Okay, this one drives me nuts every time. Have you seen the one about the guy who describes being mistaken by someone else over and over, within the same town? Obviously he has a twin. Then, he ends up just missing his double at a convenience store by five minutes? It seems to me that this is all occuring within a very small town and a small radius. The next time he's mistaken for the other guy he should say "Stop right there! Who is the person you think I am? Where does he live or work?" It seems like this puppy is a solution waiting to happen yet I get suckered into watching this segment with no resolution every time!
Yet another case will be solved because someone living hundreds of miles away recognizes handwriting!

Any other cases like this one that seem kinda obvious?

The Wendy Camp case should have been solved LONG ago.

DB Cooper=Richard Floyd McCoy. Not even a threat of a mystery.

Agree with you fivecats, 100%. The guy met his so called twins sister in law for crying out loud. How hard is it to just say " hey, let me give you his phone number., how about I have him meet with you?. " That would be too easy. What a bunch of dumba$$'s .......this is the little "mickey Rooney" looking guy, right?

Yeah, I forgot about his twin's sister in law! That makes it even more obvious. My husband also remembered that the twin was umpiring at a softball game. Couldn't someone ask the parks department or team manager who was the umpire (I assume that they keep records on that sort of thing)? The solvability factor was so high with this case, that I half expected the camera man to be the twin or that the twin would walk by while interviewing the other one!

I also thought of another obvious case. The story of the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. The man who was rescued by two guys, one white and one black but he never got their names. Now I would assume that this being a specialized event and quite memorable to boot, wouldn't the rescuers be identified by now?

I hadn't heard about the guy with a lookalike. He does seem pretty stupid. :lol: I know if I had a twin wandering around in town, I'd ask people about it. I'd want to know her name and meet her!

OJ

2pac and biggie i mean wtf?

Not necessarily a case to be solved but I can't believe that sleaze Randal Utterback hasn't been caught. I figured he would have been found long ago.

How about Paul Pollis?

:yeahthat

Sam Patel should have been arrested a long time ago for the Joan Jeffries murder, IMO.

I agree with Tony Ballesteros about OJ. I was in high school at that time. I remember the whole school watched the verdict on TV while it was happening. I was so upset when he was found innocent.

I was in high school too, and yeah we watched it. It proved that in America, if you have enough money, you can get away with murder.

If OJ weren't as wealthy or had a public defender, he would have been found guilty. Many think it had to do with race but I think the money issue had more bearing on the case.

I was in high school too, and yeah we watched it. It proved that in America, if you have enough money, you can get away with murder.

If OJ weren't as wealthy or had a public defender, he would have been found guilty. Many think it had to do with race but I think the money issue had more bearing on the case.
It was the jury. They totally believed in that "contamination" theory abt the blood evidence. There is no contamination when doing blood work like that. It's either his blood or not. they were told by the defense attorney (one of them) that there was contamination, therefore, there was a mixture of different blood in the vials. Well, of course there is, it's OJ's, Ron's and Nicole's. You can find more than one person's blood, but you don't get contamination and not able to tell whose blood is whose. Also, the jury wanted to "get one back" at the LAPD for the Rodney King jury fiasco. There were more blacks than any other minority on the jury (OJ jury) and they used this case to get their point across. The prosecution messed up big time, they did not present many things, but they could have presented a videotape of OJ committing the murders, and that stupid jury still would have come back with a verdict of not guilty.

That O.J. case was lost at jury selection, if not sooner. Gil Garcetti filed the case in downtown LA instead of the rightful venue of Santa Monica, which would have completely changed the makeup of the jury pool. Then he decided it was a slam dunk case so he chose Marcia Clark, who had made a career out of ruthlessly prosecuting slam dunk cases like Rebecca Schaeffer. She was completely outmatched against a clever scheming defense that wasn't going to roll over and concede. Then you had just enough hints at corruption even though I'm convinced all of it was mere sloppiness.

That leggy blonde defense jury consultant with the short skirts, JoEllen Demetrius, was probably more responsible for that verdict than Barry Scheck or Mark Fuhrman or Dennis Fung. She determined that black women hated Nicole Simpson due to the aspect of taking away a successful black man from his black wife. But Marcia Clark felt black women had bonded with her on previous cases, so she dismissed findings from prosecution mock trials that showed black women didn't like her and in fact termed her a bitch very frequently when asked for a one-word description. So Marcia Clark masochistically agreed to a jury stacked with black women. If I remember correctly the final jury had 10 women and 2 men, with 9 blacks, 2 whites and 1 hispanic.

It's been incredibly awkward for me the last several years to play golf on the same course as O.J. in Miami, near where my parents live. O.J. has been a regular at Calusa Country Club, a modest public course not far from where he lives in the southwest suburbs. I've never played with him, but many times in the group immediately before or after O.J. and we've made eye contact many times, including the first time when he nodded his head toward me. Incredibly tempting to make a wise-ass remark but luckily I refrained.

It's true O.J. has very poor knees, requiring several shuffle steps from side to side merely to ascend the low tee boxes on courses in sea level South Florida. He plays with the same guy almost every time with a buxom blonde named Kristy usually following in a separate cart. For what it's worth (not much) O.J. has a lousy choppy swing but a good short game. Very often he holds court in the dining area and blabs non-stop so whenever I'm grabbing a quick bite and he's in there I just grab it to go. Supposedly the course will close in a few months for a major renovation and switch to a private course, so perhaps I'll be spared the awkward encounters. Although I also have seen him at Costco and a couple of restaurants. The young son, who many of you will remember from the trial, is now a good looking teenager and taller than O.J.

I agree with the previous poster that money was more involved than race in the OJ Simpson case. It just proves if one is wealthy enough to hire "big time" lawyers, one can beat a criminal allegation, as long as they are a member of the "rich" race.

Even when race is mentioned, many people fail to mention Mark Fuhrman's perjury and using racist language. That may have put reasonable doubt in a juror's mind as to whether evidence may have been tampered with.

I agree with the previous poster that money was more involved than race in the OJ Simpson case. It just proves if one is wealthy enough to hire "big time" lawyers, one can beat a criminal allegation, as long as they are a member of the "rich" race.

Even when race is mentioned, many people fail to mention Mark Fuhrman's perjury and using racist language. That may have put reasonable doubt in a juror's mind as to whether evidence may have been tampered with.
Johnny Cochran was not a notable lawyer for criminal cases. Check that out on the web. He handled different types of cases for which he became famous.

Also, the jury does also believe in evidence tampering, however, how can they dismiss the bloody shoeprints that were the same size as O.J.'s and were discovered to be expensive italian shoes Bruno Magli??? I don't know how many killers run around in thousand dollar shoes to commit a crime.

I don't need to check anything out about Johnnie Cochran on the web! It's a simple fact of life that many times one who is wealthy can afford a hot shot lawyer or team of lawyers to defend them. That is in direct opposition to a poor defendant who has to rely on an often overworked public defender.

Also, the jury does also believe in evidence tampering, however, how can they dismiss the bloody shoeprints that were the same size as O.J.'s and were discovered to be expensive italian shoes Bruno Magli??? I don't know how many killers run around in thousand dollar shoes to commit a crime.

The criminal jury didn't know about the pictures of O.J. wearing the specific Bruno Magli shoes. He denied owning a pair like that and the prosecution couldn't find proof despite claiming "we looked everywhere." Just further evidence of their incompetence. Before the civil trial, pictures of O.J. wearing those shoes were discovered in the Buffalo Bills weekly magazine. He had worn them a few years earlier, before the murders, to a game at Rich Stadium with a ceremony honoring one of his teams from the '70s. The original photographer was located and he had the negatives, so that destroyed any claim the pictures were doctored.

Now, I could understand it if the pictures were later discovered in a hockey magazine or a Detriot Lions magazine or whatever, but how can you insist you looked everywhere and missed them in a Buffalo Bills magazine? O.J. was a Buffalo Bill until the final pathetic season or two with the 49ers. It was an obvious place to check, with the Bills or anything associated with them.

Not that the existence of those pictures would have meant anything to that jury. Obviously the monetary aspect was vital to the acquittal but in that particular case there was an undeniable racial bent in terms of perception of his innocence or guilt, so ignoring that and allowing the makeup of the jury was devastating to the prosecution. That's all I was saying in my previous post. And it wasn't merely the Rodney King case. My college roommate became a police officer in LA for years until quitting the job for a completely different line of work after seeing the abuses of power from fellow officers. The incredible stories he told me would take up page after page here, and lead to much of my cynicism regarding law enforcement and prosecutors. So I hardly blame the black community for being outraged; it's just the vehicle of choice, allowing a high profile defendant to get away with two murders was unfortunate and tragic, IMO.

The criminal jury didn't know about the pictures of O.J. wearing the specific Bruno Magli shoes. He denied owning a pair like that and the prosecution couldn't find proof despite claiming "we looked everywhere." Just further evidence of their incompetence. Before the civil trial, pictures of O.J. wearing those shoes were discovered in the Buffalo Bills weekly magazine. He had worn them a few years earlier, before the murders, to a game at Rich Stadium with a ceremony honoring one of his teams from the '70s. The original photographer was located and he had the negatives, so that destroyed any claim the pictures were doctored.

Now, I could understand it if the pictures were later discovered in a hockey magazine or a Detriot Lions magazine or whatever, but how can you insist you looked everywhere and missed them in a Buffalo Bills magazine? O.J. was a Buffalo Bill until the final pathetic season or two with the 49ers. It was an obvious place to check, with the Bills or anything associated with them.

Not that the existence of those pictures would have meant anything to that jury. Obviously the monetary aspect was vital to the acquittal but in that particular case there was an undeniable racial bent in terms of perception of his innocence or guilt, so ignoring that and allowing the makeup of the jury was devastating to the prosecution. That's all I was saying in my previous post. And it wasn't merely the Rodney King case. My college roommate became a police officer in LA for years until quitting the job for a completely different line of work after seeing the abuses of power from fellow officers. The incredible stories he told me would take up page after page here, and lead to much of my cynicism regarding law enforcement and prosecutors. So I hardly blame the black community for being outraged; it's just the vehicle of choice, allowing a high profile defendant to get away with two murders was unfortunate and tragic, IMO.
The prosecution doesn't get off easy on this matter either. They screwed up big time. Things that should have been entered as evidence, was never brought forth. One of the major goofs of that is the passport, fake beard and the $$$$ O.J. had with him in the white bronco. Those things were not brought forth...How lame and ignorant is that??? In law, no matter how small or insignificant you (the attorney) thinks the evidence is, it is better to present it, than not to. Any smart attorney knows that.
All the attorneys I worked for said the same thing.

The prosecution doesn't get off easy on this matter either. They screwed up big time. Things that should have been entered as evidence, was never brought forth. One of the major goofs of that is the passport, fake beard and the $$$$ O.J. had with him in the white bronco. Those things were not brought forth...How lame and ignorant is that??? In law, no matter how small or insignificant you (the attorney) thinks the evidence is, it is better to present it, than not to. Any smart attorney knows that.
All the attorneys I worked for said the same thing.

I completely agree. It seemed like the prosecution was on defense far too often, even during the presentation of their own case. When they were asked about not admitting the items you mentioned, or the tape of the Bronco chase or the statement O.J. made to Vannater and Lange, they were always commenting on how they feared the defense would turn it around and use it in O.J.'s favor, instead of realizing how devastating the totality could have been.

I saved this link many years ago, a summary of the case from Esquire: http://www.posner.com/articles/esquire.htm

Any other cases like this one that seem kinda obvious?

I don't know if this qualifies, but I always wondered why the Ralph Probst shooting wasn't quickly solved. It was determined that the gun used in the comission of the offense was a new model that had just recently been manufactured, and there were only 2000 in circulation at the time of Probst's murder. It seems to me the police could have just traced bills of sale for that particular type of gun from shops in the area or even the state. Then again, it was the late sixties so who knows. I'm sure such a task would be a lot easier in this day and age with modern computers and firearm registration requirements etc.

I don't know if this qualifies, but I always wondered why the Ralph Probst shooting wasn't quickly solved. It was determined that the gun used in the comission of the offense was a new model that had just recently been manufactured, and there were only 2000 in circulation at the time of Probst's murder. It seems to me the police could have just traced bills of sale for that particular type of gun to shops in the area or even the state. Then again, it was the late sixties so who knows. I'm sure such a task would be a lot easier in this day and age with modern computers and firearm registration requirements etc.
Yeah, it would seem so, but with guns being stolen, etc. it makes what is an obvious search sometimes ends up being a dead end. In Los Angeles, guns are bought and sold and stolen, sold on the streets, etc., so it has come to light that there is possible legislation abt registering BULLETS. Have the bullets have serial numbers so they can be traced, but to me, that's crazy, anyone can steal bullets just like they can buy a stolen gun on the street.

I completely agree. It seemed like the prosecution was on defense far too often, even during the presentation of their own case. When they were asked about not admitting the items you mentioned, or the tape of the Bronco chase or the statement O.J. made to Vannater and Lange, they were always commenting on how they feared the defense would turn it around and use it in O.J.'s favor, instead of realizing how devastating the totality could have been.

I saved this link many years ago, a summary of the case from Esquire: http://www.posner.com/articles/esquire.htm
thanx for the link. very interesting. I read the book by former Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, and he described the five major mistakes the prosecution made...one of them being, not submitting the evidence such as the $$$, fake beard, etc. It's an awesome book that details everything on the case.

thanx for the link. very interesting. I read the book by former Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, and he described the five major mistakes the prosecution made...one of them being, not submitting the evidence such as the $$$, fake beard, etc. It's an awesome book that details everything on the case.

I agree, Bugliosi's book was by far the best one I read on the case. American Tragedy by Lawrence Schiller was interesting since he was involved with the defense team and revealed many specific details, like O.J. badly failing the polograph test.

Yeah, O.J. was an atrocity that I think the legal system would like to forget. I'm glad that there are people out there that still remember... :)

As far as Aswi's comment about O.J.'s trial being won at jury selection, I would completely agree. This may seem like a moot (or repetitive) point, but we have learned repeatedly in law school that trials are usually won during voir dire (jury selection) or in the opening statements.

Sad, but true.

Yeah, O.J. was an atrocity that I think the legal system would like to forget. I'm glad that there are people out there that still remember... :)

As far as Aswi's comment about O.J.'s trial being won at jury selection, I would completely agree. This may seem like a moot (or repetitive) point, but we have learned repeatedly in law school that trials are usually won during voir dire (jury selection) or in the opening statements.

Sad, but true.
Exactly. When voir dire is available for lawyers to pick and choose, why would you pick such a bad jury like Marcia Clark did???? Oh well, can't change the past.:(

Since y'all are having fun (or your head is expoding...either one) discussing the O.J. trial, I just thought I'd mention that Chris Darden is scheduled to be on Oprah tomorrow (February 9, 2006). It could be an interesting interview, but then again it's Oprah, so you never know what you're going to get.

I've seen the OJ case on The New Detectives I think it was, of cause the guy is guilty as all F! After he was found not guilty, wasn't he sued by the families of the victims (I can recall exactly what for) and lost and had to pay out something like (from memory) US $30 million to those families?

Anyways, back to UM cases, after viewing the Tracey Kirkpatrick case I'll throw this one in the mix. This should be solveable. They have the most likely murderer Don/Shawn confession voice recorded, a few other wittnesses believed it sounded like the voice of the guy living at the address the call was traced too.. all UM mentioned was that the guy's name at that address wasn't Don or Shawn, surely UM is leaving something out here??

Since y'all are having fun (or your head is expoding...either one) discussing the O.J. trial, I just thought I'd mention that Chris Darden is scheduled to be on Oprah tomorrow (February 9, 2006). It could be an interesting interview, but then again it's Oprah, so you never know what you're going to get.

Thanks for that heads up, nohwheregirl. I almost never watch Oprah but I did that day. Chris Darden was very candid about the failures of the prosecution and how the verdict still impacts him. I didn't realize he is now a criminal defense attorney after being fired from his job as prosecutor. He hinted very strongly that with that jury the verdict was sealed early, especially after the Fuhrman n-word debacle.

Darden is now married with an 8 year old boy who he hasn't told about the O.J. case. Oprah thought that was amazing and the wrong approach. But the case and O.J.'s freedom bother Darden so much he joked he might not talk about it to his son, "until he's 25."

Thanks for that heads up, nohwheregirl. I almost never watch Oprah but I did that day. Chris Darden was very candid about the failures of the prosecution and how the verdict still impacts him. I didn't realize he is now a criminal defense attorney after being fired from his job as prosecutor. He hinted very strongly that with that jury the verdict was sealed early, especially after the Fuhrman n-word debacle.

Darden is now married with an 8 year old boy who he hasn't told about the O.J. case. Oprah thought that was amazing and the wrong approach. But the case and O.J.'s freedom bother Darden so much he joked he might not talk about it to his son, "until he's 25."
As a matter of fact, I also have Chris' book that he wrote abt their failure as prosecutors and he pretty much reiterates alot of what Mr. Bugliosi wrote in his book. Those are two very interesting books.