Peacock’s new two-part true-crime docuseries, OJ’s Accomplice, is revisiting the June 12, 1994 murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman by spotlighting nine unidentified fingerprints recovered from the Brentwood crime scene and examining theories that O.J. Simpson did not act alone. Directed by Ari Mark and Sumit David, the streaming production premiered on Sunday, November 1, 2026, after originally being slated for a December release. Through archival trial records, previously unseen photographs, and interviews with figures close to the original investigation, the filmmakers are publicly urging Los Angeles authorities to run the decades-old latent prints through updated forensic databases.

The Nine Unidentified Bundy Drive Fingerprints

A central pillar of the Peacock production involves physical evidence first debated during Simpson’s 1995 criminal trial. According to Fox News, 1995 reporting from the Los Angeles Times noted that none of the identifiable fingerprints collected by detectives at Brown Simpson’s Bundy Drive condominium matched the former NFL player.

Under questioning by lead defense attorney Johnnie Cochran Jr. during the 1995 proceedings, defense fingerprint specialist Gilbert Aguilar testified that nine specific prints recovered from the property could not be matched to any known sample. As reported by Межа, Aguilar told the court that investigators compared those nine prints against samples from Simpson, Brown Simpson, and 58 friends, relatives, and acquaintances without finding a match. Searches of state and federal computerized databases at the time also yielded no results.

In the docuseries and accompanying interviews, co-director Ari Mark argues that three decades of technological expansion and larger data pools make a modern reexamination viable. "The fact that there's nine fingerprints sitting around that nobody wants to put through a system that's very updated and technologically not what it was before, that just seems unnecessary," Mark told Fox News Digital. "You can take latent prints and analyze those in a way that you couldn't before.

Also, remember, the systems over time are obviously collecting more data and more people. So, if you're looking for a match, you have a greater chance of getting one all these years later."

Despite the renewed attention, the existence of nine unmatched prints does not automatically prove an accomplice was present during the killings. The trial record reflects a failure to match the prints against the 60 known comparison samples and 1990s databases, rather than proof that all nine prints belonged to a single perpetrator or were left on the night of the murders.

Reports also differ slightly on how local law enforcement has responded to the filmmakers' push for new testing. According to MARCA, the documentary states that requests to have the prints checked again through modern databases were declined by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD).

Meanwhile, Межа reports that the producers received no response from the District Attorney's Office, while an LAPD spokesperson told Fox News Digital that the investigation remains open and ongoing, noting that detectives would pursue investigative leads if new evidence emerged.

The Joey Ippolito Claims and Accomplice Theories

Beyond forensic questions, OJ’s Accomplice investigates specific allegations involving Joey Ippolito, a convicted drug trafficker with reported ties to organized crime who was an associate of Simpson and died in 2006. According to AOL.com, Ippolito previously worked as a confidential federal informant to secure favorable treatment in unrelated criminal cases, with newly unsealed records reportedly describing him as "extremely reliable." Suspicions surrounding Ippolito were also fueled by a podcast anecdote once shared by rapper Fat Joe regarding an alleged Simpson accomplice.

The Peacock series features an account from Joey’s brother, Sam Ippolito.

Sam claimed in October that on the evening of June 12, 1994, Joey left the Los Angeles apartment where they were staying around 6 p.m. to assist a friend and returned around midnight with what looked like blood on his hands. Sam alleged that Joey asked him to dispose of a bag holding a heavy object, which Sam said he tossed into a construction site dumpster on Doheny Drive without looking inside. Sam also claimed he overheard Joey speaking on the telephone with Al Cowlings—Simpson’s longtime friend who drove the white Ford Bronco during the infamous 1994 police chase—about "helping" Simpson that night.

However, Sam Ippolito’s reliability is heavily complicated within the reporting. Neither brother was ever called to testify during the 1995 trial, and Sam later attempted to retract his story after a journalist turned down his request for financial compensation, claiming he could no longer reliably remember the events.

Sam also stated he "was offered a ton of money" to share his account elsewhere.

The series pairs Sam's fluctuating account with a recorded conversation involving Charlie Ehrlich, an associate of both Simpson and Sam Ippolito, who was later involved in Simpson's 2007 Las Vegas armed robbery case. In the recording, Ehrlich claimed Sam told him that Joey had admitted involvement in the murders; Mark noted he believes Ehrlich knew the cameras were rolling during the exchange. The docuseries also examines whether Ehrlich inspired the hypothetical accomplice named "Charlie" in Simpson's 2007 book, If I Did It, though Ehrlich has maintained Simpson told him the name was merely a placeholder.

On-Camera Insights and Investigative Skepticism

To frame its arguments, Mark and David assembled a wide roster of interviewees connected to the original case. Alongside former DEA agent Robert Brisolari, houseguest Kato Kaelin, Nicole’s sister Tanya Brown, a former roommate of Cowlings, and a newly identified eyewitness who claims to have seen someone at the Bundy Drive property that night, the series features defense investigator Pat McKenna and lead LAPD detective Tom Lange.

During his appearance, the 78-year-old McKenna presents previously unseen photographs of Simpson taken the day after the killings to argue that one person could not have subdued both victims without sustaining noticeable injuries. "Here’s O.J.’s hand. He’s got one little cut, but this is not a guy who’s just killed two people," McKenna says in the program. "He’s got no bruises. He hasn’t got a black eye. He’s got nothing, not even a bad lip, the guy has. So, if it’s O.J. Simpson, maybe he went to kill Nicole. But then, fighting Ron Goldman, that’s going to take more than one person. It has to be two people."

Despite the dramatic weight given to McKenna’s photographic interpretation and the Ippolito narrative, the docuseries does not establish verified proof that a second attacker participated in the crime.

Key participants in the documentary push back against the premise: Detective Lange expresses doubt regarding the accomplice theory, and one of Simpson’s former defense attorneys also cautions viewers against drawing broad conclusions from the unverified accusations.

Frequently Asked Questions

Have the nine fingerprints been retested using modern forensic systems?

There is no confirmation that the prints have been reexamined using modern technology. While the filmmakers publicly called for the nine latent prints to be run through updated state and federal databases, producers stated their requests to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office and the LAPD were either declined or went unanswered. The LAPD stated only that the homicide investigation remains open.

What does the trial record show about the unidentified fingerprints?

During the 1995 trial, defense witness Gilbert Aguilar testified that nine fingerprints found at the Bundy Drive scene did not match O.J. Simpson, Nicole Brown Simpson, or 58 friends, relatives, and acquaintances.

While the defense used this to argue detectives ignored unknown attackers, the unmatched prints do not independently prove when the prints were left or whether they belonged to an accomplice.

Is there independent corroboration for the claims involving Joey Ippolito?

The allegations linking Joey Ippolito to the crime scene remain unproven. The primary narrative relies on his brother, Sam Ippolito, who claimed Joey returned with bloody hands and a heavy bag on the night of the murders, but Sam later attempted to retract his statement when a reporter declined to pay him for the interview.

Sources