The case of the Crown vs. George has been compared to the American case of the People vs. (O.J.) Simpson, the ex-professional football player charged in the truly gruesome murders of his ex-wife and a man who had the fatal misfortunate of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If there are any parallels in the two cases, they certainly end with their verdicts: whereas Simpson was acquitted, George wasn't. For the non-Brit unfamiliar with the case, author Scott Lomax poses some troubling - if not fearsome - possibilities that Barry George may be a wrongfully convicted man for more than a couple of reasons, chief among them a "threshhold" criminal investigation fueled by a public outcry for conviction, and a media that might have predisposed public opinion to a presumption of George's guilt. If the chance that a wrongfully convicted man remains imprisoned exists, its tragedy is compounded by another of Lomax' theories: that the victim, TV personality Jill Dando, might not even have been the intended victim and her killer presumably remains at large. Lomax risks much - professionally and personally - in this expose that doesn't pander to the public's presumption of guilt and instead takes a courageous stand to challenge it. If Lomax is correct that the elements of a "miscarriage of justice" converged to convict an innocent man, George's case is a shameful commentary on the investigative, court and jury systems, and it demands reversal. In an American courtroom, the evidence against George as Lomax dismantles it would - hopefully - constitute reasonable doubt, thereby requiring acquittal. There's plenty of reasonable doubt about George's guilt in Lomax' book, and his work deserves not only a read by those still enthralled by the Dando case but by the architects of a very, very possible unjustice to her convicted killer.