Thirteen years to the day after what many still believe was the biggest miscarriage of justice in modern American history, the man who got away with murder(s) has been found guilty of crimes that could put him away for the rest of his life. 

Capping a prosecution that has at times felt an effort to right the perceived wrongs of that Marcia Clark clusterfudge, a Las Vegas jury has convicted Hall of Fame NFL running back O.J. Simpson on all counts arising from that goofy armed raid on a hotel room containing sports memorabilia.

After the verdict, authorities immediately took Simpson into custody.  The judge, Jackie Glass, will announce Simpson’s sentence on December 5.

Judge Glass denied a motion to release Simpson on bail.

Though jurors were instructed by the Court to put aside the double-murder trial that resulted in an acquittal of Simpson.  But could anyone really do that?  Nearly everyone in the country had an opinion about whether Simpson killed his ex-wife and her friend, and a lot of them were convinced on his guilt.  Such feelings would make it much easier to justify putting him away now, given the belief that he should have been put away a long time ago.

Remember this:  A jury at a civil trial later found Simpson responsible for the killings, under the lower standard of proof known as “preponderance of the evidence.”  Criminal trials require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, under the theory that it’s better for ten guilty men to go free than it is for one innocent man to be convicted.

In this case, it’s possible the man who was guilty the last time around and went free was innocent this time, but nevertheless convicted.