Murder: True Crime Stories - SPECIAL: Nicole Brown Simpson 2 with Dr. Tristin Engels

Episode Date: June 24, 2025

The white Bronco chase. The glove. And the verdict that shocked the world. In Part 2, we follow the O.J. Simpson investigation, the trial that captivated the world, and the media storm that followed the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson. With insight from forensic psychologist Dr. Tristin Engels, host of the Crime House Original podcast "Killer Minds", we examine the emotional fallout, the power of public perception—and why Nicole Brown Simpson’s story still matters today. For more true crime psychoanalysis, follow Killer Minds on ⁠Apple⁠ and ⁠Spotify⁠. Murder: True Crime Stories is a Crime House Original Podcast, powered by PAVE Studios. Listen wherever you get your podcasts. For ad-free listening and early access to episodes, subscribe to Crime House+ on Apple Podcasts. Don’t miss out on all things Murder: True Crime Stories! Instagram: @murdertruecrimepod | @Crimehouse TikTok: @Crimehouse Facebook: @crimehousestudios X: @crimehousemedia YouTube: @crimehousestudios To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is Crime House. There are some moments in time that feel so momentous you'll never forget where you were when they happened. Unfortunately, many of these moments are tragedies. When the Challenger's shuttle exploded, when the Twin Towers fell, when Michael Jackson died. It's so big, so surreal, you can hardly believe it happened. For millions of Americans, they'd never forget where they were on the evening of June 17, 1994, when they saw the image of a white Ford Bronco cruising

down the freeway pursued by a fleet of police cruisers, and global superstar O.J. Simpson was in the back seat. But this wasn't just some joyride, it was a plea for help, and most importantly, an attempt to avoid justice in the wake of a tragic and brutal double murder. People's lives are like a story. There's a beginning, a middle, and an end. But you don't always know which part you're on. Sometimes the final chapter arrives far too soon, and we don't always get to know the

real ending. I'm Carter Roy, and this is Murder True Crime Stories, the Crime House original powered by PAVE Studios that comes out every Tuesday. At Crime House, we want to express our gratitude to you, our community, for making this possible. Please support us by rating, reviewing, and following Murder True Crime Stories wherever you get your podcasts. And to enhance your Murder True Crime Stories listening experience, subscribe to Crime House Plus on Apple Podcasts.

You'll get ad-free listening, early access to every two-part series, and exciting bonus content. This is the second of two special episodes on the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson, who was killed after enduring years of abuse from her ex-husband O.J. Simpson. In the U.S., one in three women have experienced domestic abuse, and in 2021, 34% of female murder victims were killed by their partners. Although O.J. was acquitted during the criminal trial, Nicole's sisters are convinced he was her killer, and in the wake of her death they have fought to shed light on the dangers of domestic abuse and protect other

women from the same fate. Just like in part one of this story, I'll be joined by a special guest, Dr. Tristan Engels, a licensed clinical and forensic psychologist and the co-host of our fellow Crime House show, Killer Minds. Thanks so much, Carter. I'm thrilled to be joining you for part two. Just like I do on Killer Minds, while Carter takes you through the story, I'll be providing psychological analysis of the story's key figures. I'll go over topics like the psychology of a massive, highly publicized jury trial, the psychology of profiting from tragedy, and reintegrating into society in the wake

of murder. Now, let's get into it. Crime House Studios has released its first audiobook called Murder in the Media. Told through the lens of five heart-pounding murder cases, this thrilling audiobook traces the evolving and sometimes insidious role the media has had in shaping true crime storytelling. Murder in the Media is a Crime House original audiobook. Find it now on Spotify. delivered to your door. A well-marbled ribeye you ordered without even leaving the kiddie pool. Whatever groceries your summer calls for, Instacart has you covered.

Download the Instacart app and enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart, groceries that over-deliver. On June 12th, 1994, 35-year-old Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, 25-year-old Ronald Goldman were fatally stabbed outside of her Brentwood condo. Nicole's family was heartbroken and certain that her ex-husband, 47-year-old O.J. Simpson, was the killer. The LAPD was still gathering evidence, but so far, all

signs were pointing to O.J. As the story developed, public interest in the case exploded. Within days of the murders, the press was camped outside of O.J.'s Brentwood mansion. To avoid all the paparazzi and journalists, O.J. decided to temporarily move in with his friend and attorney, Robert Kardashian, at his place in the San Fernando Valley. He stayed there over the next few days as police continued their investigation. By June 17, 1994, five days after Nicole and Ron were killed, the district attorney had come to a decision. That day, OJ was charged with murder.

OJ's lead attorney, Robert Shapiro, wanted to avoid the spectacle of his client being led away in handcuffs. He knew the paparazzi would be all over it and didn't want to give them the photo op. So he asked the LAPD if OJ could surrender himself instead of being physically arrested. They agreed. Shapiro just needed to bring OJ down to the police department by 11am that morning on June 17th. That gave Shapiro a couple of hours to prepare OJ for the arraignment. He and the rest of the legal team were also at Robert Kardashian's house. OJ's best friend, A.C. Cowlings, had gone over too.

He wanted to be there for OJ amidst all the chaos, but OJ was looking for A.C. to be more than moral support. He needed an accomplice. When the lawyers weren't paying attention, O.J. asked A.C. to accompany him outside. Then, O.J. got into the backseat of his friend's car, put a gun to his own head, and told A and told AC to drive. Friendships are often built on shared history, trust, and protectiveness, especially loyalty. It's a core virtue because it encompasses reliability, dependability, and respect. But with everything, there are limits, and there is a stark difference between being

a loyal friend and being a manipulative one. What O.J. did was emotional blackmail, and this is common in manipulative or abusive relationships, even in friendships. He is placing the emotional burden on A.C. for his own actions. He's essentially telling A.C. that if he doesn't help him, if he doesn't become an accomplice, then he is responsible for what happens next and OJ's actions are showing that he is serious. He's also exploiting their friendship and putting AC at risk. These are all manipulative tactics. It becomes manipulation when one person is using fear, guilt,

or emotional history to coerce someone into acting against their better judgment, ethics, or safety. In this moment, does it seem like O.J.'s taking advantage of A.C.'s loyalty or just turning to him in his time of need? Honestly, I think it's a little bit of both. I do believe that O.J. was experiencing a mental health crisis. And when someone is suicidal or in a crisis like that, I always encourage them to reach out to a trusted friend or family member, emergency services, or the suicide hotline because support and intervention are crucial.

But what O.J. subsequently did goes beyond that. He made his friend an emotional and arguably physical captive or hostage, and people who take hostages generally do so to regain control or gain negotiating power, especially individuals with narcissistic or antisocial traits. When they feel humiliated, rejected, or disempowered, they react with control-seeking violence. He's supposed to turn himself into jail. Imagine what that would do to the mental health of someone like O.J., who has always had the power in every aspect of his life, but is suddenly disempowered in the most severe sense, even if it may have

been his own doing. His world was collapsing and he had no control over it. So he focused on what he could control on his terms. And unfortunately, he used his friend AC to accomplish this. It quickly became clear which decision A.C. had made. Down at the police station, 11 a.m. came and went, with no sign of O.J. LAPD officials called Robert Shapiro to ask where his client was. At this point, Shapiro also didn't know where O.J. was. Still, he gave them Robert Kardashian's address. Shapiro thought maybe OJ was somewhere on the property, but when they arrived, he was

nowhere to be found. A few hours later, a little before 2pm, the LAPD made a public announcement. OJ Simpson was on the run, and they needed the public's help to find him. Soon, hundreds of tips were pouring in, but none of them brought the police any closer to finding OJ, and the more time that passed, the more worried the authorities became that they'd made a mistake. Maybe they shouldn't have agreed to let him surrender himself. Around five that afternoon, O.J.'s legal team held a press conference. With the cameras trained on

him, 50-year-old Robert Kardashian read a letter that O.J. had written that morning. The lawyers had found it after O.J. took off, and it seemed like they hadn't shared it with the police yet, meaning the authorities were learning its contents at the same time as the press. In the letter, O.J. wrote that he loved Nicole. He swore he had nothing to do with her murder. Sure, they had their ups and downs, but so did all couples. But it also seemed like Nicole's death was weighing on him, because he did make a few comments that sounded like he was suicidal. For instance, he thanked his family and friends for supporting him, and spoke about himself in the past tense several times.

Let's talk about this letter for a minute. The thing that stood out to me about this letter was honestly how self-serving it was. He opened that letter with, first, everyone understand I have nothing to do with Nicole's murder. The fact that he's leading with a legal disclaimer rather than grief or sorrow makes it seem like he's more concerned about preserving his reputation. The second part of that sentence, that first sentence read, if we had a problem, it's because I loved her so much.

That is a classic example of a manipulation tactic that's used by abusers to deflect blame and responsibility. It's called DARVO and it stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. By saying, if we had a problem, he is minimizing documented abuse and making it shared blame. That indicates denial.

This also attacks Nicole's credibility by projecting some of the blame on her. He's then reversing the victim and offender roles when he says, it's because I loved her so much. And later in the letter, he also said, quote, I took the heat, New Year's 1989, because that's what I was supposed to do. I did not plead no contest for any other reason,

but to protect our privacy, and was advised it would end the press hype, end quote. When we break this down, he becomes the victim, and Nicole becomes the offender, because she, according to him, failed to appreciate that love and sacrifice and then ultimately left him. Then throughout the letter he's appealing, like you mentioned, to his fans and to think of the real OJ and not this quote lost person. But once again, he's more preoccupied with public image. He also appeals emotionally to his children and even Nicole because he alludes to being wounded by the loss of their relationship,

but there's no evidence of guilt over past abuse, no ownership of any harm he has caused, and no sorrow toward Nicole. And all that said, O.J.'s letter did not appear to be an expression, in my opinion, of genuine guilt or remorse. It read like a strategic, self-protective document crafted to deny responsibility, elicit sympathy, and manage public perception. And it also sounded a lot like a suicide note, and nobody had heard from him for several hours. But then, just before 6pm, OJ resurfaced in the most shocking way possible.

Because he called 911 on himself. Police traced the call to a car phone on the 5 freeway in Orange County near Nicole's parents' house. A group of 20 police cars sped off in hot pursuit. They quickly spotted a white Ford Bronco. Years later, most people assumed it was O.J.'s because he had one just like it. Actually, A.C. admired O.J. so much he'd gotten the exact same car as his friend. Before long, the officers caught up to them, but they didn't

try to stop the car. They didn't know if O.J. was going to use his gun, either on them or himself. So they followed him from a distance. The slow-speed car chase lasted nearly two hours. It was such big news, it even interrupted the broadcast of an NBA Finals game. During that time, crowds of onlookers gathered on the side of the road and highway overpasses, cheering for OJ as he passed. Meanwhile, 95 million Americans watched on their TVs at home. Finally around 8pm, AC contacted the police using the phone in his car. He said OJ was prepared to turn himself in, but not on the freeway.

AC convinced the LAPD to let him take OJ back to Brentwood to surrender there. Back at the Rockingham Mansion, it took another hour for authorities to convince OJ to get out of the Bronco without the gun. Eventually OJ stepped out and walked through his front doors. This time the police weren't taking any chances. The SWAT team was waiting inside to arrest him for the double murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. It turned out they didn't need all that firepower, because OJ didn't resist.

Even so, he wasn't done fighting. Not even close. By the end of the day, on June 17, 1994, 47-year-old O.J. Simpson was in police custody for the double murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. He was held without bail for the next month until his arraignment hearing on July 22nd. During the hearing, OJ said he was quote, absolutely, positively, 100% not guilty. And his team of lawyers was ready to prove it. In addition to Robert Shapiro and Robert Kardashian, OJ hired Effley Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, and Johnny Cochran.

They were all extremely accomplished and became known as the Dream Team, but one of them had to be lead attorney. At first it was Robert Shapiro, but eventually that role fell to Johnny, who was a former LA city prosecutor turned private defense attorney. After making a name for himself representing victims of police brutality, he seemed like the perfect person to show the LAPD had unjustly gone after OJ. Which was essential, because the defense had two main problems. One, the evidence seemed to point overwhelmingly to OJ, and two, there didn't seem to be

any other viable suspects. Johnny knew he had an uphill battle ahead of him, especially since the Dream Team was going up against some hard-hitting opponents. On the other side, Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden of the LA District Attorney's Office led the prosecution. From the start, they knew they had to prove OJ's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and even though it looked like the evidence was in their favor, it wasn't as simple as

it seemed. It's hard to convey how incredibly famous OJ was at this point in time. He wasn't only beloved, he was also admired. If the prosecution was going to work, they needed to do more than just show the evidence pointed to O.J. They needed to convince the jury he was capable of killing Ron and Nicole. To do that, they had to paint a clear picture of O.J. as a violent abuser. So they began digging up everything they could about the alleged and proven domestic violence

that had occurred during his marriage to Nicole. Armed with this information, the prosecution felt confident it would be an open and shut case. O.J. had pleaded no contest to spousal battery in the past, which gave Marcia and Chris his means, motive, and opportunity. But before the trial even began, things started to go haywire. One witness had seen O.J. driving recklessly on the night of the murders. The prosecution wanted to call her to the stand. They thought her testimony would bolster their theory that O.J. had driven to Nicole's house

that night. They also thought his erratic driving would prove he had a lot on his mind that night, like murdering Nicole. But instead of saving her story for the courtroom, she sold it to the press. With her integrity compromised, she was pulled as a witness. Sadly, she wasn't the only one looking to capitalize on Ron and Nicole's deaths. During this same period, one of Nicole's best friends, Faye Resnick, wrote a scandalous tell-all book in partnership with a National Enquirer columnist.

A lot of it covered Nicole and OJ's relationship. And although Faye wrote that OJ was physically abusive, she had plenty to say about Nicole, too. She claimed that Nicole used drugs, was obsessed with sex, and even alleged that she and Nicole had been intimate together. Critics called it trash, but the book became a bestseller, and it probably influenced how the public viewed Nicole. She was no longer seen as the perfect doting wife and mother. Now, she was flawed.

I just want to remind everyone that there's no such thing as a perfect victim. In every criminal or civil case, both sides of the legal spectrum are going to do whatever they can to tarnish the credibility of each party in order to bolster their case. It's by design. Now, what Fay did, even if those things were true about Nicole, let's say,

nothing warrants violence or abuse of any kind and certainly not murder. But let's talk about the fact that people close to Nicole and Ron are profiting off of this tragedy. Firstly, there's nothing inherently wrong with anyone writing about what happened or even doing interviews. Nicole's sister, Tanya, also wrote a book.

And although it was not about Nicole, it discussed her own personal journey with depression after this loss. That doesn't seem exploitative by any means. Grief is very complex, and for some, these acts are a way to process trauma or find closure. Others may engage in this behavior because their grief or shock

disinhibited them and skewed their moral compass. The point is, it's not always a sign of greed or callousness. However, when the victim is no longer alive to speak for themselves, the ethical burden can fall on those who do know them. And some carry it while others exploit it for power, attention, or profit. And if the financial gain is paired with sensationalism,

exaggeration, or betrayal of private trust, the motivations become more troubling. It can indicate a need for ego inflation by using their own proximity to pain to elevate themselves. It can indicate moral disengagement, even narcissism. And how might all the different narratives impact how the victims and the suspects are viewed both in and out of the courtroom? Yeah, so the flood of competing narratives

from the press, from friends, attorneys, and even the suspects themselves can profoundly shape how victims and suspects are perceived, both by the public and by jurors. These perceptions can distort truth, they can influence emotion, and subsequently alter justice. The more narratives there are, the harder it becomes to see the truth, especially when fame, trauma, and emotional manipulation are involved. Then there is the risk where these narrative wars become the core of the trial,

and the aspects of the case that matter become overshadowed. With the occasional exception, generally jurors are not trained in legal matters or psychology, and frankly, even if they were, they're all human and we're all prone to biases, whether we're aware of them or not. And attorneys rely on juror biases in very strategic ways, which is what we call bias activation. It's one of the most powerful tools in the courtroom and the prosecution knows they have a lot of bias to overcome with O.J.'s public persona and

that admiration that he has that you described. These narratives, especially the one from Fay, are certainly not helping the prosecution. While there may have been drawbacks to all the media attention for the prosecution, the defense used this to their advantage. They spoke to the press and appealed to the masses, trying to rally the public around O.J. The Dream team, and Johnny Cochran in particular, focused on undermining the LAPD. He insisted O.J. was only targeted because of his race and cast doubt on how the investigation was

handled. Marcia Clark, on the other hand, tried to stick to the high ground. Even with the early setbacks, she felt the prosecution had a slam dunk case. She was eager for the media circus to end and the trial to begin. In the courtroom, she could stick to the facts and evidence without worrying about media narratives. As far as Marcia was concerned, there wasn't a jury in the world who would acquit O.J. after hearing the truth about how he treated Nicole. But she didn't count on what came next. Because the murders happened in Brentwood, most people expected the trial to take place

in Santa Monica, a predominantly white affluent community. Instead, a district attorney decided to hold the trial at the courthouse in downtown Los Angeles. Officially, the reasons were logistical. The prosecutors worked downtown, and this would cut down their commutes and give them easy access to their offices. But many people speculated there was another reason. Optics.

The DA knew it wouldn't look good if OJ was convicted by an all-white jury, especially in the aftermath of the recent Rodney King riots. Two years earlier in 1992, four white police officers were acquitted after beating an unarmed black man named Rodney King on camera. Even though the incident had happened in Los Angeles, the case was tried in the suburb of Simi Valley, about 40 miles northwest of downtown LA. Following the verdict, the simmering racial tension in Southern California had erupted into six days of violence and looting. And now, the prosecutors on O.J.'s case wanted to be sure something similar didn't happen again.

Moving the case to downtown LA meant the juror pool would be much more diverse and, in turn, reduce the possibility of racial bias. But with all the publicity, it was difficult to find anyone who didn't have pre-existing beliefs about OJ's guilt or innocence, regardless of their race. The court called on 250 potential jurors. It took about six weeks to whittle down that list to 12 plus 15 alternates. They were split between races and genders. Let's talk about implicit biases.

So an implicit bias refers to the unconscious attitudes, stereotypes, or associations that we hold about people based on characteristics like race, gender, age, class, or even demeanor. These beliefs operate under conscious awareness, meaning we're often unaware that they're influencing our thoughts, our judgments, and our decisions. And that's the danger. We believe we're being fair, even when bias is there, quietly guiding those beliefs. When someone is selected as a juror, they are instructed to set aside personal beliefs, experiences, and opinions, and decide the case solely on the evidence presented in court.

In theory, this sounds reasonable, and it is a reasonable request. But in practice, it can be psychologically difficult to completely suppress unconscious beliefs, but we can push back on them through awareness. And to do that, jurors need to engage in active, mindful decision-making and focus on the concrete evidence while asking all appropriate questions.

And ideally, a diverse jury pool will aid in that process. And when you mentioned earlier that they were worried about, you know, OJ being found guilty by an all-white jury, that could present issues for a mistrial. And those are things they do need to consider. – From a psychological perspective, how does implicit bias impact a criminal trial? Oh, it very much impacts a criminal trial or a civil trial, and attorneys know this. They even hire jury consultants to help them approve jurors that they think will maximize their chances of winning based on these implicit biases. And while a jury consultant's job is to help their client,

the attorney that hired them, to maximize their chances at winning, they also do have to ensure the selection process is fair and as unbiased as possible, which is arguably a pretty difficult job. This is why a diverse representation of jury panels is crucial. Jures may unconsciously judge based on race or ethnicity,

like I mentioned, and it can affect their assessment of credibility, their interpretation of the evidence, especially based on the race of witness testimony, or for example, their belief in police credibility. And overall, it can affect whose story they choose to believe, and so much more. can affect whose story they choose to believe in so much more. In the end, the initial jury was made up of eight black jurors, two Hispanic jurors, two white jurors, and one Native American juror.

With that, the stage was officially set. Up to this moment, there were a few criminal trials that had captivated the entire country. Over the previous 25 years alone, cases like Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, and the Menendez brothers had all dominated the headlines. But as soon as O.J.'s murder trial began on January 24, 1995, it blew them all out of the water. The prosecution was up first. Like Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden had planned, they started by going through the

evidence. They laid out a clear timeline of the night of June 12, 1994 and how OJ would have been able to commit the murders. And they had Nicole's older sister Denise testify about O.J.'s domestic abuse. They had the means, the motive, and the opportunity. But the defense didn't crumble. Johnny Cochran and the rest of the dream team did everything they could to poke holes in the prosecution's argument. And slowly but surely, those holes turned into giant cracks. First, the forensics technician came under fire. He admitted they might have made some procedural errors when they collected the DNA evidence.

If even one step in the process couldn't be trusted, it threw the entire result into question. Then, Detective Mark Fuhrman took the stand, and things got even worse. He was the officer who'd gone to O.J.'s house in the hours after Nicole and Ron were found dead. During cross-examination, the defense questioned Furman's past and heavily implied that he was a racist. Under oath, Furman denied the allegations, but the dream team wasn't convinced,

although for the moment they had to move on. And it wasn't long before the prosecution gave O.J.'s lawyers their biggest opening yet. In June 1995, six months into the trial, Chris Darden decided that the prosecution needed to do something attention grabbing. A major piece of evidence was a pair of blood-soaked gloves. One glove in the pair had been found at Nicole's condo, the other at O.J.'s house, and there was proof that O.J. had bought that exact brand. So the assumption was O.J. had worn these gloves when he'd allegedly murdered Nicole and Ron.

To really hammer the point home, Darden asked OJ to try on the gloves right in front of the jury. But when OJ went to slip them on, they didn't fit. The prosecution later said the gloves had been soaked with blood, which made them shrink from their original size. But even if that were true, the image of O.J. struggling to fit the gloves over his hands was extremely powerful. Johnny Cochran agreed.

Months later, during closing arguments, he would utter the most famous line of the entire trial, If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. That moment was really powerful for the jury and the nation watching. It invoked a lot of emotions and the reality is we tend to trust our emotional reactions more than we do any logical or abstract data. If something feels true we often believe that it is. This is because emotions are processed in the amygdala which reacts milliseconds before the prefrontal cortex or the rational brain and if emotions are overwhelming the rational side is overridden. And this trial was very overwhelming.

When the jury saw that the gloves didn't fit, that became what's known as an anchoring bias. This causes people to give disproportionate weight to this evidence, which causes them to evaluate everything through that lens. The gloves didn't fit, so all of these other things can't be true either. That's sort of what the anchoring bias can do.

This would prime the jury to question the rest of the prosecution's case as a result. This moment was really convincing because it was an objective piece of physical evidence and the prosecution's key evidence too. Visual information like that is more easily remembered and more emotionally impactful than verbal information.

Having such a powerful representation of O.J.'s potential innocence certainly helped his defense. And when it came to tearing down the prosecution, his lawyers were just getting started. On July 6th, 1995, Marcia Clark and Chris Darden rested their case. Now it was the dream team's turn to have the floor. And one of the first witnesses they called back to the stand was Detective Mark Furman. The defense had uncovered 13 hours of taped interviews

Furman had given to a screenwriter working on a story about female police officers. The judge, Lance Ito, only allowed the dream team to share two small excerpts with the jury, but that's all Johnny Cochran needed. In those clips, Furman used the N-word. He'd sworn under oath that he'd never use that kind of language. Not only that, but he'd also spoken about planting evidence in the past, which was a huge deal. From the start of the trial, the defense had pushed the narrative that the LAPD was corrupt

and had even framed OJ. All of a sudden, it didn't seem like a far-fetched idea that Furman had actually been the one to set OJ up. It appeared the dream team had done their jobs well, but only time would tell what the jury ultimately thought. From September 26 to the 28th, both sides presented their closing arguments, bringing the nine-month trial to an end. Ron and Nicole's families were in the courtroom nearly the entire time. The jurors were sent off to deliberate in early October.

Given how long the trial had dragged on for, the Browns and the Goldman's were prepared to wait several weeks for the verdict. But the jury came back in just four hours. No one was ready for that. Judge Ito delayed announcing the verdict until the following day. It only increased the anticipation that had already built up around the country. Wherever you went, there was only one question on everyone's minds. Did OJ do it? On October 3, 1995, the jury announced their decision.

On the charges of murder for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, they found 48 year old OJ Simpson not guilty. After After just four hours of deliberation, the jury in O.J. Simpson's murder trial came to a decision. On October 3, 1995, they announced that 48-year-old O.J. was not guilty of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. The Goldman's cried out in agony. Nicole's family burst into tears.

After nearly a year and a half of pain and heartache, they weren't any closer to finding justice for their loved ones. Meanwhile, O.J. was visibly relieved. He mouthed, thank you to the jury, and embraced Johnny Cochran. But there were still many people out there, including the victims' families, who thought O.J. had gotten away with murder. Let's talk about the impact of this on the families. Families of a loved one who died in such a violent way experienced traumatic grief. And while this trial was underway, they had been

experiencing an ambiguous grief because they did not yet have the closure they needed and deserved. A not guilty verdict can disrupt the grieving process, leaving them in ambiguous grief. And this can lead to a prolonged grief disorder, which includes depressive symptoms and even cause re-traumatization. The families may perceive this verdict as an invalidation of their loved one's worth. It can erode their trust and faith in the justice system. And they can feel immense pressure to continue fighting for acknowledgement, which I think is especially true for Ron Goldman's family because his story was seemingly overshadowed

during the trial. And it can be psychologically disempowering for the families, leading to anger, trauma, and a loss of meaning. And realistically, as family, they were secondary victims because this trial was so public, they had very little privacy, they were exposed to judgment, misinformation,

and distorted narratives. It is so hard to see a path to healing when you've never gotten closure. And certainly the Browns and the Goldman's weren't done fighting. While there was nothing else to be done, in criminal court, they could file a civil suit against OJ for battery and wrongful death. The civil trial kicked off about a year later in October 1996. Unlike the criminal proceedings, O.J. wasn't at risk of going to prison if he was found

liable, but he was at risk of owing the Browns and the Goldman's a lot of money. This time the trial took place in Santa Monica and no cameras were allowed inside the courtroom. Four months later, on February 4, 1997, the jury came to a decision. Forty-nine-year-old O.J. was liable for battery and wrongful death. He was ordered to pay $33.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages to the Brown and Goldman families. However, it was mostly a symbolic victory. The last few years had taken a huge financial toll on O.J., although he was acquitted in the criminal trial.

His reputation was in the criminal trial his reputation was in the gutter most of his corporate deals and endorsements had fallen through and he certainly wasn't getting movie parts or broadcast deals according to O.J. he was eight hundred and fifty thousand dollars in debt and simply couldn't pay the damages so he didn. To protect the few remaining assets he did have, he left Los Angeles and bought a home in Miami in the year 2000. Even if he failed to pay his mortgage, Florida law prevented creditors from seizing his property. He also continued to receive his NFL pension, which was protected under federal law.

His children, with Nicole, went with him. There'd been a legal battle between O.J. and Nicole's parents, who won custody of the kids. But in the end, 14-year-old Sydney and 12-year-old Justin asked to live with their dad. Nicole's mother respected their wishes and let them go with O.J. From a forensic psychology perspective, everyone involved in the O.J. Simpson trial,

whether directly or indirectly, likely experienced some kind of long-term psychological consequences, especially for O.J.'s children, who were minors at the time and forced into an emotionally complex and psychologically precarious situation that was shaped by trauma, public scrutiny, and family tension. All of O.J.'s friends and family faced a different kind of emotional fallout

because they were likely grappling with denial, loyalty, stigma, cognitive dissonance, and of course, public scrutiny. In this case and the outcome, no matter if he was guilty or not, guilty, was going to have lasting impacts on everyone and there was going to be secondary victims. And for O.J., what's it like to reintegrate back into society after being acquitted in a trial like this one? Reintegrating into society after being acquitted in a trial as polarizing in public as this is not a return to normal life. It's a return to a world

with a permanently altered identity. And that was very likely destabilizing for someone like OJ who prioritized image and needs to be in control. Despite his legal victory, he still had to face public hostility, criticism and constant surveillance from the press. He went from being beloved to a Hollywood pariah, and someone like O.J. would want to control for that. And one place to start would be to move.

Aside from the financial protections that you mentioned and outlined, he likely felt that moving would help reduce public exposure, serve as an emotional escape from what happened, and offer a psychological reset, which he might also view as a way to restore his image. Only you can't outrun something like this. While O.J. worked to rebuild his life, the world still hadn't moved on from the trial. Despite the jury's decision, people continued to have questions about what happened the night Nicole and Ron were killed, and soon O.J. saw an opportunity to make back some of the money he'd lost.

In 2005, he started working on a book about how he would have killed Nicole if he'd actually been the murderer. It was marketed as a hypothetical confession. Since O.J. had been acquitted, he was in the clear legally. Even so, the reaction was swift and damning. The Goldman's in particular were furious. The book was a slap in the face to Ron and Nicole. Especially because by then, OJ had only paid a tiny fraction of the 33.5 million he owed

them in the Browns after the wrongful death suit. And he'd set the book deal up through his daughter's corporation so he wouldn't have to give them the profits from the book. The Goldman's weren't going to stand for that. They successfully filed a lawsuit and the book rights were awarded to them instead. O.J. wouldn't earn a single penny. After the book's publication in September 2007, it reached number two on the New York Times bestseller list.

The Goldman's donated a portion of the proceeds to the Ron Goldman Foundation for Justice, which they established after his death. Meanwhile, O.J. continued to flounder. The same day his book was published, 60-year-old O.J. found himself back in the hot seat. On the night of September 13th, he and some friends stole some items from a sports memorabilia dealer in Las Vegas. They held the man at gunpoint while O.J. grabbed the goods. But they didn't cover their tracks well. O.J. was caught by the

authorities the next day and was charged with 12 felony counts, including kidnapping and armed robbery. The trial began a year later and lasted a month. On October 3, 2008, OJ was found guilty on all 12 charges. It was 13 years to the day since he'd been acquitted for Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman's murders. As punishment, OJ was sentenced to a maximum of 33 years behind bars. He ended up serving only nine, and on October 1, 2017, he was released on parole for good behavior. After that, he moved to Las Vegas.

His life appeared to revolve around golf, the few friends he still had, and posting on social media. In May 2023, he posted on Twitter revealing that he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Less than a year later, on April 10, 2024, O.J. passed away at 76 years old. Still, Nicole's story didn't end with O.J.'s death. In the years since her murder, Nicole's family hasn't stopped fighting to shed light on the dangers of domestic violence. Her sisters have been especially vocal and have fought to strengthen laws like the Violence

Against Women Act. Recently they spoke about Nicole in a Hulu docuseries called The Life and Murder of Nicole Brown Simpson. Although they can never bring her back, they can still honor her memory and show people how beautiful their sister was inside and out. Thanks so much for listening. I'm Carter Roy and this is Murder True Crime Stories. Once again, I'd like to thank Dr. Engels for joining me and I encourage everyone to follow Killer Minds wherever you get your podcasts. I'll be back next Tuesday as we return to our regular programming and the story of another

murder. Murder, True Crime Stories is a CrimeHouse original powered by Pave Studios. Here at CrimeHouse, we want to thank each and every one of you for your support. If you like what you heard today, reach out on social media at CrimeHouse. Don't forget to rate, review, and follow Murder True Crime Stories wherever you get your podcasts. Your feedback truly makes a difference. And to enhance your Murder True Crime Stories listening experience, subscribe to CrimeHouse Plus on Apple Podcasts. You'll get every episode ad-free, and instead of having to wait for each episode

of a two-part series, you'll get access to both at once, plus exciting bonus content. We'll be back next Tuesday. Murder True Crime Stories is hosted by me, Carter Roy, and special guest Dr. Tristan Engels, and is a Crime House Original powered by Pave Studios. This episode was brought to life by the Murder True Crime Stories team, Max Cutler, Ron Shapiro, Alex Benedon, Natalie Pertsofsky, Laurie Marinelli, Sarah Camp, Alex Burns, Beth Johnson, and Russell Nash. Thank you for listening. Ready to rethink everything you know about true crime?

Check out Murder in the Media, the first audiobook from Crime House Studios. Find Murder in the Media on Spotify. Hey there, it's Nicole Lapin. For your next listen, check out Scams, Money and Murder. This week we dive into the true story of the Wolf of Wall Street himself. And don't miss our recent episode with Jessica Pressler. That's the journalist who uncovered the truth

behind fake heiress, Anadelphi. Listen now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your favorite podcasts.