Marcellus Williams' imminent execution

[Chris_Halkides]

incentivizing the witnesses

I am really not a fan of the innocence project these days. I realize they are lawyers presenting the best case for their clients, but people accept their assertions at face value as if they were a neutral party. Most of that link are flat out lies of omission.

Your comment is conclusory; for example, please specify the lies of omission. A later link that I provided to the Minnesota Innocence Project can be consulted for more information on the two witnesses. One of the two witnesses was a jailhouse informant who received a monetary reward ($5000?). The other witness, Laura Asaro, may have provided Mr. Williams with the laptop, which prompts the question of how she obtained it. She may have also received money.

 

[Planigale]

The BBC has an article. Interesting points,

The victim's family had supported a life sentence instead of the death penalty, while local prosecutors had pressed to have the conviction overturned.

Also concerned about the DNA, the local prosecuting attorney, Wesley Bell, requested a hearing.
But at that point it was discovered that the DNA evidence was spoiled from someone in the prosecutor's office touching the knife without gloves, and the hearing was cancelled.
"This outcome did not serve the interests of justice," Mr Bell said in a statement on Tuesday.
"If there is even the shadow of a doubt of innocence, the death penalty should never be an option."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz9p518j0nqo

If even the oroginal prosecutor felt that execution was wrong, and there were evidentiary failures then we can be fairly certain there are problems with the case.

 

[rdwight]

Your comment is conclusory; for example, please specify the lies of omission. A later link that I provided to the Minnesota Innocence Project can be consulted for more information on the two witnesses. One of the two witnesses was a jailhouse informant who received a monetary reward ($5000?). The other witness, Laura Asaro, may have provided Mr. Williams with the laptop, which prompts the question of how she obtained it. She may have also received money.

Have you actually read the court documents or are you taking the innocence projects proclamation as gospel truth? Because you should be able to see exactly what I am talking about. It is a lawyer presenting their best case.

For example -

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.

#2 - they say no evidence besides witnesses testimony, but then admit to thr laptop from her home that he sold. They exclude the other items from her home that were found is his car. They exclude that 2 other witnesses to his confession were shared with the defense but never called. They simply say the witnesses have lied in the past. They claim the gf was incentivised but she never accepted any money or favor. They claim nothing they shared was not in public knowledge. The police say they provided non public information.

#3 - back to DNA, when the people responsible for the DNA are known and we know why.

#4 - really hate the inclusion of the family. Their are plenty or people now that believe the family thinks he was innocent. They don't. They just didn't want the death penalty.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

hair and footprints

The size of the bloody shoe print was different from Mr. Williams shoe size; there is only a narrow time frame in which such a print could have been left. The hair(s) came from Lisha Gayle's shirt. The St. Louis Post Dispatch indicated that DNA testing on the hair samples excluded Mr. Williams.

 

[rdwight]

The size of the bloody shoe print was different from Mr. Williams shoe size; there is only a narrow time frame in which such a print could have been left. The hair(s) came from Lisha Gayle's shirt. The St. Louis Post Dispatch indicated that DNA testing on the hair samples excluded Mr. Williams.

Before we get into the weeds of the case, do you agree with my assessment of the innocenceproject, and if not, what do you disagree with?

 

[Samson]

The size of the bloody shoe print was different from Mr. Williams shoe size; there is only a narrow time frame in which such a print could have been left. The hair(s) came from Lisha Gayle's shirt. The St. Louis Post Dispatch indicated that DNA testing on the hair samples excluded Mr. Williams.

In the Bain case in New Zealand, Robin had a smaller footprint than David. While a small foot can make a larger imprint with sliding etc, it is generally impossible for the converse.
This was one of many singular data points proving David innocent.
I haven't checked if the print was too small for Williams to make or the converse.

 

[dudalb]

I am pretty tough on crime, and I find this an outrage.
I am not in favor of total abolition of Captial Punishment, but I would reserve it for extreme cases..mainly serial killers where the evidence is overwhelming and the indivisual is never going to be rehalibitated..

 

[rdwight]

I am pretty tough on crime, and I find this an outrage.
I am not in favor of total abolition of Captial Punishment, but I would reserve it for extreme cases..mainly serial killers where the evidence is overwhelming and the indivisual is never going to be rehalibitated..

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.

 

[Samson]

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.

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

You have plenty of detail there, but which bits are relevant?
Are there other suspects?
This forum is good for coming to some sort of concensus on these cases and probably being correct.

 

[rdwight]

You have plenty of detail there, but which bits are relevant?
Are there other suspects?
This forum is good for coming to some sort of concensus on these cases and probably being correct.

Eh it's more in regards to dudlbs point about never being rehabilitated. I don't think his is a case of that necessarily but all things considered at the time I wouldn't see it as a stretch of the imagination.

As for the case, there are no other suspects really. The premise of the IP is to sow doubt in the court of public opinion because all their legal options were ineffective. I really don't like what that has caused, with thousands(millions?) of people earnestly believing we murdered an innocent man, when at best someone could argue this case might not be the best example of capital punishment use.

For example Chris mentioned the laptop being given to him by his gf. What is the source of that? Williams. And people will argue that confidently as if his word should have weight in this. Because honestly, they can't give a defense of him selling the laptop days after the murder and having other items from her house in his car without making this a conspiracy. What is the actual defense of it? He robbed her after the murder, before the murder, or just so happened to be framed with forethought for a crime he wasn't accused of while already behind bars?

All the defense for reasonable doubt is not exculpatory. Like his DNA not being found. Or a random hair on the victims shirt. In a carpeted house with visitors, it could have gotten on it at anytime. They will try to exclude the testimony that his gf said he had scratches when the victim didn't have any under her nails. But he could have had cuts from anything, didn't need to be related. They showcase that as inconsistent but it is not important. They say she was incentivised but she received no payment. They call her a liar because she has lied in court before. But they don't mention he has also lied in court before, not that it would crack the top of the list of his crimes.

I will have to look into this bloody shoe thing but everytime I get to the source of one of these claims they are never really a strong defense, just a trial lawyer throwing anything to give a possibility of doubt. That is their job.

 

[Samson]

I for one was convinced by the media, but happy to pivot.
It would be helpful to have another plausible suspect.
The shoe print in the Bain case was quite distinct, being in blood.
It seems unlikely here.

 

[rdwight]

I for one was convinced by the media, but happy to pivot.
It would be helpful to have another plausible suspect.
The shoe print in the Bain case was quite distinct, being in blood.
It seems unlikely here.

I am trying to find the original court documents so if anyone knows a link could save me some time. From the appeals cases, the shoe prints are only mentioned in regards to the defense trying to introduce the possibility of him being an accomplice in the crime. An expert testified to two different size shoes but on cross acknowledged them to be the same shoes.

Likewise, the unidentified shoe impressions do not support an accomplice instruction. Williams’ expert testified that several shoe impressions, including some made in blood, were found near the body. The expert initially testified that the impressions were made by two different shoes. However, on cross-examination, he conceded that the same shoe made all the impressions. Moreover, both Cole and Asaro testified that Williams told them he was alone when he killed Gayle. Evidence that one set of shoe impressions was found near the body does not support an instruction that Williams was an accomplice.

To reintroduce that as exculpatory is just grasping in my opinion.

I saw in one of the links that Williams said the laptop was given to him by one of the witnesses who testified against him and that the jury didn't hear this. This would potentially implicate her in some type of involvement with the crime either directly or indirectly and give another motive to for her to testify against him. But the fact the jury didn't hear this (not clear why) looks to be only one of many things wrong with this case.

They didn't allow it because it was here say. The prosecution rightly pointed out that Williams could testify to that himself, which he choose not to. Really I don't see any reason to consider this important. A murderer lied when asked where he got something he probably wouldn't otherwise likely have. What was he gonna say, I stole it after murdering some lady?

 

[rdwight]

An odd aspect of the case is why in 2023 the governor dissolved the board that the previous governor had constituted and which had been examining the conviction. MIP This case may turn out to be another one like Todd Willingham: a case without proof of innocence but with a truckload of reasonable doubt.

Not to pick on you but this is another thing that annoys me. Williams exhausted 15 appeals, on a 25 year old case. The review board had 6 years to come up with a recommendation in regards to his innocence. Exactly how much longer is this suppose to go on? Why does dissolving this after 6 years look bad for the governor and not for Williams?

Your links keep going on about the DNA when we know the source. They don't mention that. It's all obfuscation.

 

[plague311]

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.

 

[Thermal]

I'm always amazed that any less than the true slam-dunk no question about it murderers make it to execution. Like, the multi year guaranteed appeals process should pretty much airtight a wrongful execution? It's not like we are lopping off heads so fast in in such high numbers that a few will slip through the cracks.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

forensic evidence, part 1

"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.

 

[Trausti]

Have you actually read the court documents or are you taking the innocence projects proclamation as gospel truth? Because you should be able to see exactly what I am talking about. It is a lawyer presenting their best case.

For example -

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.

#2 - they say no evidence besides witnesses testimony, but then admit to thr laptop from her home that he sold. They exclude the other items from her home that were found is his car. They exclude that 2 other witnesses to his confession were shared with the defense but never called. They simply say the witnesses have lied in the past. They claim the gf was incentivised but she never accepted any money or favor. They claim nothing they shared was not in public knowledge. The police say they provided non public information.

#3 - back to DNA, when the people responsible for the DNA are known and we know why.

#4 - really hate the inclusion of the family. Their are plenty or people now that believe the family thinks he was innocent. They don't. They just didn't want the death penalty.

Somehow the Innocence Project left this part out:

On August 31, 1998, Williams was arrested on unrelated charges and incarcerated at the St. Louis City workhouse.   From April until June 1999, Williams shared a room with Henry Cole. One evening in May, Cole and Williams were watching television and saw a news report about Gayle's murder.   Shortly after the news report, Williams told Cole that he had committed the crime.   Over the next few weeks, Cole and Williams had several conversations about the murder.   As he had done with Laura Asaro, Williams went into considerable detail about how he broke into the house and killed Gayle.

After Cole was released from jail in June 1999, he went to the University City police and told them about Williams' involvement in Gayle's murder.   He reported details of the crime that had never been publicly reported.

In November of 1999, University City police approached Asaro to speak with her about the murder.   Asaro told the police that Williams admitted to her that he had killed Gayle.   The next day, the police searched the Buick LeSabre and found the Post-Dispatch ruler and calculator belonging to Gayle.   The police also recovered the laptop computer from Glenn Roberts.   The laptop was identified as the one stolen from Gayle's residence.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mo-supreme-court/1450636.html

Really, if he nothing to with it, why did he have so much of her stuff?

 

[theprestige]

Somehow the Innocence Project left this part out:



https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mo-supreme-court/1450636.html

Really, if he nothing to with it, why did he have so much of her stuff?

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"?

 

[Trausti]

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"?

He had her stuff in his trunk. What, he just stole it and some other guy later that same night broke in and murdered her? What a coincidence.

 

[theprestige]

He had her stuff in his trunk. What, he just stole it and some other guy later that same night broke in and murdered her? What a coincidence.

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.