thanks…
the first case does sound familiar…victims name is familiar…
the second one is news to me.
I now know more than I did this morning…ThankYou…I hope I remember how to drive (a la homer simpson)
Markxxx, your main question was “No one comes forth, no new evidence what so ever is found what do you think the history books will say?”
This is not a question with a definite, factual answer, nor does it involve scientific theory, so it did not seem well-suited for the GQ forum. Rather, it is a philosophical question which can be debated on and on. So, I suggested that it be moved to this Great Debate forum.
Wow, others know of the awesome powers of the Onion!! I hardly believe it. Why do we have to have a trial of the century? Who cares? And everyone left out the impeachment, which was called MANY times the trial of the century by CNN and others. Is it just hype to get better ratings, or what?
Regarding Curious George’s statement: “I’m rather amazed the truth (who is the killer?) has not surfaced in the five years since it happened.”
The truth did surface, almost immediately after the murder happened: O.J. did it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Also, the notion that “he did it but it can’t be proved” is not really sound. Having been aquitted, he cannot be tried again for murder, but a civil jury did find him culpable for wrongful deaths. In other words, the case against him was proved, just not in a way that could send him to jail.
The failure of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office to secure a conviction against Simpson is just that: a failure. They had all the evidence they needed; they just didn’t use it properly.
One more thing: the bungling of the LAPD has been greatly exaggerated in this matter. It was just put to great rhetorical use by the defense, who convinced the jury that all the good, solid evidence somehow had a shadow of “reasonable doubt” cast over it because of one or two questionable items. Had the prosecution been smart, they would have made the point: “Police mistakes didn’t hurt the defense; they hurt the proseuction by tainting some evidence. But look, even with the screwups, we still have a mountain of facts that prove O.J. did it. Now imagine, without the screwups, how much, much better our case would have been that it is now.”