a movie plot. But there's zero physical evidence for it.
Professional hitmen don't usually use knives in a way that creates a massive struggle. They use guns. They don't leave their own blood behind. And they certainly don't leave a trail leading back to a famous football player's house.
Then there's the "Jason Simpson" theory. William Dear, a private investigator, wrote a whole book suggesting OJ’s son, Jason, was the real killer. He cited Jason's history of mental health struggles and "intermittent explosive disorder." It’s a compelling read if you like true crime puzzles, but again, the DNA doesn't lie. The blood at the scene was OJ’s, not Jason’s.
💡 You might also like: Judge Dana and Keith Cutler: What Most People Get Wrong About TV’s Favorite Legal Couple
The Glove and the Timeline
Everyone remembers the glove. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."
Christopher Darden made a massive tactical error by asking OJ to try on the leather gloves found at the scene and his house. OJ struggled. He made a show of it. But those gloves were soaked in blood and then dried. Leather shrinks when it gets wet. Plus, OJ was wearing latex gloves underneath to protect the evidence.
The timeline is where things get really tight.
- 10:15 PM: Nicole’s neighbor hears a "plaintive wail" from her dog.
- 10:55 PM: OJ is seen by his limo driver, Allan Park, outside his house.
- 11:00 PM: OJ leaves for the airport.
That leaves about 40 minutes for OJ to drive to Bundy, kill two people in a violent struggle, drive back, clean himself up (mostly), and get in the limo. Is it possible? Yes. Is it tight? Extremely. This "window of opportunity" was a huge part of why the criminal jury had "reasonable doubt."
Why the Verdict Split America
To understand why the jury reached the "Not Guilty" verdict in 1995, you have to look at Los Angeles in the early 90s. The Rodney King beating was fresh. The 1992 riots had literally burned parts of the city to the ground.
For many Black Americans, the trial wasn't just about OJ. It was about the LAPD’s history of systemic racism. When Johnnie Cochran talked about a "racist conspiracy," it felt real to people who had lived through police harassment. The prosecution thought the evidence was enough. They underestimated the power of the narrative.
OJ wasn't just a man; he was a symbol.
Even if he did it, many felt that for once, a Black man was going to beat a system that had been rigged against them for centuries. It was a "payback" verdict for some, and a genuine belief in a frame-up for others.
📖 Related: The Billy Bob Tattoo: What Angelina Jolie Taught Us About Inking Your Ex
The Aftermath and OJ’s "Confession"
In 2007, OJ wrote a book titled If I Did It.
It’s one of the most bizarre artifacts in legal history. He describes the murders in the first person but calls it "hypothetical." He mentions a friend named "Charlie" who was with him. In the "hypothetical" description, OJ describes "taking the knife" from Charlie and then "losing consciousness" as the violence began.
He woke up covered in blood.
He later did an interview for FOX (which was shelved for years and finally aired in 2018) where he basically slipped into the first person while describing the killings. He started saying "I remember..." before catching himself and saying "If I were there..." It was chilling.
Final Realities of the Case
We will never have a 100% "confession" that satisfies everyone. OJ Simpson took his version of the truth to his grave in April 2024.
However, the civil court’s verdict remains the most significant legal counterweight to his criminal acquittal. In the eyes of the law, the "preponderance of evidence"—meaning it was more likely than not—showed that OJ Simpson was responsible for the deaths of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.
The Goldman family has spent the last 30 years chasing the money from that judgment, not because they’ll ever get it all, but to ensure OJ never profited from his notoriety. They saw it as the only justice left.
Actionable Takeaways for True Crime Followers
If you're still digging into this case, here is how to look at it through a modern lens:
- Examine the DNA Reports: Look at the actual RFLP and PCR testing results from the 1994 trial. It shows how far forensic science has come.
- Watch the Civil Trial Footage: Unlike the criminal trial, the civil trial didn't allow cameras, but the transcripts are public. The evidence there, especially regarding the shoes and the timeline, is much more focused.
- Read the Autopsy Reports: Understanding the nature of the wounds helps debunk the "professional hitman" theory. These were crimes of intense, personal passion and rage.
- Study the Jury Instructions: Understand the difference between "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" and "Preponderance of Evidence." It explains how he could be "Not Guilty" but still "Liable."
The case remains a masterclass in how celebrity, race, and legal strategy can outweigh physical evidence. Whether you believe he did it or not, the impact of the case on the American legal system is permanent.