Marcellus Williams' imminent execution

[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.