Marcellus Williams' imminent execution

[dudalb]

No one is arguing that the guy was not a ciminal who dersreves to be in prison, questinn is if he commited a crime worthy of the death penalty. There is real doubt here.
And,no I do not think executing someone on a "BOdy of Work" idea is a good idea.

 

[dudalb]

He had 16 felony convictions, mulitple armed robberies, and was in jail on a 20 year sentence for robbery when he was charged with this crime. Stabbing a woman 43 times to death. During his many stints in prison, he amassed over 100 violations, with verbal and physical fights with inmates and correction officers at the time of this conviction.

I am indifferent to the death penalty, but I don't think people even realize the person this man was.

No one is arguing the guy does not deserve to be in prison, question is is the evidence that he commited a capital crime airtight. I don't think it is.
He probably deserves to be in Prison for the rest of his life, he seems hard core, but still don't think he rates the death penalty

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Forensic evidence, part 2; request for a continuance

When confronted by trace evidence that points to someone else, a standard prosecution evasive maneuver is to claim that the evidence got there via innocent transfer. A good general rebuttal is, then why did law enforcement bother to collect it in the first place? Specifically with respect to this case, finding hair in multiple places is problematic for the prosecution's claim, especially since some were pubic hairs.

With respect to the DNA testing and to the fingermarks, the Midwest Innocence Project wrote circa 2017: "Despite repeated requests from trial counsel for a continuance for DNA testing, no DNA testing was conducted on the knife at the time of trial. All other forensic evidence collected at the time of the crime excluded Mr. Williams; forensic analysis confirmed that hairs and footprints collected from the scene did not come from Mr. Williams. Trial counsel also sought analysis of bloody fingerprints, which could have provided the identity of the perpetrator, only to learn that law enforcement had lost them…Shortly before trial, law enforcement lost bloody fingerprints on which the defense had requested testing. The trial court denied multiple defense requests for discovery as well as for DNA testing.” The Washington Post also mentioned that the fingermarks were bloody, but this is behind a paywall. Taking the correctness of this information as a given, the fingermarks had to have been made during or shortly after the crime; in other words, they are time-stamped in a way that not all trace evidence is.

ACLU Missouri’s Jeffrey Mittman was quoted in a newspaper article as saying, “In the case of Mr. Williams, his public defenders were unprepared. They were already involved in another high-profile capital murder case at the time they were representing Mr. Williams. They appropriately asked for a continuance, but were denied.” Asking for a continuance in a capital murder case sounds reasonable; denying it not so much.

EDT
The Innocence Project wrote in 24SL-CC00422, "Bloody fingerprints were found along the wall. And hairs believed to belong to the perpetrator were collected from Ms. Gayle’s t-shirt, her hands, and the floor...Mr. Williams was excluded by microscopy as the source of the hairs found near Ms. Gayle’s body (which did not match Ms. Gayle or her husband, the home’s only residents, and thus were presumably the perpetrator’s)...Two pubic hairs were discovered on the carpet where Ms. Gayle’s body was found." In a previous comment I mentioned that DNA testing was also used on one or more hairs from her shirt (link). Microscopy is a good presumptive test regarding hair identification.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

ruler and calculator found

"When police searched Williams’ car more than a year after Gayle’s death, they found a St. Louis Post-Dispatch ruler and calculator that had belonged to Gayle." APNews The victim, Lisha Gayle, had not worked for the St. Louis Post Dispatch in six years. It is unclear to me whether the ruler and the calculator were individualized in such a way that one could be certain that they were hers. Those are odd items to steal, but from what I can gather, a calculator was in Ms. Gayle's purse. I don't have enough information to draw a firm conclusion at this point.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

correction

In comment #43, I should have said that the Innocence Project posted this document, not that they wrote it. My apologies for any confusion. The document in question has much useful information on the case.

 

[rdwight]

There's a huge difference between being somehow involved with the victim and being the murderer.

Also, my problem with this jailhouse snitching is that it's information not known to the public - but presumably known to the police. How are you controlling for the possibility that th is police withheld some details from the public, but fed them to their "witness"?

Don't you have to take into account the likelihood of the scenario? Sure, anything is possible. That really is a crappy defense though. Even if you hate jailhouse snitching, you have to base a conspiracy on something besides the possibility. How did Cole correctly pick the suspect to lie about? No defense has argued Williams was a suspect before that. So we would have to believe the police both hid evidence of suspecting him, fed information to a random inmate with a connection with him, then were lucky enough that he was actually connected to the murder. Then coerced an additional witness.

History is full of weird coincidences.

Maybe take a step back and acknowledge that some crimes just aren't solvable without lay-ass dot-connecting nonsense.

Or at least acknowledge that such lazy shenanigans won't convince here.

What does that have to do with this specific case? Like, what dot connecting was done out of bounds of a normal investigation? Shouldn't we be skeptical of the more unlikely scenario, as opposed to the most straightforward one?

 

[Samson]

From the link from Chris' post
:
The crime scene was rife with physical evidence. The weapon—a kitchen knife—was left
lodged in Ms. Gayle’s neck. Bloody shoeprints were present near a knife sheath in the kitchen, in
the hallway leading to the front foyer, and on the rug near Ms. Gayle’s body. Bloody fingerprints
were found along the wall. And hairs believed to belong to the perpetrator were collected from Ms.
Gayle’s t-shirt, her hands, and the floor.
None of this physical evidence tied Mr. Williams to Ms. Gayle’s murder. Mr. Williams was
excluded as the source of the footprints, Mr. Williams was excluded by microscopy as the source
of the hairs found near Ms. Gayle’s body (which did not match Ms. Gayle or her husband, the
home’s only residents, and thus were presumably the perpetrator’s), and Mr. Williams was not
found to be the source of the fingerprints. Now, three DNA experts have reviewed the DNA testing
performed on the knife and each has independently concluded that Mr. Williams is excluded as the
source of the male DNA on the handle of the murder weapon. Ms. Gayle’s murderer left behind
considerable physical evidence. None of that physical evidence can be tied to Mr. Williams.
Prosecutors are “bound by the ethics of [their] office to inform the appropriate authority of after-
acquired or other information that casts doubt upon the correctness of the conviction.” Imbler v.
Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427 n.25 (1976). In this respect, public confidence in the justice system
is restored, not undermined, when a prosecutor is accountable for a wrongful or constitutionally
infirm conviction.
As set forth in detail below, the indirect evidence used to convict Mr. Williams has become
increasingly unreliable. This, when considered alongside the new DNA expert testimony,
undermines confidence in Mr. Williams’s conviction and accompanying death sentence. It is
significant that, to date, no court has considered the new DNA evidence. Nor has any court
Electronically Filed - ST LOUIS COUNTY - January 26, 2024 - 05:14 PM

 

[rdwight]

The overall impression I'm getting is not that people think he's necessarily innocent, but that there's enough doubt to justify not killing him. As someone else pointed out, killing someone should be reserved for lock tight, heinous crimes.

Killing him against the family's wishes can add guilt and stress to that family as well. It's not always just about Williams. Maybe the family doesn't want the thought that they played a role in his death banging around in their heads for the rest of their lives.

Between shoddy reporting that puts forward IP's defense as truth and groups like NAACP calling it a lynching of a innocent man, congress people saying things to the same effect etc, there a far more people that believe innocence than otherwise would if they knew about the case. I also don't really feel this was a slam dunk example for capital punishment. But to garner support for that position there is widespread misrepresentation of facts all purported to show innocence, not reasonable doubt. I don't mind this in a court room setting, but this stuff is far too widespread from prominent groups/news organizations/politicians.

No one is arguing that the guy was not a ciminal who dersreves to be in prison, questinn is if he commited a crime worthy of the death penalty. There is real doubt here.
And,no I do not think executing someone on a "BOdy of Work" idea is a good idea.

Body of work is more about sentencing and the likelihood of what happened. I don't believe this is a strong enough case for the death penalty, where I would rather irrefutable proof, video type etc. But I disagree that there is real doubt here. There isn't. None of the strongest evidence has been refuted with anything more than the possibility of a vast conspiracy. I don't see how that can be considered real doubt.

No one is arguing the guy does not deserve to be in prison, question is is the evidence that he commited a capital crime airtight. I don't think it is.
He probably deserves to be in Prison for the rest of his life, he seems hard core, but still don't think he rates the death penalty

Remove probably deserves and I agree.

 

[Samson]

Between shoddy reporting that puts forward IP's defense as truth and groups like NAACP calling it a lynching of a innocent man, congress people saying things to the same effect etc, there a far more people that believe innocence than otherwise would if they knew about the case. I also don't really feel this was a slam dunk example for capital punishment. But to garner support for that position there is widespread misrepresentation of facts all purported to show innocence, not reasonable doubt. I don't mind this in a court room setting, but this stuff is far too widespread from prominent groups/news organizations/politicians.



Body of work is more about sentencing and the likelihood of what happened. I don't believe this is a strong enough case for the death penalty, where I would rather irrefutable proof, video type etc. But I disagree that there is real doubt here. There isn't. None of the strongest evidence has been refuted with anything more than the possibility of a vast conspiracy. I don't see how that can be considered real doubt.



Remove probably deserves and I agree.

I am curious how you respond to the comprehensive lack of forensic evidence attaching Williams to the crime scene as listed above in my post, from the document Chris linked to, that merely replicates the submission to the court.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

shoe print

The prosecution's motion to vacate document stated, "The bloody shoe prints could not have been made by Mr. Williams, who wore a different sized shoe." It would be helpful to read the testimony, but I am inclined to take this point as a given.

The presence of bloody fingermarks undermines a claim put forward that the killer wore gloves when he or she handled the knife. The trial court should have allowed DNA testing at that time (and should have granted the defense a continuance, anyway). Those conclusions plus the destruction of the fingermark evidence might be considered in the decision to execute Mr. Williams.

 

[Samson]

So the project becomes explaining the multiple connections to the crime that are totally separate from the forensic examination of the crime scene.
This seems to be an argument from incredulity, which is a powerful force.

 

[rdwight]

"Police said they found bloody shoeprints and fingerprints, a knife sheath, and the suspect’s hair on Gayle’s shirt, hands, and the floor. The suspect left the house with Gayle’s purse and jacket, and her husband’s laptop." Michigan Chronicle I only have time for a quick comment right now. If all the hair samples were from the same individual, this weakens the argument that they arrived via innocent transfer.

When confronted by trace evidence that points to someone else, a standard prosecution evasive maneuver is to claim that the evidence got there via innocent transfer. A good general rebuttal is, then why did law enforcement bother to collect it in the first place? Specifically with respect to this case, finding hair in multiple places is problematic for the prosecution's claim, especially since some were pubic hairs.

So lets start with the hair thing. Why collect it? Because matching it to a known suspect who wouldnt otherwise be there would be important. Finding hair and testing it to find new suspects could be important. What finding the hair doesnt do is exclude suspects. We know they found hair from multiple people. That they didn't find matching hair to Williams doesn't exclude him, nor does it prove a different suspect did it. Agree?

I'd bet good money the shirt, hands and floor comment is accurate but misleading. Like, she is laying on the floor, her shirt/hands/floor having the same hair doesn't mean anything. She could be curled up holding a stab wound in her stomach on the ground. It is phrased as if she is grasping a chunk of hair in her hand to give dramatic affect. Given the source, I would need to see something far more convincing from the case file to give this description weight beyond innocent transfer. Will continue in a bit.

 

[plague311]

So lets start with the hair thing. Why collect it? Because matching it to a known suspect who wouldnt otherwise be there would be important. Finding hair and testing it to find new suspects could be important. What finding the hair doesnt do is exclude suspects. We know they found hair from multiple people. That they didn't find matching hair to Williams doesn't exclude him, nor does it prove a different suspect did it. Agree?

That's...not how it works. Williams doesn't have to prove he wasn't there, the prosecution had to prove he was there beyond a reasonable doubt. You seem to be fine with handwaving certain things away but to me it sounds like not only did the prosecution not have physical evidence, they (and the judge) went out of their way to stifle any forensic measures on the collected evidence.

Outside of any possessions Williams might have had (the ruler and calculator not even proven to be Gayle's) what evidence is there that he was at the scene? I'm genuinely asking your opinion. I'm really not seeing anything at all.

I'd bet good money the shirt, hands and floor comment is accurate but misleading. Like, she is laying on the floor, her shirt/hands/floor having the same hair doesn't mean anything. She could be curled up holding a stab wound in her stomach on the ground. It is phrased as if she is grasping a chunk of hair in her hand to give dramatic affect. Given the source, I would need to see something far more convincing from the case file to give this description weight beyond innocent transfer. Will continue in a bit.

Again, you're putting the onus on the defense while, apparently, giving the prosecution a free pass.

 

[rdwight]

With respect to the DNA testing and to the fingermarks, the Midwest Innocence Project wrote circa 2017: "Despite repeated requests from trial counsel for a continuance for DNA testing, no DNA testing was conducted on the knife at the time of trial. All other forensic evidence collected at the time of the crime excluded Mr. Williams; forensic analysis confirmed that hairs and footprints collected from the scene did not come from Mr. Williams. Trial counsel also sought analysis of bloody fingerprints, which could have provided the identity of the perpetrator, only to learn that law enforcement had lost them…Shortly before trial, law enforcement lost bloody fingerprints on which the defense had requested testing. The trial court denied multiple defense requests for discovery as well as for DNA testing.” The Washington Post also mentioned that the fingermarks were bloody, but this is behind a paywall. Taking the correctness of this information as a given, the fingermarks had to have been made during or shortly after the crime; in other words, they are time-stamped in a way that not all trace evidence is.

These are again, lies of omission. Touch/trace dna testing was not a thing that was used at the time of this trial. So when they say no DNA testing was done on the knife at the time of trial, that seems like an important thing to point out right? They tried this bloody fingerprints argument being destroyed during appeals, which was rejected. The defense questioned to detective in regards to this from what the appeals doc says so the jury at the time was not unaware either.

ACLU Missouri’s Jeffrey Mittman was quoted in a newspaper article as saying, “In the case of Mr. Williams, his public defenders were unprepared. They were already involved in another high-profile capital murder case at the time they were representing Mr. Williams. They appropriately asked for a continuance, but were denied.” Asking for a continuance in a capital murder case sounds reasonable; denying it not so much.

Look at his appeals. Which specific arguments, from his team, do you see as blaringly unprepared? As for them denying a continuance, I don't draw much from that. It's standard for defense teams to ask for them. What specific defense was unable to be performed due to it? Over 15 appeals and 25 years and no new evidence or defense has been offered.

EDT
The Innocence Project wrote in 24SL-CC00422, "Bloody fingerprints were found along the wall. And hairs believed to belong to the perpetrator were collected from Ms. Gayle’s t-shirt, her hands, and the floor...Mr. Williams was excluded by microscopy as the source of the hairs found near Ms. Gayle’s body (which did not match Ms. Gayle or her husband, the home’s only residents, and thus were presumably the perpetrator’s)...Two pubic hairs were discovered on the carpet where Ms. Gayle’s body was found." In a previous comment I mentioned that DNA testing was also used on one or more hairs from her shirt (link). Microscopy is a good presumptive test regarding hair identification.

This once again tries to paint non resident hair as an anomaly as opposed to the norm. The husband said they frequently hosted guests, so pretty easy for hair from outside those two to have collected on the carpet.

 

[rdwight]

I am curious how you respond to the comprehensive lack of forensic evidence attaching Williams to the crime scene as listed above in my post, from the document Chris linked to, that merely replicates the submission to the court.

I respond by saying he didn't leave forensic evidence. Do you feel that is the only way to secure a conviction, or that without it we can't assure guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or just in regards to the death penalty? Trying to grasp the argument your are coming from.

The prosecution's motion to vacate document stated, "The bloody shoe prints could not have been made by Mr. Williams, who wore a different sized shoe." It would be helpful to read the testimony, but I am inclined to take this point as a given.

The presence of bloody fingermarks undermines a claim put forward that the killer wore gloves when he or she handled the knife. The trial court should have allowed DNA testing at that time (and should have granted the defense a continuance, anyway). Those conclusions plus the destruction of the fingermark evidence might be considered in the decision to execute Mr. Williams.

The shoes and fingerprint and crime scene photos were some of the things the jury asked for when deliberating for those few hours. Without the original transcript to the case I can't really guess what the prosecutions reasonings were for them, or the defenses rebuttal. I don't even know how relevant different shoe size is. Is he a 12 and they were 8's? or is he a 11 and they were 9 and a halfs? Overall it seems the jury did not find it powerful enough to not go with a guilty verdict and death penalty.

So the project becomes explaining the multiple connections to the crime that are totally separate from the forensic examination of the crime scene.
This seems to be an argument from incredulity, which is a powerful force.

I just don't see the need for forensics at crime scene to convict. If the case is strong without it, should the lack of them take priority? Plenty of examples i could make up or find to this effect but in general do you agree?

That's...not how it works. Williams doesn't have to prove he wasn't there, the prosecution had to prove he was there beyond a reasonable doubt. You seem to be fine with handwaving certain things away but to me it sounds like not only did the prosecution not have physical evidence, they (and the judge) went out of their way to stifle any forensic measures on the collected evidence.

I feel like you are misunderstanding me. I am saying the defense can't prove he wasnt there because no forensics were found tying him to the case. The prosecution did prove, at the juries standard, that he was there. His confession to two people, the items in his grandfathers car and the laptop he sold. None of that has been refuted. I haven't even seen a reasonable explanation offered. If you have one, feel free to share it.

Outside of any possessions Williams might have had (the ruler and calculator not even proven to be Gayle's) what evidence is there that he was at the scene? I'm genuinely asking your opinion. I'm really not seeing anything at all.

Same answer as I said above.

 

[plague311]

I feel like you are misunderstanding me. I am saying the defense can't prove he wasnt there because no forensics were found tying him to the case. The prosecution did prove, at the juries standard, that he was there. His confession to two people, the items in his grandfathers car and the laptop he sold. None of that has been refuted. I haven't even seen a reasonable explanation offered. If you have one, feel free to share it.

The claim (posted previously in this thread) is that his girlfriend, at the time (the same one who said he confessed to her), gave him the laptop. That's a reasonable explanation. The items in the grandfathers car, if we're talking about the calculator and the ruler, can't be proven to even be hers. They're common items and she hadn't worked at the paper in 6+ years.

Also, I can't stress this enough, I'm not trying to say he's innocent. I don't know if he was or wasn't because, as you've pointed out, we don't have enough information. While the jury found him guilty, the jury only had information that was available at the time, and that the prosecution wasn't able to get dismissed. This case was 25+ years ago and we know for sure that DNA and other sciences have advanced significantly since then. The problem being that the people in charge of handling the evidence either lost or destroyed key pieces to the crime.

My only opinion is he should be alive today. Should he be in prison? Probably, but he should be alive in prison. I feel the prosecution, evidence handlers, and other personnel ****** up enough to make it so Williams couldn't provide more evidence to his innocence and as such should have been spared the death penalty.

 

[rdwight]

The claim (posted previously in this thread) is that his girlfriend, at the time (the same one who said he confessed to her), gave him the laptop. That's a reasonable explanation. The items in the grandfathers car, if we're talking about the calculator and the ruler, can't be proven to even be hers. They're common items and she hadn't worked at the paper in 6+ years.

The thing is, his cell mate pointed to him. How? How did he know to do so, and that he would be connected to it by the laptop? The defense to it is that he wanted the reward, and was a liar, criminal etc, but Williams wasn't a suspect, so I can't conceive of how it would happen without a conspiracy. Police say they provided non public info, the IP disagrees by adding "or known by police" to imply they were fed info but I haven't seen any reporting about Williams, or any indication police were aware of him, his grandfather's car or the pawned laptop.

On his gf giving him the laptop, I just can't see that as a defense when the statement comes from him when selling a stolen item from a murder scene. His gf was a prostitute so it's not like she would change to burglary if she needed money, so that would mean she had to have known the actual killer, protected him, and framed Williams for a crime he wasn't charged with in advance and then repeatedly tried not to discuss with police. It's just too far fetched to me. The defense did try it, but the jury didn't buy it either.

Also, I can't stress this enough, I'm not trying to say he's innocent. I don't know if he was or wasn't because, as you've pointed out, we don't have enough information. While the jury found him guilty, the jury only had information that was available at the time, and that the prosecution wasn't able to get dismissed. This case was 25+ years ago and we know for sure that DNA and other sciences have advanced significantly since then. The problem being that the people in charge of handling the evidence either lost or destroyed key pieces to the crime.

Thanks for clarifying again. I understand the position and am sympathetic in broad strokes. I just disagree with the level of doubt portion but that's all degree so not even my biggest complaint. Honestly I just hate how cases like these are portrayed these days in media and by prominent people and groups. Each time it erodes trust and in general basically pins all involved on the law enforcement/judges/prosecutors/jury as heartless, racist and evil, on the side that is actually putting away criminals.

Most people's only interaction with these cases will be with information uncritically shared from a defense team by the press. It has never been this bad, and the cases that used to be obvious examples of wrongful conviction have now stretched to ones that deify obviously guilty career criminals. I don't think that is a positive direction.

 

[plague311]

The thing is, his cell mate pointed to him. How? How did he know to do so, and that he would be connected to it by the laptop?

That's the thing with jailhouse confessions, we don't know. He could have said things about the crime to his bunkie just from what he knew. Especially if, say, his girlfriend or someone she knew killed the girl. She could have passed on any of that information and then, in an attempt to look bad ass, Williams played it off as him...or he didn't and the bunkie just wanted some money. I don't know. It's extremely hard to tell.

His gf was a prostitute so it's not like she would change to burglary if she needed money,

Did you mean "wouldn't" here? Because I don't find it all that tough of a leap to think that a prostitute would steal a laptop. Especially if it were from a John that offered it to her as payment for services rendered or he just passed out and she snagged it. I wasn't aware she was a prostitute, that kind of opens a few doors as to how she got stolen merchandise.

so that would mean she had to have known the actual killer, protected him, and framed Williams for a crime he wasn't charged with in advance and then repeatedly tried not to discuss with police. It's just too far fetched to me. The defense did try it, but the jury didn't buy it either.

Or she was covering her own ass for stealing a laptop while being a prostitute. Self preservation is a thing on the streets.

Each time it erodes trust and in general basically pins all involved on the law enforcement/judges/prosecutors/jury as heartless, racist and evil, on the side that is actually putting away criminals.

You admire those people more than I do. I've been through the system enough to know that prosecutors and police will do anything in their power to avoid admitting they're wrong. There are plenty of instances in the news of exactly that happening.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

pubic hair

This once again tries to paint non resident hair as an anomaly as opposed to the norm. The husband said they frequently hosted guests, so pretty easy for hair from outside those two to have collected on the carpet.

Any unknown hair tends toward being at least slightly exculpatory; the particulars control how exculpatory it is. In this instance there was at least one pubic hair.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

notes regarding the DNA

Their #1: he did not leave DNA evidence. But that doesn't exclude him committing the crime. The DNA on the knife is from the prosecution touching the knife after best practices of the time were used to not find his DNA. They present this as if there is an obvious other suspect, and we don't know who's DNA it is. There is also no proof that the perpetrators left ample forensic evidence. Hair, fingerprints, could be from any number of guests in the victims house.

Regarding the DNA, what evidence do you have that it was tested circa 2001? What I read in the motion to vacate document was that testing was refused. Why anyone would handle the knife without gloves is baffling (why it was not in a bag is puzzling as well), but my guess is that carelessness is to blame. My understanding is that Y-chromosomal (YSTR) testing was not widespread at this time, but I see no impediment to autosomal profiling (testing using the 22 numbered chromosomes).

 

[rdwight]

Any unknown hair tends toward being at least slightly exculpatory; the particulars control how exculpatory it is. In this instance there was at least one pubic hair.

And? Having gone to a public restroom I assume before during your life, happen to see a pubic hair before? This is offered as something out of the norm but I don't see it as such. It's just another random hair found. Place this murder scene at a 711. Does finding a pubic hair mean anything?

Regarding the DNA, what evidence do you have that it was tested circa 2001? What I read in the motion to vacate document was that testing was refused. Why anyone would handle the knife without gloves is baffling (why it was not in a bag is puzzling as well), but my guess is that carelessness is to blame. My understanding is that Y-chromosomal (YSTR) testing was not widespread at this time, but I see no impediment to autosomal profiling (testing using the 22 numbered chromosomes).

Read your own link that I am referencing in that reply. You want to jump to something else before refuting what I wrote and in regard to the link you posted. They said -

In 2016, DNA testing proved he was not the source of the DNA left on the murder weapon. That DNA belongs to an unknown male.

But that isn't true. The DNA matched up with an investigator from the trial team. This is from one of his appeals so it is not like they are unaware of this information. As to the handling of the weapon without gloves, you should read the opposition brief to the Supreme Court. As I said before, the DNA testing they reference was not used at the time of trial. The prosecutor testified to not knowing about it in 2001, and that the weapon was fully tested at the time for all forensic methods they used, so there was no reason to avoid touching it. I am not sure of the different methods you reference but I don't feel like spending more time researching something they didn't specifically reference in their appeals.

If this was something normally used, and the prosecutor is lieing, explain how that got past appeals? Wouldn't request for such testing be easily produced by the defense to counter this? It's use in contemporary trials in that time and place? Their own request for such? I simply do not believe the narrative they offer without some proof beyond the accusation.

 

[Samson]

These murders where the accused leave no evidence ( because they weren't there) are common place.
Russel Faria
Mark Lundy
Amanda Knox
Etc
They are all innocent and the murders are generally solved.
Not sure on this one, does Williams have an alibi?
The above had cast iron alibis.

 

[a_unique_person]

Or if he was white.

OJ got off. I think most people think he was guilty. He had the money. IIRC, he was broke after the trial.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA, fingermarks; hair

But that isn't true. The DNA matched up with an investigator from the trial team. This is from one of his appeals so it is not like they are unaware of this information. As to the handling of the weapon without gloves, you should read the opposition brief to the Supreme Court. As I said before, the DNA testing they reference was not used at the time of trial. The prosecutor testified to not knowing about it in 2001, and that the weapon was fully tested at the time for all forensic methods they used, so there was no reason to avoid touching it. I am not sure of the different methods you reference but I don't feel like spending more time researching something they didn't specifically reference in their appeals.

You are sometimes talking about events past 2015 (we all know about the profiles), but I am talking about the time of the trial. As I said, YSTR testing was not widely performed at that time, but autosomal profiling was. The defense asked for testing, and the judge said no; therefore, what you wrote is incorrect. There was no reason whatsoever to touch the knife, and the prosecution should have known that DNA could be raised as an appeal issue.

As someone who believes strongly in the principle of open discovery, I find the destruction of the bloody fingermark evidence especially troubling. The blood puts a time stamp on the fingermarks, something that is not generally true about latent fingermarks. I will defer to lawyers whether this constitutes spoliation of evidence, but I will point out again that prints may be suitable for exclusion even when they are not suitable for identification. It has been said that one should not ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence, but the fingermark evidence is pushing it.

Regarding a pubic hair, I would say that it is not very probative if the crime scene were a public restroom, but it is more probative in a living room or dining room of a private home, especially when it does not originate from the victim or her husband.

 

[rdwight]

You are sometimes talking about events past 2015 (we all know about the profiles), but I am talking about the time of the trial. As I said, YSTR testing was not widely performed at that time, but autosomal profiling was. The defense asked for testing, and the judge said no; therefore, what you wrote is incorrect. There was no reason whatsoever to touch the knife, and the prosecution should have known that DNA could be raised as an appeal issue.

First things first, this entire interaction was started by me saying the IP lies by ommission. You asked for specifics, I gave some, and you have yet to address that. Again, your own link says things that are untrue. Am I wrong?

As for the the specific testing you are referring to, can you give me a source on it being asked for and the reasoning the judge rejected it? It was not used or referenced by IP when they did their own dna testing. If it had evidentiary value that would have impacted the case, I assume they would have used it on appeal. I need more than your claim to glean any value from it.

As someone who believes strongly in the principle of open discovery, I find the destruction of the bloody fingermark evidence especially troubling. The blood puts a time stamp on the fingermarks, something that is not generally true about latent fingermarks. I will defer to lawyers whether this constitutes spoliation of evidence, but I will point out again that prints may be suitable for exclusion even when they are not suitable for identification. It has been said that one should not ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence, but the fingermark evidence is pushing it.

Could be. I can only go by the courts decisions from appeal since I don't have the original case transcripts. I am not familiar with your time stamp argument or if their exclusion of williams would have been a crucial impact on the case. I assume this was argued at trial but would be nice to know the specifics.

Regarding a pubic hair, I would say that it is not very probative if the crime scene were a public restroom, but it is more probative in a living room or dining room of a private home, especially when it does not originate from the victim or her husband.

I just don't agree. If we are talking about a rape case and bed sheets, sure. We are talking about random hairs in carpet near a stabbing. I referenced a bathroom only to highlight how often pubic hairs are freely pulled. In a home with with numerous visitors over the years, the value of finding some in carpet does not move the needle for me. If you believe the killer left them, why not any other visitor?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

DNA at the trial

With respect to the DNA testing and to the fingermarks, the Midwest Innocence Project wrote circa 2017: "Despite repeated requests from trial counsel for a continuance for DNA testing, no DNA testing was conducted on the knife at the time of trial.

MIP also noted, "Indeed, prosecutors have themselves relied on DNA testing of weapons used in murders to prosecute other defendants." This passage causes one to question the prosecutor's assertion "he had never heard of touch DNA."

The Intercept wrote, "Attorneys sought to conduct DNA testing prior to his trial, but the circuit court judge refused." I don't know the reason for the refusal, but I cannot conceive of a good one. I'll come back to this thread when I have more time.

 

[rdwight]

MIP also noted, "Indeed, prosecutors have themselves relied on DNA testing of weapons used in murders to prosecute other defendants." This passage causes one to question the prosecutor's assertion "he had never heard of touch DNA."

The Intercept wrote, "Attorneys sought to conduct DNA testing prior to his trial, but the circuit court judge refused." I don't know the reason for the refusal, but I cannot conceive of a good one. I'll come back to this thread when I have more time.

Rereading these claims again, I am more annoyed. I am near certain by their wording they are trying to conflate "requested additional DNA testing" with the knife never being tested. As in they never requested nor were denied DNA testing on the knife. Just that they requested additional dna testing unrelated and were denied those. The fact they don't specify a request on the knife anywhere, the wording of the appeals courts etc make this seem likely.

If you find otherwise, please provide details. At this point I've asked you multiple times to comment on my actual point and you've ignored it. If it turns out this is once again a word game by the IP, I hope you will concede my point.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

wet versus dried blood

Could be. I can only go by the courts decisions from appeal since I don't have the original case transcripts. I am not familiar with your time stamp argument or if their exclusion of williams would have been a crucial impact on the case. I assume this was argued at trial but would be nice to know the specifics.

I did not start this thread to discuss The Innocence Project, and it is an uninteresting tangent as far as I am concerned. Beyond that, I would have to know when they learned that the DNA belonged to investigators versus when they wrote their summary to come to a conclusion on whether they had written a false summary of this case.

Shoe prints or fingermarks made in blood had to have been made either during the crime or shortly thereafter, inasmuch as fingermarks cannot be made in dried blood, but many factors come into play regarding the rate at which it dries. The fingermarks were lost or destroyed before the trial, without the defense's being able to examine them. Mr. Williams did not make the shoe prints. The existence of bloody fingermarks, even if unusable, badly damages the state's hypothesis that the killer wore gloves.

The state lost or destroyed potentially exculpatory evidence (the fingermarks), and the state mishandled at least on other potentially exculpatory piece evidence (the knife); this situation made it more difficult for Mr. Williams to prove his innocence. Therefore, one might have hesitated to apply the death penalty apart from any other aspect of the case.