All Episodes Talk: 48 Hours

[Lizzing]

2 hours ago, Steph J said:

Second of all, "I haven't used that word [the n-word] in 20 years." So... 1997?

It took him two years after Mark Fuhrman went down in flames over use of the term to learn not to be a dick and stop saying it?  A cop that stupid probably couldn't find his own ass with a map and a troop of eagle scouts to help.

I didn't catch it, so correct me if I did, but I was curious if the cops ever ran the 5 DNA profiles that they have now on the real perps through NCIC.  Rapists typically don't just go on one spree and call it a day, so I'd assume that they'd keep on offending (and someone clearly did since similar crimes happened after the innocent guys were jailed).  Barring a statue of limitations problem, the real perps could still be imprisoned.

[walnutqueen]

Once again, we see a cop stubbornly clinging to his absolute conviction that the guys he helped falsely convict are guilty, despite definitive DNA exoneration and the prosecutors & State admitting it was a wrongful conviction.  Asshole.

[txhorns79]

Quote

Second of all, "I haven't used that word [the n-word] in 20 years." So... 1997?

I did feel like the editing when they were speaking to him was a little off.  It looked like there were a few times when he was cut off before he finished giving whatever answer he was giving.  Even his response on the n-word was strange.  It felt a little to me like he was just asked if ever used that word, and it was edited to make it seem like he was speaking directly about this case. 

Honestly, I felt like this whole thing was more about tunnel vision than race.  After all, you had a black prosecutor who until the last year was fighting very hard to keep the verdict in place, and you often see the pattern of prosecutors who are very reluctant to admit that they are wrong as to anything.                 

[starri]

Can I just say that Maureen won my love forever by telling Darryl she'd hold his stuff because he'd need his arms to hug people.?

[ByaNose]

13 hours ago, Steph J said:

"Guilty Until Proven Innocent." First of all, that wig. Second of all, "I haven't used that word [the n-word] in 20 years." So... 1997?

It's so odd that the guy with the bad wig never served any time. That wig alone is a crime against the wig industry. I say throw the wig and him in jail for at least 20 years to life. That said, the whole story was crazy. If the DNA says they are innocent they should all have been released. Then there is the other side with the victims. I wonder how they feel. What they had to endure from the get go was awful and now with the release of the men does this disprove their story that these were the actual perpetrators? 

[starri]

I could have cheered when the Black Screen of Justice said that they were going to name Mo Howard Wig specifically in their lawsuit.

We've had a great report from Tracy Smith, two good ones from Erin, and another great one from Maureen in the last month.  Maybe 48 Hours just needs to let the women take over.

[txhorns79]

Quote

If the DNA says they are innocent they should all have been released. Then there is the other side with the victims. I wonder how they feel. What they had to endure from the get go was awful and now with the release of the men does this disprove their story that these were the actual perpetrators? 

I was curious how the victim felt given apparently a lot of the case rested on her ID of one of the guys she saw in court.  It's an interesting case.  I've read about cases where DNA might clear someone who was previously found guilty, and the prosecutors will simply amend their theory of the claim to suggest the person acted in concert with the unknown third party. 

Quote

I could have cheered when the Black Screen of Justice said that they were going to name Mo Howard Wig specifically in their lawsuit.

 

 

What would they sue him for?  I mean, obviously, he is very wrong to keep insisting that these are the guys who committed the crime, even after everything, but I can see how one could legitimately investigate the case, using the tools he had in the 1980s, and end up with his conclusion.  There's no suggestion that he did something untoward with his investigation, i.e. hiding evidence, using illegal methods to get a false confession, etc.   

[biakbiak]

4 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

 

Honestly, I felt like this whole thing was more about tunnel vision than race.  After all, you had a black prosecutor who until the last year was fighting very hard to keep the verdict in place, and you often see the pattern of prosecutors who are very reluctant to admit that they are wrong as to anything.                 

But didn't that black prosecuter just get into the position and after he actually read the entire case file acknowledged that the witness id was very problematic and no that none of the guys would have been convicted without it. It seemed his initial statement was knee-jerk and that he didn't have all the information. Also, black people can be racial biased against black people. 

A lot of prosecuters and cops feel protecting their departments is more important regardless of the actual evidence because a united fronts are important to their jobs particularly in cases where lawsuits are on the horizon.

[txhorns79]

Quote

But didn't that black prosecutor just get into the position and after he actually read the entire case file acknowledged that the witness id was very problematic and no that none of the guys would have been convicted without it. It seemed his initial statement was knee-jerk and that he didn't have all the information. Also, black people can be racial biased against black people. 

I believe he gained the office in 1993.   

[biakbiak]

10 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I believe he gained the office in 1993.   

1993? I could have sworn they said he was new and actually not that familiar with the case and he clearly wasn't the prosecuter for this case. Guess I should pay more attention.

[txhorns79]

Quote

1993? I could have sworn they said he was new

According to the state, he took office in December 1993. 

[biakbiak]

16 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

According to the state, he took office in December 1993. 

Thank you! But that leaves me so confused and makes me think thry do have a case for wrongful conviction. Also, he looks great for his age!

[Court]

On 2/5/2017 at 5:59 AM, walnutqueen said:

Once again, we see a cop stubbornly clinging to his absolute conviction that the guys he helped falsely convict are guilty, despite definitive DNA exoneration and the prosecutors & State admitting it was a wrongful conviction.  Asshole.

I agree. It should have never gone to trial. I can't see how the jury could have convicted them. 

Witness ID has been proven unreliable over and over again.

[Christina]

I can see how they got convicted, because DNA was new back then and the prosecution was saying that the blood serum matched, the victim was saying one of the men was her attacker, and they were wearing the coveralls that belonged to the men. The jury could have been easily confused by the DNA testimony back then. The State should have known better, though, so I hope they get a large settlement since there is no way to reimburse them the years that they lost.

[CaughtOnTape]

"So he went back to Luria brothers...and found a fifth suspect."

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!!?!?  ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?!?!?

He hung out with them once or twice....so of course it was him.  This detective was an asshole.

The DNA didn't match and they were still convicted?  I can't...

Ugh...cried so hard when they hugged each other after Pinkins was released.  So.Hard!

[Ohmo]

On 2/1/2017 at 6:14 AM, txhorns79 said:

I don't think it is an excuse, so much as an explanation.  If you prey on desperate or emotionally unstable people with your scams, it's not shocking or surprising that it may end up blowing up badly in your face.  It's a very dangerous thing to be doing.     

I would have liked to have seen more about Kay's past, since they kind of tease it may have been an issue here, but they never really delve into it.           

I'm about halfway through this episode, and I can't say I feel too sorry for Kay.  I'd replace the word DESERVE with EXPECT.  Kay's murder is not unexpected, and yeah, I do think if that's the way she chose to live her life, she also needed to expect the possibility that harm would come to her.  It's not just the sex fetish stuff either.  Kay was into that, she married four times, she liked to be the arm candy of very rich men, she liked hanging out in casinos (to find rich men), and she liked to have affairs with guys on the side while she was married.  All of that, taken together, is risky behavior that Kay chose to engage in.  Her lifestyle invited a certain amount of risk, and hey, if that made her happy, so be it.  However, she also has to own that he appetite for risk means that certain people come into her sphere, and it doesn't at all surprise me that she could have pissed off someone who knew a hitman.

Kay reminds me of Paige Bergdahl, the young mother who everyone thought was a soccer mom, but she was actually a high-priced escort.  She was killed by one of her clients.  She also played with fire, and it cost her.  If people want the high rewards from those risks, I think they need to also accept that they are choosing to put themselves in harm's way to get those rewards.

ETA:  I've now watched the whole episode.  I agree with the FBI profiler that a hitman could have done the crime, and a woman could have written the note.  That one woman is also a possibility.  However. I also wonder if the hitman could have made the note to make it seem as though a woman put it together.

Edited February 11, 2017 by Ohmo

[walnutqueen]

See, this is still rather problemtic for me.  Because kinky underwear, marrying 4 times, having affairs and even being arm candy for rich men may be risky behavior, but should not rise to the level of expecting to pay for it with one's life.  If it weren't for very bad men (yes I know, there are also some very bad women out there, too), who are attracted to, reward and even demand this behavior from women - this woudn't be an issue of victim blaming & slut shaming.  Because, where is the shaming/blaming of the creepazoid men who create this unsafe world for women?

[Ohmo]

1 hour ago, walnutqueen said:

Because, where is the shaming/blaming of the creepazoid men who create this unsafe world for women?

I never said that the creepy men (and creepy women) who commit crimes aren't to blame, but I don't think all victims are created equal either.   There's a difference in making a mistake (as all people are prone to do) and being unfortunate enough to end up paying for it with your life vs. a person who repeatedly engages in risky behavior.  If you decide that you want to do something risky, and you continue to do it, then yes, I think you are owning some of the possibility that something bad might happen to you.  I'm not even solely talking about bad in terms of crime, either.  You know that circus accident that just happened in Florida?  Same principle.  No one died in the accident, but if they had, yes, I do think they would have owned some of the responsibility for their deaths.  No one HAS to walk on a high wire.  No one HAS to drive a race car.  If a person wants to do that, fine, but let's not pretend that's a completely safe activity.  There's a high rate of risk involved.  If you are choosing to do that, there is a decent probability that you will become a victim of that risk.  You are also choosing to take that risk.

In terms of crime, "the whole if it weren't for very bad men" thing bugs me.  The world would be a whole lot different if it weren't for a lot of things.  There are very bad men that exist and there are very bad women that exist.  You're absolutely right that they shouldn't be able to commit crimes, but this is not about what shouldn't happen.  It's simply a matter of what is.  There is crime in the world.  There just is, and there always will be, and some situations invite more crime than others.  All of that risky behavior that Kay was doing (plus it wasn't exactly clear if she was also involved in her husband's shady business dealings) is more likely to involve people that will commit crimes than say, selling Girl Scout cookies at a lemonade stand.  Kay was a part of that world for a while, so yes, I think she assumed part of that risk because she continued to participate in it.  Just like a person who goes to a party where people who use drugs will also be.  If they are there, the drugs are more likely to be there.  If a person chooses to take drugs at that party and overdoses, they bear some of that decision. 

[walnutqueen]

Guess I'm not seeing how Kay's behavior is so fucking RISKY.  "Kinky" clothes were found in her closet.  She married a few times and had affairs (as many , including the man America elected, have done).  Rich men's (with shady business dealings) arm candy?  Checkmate "first lady".

Whatever, at this point, I don't even remember the show, I'm just arguing a MOO point. [/Joey]

And I firmly stand behind my "very bad men" stance, because history, current events and statistics bear out my own experiences.

Edited February 12, 2017 by walnutqueen
proper punctuation is as important as spelling, in my fantasy world

[walnutqueen]

OK - super secret witness in the upcomng Durst trial?  Am I the only crime junkie just a wee bit titillated by that nugget?  (i"m sure I'll be disappointed, but STILL ...).

[starri]

I started a thread for it over in the True Crime forum.  I think Durst is a bit broader than we can do justice to here.

I hate Jeanine Pirro's politics, and I'm sure she only started going after him so hard to raise her profile for her failed Senate and Attorney General runs, but I do honestly believe that she hates that she couldn't get him.

[walnutqueen]

1 hour ago, starri said:

I started a thread for it over in the True Crime forum.  I think Durst is a bit broader than we can do justice to here.

I hate Jeanine Pirro's politics, and I'm sure she only started going after him so hard to raise her profile for her failed Senate and Attorney General runs, but I do honestly believe that she hates that she couldn't get him.

Cool, starri!   I'll see you there ...

[txhorns79]

Quote

I hate Jeanine Pirro's politics, and I'm sure she only started going after him so hard to raise her profile for her failed Senate and Attorney General runs, but I do honestly believe that she hates that she couldn't get him.

I'm sure she hates it.  She restarted the whole mess, and it makes her look ineffective not to have been able to get him. 

[starri]

It's always the husband, it's always the husband, it's always the husband. 

[patty1h]

I drifted in and out of sleep during this one - I think I recall hearing that the doctor had 5 life insurance policies.  Were those all taken out by her personally or did the husband open them on the sneak, in anticipation of the murder?   I can sort of understand if the doctor opened them all, probably for the care of her children,   If the husband got the policies, I can only guess he is dumb as dirt - cops would be all over that kind of evidence as motive.

[txhorns79]

Quote

Were those all taken out by her personally or did the husband open them on the sneak, in anticipation of the murder?   I can sort of understand if the doctor opened them all, probably for the care of her children,   If the husband got the policies, I can only guess he is dumb as dirt - cops would be all over that kind of evidence as motive.

They never specified, which made me think that the doctor was likely aware of them.  I kind of felt like this entire episode was premature, since they've arrested the husband and laid out how he could have done it, but it also sounds like the case is currently resting on the testimony of a co-conspirator who took a plea.  That seems shaky, in terms of a verdict. 

[ByaNose]

I will say that the husbands doppelgänger is a new added twist. I mean I know it's always the husband but I appreciated a new take. Anyway, I'm sure it was the husband who planned it and he was conveniently out of town for the murder with the kids.

[LakeGal]

I believe it was the husband.  I also hate to blame the victim.  But she did not seem to be very likeable. 

[psychoticstate]

Can we please not bring politics or Trump bashing into these discussions?  Please.

I just watched the episode on the Kay Wernal murder and I'm with the majority of you.  I wish this had been a 2 hour episode.  

I differ with some of you in that while the crime scene was remarkably clean in the sense the killer didn't appear to track blood, leave fingerprints, hair or fibers, I'm having a hard time with the hit man theory.  Who would order a hit and why?   The husband could benefit if there was a substantial amount of life insurance, which I don't recall being discussed.  But most hit men would use a gun.  It's quick, it's not as messy and it doesn't require any up close and personal.  I would think if a hit man was in play that the person contracting the hit would request that she be killed in such a violent manner.  Which of course suggests someone close to her who has a massive grudge. 

I also think if a hit man was involved it doesn't make sense that the person would be working in connection with someone else, possibly a woman, who would send a letter.  I just don't buy that. 

I also think while it's unlikely, there is the possibility that a woman could have killed Kay.  It sounds as though she was blitzed at the front door.  A woman could have punched her in the face; a bloody nose and/or mouth can bleed quite a lot.  If Kay then ran for the kitchen, turning her back on her assailant while attempting to get the phone, anyone - - man or woman - - could have come up behind her and cut her throat, especially if the attacker was as tall as or taller than Kay.  Such an attack would also prevent the killer from getting much blood on them as the blood would have gone away from their direction. 

I don't think the husband was involved.  He seemed genuine, he had an alibi and didn't seem to have a motive.  If he was involved, why hire a group of private investigators to probe into it, especially when the local PD was strained?  

I also think killing Kay, and in the way she was killed, in order to get back at her husband is a stretch.  He wasn't threatened, there was no note sent to him so I just don't see it. 

I think it's more likely that a woman did it or had it done.  It's very personal, it's very brutal.  It's very much like Nicole Brown Simpson's murder, which was a rage killing.  I think it's possible that the investigation may have skirted this person and out of fear, she wrote the red herring letter in order to cast suspicion on a non-existent affair. 

The bloody towel upstairs stumps me.  The only thing I can speculate is that the killer went upstairs to retrieve something, either as a trophy or something that had sentimental value to her/him.  The killer probably pulled off the latex gloves in the hallway and stuffed them into a pocket since none were found.  Blood may have gotten on her/his hands and the towel was used to wipe them.  Either the killer set the towel down and forgot or just didn't care about it.

I would love to see this case solved. 

[JaggedLilPill]

Anyone watch Saturday's two-part episode about stalking? I felt bad for all the women involved, including Pauley Perrette. 

It sickens me that even with emails and tweets, voicemails, et. cetera, most members of law enforcement won't do anything or claim that they can't until the person is physically harmed. I can't remember if it was Pauley or Lenore or the lawyer who got told that she should have let her stalker break her arms so that then they could arrest him? WTF? Yeah....that sounds like something any sane and/or rational person wants to do!

And restraining orders seem pointless as they'll either ignore them or do what the one guy did and park 105 feet away. 

They really do need to change the stalking laws.

I was a little annoyed at the one guy's mom, but she did admit that she can't completely know that he won't do anything to harm these women that he stalks, so I guess that's something. But she still sends him money and enables him to travel and such. 

[CelticBlackCat]

23 minutes ago, JaggedLilPill said:

Anyone watch Saturday's two-part episode about stalking? I felt bad for all the women involved, including Pauley Perrette.

I watched the first hour only, as I really like Pauley Perrette.  It's ridiculous the way the stalking victims are given the brush off by LE.  I switched channels to watch Dateline after seeing the next hour was going to be Erin Moriarty driving around and stalking the crazy stalker and giving him even more publicity.  I don't know what happened because I didn't watch.

[LDHW]

Quote

On 2/22/2017 at 0:44 PM, psychoticstate said:

Can we please not bring politics or Trump bashing into these discussions?  Please.

 

This!

I've noticed comments, here and there, throughout the forums I read...which is a lot.  

[CaughtOnTape]

On 2/27/2017 at 2:50 PM, JaggedLilPill said:

And restraining orders seem pointless as they'll either ignore them or do what the one guy did and park 105 feet away. 

I always remember that line from Enough when Jennifer Lopez asked the police officer what she was supposed to do when her abusive, asshole ex-husband broke it "It's a piece of paper?"  "Yeah"  "And what does she do when he breaks it?  Throw it at him?"

The saddest thing about Christina Grimmie is that she walked towards him with her arms out in anticipation of a hug.  

Stalking needs to be a much bigger crime.  You're not just a nuisance, you're scaring the shit out of someone.  You're changing their entire life and the lives of those around them.  You change their personality and how they live life.  They need to be put in an institution and treated before they kill someone.  The fact that Justin Massler exists without anyone having thrown him in jail yet is sad.

[JaggedLilPill]

8 minutes ago, CaughtOnTape said:

I always remember that line from Enough when Jennifer Lopez asked the police officer what she was supposed to do when her abusive, asshole ex-husband broke it "It's a piece of paper?"  "Yeah"  "And what does she do when he breaks it?  Throw it at him?"

The saddest thing about Christina Grimmie is that she walked towards him with her arms out in anticipation of a hug.  

Stalking needs to be a much bigger crime.  You're not just a nuisance, you're scaring the shit out of someone.  You're changing their entire life and the lives of those around them.  You change their personality and how they live life.  They need to be put in an institution and treated before they kill someone.  The fact that Justin Massler exists without anyone having thrown him in jail yet is sad.

I remember that movie and that line.

Ugh, that poor poor girl. She had no idea what he had planned. 

I agree. It does need to be bigger. The fact that the law seems to regard it as a nuisance is frightening. And the victim shaming is also disgusting. Instead of trying to protect the lawyer, they just lecture her about the dangers of online dating. And that is supposed to help her how exactly?

Justin Massler seems like a ticking time bomb. His skype call with Erin was....alarming to say the least. 

[Calamity Jane]

The laws on stalking are hopelessly archaic.  Just the fact that the first thing police recommend is a TRO, even when violence has been threatened or committed, shows an astounding lack of understanding of the dynamic involved in stalking.  In the case of a violent stalker, a TRO usually only serves to rev up the stalker and present him a kind of challenge to overcome.  Gavin deBecker, whose job is keeping stalked clients safe, explains it in his book, and vigorously advocates against obtaining a TRO when violence has been threatened because it will almost always escalate a potentially violent stalker to worse, sometimes lethal, behavior.  It's disheartening to see police still telling everyone who feels unsafe to obtain one.  It is a measure of how toothless the law is in this area.  In a society where we don't arrest people for what we think they may do, but rather for what they have done, it gets complicated.  But perhaps we need to take people's words more literally and decide that threatening violence is more serious than we do now.  

[walnutqueen]

Watch "Tickled" (HBO, yo) to see what a non-violent, non-threatening millionaire can do to ruin your life, every fucking day, with impunity.

[walnutqueen]

Oh shit.  Abduct, rape and slit the throat of a little 8 year old girl.  Get caught 27 years later and kill yourself after confessing.  Somebody's going to follow you to Hell just to kick your ass (probably before I get there, goddammit).

[Madding crowd]

My DVR cut off before the end. Did this guy kill himself at the police station somehow? Sick story.

[JasminePhyllisia]

Sad story, amazingly strong child (and woman.)  It bothers me that it took so long to solve the case, he was a neighbor at the time. She gave his actual first name, that should have narrowed things down quite a bit. 

[patty1h]

I didn't get the last 10-15 minutes either;  I saw this monster start to confess then it cut off.   When I watch these reality crime shows, I'm always curious what makes the criminal do the crime.  Did he say why he decided to be a piece of human garbage - did he say he was drunk or strung out or has a mental illness, or did he use the cop-out "I don't know why I did it".  

I hate the "I don't know" - that angers me as much as the crime.  Be truthful and say what was going through your mind while you were driving around with a child.  Say that you are a sexual predator who saw an opportunity and used it to rape and then murder, so as to not have a witness to your horrible crime.  Why obfuscate after the fact and after they've been caught - own up!  I guess they try to convince themselves that they're not a monster by not voicing their real motivations and the depths of their soullessness.  No sir, you ARE a monster.   Hope he rots in hell.

[Madding crowd]

I wondered what made him tick too- he was talking like he was a young man who maybe did drugs and minor crimes while he was young, not rape and try to kill a little girl. I wonder what his life was like after this happened. Monsters like him don't just stop everything and have a normal life but that is what it seems here. I have lots of respect for Jennifer and how strong she has been over the years.

[JaggedLilPill]

43 minutes ago, patty1h said:

Did he say why he decided to be a piece of human garbage - did he say he was drunk or strung out or has a mental illness, or did he use the cop-out "I don't know why I did it".  

He said he didn't know why he did it. RME.

Jennifer was so brave and strong, and I'm glad to see that she's happy. I wanted her to get her moment in court, but the coward killed himself, which I had a feeling he'd do.

At least she got some sense of closure when she went to his grave and the ant bit her, and she figured that meant he was listening.

I wonder how much guilt her mom had. Not that she could have known what would happen. But still. The one time she asks her daughter to go back to her room and look what happens.

I was so impressed by all the details Jennifer remembered and gave to the police. A lot of adults probably wouldn't remember that much and the sketch artist was dead on with her sketch.

[mythoughtis]

FYI - the Adams County prosecuter named Lovelace was retried and aquitted this week of murdering his wife

Edited March 13, 2017 by mythoughtis

[Ohmo]

12 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

FYI - the Adams County prosecuter named Lovelace was retried and aquitted this week of murdering his wife

That name rings a bell, but I'm totally blanking on the case.  Will have to Google.

I'm way behind with my crime tv.  Just watched the Stephen Schwartz case, and there's no doubt in my mind that Becky was somehow involved.  I can't tell about Leo.  He could have been involved, but he also comes across as believable to me.

Have watched part of the stalking episode.  I remember reading an article several years ago where Pauley said that she had considered leaving NCIS and moving to Europe to try and increase the distance from her stalker.  Then, I believe he went to jail for some reason, and talk of Pauley leaving the show stopped.

[UsernameFatigue]

13 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

FYI - the Adams County prosecuter named Lovelace was retried and aquitted this week of murdering his wife

I had to google this as well as could not remember the case. Was not one of the reasons he was charged with murder is because she was found dead with her arms up and out in an unnatural position? (ie he had left the pillow he smothered her with under her arms and rigor set in?) The defense claimed that she died of natural causes related to liver disease. Would the coroner not have had to rule the death a homicide for him to be charged in the first place? Apparently the jury came back with their verdict in just over two hours. I hope a follow up is done on this case to find out how the jury came to their very swift decision.

[mythoughtis]

There was a second coroner - that one ruled it homicide. The first coroner( whose decisions in several cases have been questionable) did not. Lovelace testified in this second trial, not in the first one. 

[UsernameFatigue]

Bits and pieces are coming back to me now. From what I remember the kids also said that their mom was sitting on the stairs when they left for school, so supposedly she could not have been dead when they left. But the paramedics said that when they arrived rigor had already set in, which could not have happened in the short time between when the kids left for school and hubby dearest found her when he returned. I really hope 48hrs does a follow up.

[Ohmo]

1 hour ago, UsernameFatigue said:

Bits and pieces are coming back to me now. From what I remember the kids also said that their mom was sitting on the stairs when they left for school, so supposedly she could not have been dead when they left. But the paramedics said that when they arrived rigor had already set in, which could not have happened in the short time between when the kids left for school and hubby dearest found her when he returned. I really hope 48hrs does a follow up.

Yeah, haven't had time to Google yet, but these details seem familiar.  Wasn't it an older home?  (I'm remembering a staircase that had a lot of wood.)  The youngest child was at home when the mom died because he was only like 2-3 years old?  I'm also remembering a second wife.

In any case, I'm also hoping for a follow-up.

[Ohmo]

7 hours ago, UsernameFatigue said:

Bits and pieces are coming back to me now. From what I remember the kids also said that their mom was sitting on the stairs when they left for school, so supposedly she could not have been dead when they left. But the paramedics said that when they arrived rigor had already set in, which could not have happened in the short time between when the kids left for school and hubby dearest found her when he returned. I really hope 48hrs does a follow up.

Ex-Prosecutor Found Not Guilty in Retrial for Wife’s Alleged Suffocation

Once I read this, the details started coming back to me.  I forgot that he had married twice since Cory's death.

Apparently, they had a change of venue for the re-trial.

[walnutqueen]

12 hours ago, Ohmo said:

Apparently, they had a change of venue for the re-trial.

And had OJ's original jurors ...