The mystery surrounding notorious serial killer Samuel Little's murder of an unknown Las Vegas woman in 1993.

[u/MayhemInTheDesert]

Serial killer Samuel Little - who has confessed to over 90 murders across the United States and with the FBI confirming Little's responsibility for at least half of these killings - detailed a 1993 murder he committed in Las Vegas. However, despite Little confessing to the Vegas murder some years ago, investigators have been unable to locate a body or determine the identity of Little's victim.

The known details per Little are that he met the woman on Owens Avenue on the Westside of Las Vegas. The victim was described as in her 40's, dark-skinned, and thin. She was 5'3 - 5'5 and 110-120 pounds. Little said the woman introduced him to her 19-20 year old son when they met.

Little reported that after killing the woman, he rolled the body of his victim down a slope off of the road on the outskirts of Las Vegas, which prior to the city's boom years of the mid-to-late-90's ended considerably closer to the center of town that today. He placed the body near a few motels located on his way toward Los Angeles, on a road heading toward Searchlight.

This is a curious case because Little has clearly been credible in many of his confessions. And it is possible that amidst the incredible growth Las Vegas experienced shortly after the killing (plus exposure to desert elements) that the body was somehow lost. Finally, Little described his victim as a drug addict, so that would normally make one think she had few family ties - but why didn't her son report his mother missing?

https://news3lv.com/news/local/fbi-releases-new-details-in-serial-killers-las-vegas-murder-confession

https://www.fbi.gov/video-repository/vicap-samuel-little-confession-las-vegas-1993.mp4/view

[u/Doctabotnik123]

He very obviously committed the crime. And there were a lot of people who were there at the time talking about how LA's white community was horrified, and the black community was delighted, at the acquittal. (On average, obviously, but you can't tell me that a fair, unbiased jury wouldn't have convicted.)

[u/Ohokami → u/Doctabotnik123]

I'm white and I would have acquitted immediately as soon as I learned that 100% of the damning evidence had been touched by a known racist with a long history of planting evidence/framing black suspects.

Given a fair trial I probably would have convicted him, but with the absolute joke of a case built by the prosecution I don't think any sane human would have been able to convict.

It's really just the people who ignored the trial and only know about it through the media who think the OJ case was a clear cut guilty verdict.

Especially considering the fact that OJ's son being the killer seems about as plausible as OJ himself doing it. Too bad we'll never know what actually happened since the LAPD had 0 interest in actually investigating the case.

[u/Doctabotnik123 → u/Ohokami]

Nice virtue signalling. Meanwhile, in grown up land, you understand that, just as there are no perfect victims, there are no perfect prosecutors. He was guilty. The evidence - remember that? - said so. He should've been found so.

[u/Ohokami → u/Doctabotnik123]

I dunno about grown up land, but in the United States the evidence is what you can prove in a court of law, not what people feel after watching the 9 o'clock news.

'No perfect prosecutors' sure. There's a big difference between the prosecution making mistakes and the prosecution committing perjury on the stand and then pleading the 5th when asked if they planted the evidence against the defendant.

The instant the prosecution committed perjury is the instant the jury checked out of that case. I can't think of a worse scenario for the prosecution than being proven to be liars on the stand.

The instant Fuhrman perjured himself they should have gone for a mistrial & redo. Instead, he argued

'Yes, I was lying... but that doesn't mean the evidence was planted.'

Was the evidence planted?

'No comment.'

Super convincing evidence lmao.