5 ms·

> unrelated people recounted confessions he made to them that included details that were never made public Do you have a source? "The case against Mr. Willia

> unrelated people recounted confessions he made to them that included details that were never made public Do you have a source? "The case against Mr. Williams turned on the testimony of two unreliable witnesses who were incentivized by promises of leniency in their own pending criminal cases and reward money. 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. "

nemo44x 2y ago
Literally the Missouri Supreme Court decision and US Supreme Court decision that supports it.
- kergonath 2y ago
  I get your point and I am not arguing for his innocence, but both courts are highly suspect these days.
  - nemo44x 2y ago
    Everything is fallable, sure. But consider this: the guy had millions of dollars of pro bono legal machinery behind him and even still could not produce an argument or counter evidence to support his claim. Our system is amazingly transparent and corruption or outright denial of evidence would be clearly apparent. And it’s not there. The system works almost always but does get it wrong sometimes. I doubt that this was that time. Justice was served.
    - sophacles 2y ago
      > and corruption or outright denial of evidence would be clearly apparent Not really - the legal discovery rules require full disclosure of all evidence, yet you regularly hear about how prosecutors don't disclose evidence. Sometimes the appeals process will grant a new trial, sometimes they overturn, but often the judges will just say "we're not going to bother worrying about the lack of a fair trial". It happens often enough that prosecutors are willing to take the gamble on it, otherwise it wouldn't continue to be a common news story.
      - nemo44x 2y ago
        In this case though the defense never even challenged the evidence or if it was sufficient. You “regularly” hear about it because it’s so rare that it’s news if it happens. It’s a very rare event. Read the background here and tell me you really support this man who stabbed that woman - mother and wife - 43 times. https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-83934-1.html https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-...
- tiahura 2y ago
  The same justices that put a pro-abortion amendment on the ballot.
dropin685 2y ago
> " [...] neither revealed any information that was not either included in media accounts about the case or already known to the police. " My brain is short-circuiting over the two parts of this snippet from The Innocence Project. Presumably both are intended to suggest unreliable individuals and an unjust guilty verdict, but I find a mismatch between the two. It's one thing to suppose the individuals revealed some details that were featured in media accounts. But it's quite a different thing to suppose the individuals revealed some details that were known only to police. The former point is of no consequence, but the latter point, if true, supports the reliability of the individuals and the guilt of the accused. Not that I support the death penalty anyway. But I'm leaning toward nemo44x's personal take mentioned above. And the snippet was presumably written to coax us that the man was innocent. Am I missing something? They seem like weasel words, as another poster put it. :(
- nemo44x 2y ago
  Just read the background from the appeal case and urs clear as day he’s guilty. They challenged a bunch of technicalities with flimsy arguments. At no point did they challenge if the evidence was sufficient. https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-83934-1.html https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-... He stabbed that women 43 times. And yet these fools support this evil monster of a man.
hdlothia 2y ago
This is a lawyer's evasive way of hiding that these individuals revealed info that was not known to the public but was confirmed to be accurate by the police
- nemo44x 2y ago
  I love how they try and paint the witnesses as unreliable because they have "records" while defending the guy who had 15 violent felonies and already serving time for armed robbery as a victim of the system. While also ignoring the testimony of the person he fenced the victim's laptop to and the victim's belongings being found in the car he used to drive to burglary turned murder.

nemo44x 2y ago

Literally the Missouri Supreme Court decision and US Supreme Court decision that supports it.

kergonath 2y ago
I get your point and I am not arguing for his innocence, but both courts are highly suspect these days.
- nemo44x 2y ago
  Everything is fallable, sure. But consider this: the guy had millions of dollars of pro bono legal machinery behind him and even still could not produce an argument or counter evidence to support his claim. Our system is amazingly transparent and corruption or outright denial of evidence would be clearly apparent. And it’s not there. The system works almost always but does get it wrong sometimes. I doubt that this was that time. Justice was served.
  - sophacles 2y ago
    > and corruption or outright denial of evidence would be clearly apparent Not really - the legal discovery rules require full disclosure of all evidence, yet you regularly hear about how prosecutors don't disclose evidence. Sometimes the appeals process will grant a new trial, sometimes they overturn, but often the judges will just say "we're not going to bother worrying about the lack of a fair trial". It happens often enough that prosecutors are willing to take the gamble on it, otherwise it wouldn't continue to be a common news story.
    - nemo44x 2y ago
      In this case though the defense never even challenged the evidence or if it was sufficient. You “regularly” hear about it because it’s so rare that it’s news if it happens. It’s a very rare event. Read the background here and tell me you really support this man who stabbed that woman - mother and wife - 43 times. https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-83934-1.html https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-...
tiahura 2y ago
The same justices that put a pro-abortion amendment on the ballot.

dropin685 2y ago

> " [...] neither revealed any information that was not either included in media accounts about the case or already known to the police. " My brain is short-circuiting over the two parts of this snippet from The Innocence Project. Presumably both are intended to suggest unreliable individuals and an unjust guilty verdict, but I find a mismatch between the two. It's one thing to suppose the individuals revealed some details that were featured in media accounts. But it's quite a different thing to suppose the individuals revealed some details that were known only to police. The former point is of no consequence, but the latter point, if true, supports the reliability of the individuals and the guilt of the accused. Not that I support the death penalty anyway. But I'm leaning toward nemo44x's personal take mentioned above. And the snippet was presumably written to coax us that the man was innocent. Am I missing something? They seem like weasel words, as another poster put it. :(

nemo44x 2y ago
Just read the background from the appeal case and urs clear as day he’s guilty. They challenged a bunch of technicalities with flimsy arguments. At no point did they challenge if the evidence was sufficient. https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-83934-1.html https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-... He stabbed that women 43 times. And yet these fools support this evil monster of a man.

hdlothia 2y ago

This is a lawyer's evasive way of hiding that these individuals revealed info that was not known to the public but was confirmed to be accurate by the police

nemo44x 2y ago
I love how they try and paint the witnesses as unreliable because they have "records" while defending the guy who had 15 violent felonies and already serving time for armed robbery as a victim of the system. While also ignoring the testimony of the person he fenced the victim's laptop to and the victim's belongings being found in the car he used to drive to burglary turned murder.