17 ms·

Who is Marcellus Williams: Execution in Missouri despite evidence of innocence

359 points by bjourne 2y ago

rdtsc 2y ago
> Even the victim’s family believes life without parole is the appropriate sentence That is odd, if there is no evidence that links him to the crime why not argue to let him go? Is that just from a desire to have someone punished, no matter who it is.
- throwaway314155 2y ago
  Grief is a powerful thing.
- kergonath 2y ago
  Unfortunately the victims or their relatives are not really the best suited to determine the appropriate punishment. These things are too subjective.
  - rdtsc 2y ago
    I am assuming there is still some kind of logic behind the statement. How they interpret it for themselves.
- DoughnutHole 2y ago
  Presumably they still think he’s (probably) guilty. Victims and their family’s can and often do oppose capital punishment on moral grounds, same as anybody else. They want him punished but believe that killing him is a moral wrong, or they’re more comfortable with the risk that he’s innocent if he’s in prison with the possibility of being exonerated rather than killed.
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    They who? About the only people who wanted the death penalty were politicians up for re-election.
- shusaku 2y ago
  As far as I could find reading about this case, the “evidence of innocence” is very flimsy. But it’s a reasonable moral stand by the family to want to stay the execution if they think there is even a slim chance of innocence.
  - rob74 2y ago
    If you read the article, the "evidence of guilt" is equally flimsy. And if we take "innocent until proven guilty" seriously, that means he not only should not have been executed, but should never have gone to jail in the first place...
    - sparrish 2y ago
      A jury of his peers thought there was enough evidence to convict him and they did. At that point, he's "guilty until proven innocent".
      - formerly_proven 2y ago
        This seems like an exceedingly bad hill to die on. Curtis Flowers was convicted and sentenced to death six times for the same murder by juries of his peers, yet he's a free man today.
        concordDance 2y ago
        We don't have a better system at the moment, accepting its judgements is reasonable in light of that. And backseating when we're probably missing 90% of the evidence presented at court is unlikely to be any more accurate.
      - BobaFloutist 2y ago
        It's a bit circular when people say "This court decision is wrong" to argue "But this is the decision that was made."
  - krisoft 2y ago
- knodi123 2y ago
  There's plenty of evidence. He confessed to his girlfriend, and a cellmate. He pawned the victim's possessions. He was seen disposing of bloody clothes. He already had 15 felony convictions in addition to offenses related to Ms. Gayle's murder: robbery (2), armed criminal action (2), assault (2), burglary (4), stealing (3), stealing a motor vehicle, and unlawful use of a weapon. Now, as to whether this evidence is solid enough for a death penalty conviction, that's tougher to say. But there's plenty of evidence.
  - JeremyNT 2y ago
    > There's plenty of evidence. He confessed to his girlfriend, and a cellmate. Be careful, this is hearsay and not evidence. Those people claim that he confessed to them, but there is a lot more context. Here is what the linked story says about the "he confessed" part: > The investigation had gone cold until a jail inmate named Henry Cole, a man with a lengthy record, claimed that Mr. Williams confessed to him that he committed the murder while they were both locked up in jail. Cole directed police to Laura Asaro, a woman who had briefly dated Mr. Williams and had an extensive record of her own. > Both of these individuals were known fabricators; neither revealed any information that was not either included in media accounts about the case or already known to the police. Their statements were inconsistent with their own prior statements, with each other’s accounts, and with the crime scene evidence, and none of the information they provided could be independently verified.
    - whamlastxmas 2y ago
      Someone who is incarcerated snitching on someone who’s in there with them just screams “give me your cupcake or I’m gonna tell the cops you confessed to me”. Williams was also a person who was black and Muslim so prejudice alone could have been a motivation
      - kergonath 2y ago
        People say stupid things all the time as well. It’s not inconceivable to brag about something that’s not true either as an act of defiance or for social reasons such as to get some respect, look important, or to be left alone.
- asveikau 2y ago
  As I understand it, it's also extremely rare for a prosecutor to admit mistakes and that a convicted person is innocent, even when it is sufficiently proven, they tend to double down on bad convictions. In this case the prosecutor said the defendant didn't do it. Which makes this a very rare case.
- chakintosh 2y ago
  Probably so he could have a chance at freedom in case new evidence comes to light exonerating him. Can't really defend yourself if you're dead.
- KenArrari 2y ago
  Apparently the family believes that he is guilty but doesn't want him executed (but does want him in prison). In some countries the families wishes are enough to prevent an execution but not in the US.
olivermuty 2y ago
It doesn't say in the article, but he was executed last night :(
- yapyap 2y ago
  Thank you, was looking for this info since they did mention the 24th but hadn’t said if they really went through with it or not. Sad shit, just as sad is the fact that it seems like nothing will change.
  - l0t0b0r0s 2y ago
    No one is losing sleep over a murder and career violent criminal being executed. Get real.
- SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
  [flagged]
monero-xmr 2y ago
The prosecutor who wanted to pardon him was not the original prosecutor, but a recent progressive elected one. The original prosecutor still believes he is guilty. Furthermore it is highly suspect that he was caught selling the laptop stolen from her house and the story about how he came into it is implausible. People who are willing to commit murder are often sociopaths and pathological liars. It isn’t surprising he would maintain his innocence for years. That said we shouldn’t execute him, there’s enough doubt to make it possible he didn’t do it and executing an innocent man is horrendous. And IMO we should eliminate the death penalty anyway. But regardless, I still find the weight of evidence much stronger in favor of guilt over innocence.
- tokai 2y ago
  >People who are willing to commit murder are often sociopaths and pathological liars Only 27% of them apparently[0], so even murderers are still more likely to not be a psychopath. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178918301678 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135917891...
  - monero-xmr 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - tokai 2y ago
      Thats an opinion. It could easily be argued the other way around. Murders during burglary has a higher chance of have happened accidentally than other kind of murders. Stealing is more likely to happen because of poverty than psychopathy. Its kinda a useless exercise making up arguments uninformed by reality.
  - tempfile 2y ago
    Thanks for posting this, the quoted text smelled like something pulled out of... the air.
- kergonath 2y ago
dbrans 2y ago
Marcellus Williams was executed yesterday, Tuesday. https://apnews.com/article/missouri-execution-marcellus-williams-8be20e2f252992610a30fa0cfef4185a https://apnews.com/article/missouri-execution-marcellus-will...
- frontalier 2y ago
  don't you mean murdered?
  - knodi123 2y ago
    an unlawful killing? well that's an uphill battle, but I'll be intrigued to see how far you can get with your claim.
  - Palpatineli 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - pirate787 2y ago
    The governor's statement: https://governor.mo.gov/press-releases/archive/state-carry-out-sentence-mr-marcellus-williams-according-supreme-court https://governor.mo.gov/press-releases/archive/state-carry-o...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
spacechild1 2y ago
There is no place for the death penalty in a civilized country!
- louwrentius 2y ago
  To me the definition of a 'civilized society' is an absence of the death penalty. Many people are also very confused about the justice system in America. It isn't about determining the truth. It's about trying to get you convicted, to advance the career of the prosecutor. In that sense, the 'justice department' is anything but. The 'innocence project[0]' has shown time and time again that truth finding isn't the goal. In the mean time, study after study shows that the death penalty doesn't deter people from crime and it's much more expensive than long prison sentences. However, a strong reason not to execute people, is acknowledging that the 'justice system' is made of people who can make mistakes and that we can never be that certain. Instating the death penalty shows a lack of humility and shows that it's absolutism is mostly for political gain. It scores with more authoritarian inclined voters who like 'simple solutions' and ignore all the complicated context. [0]: https://innocenceproject.org https://innocenceproject.org
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- nomilk 2y ago
  <thought experiment> Suppose we lived in a world where it was possible to know someone's guilt or innocence with strictly 100% confidence. Curious to know if your views would change? Note the cost of incarceration is around ~$70k/year; enough to save lives, house people, heal people, feed people etc if put to other uses.
  - atoav 2y ago
    You assume that the laws are flawless. They are not. It is hard to un-kill a person if you realize a law was bogus. The first law I would introduce would be that the death sentance only applies to people who demanded it publically before.
n1b0m 2y ago
There was another execution in South Carolina on Friday despite new evidence of innocence https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/20/south-carolina-death-row-prisoner-execution https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/20/south-caroli...
- ruph123 2y ago
  That case is even worse as it rested fully on the testimony of the other robber, which he made to get a lesser sentence and later rescinded: > Prosecutors had no forensic evidence connecting Allah to the shooting. Surveillance footage at the store showed two masked men with guns, but they were not identifiable. The state’s case rested on testimony from Allah’s friend and co-defendant, Steven Golden, who was also charged in the robbery and murder. As their joint trial was beginning, Golden pleaded guilty to murder, armed robbery and criminal conspiracy and agreed to testify against Allah. Golden, who was 18 at the time of the robbery, said Allah shot Graves.
  - fakedang 2y ago
    > Golden said he agreed to plead guilty and testify when prosecutors assured him he would not face the death penalty or a life sentence – a deal that was not disclosed to the jury.
    - awb 2y ago
      > “I substituted [Allah] for the person who was really with me,” he wrote, saying he concealed the identity of the “real shooter” out of fear that “his associates might kill me”. He did not identify this person. If your friend is wrongly facing the death penalty and you know they’re innocent there’s no reason to not name the person you claim is the real shooter.
jmyeet 2y ago
If you're wondering if the Missouri governor Mike Parson sparingly uses his clemency and pardon power, you'd be mistaken [1]: > Parson, a former sheriff, has now granted clemency to more than 760 people since 2020 — more than any Missouri governor since the 1940s including those who waved guns at BLM protestors [2] and the son of the KC Chiefs coach who caused grave bodiy injuries to someone in a DUI. Available data shows a pretty clear trend [3]: > An analysis of available demographic data conducted by the Missouri News Network indicates that almost 90% of those who have been granted clemency by the governor are white. If you're wondering where the US Supreme Court stands on this, consider this quote from then-Justice Antonin Scalia [4]: > [t]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent. Also, consider this racial bias demonstrated in the exoneration for those sentence to death [5]: > Since 1973, at least 189 people wrongly convicted and sentenced to death have been exonerated. 100 of the death row exonerees are Black. Lastly, even if you want to ignore the immorality of the death setnence, look at it from the lens of cost [6]. Death penalty cases are substantially more expensive to litigate and death row inmates are substantially more expensive to incarcerate. A life-without-parole would be substantially cheaper. Also, you can release someone from prison wrongly convicted. You cannot bring them back to life and there are multiple cases of people who were executed and later exonerated. Williams is sadly added to that list. [1]: https://apnews.com/article/kansas-city-chiefs-britt-reid-commutation-parson-17630ef04030c056270b7993814e6aed https://apnews.com/article/kansas-city-chiefs-britt-reid-com... [2]: https://www.npr.org/2021/08/03/1024446351/missouris-governor-pardons-the-st-louis-lawyers-who-waved-guns-at-blm-protesters https://www.npr.org/2021/08/03/1024446351/missouris-governor... [3]: https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/state_news/governors-record-clemency-pace-disproportionately-benefits-white-applicants/article_a55c7e0e-f245-11ec-b139-0bc50da2e4d5.html https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/state_news/governors... [4]: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/associate-justice-antonin-scalia-1937-2016 https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/associate-justice-anton... [5]: https://www.naacpldf.org/our-thinking/death-row-usa/ https://www.naacpldf.org/our-thinking/death-row-usa/ [6]: https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/ https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalt...
- 2y ago
jstummbillig 2y ago
> “The family defines closure as Marcellus being allowed to live,” the petition stated. “Marcellus’ execution is not necessary.” Imagine we lived in that world.
- spiritplumber 2y ago
  Aside the fact that the death penalty shouldn't exist in the first place, the victim's family should be able to veto it (automatic commutation to a life sentence).
  - fakedang 2y ago
    Incidentally, that's a feature of Islamic law, and where the concept of blood money comes into picture. Which also means that you might be able to get away with murder, if you're rich enough.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- l0t0b0r0s 2y ago
  In a world with more murderers alive? no thanks.
BostonFern 2y ago
From CNN: “Other evidence that helped convict Williams ‘remains intact,’ the attorney general said. ‘The victim’s personal items were found in Williams’s car after the murder. A witness testified that Williams had sold the victim’s laptop to him. Williams confessed to his girlfriend and an inmate in the St. Louis City Jail, and William’s girlfriend saw him dispose of the bloody clothes worn during the murder,’ the attorney general’s office said.” https://lite.cnn.com/2024/09/24/us/marcellus-williams-scheduled-execution-date/index.html https://lite.cnn.com/2024/09/24/us/marcellus-williams-schedu...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
gruntledfangler 2y ago
[flagged]
TrackerFF 2y ago
So it seems that the original case rested on the following: - Williams GF witness testimony, that Williams confessed to her. - Jailhouse witness testimony, that Williams had confessed to them. - That Williams had items (purse, laptop, etc.) in his car, on the day or day after the murder. But no DNA evidence? A death penalty seems pretty egregious, when you have that kind of evidence. Seems like there's plenty of reasonable doubt in the picture. (FWIW, I completely oppose the death penalty - on the grounds that innocent people have been executed. One is one too many)
- voisin 2y ago
  The argument is that the girlfriend and jailhouse snitch both were looking to get the $10k reward money for his conviction. And that’s the only way the third point (had the items in the car) was known (from the girlfriend).
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    No, they knew the items were in the car because they searched his car and found the items. He has not, as far as I know, offered any alternative explanation of how he came into possession of a murder victim's random personal items.
    - EasyMark 2y ago
      This is exactly what I would focus on as a juror. How did he come by the items, surely if someone sold them to him he would say immediately who that was or offer some other way of getting it other than “I murdered her”
    - brewdad 2y ago
      Nor is he required to give an explanation. The prosecutor must prove that possession of the items leads to proof of guilt.
      - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Eumenes 2y ago
[flagged]
- kergonath 2y ago
  I am… not sure that the successive versions of the ancient Roman society are a thing to emulate. Though I can see how a society in a state of constant warfare for centuries and utterly dominated by an oligarchy completely divorced from reality could be appealing to some. Do you support political oponents being eaten by lions as well?
  - Eumenes 2y ago
    > Do you support political oponents being eaten by lions as well? No, leave the lions alone. What the Romans did to animals for entertainment was very cruel. And also expensive.
- bbor 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Eumenes 2y ago
    The murderer had the victims bloody jacket and some of her belongings in his car. He confessed to his partner and his prison mate that he did in fact kill her and steal her stuff. Nothing fascist about justice.
    - RavingGoat 2y ago
      Except the DNA on the murder weapon wasn't his
      - sickofparadox 2y ago
        He is believed by multiple crime scene investigators to have worn gloves so what does that matter?
    - 2y ago
game_the0ry 2y ago
Does anyone find it deeply disturbing that the justice system will just sit on its own hands when presented with new evidence? It seems like prosecutors are more interested in maintaining a hi conviction rate rather than seeking justice. Judges seem totally apathetic.
- knodi123 2y ago
  > when presented with new evidence? They weren't, for the record.
- DoughnutHole 2y ago
  In this case the prosecutor actively pushed against the execution, arguing that his guilt was no longer beyond a reasonable doubt. The blame for this lies squarely on the Missouri Supreme Court and Gov. Parson (who has never once granted clemency in a capital case).
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    As well as the US Supreme Court
    - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - giraffe_lady 2y ago
        Democrats had cumulative decades of opportunity to instate abortion access in national law and declined to ever do so. All of the things you're pointing out are true but downstream of that.
        BadHumans 2y ago
        Democrats would need a super majority to pass abortion and the last time that happened was 09.
anonzzzies 2y ago
Still not sure with so many of the (esp right leaning) in the US claiming to be christian, can also accept this as a punishment. But I get nonsense begets more nonsense.
- jzackpete 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - anonzzzies 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - jzackpete 2y ago
      I'm an atheist, so I wouldn't consider myself an expert on their beliefs, but you don't appear to be either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill
      - anonzzzies 2y ago
        I guess it's a matter of interpretation; I am also an atheist but was raised a protestant (we had to memorise and read in front of the class selected parts from the bible every day) and our flavour (which might be different from even others in the same branch) definitely has no tolerance for justified killing except by the lord. I know some religions have tolerance for justified killing as you pointed out, just that's not what ours told us. But point taken and people do and read into things whatever fits them.
      - mrangle 2y ago
        Lost in translation, the Commandment is not to murder. Legal killing of the guilty (of murder), and in self defense for example, is not murder. Just as it isn't in the secular legal system. Therefore, there is no conflict. That's not to say that there isn't room for mercy when called for. Also, prudence should be exercised to the highest possible standard and then some. No one has broken a Commandment by executing Ted Bundy for example, by defending from a hostile Army, nor by defending their own life from imminent murder by a criminal aggressor.
kkfx 2y ago
To my European eye I'm curious why those who have ordered and those who have executed the wrongfully convicted prisoner, despite the evidence, are not arrested for aggravated murder... It's simple: they have choose, they are responsible for an homicide PERIOD.
diogenes_atx 2y ago
Since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976 in the USA, many innocent Americans have been executed by the state. There is a considerable literature of scholarly research documenting this issue. For those interested in learning more, I highly recommend the following books: Justin Brooks (2023) You Might Go to Prison Even Though You're Innocent, University of California Press https://www.amazon.com/Might-Prison-Though-Youre-Innocent/dp/0520386833/ref=sr_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.i18xd3nEh00UEuW--zsSH5gzi8Q89xh3VdmG-sHpZtLJ1fc_dFbi2Fy_plYWyyZU.fhfemgmUKaQARWQcActqJk2mFYdPbYHQFfr8bs_0b2I&dib_tag=se&keywords=You+Might+Go+to+Prison+Even+Though+You%27re+Innocent&qid=1727269974&s=books&sr=1-1 https://www.amazon.com/Might-Prison-Though-Youre-Innocent/dp... Brandon Garrett (2011) Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong,‎ Harvard University Press https://www.amazon.com/Convicting-Innocent-Where-Criminal-Prosecutions/dp/0674066111/ref=sr_1_1?crid=EAI46C3HLDQB&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.-1_bJZAVBkjGJEI6zD52WdO-IyvUH69KCrYmBx_m6D5FAMQCoeiuYbVP3lkjt-9gpgV1mzGahSOTRXWWc5XIXjFaYSwxOpH6r6-icb5Fe5KcQc1tY1voZiJByDmv-LfYZiunV5ufy9X6UNJa6z6MuhJ9gNZXXaXntLqudxTWmzBQFhMt2fQepb8RiNrnx2PsjYFOAdzSuD4vYixgCbWiauzSWIHU7NzqVBEpMcLkFT4.RsV2QADXWuNZawxYREYn9Z_k5MPb85FOTye8El40qQ4&dib_tag=se&keywords=convicting+the+innocent+book&qid=1727270056&sprefix=Convicting+the+in%2Caps%2C333&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Convicting-Innocent-Where-Criminal-Pr... Mark Godsey (2017) Blind Injustice: A Former Prosecutor Exposes Psychology and Politics of Wrongful Convictions, University of California Press https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Injustice-Prosecutor-Psychology-Convictions/dp/0520305639/ref=sr_1_1?crid=21UAIDIYBQX8&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.oEDiZDmdQXpcnTrrk_rdLA.Z2WRBMc_pQ6-JEiztuRPWY9tury3fobrbstLyLT30YU&dib_tag=se&keywords=Blind+Injustice%3A+A+Former+Prosecutor+Exposes+Psychology+and+Politics+of+Wrongful+Convictions&qid=1727270121&sprefix=blind+injustice+a+former+prosecutor+exposes+psychology+and+politics+of+wrongful+convictions%2Caps%2C171&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Injustice-Prosecutor-Psychology...
- ideashower 2y ago
  I was doing some reading based on your comment, and I'm kind of astonished to learn that public support for the death penalty only went up after the Gregg decision, peaking at 80% for in 1990. Wow.
mykowebhn 2y ago
Why is this submission not on the front page if it has so many upvotes in the past hour, and the number of upvotes exceeds the number of comments?
- kergonath 2y ago
  Probably too many comments. Too much activity compared to the number of votes is interpreted as a sign of flame wars and heated and unproductive discussions, and sink stories. This kind of topics don’t stay on the front page for long, usually.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
shadowtree 2y ago
[flagged]
- moomin 2y ago
  Yes, if you make it legal to commit crimes like murder, the murder rate will hugely go down.
nevercomingback 2y ago
[flagged]
- danparsonson 2y ago
  [flagged]
CollinEMac 2y ago
Update: it's too late... > Marcellus Williams, whose murder conviction was questioned by a prosecutor, died by lethal injection Tuesday evening in Missouri after the US Supreme Court denied a stay. > The 55-year-old was put to death around 6 p.m. CT at the state prison in Bonne Terre. https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/24/us/marcellus-williams-scheduled-execution-date/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/24/us/marcellus-williams-schedul...
jimt1234 2y ago
I applaud the Innocence Project for taking this case, but honestly, Missouri? What did they expect? This is the same governor that tried to prosecute a newspaper reporter after they uncovered social security numbers in the HTML code from a state-run website. Then, when the governor was informed about how stupid his claim was, he doubled-down, insisting he would seek prosecution. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/14/1046124278/missouri-newspaper-security-flaws-hacking-investigation-gov-mike-parson https://www.npr.org/2021/10/14/1046124278/missouri-newspaper...
- t-writescode 2y ago
  I imagine a team like The Innocence Project expects to lose most of their cases, but they try anyway because every life is worth saving.
  - jimt1234 2y ago
    well-said ^^^
plandis 2y ago
It’s sad that the US government unnecessarily deprived a human being of their right to life. I hope one day the people involved are prosecuted for this premeditated murder.
- WheatMillington 2y ago
  State executions are literally, by definition, not murder.
  - DandyDev 2y ago
    Legally they aren't, morally you could argue they are.
  - NietTim 2y ago
    And who wrote that definition again? Right, the murderers.
  - arp242 2y ago
    Legally speaking Stalin's purges were also not murder, by definition. It's obvious the previous poster was making a point of morality, not legality. You can of course disagree with that morality. That's fine. But going "but akshually the law says..." is being highly obtuse.
    - karpatic 2y ago
      Chiming in like this makes me wounder what your view on abortion is. I'm not asking, though.
      - arp242 2y ago
        I'm not really sure if I follow how that relates? I'm just saying that "X is legal" is not really a good counter to "X is not moral", which of course also applies in the reverse. Legality and morality are just not the same thing.
istjohn 2y ago
If we aren't going to abolish the death penalty, we should at least require a higher standard of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt to carry it out. It should require incontrovertible proof. Circumstantial evidence should not be allowed. Expert testimony should be barred. The evidence must be conclusive, plain, and certain to every member of the jury. This would allow you to execute, e.g., mass shooters who give themselves up, but make it extremely unlikely to irreversibly kill someone on the basis of junk science, induced or extorted testimony, or other fallible evidence.
- ajross 2y ago
  I think most people would agree with that stuff in isolation, but reasonable solutions aren't really addressing the problem. Support for the Death Penalty is a political shibboleth in the modern US. It's not going to change, realistically ever, absent a major demographic realignment in the way we sort our citizens into parties. Preaching to a choir of geeks looking for "solutions" is the wrong target.
  - chris_wot 2y ago
    IMO, the only solution is to abolish it.
  - Trill-I-Am 2y ago
    Plenty of states have banned it in the past 50 years. It's on the decline.
    - gibbetsandcrows 2y ago
      And some states while not having banned it outright have made it effectively impossible to carry out. Oregon IIRC had their execution chamber and death row dismantled when their last governor left office. Execution is still on the books though.
- koenigdavidmj 2y ago
  We don’t use the word reasonable anymore the way it was written originally, and the actual meaning is what you’re asking for, except for every conviction, not just capital ones. It doesn’t mean “a small but tolerable level of doubt”. It means doubt backed by reason. “Aliens made me do it” is doubt that is not backed by reason. “There is another plausible way that conforms to the evidence given that he came to possess that laptop” is reasonable doubt.
diogenes_atx 2y ago
Many of the contributors to this thread are under the wrong impression that the police found the victim's laptop and other items in Marcellus Williams' car. This is not true. According to Wikipedia, the murder occurred in August 1998, but it was not until May 1999 that the victim's family "announced a $10,000 reward for information leading to an arrest and conviction in the case. In response, two individuals, Henry Cole and Lara Asaro, named Marcellus Scott Williams as the culprit." The wikipedia article continues: "Lara Asaro, the girlfriend of Williams at the time of the crime, gave testimony that Williams had confessed to her... This is after she discovered evidence from the crime scene in Williams' car." This is an important clarification: The police did not find the victim's property in Williams' car. Rather, Williams' ex-girlfriend, who was incentivized by reward money, claimed, more than 8 months after the crime, that she saw the victim's property in his car. This is one of the the main reasons that the Innocence Project correctly argues that there is no reliable evidence linking Marcellus Williams to the murder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Felicia_Gayle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Felicia_Gayle
- MikeAmelung 2y ago
  "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://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-83934-1.html https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-...
  - wpm 2y ago
    Circumstantial. There are a 1000 different ways he could have obtained those items without committing a murder. Prove that having them is proof positive he killed someone.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      I don't think we should have capital punishment at all, anywhere, and certainly this is a textbook example of why, but circumstantial evidence is real evidence, admissible in court cases.
sashank_1509 2y ago
It seems wrong, that the 2 major points of evidence against Marcellus are a testimony from his ex and cellmate. I don’t trust humans, to trust convicting people based on 2 hearsay sources of testimony. Maybe this worked in the past when America was smaller and the average morality of a person was very high, but now this just seems ripe for abuse. I wouldn’t use this evidence to make a decision in an office dispute.
ugh123 2y ago
Ah, Republicans are the responsible party here. Right to life my ass.
lapestenoire 2y ago
I am very happy when I see The Innocence Project taking on a case like this because it tells me they have already worked through the backlog of actually innocent people as well as the people who might possibly be innocent, and now have worked there way to the cases which are 1% flawed but in which the correct perpetrator has nevertheless been identified, tried by a jury of his peers, convicted, appealed, etc.
nycticorax 2y ago
Is the transcript of the original court case available online somewhere? The oldest thing I'm seeing is https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-83934-1.html https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-... , which is (I think...) the decision of the state supreme court on the appeal. There are several points where it seems like there is some dispute about what exactly the evidence is tying Williams to the murder, and where the original trial transcript might help clarify things.
7ero 2y ago
.
yieldcrv 2y ago
Its wild how these discussions dont factor in who the murderer is Just out there walking around somewhere
timwaagh 2y ago
the American justice system is flawed. It's mob justice that was only fit for the 1700s when there was nothing better. Or maybe there was,I wasn't around. Untrained people can't decide on guilt or innocence. They can't judge evidence. They allow themselves to be swayed by beauty or likeability to greater extent. They're lives are no good, on average. This makes most of them mean and vindictive. If they can allow someone to suffer like they have, it feels good to them. I'm not sure whether it's racism. It's the usual explanation for this phenomenon. I can understand racism. I don't believe in opening the floodgates. it sounds more like plain bloodlust. Because blood is what you're going to get if you go on this way.
euroderf 2y ago
It is evil. The governor is evil. 'Nuf said.
anon291 2y ago
Reading the governor's letter it seems clear: 1. The witness who claimed Williams confessed provided non-publicly-available, but known-to-police, details about the case. This is very strong evidence that the confession was made to them. 2. The girlfriend's hesitation to go to police (she never asked for the reward money) is due to the fact that Williams threatened her family, which is a real threat considering his history of violence 3. The prosecution had several other witnesses that were not called to the stand to whom Williams told about the murder 4. Williams not only had Gayle's laptop, but had her husband's laptop and had sold it to someone. The police found the laptop and the owner identifier Williams as the seller. 5. Williams not only had her laptop but a bunch of household items. Tell me, when have you had several items from a murder victim in your car? Williams offers no explanation for where these came from. Look... criminals are not the type to take responsibility for their actions. Williams criminal history and jailhouse violence indicate that this is not a man who learns from past mistakes, or who even think he needed reform of any kind.
- diogenes_atx 2y ago
  I was unable to find a "letter" from Missouri Governor Michael Parson about this case, but there is a press release from the Office of the Governor (url copied below). Here are some of the highlights of the Governor's statement to the press: The Governor's Office offers the following summary of the crime: "Marcellus Williams murdered Felicia Gayle on August 11, 1998. He burglarized Ms. Gayle’s home, ambushed her as she left the shower, stabbed her 43 times and left the knife lodged in her neck." Because of the bloody and brutal nature of the crime, the police were able to recover DNA evidence at the crime scene. However, as the Innocence Project observed, the DNA evidence that was left behind by the killer does not match Marcellus Williams. The perpetrator left a knife in the victim's neck, but the DNA recovered from the knife - which could have conclusively determined who killed the victim - was contaminated and destroyed by the state, as noted by the Innocence Project. Yet, the governor's press release completely ignores these facts, and then proceeds to deliver an astonishing statement: "I also want to add how deeply disturbed we’ve been about how this case has been covered. Mr. Williams’ attorneys chose to muddy the waters about DNA evidence, claims of which Courts have repeatedly rejected. Yet, some media outlets and activist groups have continued such claims without so much of a mention of the judicial proceedings or an unbiased analysis of the facts." DNA is proven science, and a true "unbiased analysis of the facts" would presumably include the critical details that (1) none of the DNA evidence recovered from the crime scene matched Williams, and (2) the murder weapon was mishandled by state investigators, thereby destroying potentially exculpatory evidence that could have exonerated Williams. The other evidence cited by the Governor's Office is all circumstantial. Contrary to the Governor's assertions, the witnesses who testified against Williams were in fact incentivized with reward money, and they did not offer details of the crime that were unknown to the public through media reports. In summary, there is no direct evidence connecting Marcellus Williams to the crime scene. The real murderer in this case is Missouri Governor Mike Parson. https://governor.mo.gov/press-releases/archive/state-carry-out-sentence-mr-marcellus-williams-according-supreme-court https://governor.mo.gov/press-releases/archive/state-carry-o... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Felicia_Gayle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Felicia_Gayle
yawpitch 2y ago
I was foreman of a jury on a murder trial once; it’s my signature on the verdict form that sealed the fate of a man. In an extremely real and personal sense, I am directly responsible for putting a man in prison, and given his age, health conditions, and the sentence that was going to be passed, that means I’m directly responsible for ensuring a human being dies in prison. I ask myself every day if we made the right decision. We passed the bar of reasonable doubt, but we did that entirely because the prosecutor’s office had infinite resources and a homeless Black defendant with HIV and addiction had zero resources and an obviously less than interested (or prepared) public defender who had given up the fight. If I’d been his lawyer, I’m sure I could have gotten him off, and IANAL… I just would have poked at obvious and extremely reasonable holes in the prosecutor’s story. Because the prosecutor had nearly infinite resources (victim brought significant press attention) they had nearly infinite power to keep retrying until the defense was simply overwhelmed. Don’t know a damned thing about this case, but after seeing how the sausage that is the law actually plays out and how very little anything in a real court resembles TV, I don’t think anyone should ever ask a juror to pass a death sentence on someone else. It’s simply impossible to take resource bias out of the equation, and doubt that would have been reasonable if it had just been brought up by an overworked public defender will haunt you… in my case nearly 20 years later.
TrapLord_Rhodo 2y ago
Am i the only one in favor of capital punishment in this thread? My mom used to work at state hospital for the criminally insane. The stories she would tell me about how these people got in there were absolutely brutal. (Canabalism, satanic sacrafices of loved ones, all manor of wierd shit.). Instead of executing these lunatics, they send them to a "State Hospital" for rehabilitation. It's not a Prison, but a hospital so the conditions are great for the guy who ate his mom. So much so that some of the gang members claim 51/51 and say craay shit to the jury to get sent to a state hospital instead of prison. The U.S. spends approximately $75 billion per year on incarcerating prisoners... You could build a city, every year for that amount. Someone who commits capital murder, admits to it, does 30 years in prison. You have robbed them off all life. They aren't rehabilitated, they are just a hardened prison inmate with no chance to make it back in the real world so their only option alot of the time is to do what you've taught them in prison on release. Steal, lie, cheat and do anything you can to try and stay alive. So, it would cost approximately $2.43 million to imprison one person in California for 30 years. (California costs around ~81k per year per prisoner). Death seems to be so feared nowadays to the point where they can justify taking away any sense of freedom, rights and soverignty and put you in a small cage for 30 years, but yet the death penalty is to far? If i ever get falsely accused of a crime that would send me to jail for life i would beg for the death penalty.
- wiether 2y ago
  Doesn't the US privatized incarceration so it's basically a _free_ market, where shady deals are made to funnel more public money to private entities, and many people are incentivized to have as many people in prison as possible? In that case, the cost on citizens for incarceration of people shouldn't be taken into account in the discussion around capital punishment because it's another issue altogether?
  - cxvrfr 2y ago
    > Doesn't the US privatized Isn't that less than 10% of the market (i.e. most prisons are not private)
ein0p 2y ago
Utterly pointless to argue this since we do not have access to the totality evidence and testimony that the Court and the jury had access to. Could it be that they were wrong? Unlikely but yes. Is it likely that we here are “less wrong”. Not a chance

359 points by bjourne 2y ago

> Even the victim’s family believes life without parole is the appropriate sentence That is odd, if there is no evidence that links him to the crime why not argue to let him go? Is that just from a desire to have someone punished, no matter who it is.

throwaway314155 2y ago
Grief is a powerful thing.
kergonath 2y ago
Unfortunately the victims or their relatives are not really the best suited to determine the appropriate punishment. These things are too subjective.
- rdtsc 2y ago
  I am assuming there is still some kind of logic behind the statement. How they interpret it for themselves.
DoughnutHole 2y ago
Presumably they still think he’s (probably) guilty. Victims and their family’s can and often do oppose capital punishment on moral grounds, same as anybody else. They want him punished but believe that killing him is a moral wrong, or they’re more comfortable with the risk that he’s innocent if he’s in prison with the possibility of being exonerated rather than killed.
- alistairSH 2y ago
  They who? About the only people who wanted the death penalty were politicians up for re-election.
shusaku 2y ago
As far as I could find reading about this case, the “evidence of innocence” is very flimsy. But it’s a reasonable moral stand by the family to want to stay the execution if they think there is even a slim chance of innocence.
- rob74 2y ago
  If you read the article, the "evidence of guilt" is equally flimsy. And if we take "innocent until proven guilty" seriously, that means he not only should not have been executed, but should never have gone to jail in the first place...
  - sparrish 2y ago
    A jury of his peers thought there was enough evidence to convict him and they did. At that point, he's "guilty until proven innocent".
    - formerly_proven 2y ago
      This seems like an exceedingly bad hill to die on. Curtis Flowers was convicted and sentenced to death six times for the same murder by juries of his peers, yet he's a free man today.
      - concordDance 2y ago
        We don't have a better system at the moment, accepting its judgements is reasonable in light of that. And backseating when we're probably missing 90% of the evidence presented at court is unlikely to be any more accurate.
    - BobaFloutist 2y ago
      It's a bit circular when people say "This court decision is wrong" to argue "But this is the decision that was made."
- krisoft 2y ago
knodi123 2y ago
There's plenty of evidence. He confessed to his girlfriend, and a cellmate. He pawned the victim's possessions. He was seen disposing of bloody clothes. He already had 15 felony convictions in addition to offenses related to Ms. Gayle's murder: robbery (2), armed criminal action (2), assault (2), burglary (4), stealing (3), stealing a motor vehicle, and unlawful use of a weapon. Now, as to whether this evidence is solid enough for a death penalty conviction, that's tougher to say. But there's plenty of evidence.
- JeremyNT 2y ago
  > There's plenty of evidence. He confessed to his girlfriend, and a cellmate. Be careful, this is hearsay and not evidence. Those people claim that he confessed to them, but there is a lot more context. Here is what the linked story says about the "he confessed" part: > The investigation had gone cold until a jail inmate named Henry Cole, a man with a lengthy record, claimed that Mr. Williams confessed to him that he committed the murder while they were both locked up in jail. Cole directed police to Laura Asaro, a woman who had briefly dated Mr. Williams and had an extensive record of her own. > Both of these individuals were known fabricators; neither revealed any information that was not either included in media accounts about the case or already known to the police. Their statements were inconsistent with their own prior statements, with each other’s accounts, and with the crime scene evidence, and none of the information they provided could be independently verified.
  - whamlastxmas 2y ago
    Someone who is incarcerated snitching on someone who’s in there with them just screams “give me your cupcake or I’m gonna tell the cops you confessed to me”. Williams was also a person who was black and Muslim so prejudice alone could have been a motivation
    - kergonath 2y ago
      People say stupid things all the time as well. It’s not inconceivable to brag about something that’s not true either as an act of defiance or for social reasons such as to get some respect, look important, or to be left alone.
asveikau 2y ago
As I understand it, it's also extremely rare for a prosecutor to admit mistakes and that a convicted person is innocent, even when it is sufficiently proven, they tend to double down on bad convictions. In this case the prosecutor said the defendant didn't do it. Which makes this a very rare case.
chakintosh 2y ago
Probably so he could have a chance at freedom in case new evidence comes to light exonerating him. Can't really defend yourself if you're dead.
KenArrari 2y ago
Apparently the family believes that he is guilty but doesn't want him executed (but does want him in prison). In some countries the families wishes are enough to prevent an execution but not in the US.

olivermuty 2y ago

It doesn't say in the article, but he was executed last night :(

yapyap 2y ago
Thank you, was looking for this info since they did mention the 24th but hadn’t said if they really went through with it or not. Sad shit, just as sad is the fact that it seems like nothing will change.
- l0t0b0r0s 2y ago
  No one is losing sleep over a murder and career violent criminal being executed. Get real.
SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
[flagged]

monero-xmr 2y ago

The prosecutor who wanted to pardon him was not the original prosecutor, but a recent progressive elected one. The original prosecutor still believes he is guilty. Furthermore it is highly suspect that he was caught selling the laptop stolen from her house and the story about how he came into it is implausible. People who are willing to commit murder are often sociopaths and pathological liars. It isn’t surprising he would maintain his innocence for years. That said we shouldn’t execute him, there’s enough doubt to make it possible he didn’t do it and executing an innocent man is horrendous. And IMO we should eliminate the death penalty anyway. But regardless, I still find the weight of evidence much stronger in favor of guilt over innocence.

tokai 2y ago
>People who are willing to commit murder are often sociopaths and pathological liars Only 27% of them apparently[0], so even murderers are still more likely to not be a psychopath. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178918301678 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135917891...
- monero-xmr 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - tokai 2y ago
    Thats an opinion. It could easily be argued the other way around. Murders during burglary has a higher chance of have happened accidentally than other kind of murders. Stealing is more likely to happen because of poverty than psychopathy. Its kinda a useless exercise making up arguments uninformed by reality.
- tempfile 2y ago
  Thanks for posting this, the quoted text smelled like something pulled out of... the air.
kergonath 2y ago

dbrans 2y ago

Marcellus Williams was executed yesterday, Tuesday. https://apnews.com/article/missouri-execution-marcellus-williams-8be20e2f252992610a30fa0cfef4185a https://apnews.com/article/missouri-execution-marcellus-will...

frontalier 2y ago
don't you mean murdered?
- knodi123 2y ago
  an unlawful killing? well that's an uphill battle, but I'll be intrigued to see how far you can get with your claim.
- Palpatineli 2y ago
  [flagged]
- pirate787 2y ago
  The governor's statement: https://governor.mo.gov/press-releases/archive/state-carry-out-sentence-mr-marcellus-williams-according-supreme-court https://governor.mo.gov/press-releases/archive/state-carry-o...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

spacechild1 2y ago

There is no place for the death penalty in a civilized country!

louwrentius 2y ago
To me the definition of a 'civilized society' is an absence of the death penalty. Many people are also very confused about the justice system in America. It isn't about determining the truth. It's about trying to get you convicted, to advance the career of the prosecutor. In that sense, the 'justice department' is anything but. The 'innocence project[0]' has shown time and time again that truth finding isn't the goal. In the mean time, study after study shows that the death penalty doesn't deter people from crime and it's much more expensive than long prison sentences. However, a strong reason not to execute people, is acknowledging that the 'justice system' is made of people who can make mistakes and that we can never be that certain. Instating the death penalty shows a lack of humility and shows that it's absolutism is mostly for political gain. It scores with more authoritarian inclined voters who like 'simple solutions' and ignore all the complicated context. [0]: https://innocenceproject.org https://innocenceproject.org
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
nomilk 2y ago
<thought experiment> Suppose we lived in a world where it was possible to know someone's guilt or innocence with strictly 100% confidence. Curious to know if your views would change? Note the cost of incarceration is around ~$70k/year; enough to save lives, house people, heal people, feed people etc if put to other uses.
- atoav 2y ago
  You assume that the laws are flawless. They are not. It is hard to un-kill a person if you realize a law was bogus. The first law I would introduce would be that the death sentance only applies to people who demanded it publically before.

n1b0m 2y ago

There was another execution in South Carolina on Friday despite new evidence of innocence https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/20/south-carolina-death-row-prisoner-execution https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/20/south-caroli...

ruph123 2y ago
That case is even worse as it rested fully on the testimony of the other robber, which he made to get a lesser sentence and later rescinded: > Prosecutors had no forensic evidence connecting Allah to the shooting. Surveillance footage at the store showed two masked men with guns, but they were not identifiable. The state’s case rested on testimony from Allah’s friend and co-defendant, Steven Golden, who was also charged in the robbery and murder. As their joint trial was beginning, Golden pleaded guilty to murder, armed robbery and criminal conspiracy and agreed to testify against Allah. Golden, who was 18 at the time of the robbery, said Allah shot Graves.
- fakedang 2y ago
  > Golden said he agreed to plead guilty and testify when prosecutors assured him he would not face the death penalty or a life sentence – a deal that was not disclosed to the jury.
  - awb 2y ago
    > “I substituted [Allah] for the person who was really with me,” he wrote, saying he concealed the identity of the “real shooter” out of fear that “his associates might kill me”. He did not identify this person. If your friend is wrongly facing the death penalty and you know they’re innocent there’s no reason to not name the person you claim is the real shooter.

jmyeet 2y ago

If you're wondering if the Missouri governor Mike Parson sparingly uses his clemency and pardon power, you'd be mistaken [1]: > Parson, a former sheriff, has now granted clemency to more than 760 people since 2020 — more than any Missouri governor since the 1940s including those who waved guns at BLM protestors [2] and the son of the KC Chiefs coach who caused grave bodiy injuries to someone in a DUI. Available data shows a pretty clear trend [3]: > An analysis of available demographic data conducted by the Missouri News Network indicates that almost 90% of those who have been granted clemency by the governor are white. If you're wondering where the US Supreme Court stands on this, consider this quote from then-Justice Antonin Scalia [4]: > [t]his court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent. Also, consider this racial bias demonstrated in the exoneration for those sentence to death [5]: > Since 1973, at least 189 people wrongly convicted and sentenced to death have been exonerated. 100 of the death row exonerees are Black. Lastly, even if you want to ignore the immorality of the death setnence, look at it from the lens of cost [6]. Death penalty cases are substantially more expensive to litigate and death row inmates are substantially more expensive to incarcerate. A life-without-parole would be substantially cheaper. Also, you can release someone from prison wrongly convicted. You cannot bring them back to life and there are multiple cases of people who were executed and later exonerated. Williams is sadly added to that list. [1]: https://apnews.com/article/kansas-city-chiefs-britt-reid-commutation-parson-17630ef04030c056270b7993814e6aed https://apnews.com/article/kansas-city-chiefs-britt-reid-com... [2]: https://www.npr.org/2021/08/03/1024446351/missouris-governor-pardons-the-st-louis-lawyers-who-waved-guns-at-blm-protesters https://www.npr.org/2021/08/03/1024446351/missouris-governor... [3]: https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/state_news/governors-record-clemency-pace-disproportionately-benefits-white-applicants/article_a55c7e0e-f245-11ec-b139-0bc50da2e4d5.html https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/state_news/governors... [4]: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/associate-justice-antonin-scalia-1937-2016 https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/associate-justice-anton... [5]: https://www.naacpldf.org/our-thinking/death-row-usa/ https://www.naacpldf.org/our-thinking/death-row-usa/ [6]: https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/ https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalt...

2y ago

jstummbillig 2y ago

> “The family defines closure as Marcellus being allowed to live,” the petition stated. “Marcellus’ execution is not necessary.” Imagine we lived in that world.

spiritplumber 2y ago
Aside the fact that the death penalty shouldn't exist in the first place, the victim's family should be able to veto it (automatic commutation to a life sentence).
- fakedang 2y ago
  Incidentally, that's a feature of Islamic law, and where the concept of blood money comes into picture. Which also means that you might be able to get away with murder, if you're rich enough.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
l0t0b0r0s 2y ago
In a world with more murderers alive? no thanks.

BostonFern 2y ago

From CNN: “Other evidence that helped convict Williams ‘remains intact,’ the attorney general said. ‘The victim’s personal items were found in Williams’s car after the murder. A witness testified that Williams had sold the victim’s laptop to him. Williams confessed to his girlfriend and an inmate in the St. Louis City Jail, and William’s girlfriend saw him dispose of the bloody clothes worn during the murder,’ the attorney general’s office said.” https://lite.cnn.com/2024/09/24/us/marcellus-williams-scheduled-execution-date/index.html https://lite.cnn.com/2024/09/24/us/marcellus-williams-schedu...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

gruntledfangler 2y ago

[flagged]

TrackerFF 2y ago

So it seems that the original case rested on the following: - Williams GF witness testimony, that Williams confessed to her. - Jailhouse witness testimony, that Williams had confessed to them. - That Williams had items (purse, laptop, etc.) in his car, on the day or day after the murder. But no DNA evidence? A death penalty seems pretty egregious, when you have that kind of evidence. Seems like there's plenty of reasonable doubt in the picture. (FWIW, I completely oppose the death penalty - on the grounds that innocent people have been executed. One is one too many)

voisin 2y ago
The argument is that the girlfriend and jailhouse snitch both were looking to get the $10k reward money for his conviction. And that’s the only way the third point (had the items in the car) was known (from the girlfriend).
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  No, they knew the items were in the car because they searched his car and found the items. He has not, as far as I know, offered any alternative explanation of how he came into possession of a murder victim's random personal items.
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    This is exactly what I would focus on as a juror. How did he come by the items, surely if someone sold them to him he would say immediately who that was or offer some other way of getting it other than “I murdered her”
  - brewdad 2y ago
    Nor is he required to give an explanation. The prosecutor must prove that possession of the items leads to proof of guilt.
    - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Eumenes 2y ago

[flagged]

kergonath 2y ago
I am… not sure that the successive versions of the ancient Roman society are a thing to emulate. Though I can see how a society in a state of constant warfare for centuries and utterly dominated by an oligarchy completely divorced from reality could be appealing to some. Do you support political oponents being eaten by lions as well?
- Eumenes 2y ago
  > Do you support political oponents being eaten by lions as well? No, leave the lions alone. What the Romans did to animals for entertainment was very cruel. And also expensive.
bbor 2y ago
[flagged]
- Eumenes 2y ago
  The murderer had the victims bloody jacket and some of her belongings in his car. He confessed to his partner and his prison mate that he did in fact kill her and steal her stuff. Nothing fascist about justice.
  - RavingGoat 2y ago
    Except the DNA on the murder weapon wasn't his
    - sickofparadox 2y ago
      He is believed by multiple crime scene investigators to have worn gloves so what does that matter?
  - 2y ago

game_the0ry 2y ago

Does anyone find it deeply disturbing that the justice system will just sit on its own hands when presented with new evidence? It seems like prosecutors are more interested in maintaining a hi conviction rate rather than seeking justice. Judges seem totally apathetic.

knodi123 2y ago
> when presented with new evidence? They weren't, for the record.
DoughnutHole 2y ago
In this case the prosecutor actively pushed against the execution, arguing that his guilt was no longer beyond a reasonable doubt. The blame for this lies squarely on the Missouri Supreme Court and Gov. Parson (who has never once granted clemency in a capital case).
- EasyMark 2y ago
  As well as the US Supreme Court
  - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      Democrats had cumulative decades of opportunity to instate abortion access in national law and declined to ever do so. All of the things you're pointing out are true but downstream of that.
      - BadHumans 2y ago
        Democrats would need a super majority to pass abortion and the last time that happened was 09.

anonzzzies 2y ago

Still not sure with so many of the (esp right leaning) in the US claiming to be christian, can also accept this as a punishment. But I get nonsense begets more nonsense.

jzackpete 2y ago
[flagged]
- anonzzzies 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - jzackpete 2y ago
    I'm an atheist, so I wouldn't consider myself an expert on their beliefs, but you don't appear to be either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill
    - anonzzzies 2y ago
      I guess it's a matter of interpretation; I am also an atheist but was raised a protestant (we had to memorise and read in front of the class selected parts from the bible every day) and our flavour (which might be different from even others in the same branch) definitely has no tolerance for justified killing except by the lord. I know some religions have tolerance for justified killing as you pointed out, just that's not what ours told us. But point taken and people do and read into things whatever fits them.
    - mrangle 2y ago
      Lost in translation, the Commandment is not to murder. Legal killing of the guilty (of murder), and in self defense for example, is not murder. Just as it isn't in the secular legal system. Therefore, there is no conflict. That's not to say that there isn't room for mercy when called for. Also, prudence should be exercised to the highest possible standard and then some. No one has broken a Commandment by executing Ted Bundy for example, by defending from a hostile Army, nor by defending their own life from imminent murder by a criminal aggressor.

kkfx 2y ago

To my European eye I'm curious why those who have ordered and those who have executed the wrongfully convicted prisoner, despite the evidence, are not arrested for aggravated murder... It's simple: they have choose, they are responsible for an homicide PERIOD.

diogenes_atx 2y ago

Since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976 in the USA, many innocent Americans have been executed by the state. There is a considerable literature of scholarly research documenting this issue. For those interested in learning more, I highly recommend the following books: Justin Brooks (2023) You Might Go to Prison Even Though You're Innocent, University of California Press https://www.amazon.com/Might-Prison-Though-Youre-Innocent/dp/0520386833/ref=sr_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.i18xd3nEh00UEuW--zsSH5gzi8Q89xh3VdmG-sHpZtLJ1fc_dFbi2Fy_plYWyyZU.fhfemgmUKaQARWQcActqJk2mFYdPbYHQFfr8bs_0b2I&dib_tag=se&keywords=You+Might+Go+to+Prison+Even+Though+You%27re+Innocent&qid=1727269974&s=books&sr=1-1 https://www.amazon.com/Might-Prison-Though-Youre-Innocent/dp... Brandon Garrett (2011) Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong,‎ Harvard University Press https://www.amazon.com/Convicting-Innocent-Where-Criminal-Prosecutions/dp/0674066111/ref=sr_1_1?crid=EAI46C3HLDQB&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.-1_bJZAVBkjGJEI6zD52WdO-IyvUH69KCrYmBx_m6D5FAMQCoeiuYbVP3lkjt-9gpgV1mzGahSOTRXWWc5XIXjFaYSwxOpH6r6-icb5Fe5KcQc1tY1voZiJByDmv-LfYZiunV5ufy9X6UNJa6z6MuhJ9gNZXXaXntLqudxTWmzBQFhMt2fQepb8RiNrnx2PsjYFOAdzSuD4vYixgCbWiauzSWIHU7NzqVBEpMcLkFT4.RsV2QADXWuNZawxYREYn9Z_k5MPb85FOTye8El40qQ4&dib_tag=se&keywords=convicting+the+innocent+book&qid=1727270056&sprefix=Convicting+the+in%2Caps%2C333&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Convicting-Innocent-Where-Criminal-Pr... Mark Godsey (2017) Blind Injustice: A Former Prosecutor Exposes Psychology and Politics of Wrongful Convictions, University of California Press https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Injustice-Prosecutor-Psychology-Convictions/dp/0520305639/ref=sr_1_1?crid=21UAIDIYBQX8&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.oEDiZDmdQXpcnTrrk_rdLA.Z2WRBMc_pQ6-JEiztuRPWY9tury3fobrbstLyLT30YU&dib_tag=se&keywords=Blind+Injustice%3A+A+Former+Prosecutor+Exposes+Psychology+and+Politics+of+Wrongful+Convictions&qid=1727270121&sprefix=blind+injustice+a+former+prosecutor+exposes+psychology+and+politics+of+wrongful+convictions%2Caps%2C171&sr=8-1 https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Injustice-Prosecutor-Psychology...

ideashower 2y ago
I was doing some reading based on your comment, and I'm kind of astonished to learn that public support for the death penalty only went up after the Gregg decision, peaking at 80% for in 1990. Wow.

mykowebhn 2y ago

Why is this submission not on the front page if it has so many upvotes in the past hour, and the number of upvotes exceeds the number of comments?

kergonath 2y ago
Probably too many comments. Too much activity compared to the number of votes is interpreted as a sign of flame wars and heated and unproductive discussions, and sink stories. This kind of topics don’t stay on the front page for long, usually.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

shadowtree 2y ago

[flagged]

moomin 2y ago
Yes, if you make it legal to commit crimes like murder, the murder rate will hugely go down.

nevercomingback 2y ago

[flagged]

danparsonson 2y ago
[flagged]

CollinEMac 2y ago

Update: it's too late... > Marcellus Williams, whose murder conviction was questioned by a prosecutor, died by lethal injection Tuesday evening in Missouri after the US Supreme Court denied a stay. > The 55-year-old was put to death around 6 p.m. CT at the state prison in Bonne Terre. https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/24/us/marcellus-williams-scheduled-execution-date/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/24/us/marcellus-williams-schedul...

jimt1234 2y ago

I applaud the Innocence Project for taking this case, but honestly, Missouri? What did they expect? This is the same governor that tried to prosecute a newspaper reporter after they uncovered social security numbers in the HTML code from a state-run website. Then, when the governor was informed about how stupid his claim was, he doubled-down, insisting he would seek prosecution. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/14/1046124278/missouri-newspaper-security-flaws-hacking-investigation-gov-mike-parson https://www.npr.org/2021/10/14/1046124278/missouri-newspaper...

t-writescode 2y ago
I imagine a team like The Innocence Project expects to lose most of their cases, but they try anyway because every life is worth saving.
- jimt1234 2y ago
  well-said ^^^

plandis 2y ago

It’s sad that the US government unnecessarily deprived a human being of their right to life. I hope one day the people involved are prosecuted for this premeditated murder.

WheatMillington 2y ago
State executions are literally, by definition, not murder.
- DandyDev 2y ago
  Legally they aren't, morally you could argue they are.
- NietTim 2y ago
  And who wrote that definition again? Right, the murderers.
- arp242 2y ago
  Legally speaking Stalin's purges were also not murder, by definition. It's obvious the previous poster was making a point of morality, not legality. You can of course disagree with that morality. That's fine. But going "but akshually the law says..." is being highly obtuse.
  - karpatic 2y ago
    Chiming in like this makes me wounder what your view on abortion is. I'm not asking, though.
    - arp242 2y ago
      I'm not really sure if I follow how that relates? I'm just saying that "X is legal" is not really a good counter to "X is not moral", which of course also applies in the reverse. Legality and morality are just not the same thing.

istjohn 2y ago

If we aren't going to abolish the death penalty, we should at least require a higher standard of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt to carry it out. It should require incontrovertible proof. Circumstantial evidence should not be allowed. Expert testimony should be barred. The evidence must be conclusive, plain, and certain to every member of the jury. This would allow you to execute, e.g., mass shooters who give themselves up, but make it extremely unlikely to irreversibly kill someone on the basis of junk science, induced or extorted testimony, or other fallible evidence.

ajross 2y ago
I think most people would agree with that stuff in isolation, but reasonable solutions aren't really addressing the problem. Support for the Death Penalty is a political shibboleth in the modern US. It's not going to change, realistically ever, absent a major demographic realignment in the way we sort our citizens into parties. Preaching to a choir of geeks looking for "solutions" is the wrong target.
- chris_wot 2y ago
  IMO, the only solution is to abolish it.
- Trill-I-Am 2y ago
  Plenty of states have banned it in the past 50 years. It's on the decline.
  - gibbetsandcrows 2y ago
    And some states while not having banned it outright have made it effectively impossible to carry out. Oregon IIRC had their execution chamber and death row dismantled when their last governor left office. Execution is still on the books though.
koenigdavidmj 2y ago
We don’t use the word reasonable anymore the way it was written originally, and the actual meaning is what you’re asking for, except for every conviction, not just capital ones. It doesn’t mean “a small but tolerable level of doubt”. It means doubt backed by reason. “Aliens made me do it” is doubt that is not backed by reason. “There is another plausible way that conforms to the evidence given that he came to possess that laptop” is reasonable doubt.

diogenes_atx 2y ago

Many of the contributors to this thread are under the wrong impression that the police found the victim's laptop and other items in Marcellus Williams' car. This is not true. According to Wikipedia, the murder occurred in August 1998, but it was not until May 1999 that the victim's family "announced a $10,000 reward for information leading to an arrest and conviction in the case. In response, two individuals, Henry Cole and Lara Asaro, named Marcellus Scott Williams as the culprit." The wikipedia article continues: "Lara Asaro, the girlfriend of Williams at the time of the crime, gave testimony that Williams had confessed to her... This is after she discovered evidence from the crime scene in Williams' car." This is an important clarification: The police did not find the victim's property in Williams' car. Rather, Williams' ex-girlfriend, who was incentivized by reward money, claimed, more than 8 months after the crime, that she saw the victim's property in his car. This is one of the the main reasons that the Innocence Project correctly argues that there is no reliable evidence linking Marcellus Williams to the murder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Felicia_Gayle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Felicia_Gayle

MikeAmelung 2y ago
"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://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-83934-1.html https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-...
- wpm 2y ago
  Circumstantial. There are a 1000 different ways he could have obtained those items without committing a murder. Prove that having them is proof positive he killed someone.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    I don't think we should have capital punishment at all, anywhere, and certainly this is a textbook example of why, but circumstantial evidence is real evidence, admissible in court cases.

sashank_1509 2y ago

It seems wrong, that the 2 major points of evidence against Marcellus are a testimony from his ex and cellmate. I don’t trust humans, to trust convicting people based on 2 hearsay sources of testimony. Maybe this worked in the past when America was smaller and the average morality of a person was very high, but now this just seems ripe for abuse. I wouldn’t use this evidence to make a decision in an office dispute.

ugh123 2y ago

Ah, Republicans are the responsible party here. Right to life my ass.

lapestenoire 2y ago

I am very happy when I see The Innocence Project taking on a case like this because it tells me they have already worked through the backlog of actually innocent people as well as the people who might possibly be innocent, and now have worked there way to the cases which are 1% flawed but in which the correct perpetrator has nevertheless been identified, tried by a jury of his peers, convicted, appealed, etc.

nycticorax 2y ago

Is the transcript of the original court case available online somewhere? The oldest thing I'm seeing is https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-83934-1.html https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-... , which is (I think...) the decision of the state supreme court on the appeal. There are several points where it seems like there is some dispute about what exactly the evidence is tying Williams to the murder, and where the original trial transcript might help clarify things.

7ero 2y ago

yieldcrv 2y ago

Its wild how these discussions dont factor in who the murderer is Just out there walking around somewhere

timwaagh 2y ago

the American justice system is flawed. It's mob justice that was only fit for the 1700s when there was nothing better. Or maybe there was,I wasn't around. Untrained people can't decide on guilt or innocence. They can't judge evidence. They allow themselves to be swayed by beauty or likeability to greater extent. They're lives are no good, on average. This makes most of them mean and vindictive. If they can allow someone to suffer like they have, it feels good to them. I'm not sure whether it's racism. It's the usual explanation for this phenomenon. I can understand racism. I don't believe in opening the floodgates. it sounds more like plain bloodlust. Because blood is what you're going to get if you go on this way.

euroderf 2y ago

It is evil. The governor is evil. 'Nuf said.

anon291 2y ago

Reading the governor's letter it seems clear: 1. The witness who claimed Williams confessed provided non-publicly-available, but known-to-police, details about the case. This is very strong evidence that the confession was made to them. 2. The girlfriend's hesitation to go to police (she never asked for the reward money) is due to the fact that Williams threatened her family, which is a real threat considering his history of violence 3. The prosecution had several other witnesses that were not called to the stand to whom Williams told about the murder 4. Williams not only had Gayle's laptop, but had her husband's laptop and had sold it to someone. The police found the laptop and the owner identifier Williams as the seller. 5. Williams not only had her laptop but a bunch of household items. Tell me, when have you had several items from a murder victim in your car? Williams offers no explanation for where these came from. Look... criminals are not the type to take responsibility for their actions. Williams criminal history and jailhouse violence indicate that this is not a man who learns from past mistakes, or who even think he needed reform of any kind.

diogenes_atx 2y ago
I was unable to find a "letter" from Missouri Governor Michael Parson about this case, but there is a press release from the Office of the Governor (url copied below). Here are some of the highlights of the Governor's statement to the press: The Governor's Office offers the following summary of the crime: "Marcellus Williams murdered Felicia Gayle on August 11, 1998. He burglarized Ms. Gayle’s home, ambushed her as she left the shower, stabbed her 43 times and left the knife lodged in her neck." Because of the bloody and brutal nature of the crime, the police were able to recover DNA evidence at the crime scene. However, as the Innocence Project observed, the DNA evidence that was left behind by the killer does not match Marcellus Williams. The perpetrator left a knife in the victim's neck, but the DNA recovered from the knife - which could have conclusively determined who killed the victim - was contaminated and destroyed by the state, as noted by the Innocence Project. Yet, the governor's press release completely ignores these facts, and then proceeds to deliver an astonishing statement: "I also want to add how deeply disturbed we’ve been about how this case has been covered. Mr. Williams’ attorneys chose to muddy the waters about DNA evidence, claims of which Courts have repeatedly rejected. Yet, some media outlets and activist groups have continued such claims without so much of a mention of the judicial proceedings or an unbiased analysis of the facts." DNA is proven science, and a true "unbiased analysis of the facts" would presumably include the critical details that (1) none of the DNA evidence recovered from the crime scene matched Williams, and (2) the murder weapon was mishandled by state investigators, thereby destroying potentially exculpatory evidence that could have exonerated Williams. The other evidence cited by the Governor's Office is all circumstantial. Contrary to the Governor's assertions, the witnesses who testified against Williams were in fact incentivized with reward money, and they did not offer details of the crime that were unknown to the public through media reports. In summary, there is no direct evidence connecting Marcellus Williams to the crime scene. The real murderer in this case is Missouri Governor Mike Parson. https://governor.mo.gov/press-releases/archive/state-carry-out-sentence-mr-marcellus-williams-according-supreme-court https://governor.mo.gov/press-releases/archive/state-carry-o... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Felicia_Gayle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Felicia_Gayle

yawpitch 2y ago

I was foreman of a jury on a murder trial once; it’s my signature on the verdict form that sealed the fate of a man. In an extremely real and personal sense, I am directly responsible for putting a man in prison, and given his age, health conditions, and the sentence that was going to be passed, that means I’m directly responsible for ensuring a human being dies in prison. I ask myself every day if we made the right decision. We passed the bar of reasonable doubt, but we did that entirely because the prosecutor’s office had infinite resources and a homeless Black defendant with HIV and addiction had zero resources and an obviously less than interested (or prepared) public defender who had given up the fight. If I’d been his lawyer, I’m sure I could have gotten him off, and IANAL… I just would have poked at obvious and extremely reasonable holes in the prosecutor’s story. Because the prosecutor had nearly infinite resources (victim brought significant press attention) they had nearly infinite power to keep retrying until the defense was simply overwhelmed. Don’t know a damned thing about this case, but after seeing how the sausage that is the law actually plays out and how very little anything in a real court resembles TV, I don’t think anyone should ever ask a juror to pass a death sentence on someone else. It’s simply impossible to take resource bias out of the equation, and doubt that would have been reasonable if it had just been brought up by an overworked public defender will haunt you… in my case nearly 20 years later.

TrapLord_Rhodo 2y ago

Am i the only one in favor of capital punishment in this thread? My mom used to work at state hospital for the criminally insane. The stories she would tell me about how these people got in there were absolutely brutal. (Canabalism, satanic sacrafices of loved ones, all manor of wierd shit.). Instead of executing these lunatics, they send them to a "State Hospital" for rehabilitation. It's not a Prison, but a hospital so the conditions are great for the guy who ate his mom. So much so that some of the gang members claim 51/51 and say craay shit to the jury to get sent to a state hospital instead of prison. The U.S. spends approximately $75 billion per year on incarcerating prisoners... You could build a city, every year for that amount. Someone who commits capital murder, admits to it, does 30 years in prison. You have robbed them off all life. They aren't rehabilitated, they are just a hardened prison inmate with no chance to make it back in the real world so their only option alot of the time is to do what you've taught them in prison on release. Steal, lie, cheat and do anything you can to try and stay alive. So, it would cost approximately $2.43 million to imprison one person in California for 30 years. (California costs around ~81k per year per prisoner). Death seems to be so feared nowadays to the point where they can justify taking away any sense of freedom, rights and soverignty and put you in a small cage for 30 years, but yet the death penalty is to far? If i ever get falsely accused of a crime that would send me to jail for life i would beg for the death penalty.

wiether 2y ago
Doesn't the US privatized incarceration so it's basically a _free_ market, where shady deals are made to funnel more public money to private entities, and many people are incentivized to have as many people in prison as possible? In that case, the cost on citizens for incarceration of people shouldn't be taken into account in the discussion around capital punishment because it's another issue altogether?
- cxvrfr 2y ago
  > Doesn't the US privatized Isn't that less than 10% of the market (i.e. most prisons are not private)

ein0p 2y ago

Utterly pointless to argue this since we do not have access to the totality evidence and testimony that the Court and the jury had access to. Could it be that they were wrong? Unlikely but yes. Is it likely that we here are “less wrong”. Not a chance