7 ms·

So it seems that the original case rested on the following: - Williams GF witness testimony, that Williams confessed to her. - Jailhouse witness testimony, th

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
      That's true, but I'm not sure what your point is. The prosecutor did prove that, convincing a unanimous jury that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps you're thinking of it as a self-incrimination issue? That's a misperception I've seen before, where people generalize from Fifth Amendment protections to a broad rule that criminal defendants can never be at a disadvantage for refusing to explain themselves. That's not the case. If the prosecution says you obtained some items by taking them from the victim, and that's the only reasonable explanation the jury hears for how you got them, it's 100% within bounds for them to infer it's the correct explanation.
    - anon291 2y ago
      He is not required, but absent an explanation, a jury might think him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. After all, if your husband comes home late at night with lipstick all over him in a drunken stupor and unzipped pants, and then, as you threaten divorce and kick him out of the house, he offers no explanation, you too might think him guilty. Whereas, if he claims to have been assaulted by a very large woman you might listen to him. The 5th amendment protects you from being called as a witness against yourself. That doesn't mean you should not offer the jury testimony in defense of yourself. In general, if you have an alternative explanation for the circumstances which have led to your suspicion, you should offer them up readily.
      - gklitz 2y ago
        > He is not required, but absent an explanation, a jury might think him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s just plainly insane. Absence of proof of innocence is not proof guilt. It’s not even suggestive of proof, let alone proof without a resonable doubt!? That would leave half the country with a death sentence because they don’t have reliable affirmative proof that they didn’t commit this murder. Do you remember where you were on the day the murder happened? If you cannot provide proof, we’ll consider you guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > argument is that the girlfriend and jailhouse snitch both were looking to get the $10k reward money for his conviction The Governor's counterargument being the "girlfriend never requested the reward for information about Ms. Gayle’s murder, despite claims that she was only interested in money" [1]. The interesting thing is I could see myself, were I on the jury, and if the other facts of the case aligned, finding Williams guilty beyond reasonable doubt where the punishment is life without parole. But I can't reach the certainty I'd want for the death penalty. Yet that implies a tremendous amount of faith in my ability to finely distinguish probabilities of guilt, an ability I don't think I have. This discussion is confusing because it's about two separate issues: a Rorschach test on your views on capital punishment and an orthogonal one about due process and William's guilt. (They're not orthogonal, but the interaction between those can probably be entirely described by the former.) [1] 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...
  - XorNot 2y ago
    It also highlights the stupidity of the death penalty: the jury is instructed "if you find this person guilty, we will kill them for it" - i.e. an action with no possibility of reversal or redress. It's an odd stress test of the idea of "reasonable doubt" because of course in reality, there's always some doubt but the level of doubt for "let's irreversible kill a person" versus "let's detain them for life, but admit the possibility extraordinary evidence might emerge which changes our decision" is pretty vast. In a world where the development of DNA testing technology changed a lot of outcomes including numerous capital punishment cases, it's essentially unthinkable that we could continue with it.
    - blendergeek 2y ago
      In Missouri (as in most US States with capital punishment), the death penalty must separately be approved by the jury after the jury convicts. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States#Sentencing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Un...
  - 2y ago
- ruined 2y ago
  asaro had more reasons to make these claims https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/21/us/marcellus-williams-missouri-death-row/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/21/us/marcellus-williams-missour... >And though Picus’ laptop was recovered, the prosecuting attorney’s office says Roberts told investigators Williams said he’d gotten it from Asaro – a claim Roberts reiterated in an affidavit signed in 2020. Jurors at trial never heard this assertion, which the prosecutor’s motion says illustrates “the person with the most direct connection to the crime” was “Laura Asaro, and not Marcellus Williams.” additionally, they only made the statements after being threatened by police >The woman at first denied having information about the crime, prosecutors’ motion states. But after meeting with police several times – and being promised charges she was facing would be dropped and told she would be eligible for the reward – Asaro eventually cooperated, telling police she had indeed seen Williams on the afternoon of the murder, the motion states.
  - sdiufshi 2y ago
    What amazes me is how routine this practice is to this very day. It is commonplace for police to use vile tactics and tell patent lies. The entire system is rigged in a way that cares not about truth but about winning. When you measure things in conviction rate this is bound to happen.
slibhb 2y ago
That seems like pretty strong evidence to me!
- maximinus_thrax 2y ago
  For a civil case, probably. But for a criminal case, the threshold is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Plenty of reasonable doubt in there.
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - alistairSH 2y ago
      That’s not the way our justice system is supposed to work. We don’t require proof of innocence. We require (or are supposed to require) proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt. Possessing stolen goods should not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of murder.
      - ImJamal 2y ago
        He openly admitted to multiple people he killed her and had her property in his possession. Do you think that it was impossible to have burden of proof prior to DNA or something? Who admits to killing somebody while having their property in their possession if they didn't do it? The average person would probably accept just admitting it multiple times to be beyond a reasonable doubt, but adding on the possession of the murder victim's property just pushes it further.
        maximinus_thrax 2y ago
        No, some witnesses testified that he allegedly confessed. This is called hearsay. There is an exception to hearsay when it comes to confessions and that's the reason the testimony was admitted during the trial. A hearsay confession is very different than a confession made to the public, the police, the prosecutor, in court or during a deposition. The witnesses received benefits from their testimonies and this again leads to reasonable doubt. > The average person would probably accept just admitting it multiple times to be beyond a reasonable doubt How can you be so sure the confessions actually happened?
truetraveller 2y ago
> on the day or day after the murder. They found this a 8-10 months later, not the next day. So much misinformation, I believe on purpose. And her GF snitched before, not to mention she wanted the reward.

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
    That's true, but I'm not sure what your point is. The prosecutor did prove that, convincing a unanimous jury that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps you're thinking of it as a self-incrimination issue? That's a misperception I've seen before, where people generalize from Fifth Amendment protections to a broad rule that criminal defendants can never be at a disadvantage for refusing to explain themselves. That's not the case. If the prosecution says you obtained some items by taking them from the victim, and that's the only reasonable explanation the jury hears for how you got them, it's 100% within bounds for them to infer it's the correct explanation.
  - anon291 2y ago
    He is not required, but absent an explanation, a jury might think him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. After all, if your husband comes home late at night with lipstick all over him in a drunken stupor and unzipped pants, and then, as you threaten divorce and kick him out of the house, he offers no explanation, you too might think him guilty. Whereas, if he claims to have been assaulted by a very large woman you might listen to him. The 5th amendment protects you from being called as a witness against yourself. That doesn't mean you should not offer the jury testimony in defense of yourself. In general, if you have an alternative explanation for the circumstances which have led to your suspicion, you should offer them up readily.
    - gklitz 2y ago
      > He is not required, but absent an explanation, a jury might think him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s just plainly insane. Absence of proof of innocence is not proof guilt. It’s not even suggestive of proof, let alone proof without a resonable doubt!? That would leave half the country with a death sentence because they don’t have reliable affirmative proof that they didn’t commit this murder. Do you remember where you were on the day the murder happened? If you cannot provide proof, we’ll consider you guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> argument is that the girlfriend and jailhouse snitch both were looking to get the $10k reward money for his conviction The Governor's counterargument being the "girlfriend never requested the reward for information about Ms. Gayle’s murder, despite claims that she was only interested in money" [1]. The interesting thing is I could see myself, were I on the jury, and if the other facts of the case aligned, finding Williams guilty beyond reasonable doubt where the punishment is life without parole. But I can't reach the certainty I'd want for the death penalty. Yet that implies a tremendous amount of faith in my ability to finely distinguish probabilities of guilt, an ability I don't think I have. This discussion is confusing because it's about two separate issues: a Rorschach test on your views on capital punishment and an orthogonal one about due process and William's guilt. (They're not orthogonal, but the interaction between those can probably be entirely described by the former.) [1] 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...
- XorNot 2y ago
  It also highlights the stupidity of the death penalty: the jury is instructed "if you find this person guilty, we will kill them for it" - i.e. an action with no possibility of reversal or redress. It's an odd stress test of the idea of "reasonable doubt" because of course in reality, there's always some doubt but the level of doubt for "let's irreversible kill a person" versus "let's detain them for life, but admit the possibility extraordinary evidence might emerge which changes our decision" is pretty vast. In a world where the development of DNA testing technology changed a lot of outcomes including numerous capital punishment cases, it's essentially unthinkable that we could continue with it.
  - blendergeek 2y ago
    In Missouri (as in most US States with capital punishment), the death penalty must separately be approved by the jury after the jury convicts. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States#Sentencing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Un...
- 2y ago
ruined 2y ago
asaro had more reasons to make these claims https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/21/us/marcellus-williams-missouri-death-row/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/21/us/marcellus-williams-missour... >And though Picus’ laptop was recovered, the prosecuting attorney’s office says Roberts told investigators Williams said he’d gotten it from Asaro – a claim Roberts reiterated in an affidavit signed in 2020. Jurors at trial never heard this assertion, which the prosecutor’s motion says illustrates “the person with the most direct connection to the crime” was “Laura Asaro, and not Marcellus Williams.” additionally, they only made the statements after being threatened by police >The woman at first denied having information about the crime, prosecutors’ motion states. But after meeting with police several times – and being promised charges she was facing would be dropped and told she would be eligible for the reward – Asaro eventually cooperated, telling police she had indeed seen Williams on the afternoon of the murder, the motion states.
- sdiufshi 2y ago
  What amazes me is how routine this practice is to this very day. It is commonplace for police to use vile tactics and tell patent lies. The entire system is rigged in a way that cares not about truth but about winning. When you measure things in conviction rate this is bound to happen.

slibhb 2y ago

That seems like pretty strong evidence to me!

maximinus_thrax 2y ago
For a civil case, probably. But for a criminal case, the threshold is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Plenty of reasonable doubt in there.
- ImJamal 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    That’s not the way our justice system is supposed to work. We don’t require proof of innocence. We require (or are supposed to require) proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt. Possessing stolen goods should not proof beyond a reasonable doubt of murder.
    - ImJamal 2y ago
      He openly admitted to multiple people he killed her and had her property in his possession. Do you think that it was impossible to have burden of proof prior to DNA or something? Who admits to killing somebody while having their property in their possession if they didn't do it? The average person would probably accept just admitting it multiple times to be beyond a reasonable doubt, but adding on the possession of the murder victim's property just pushes it further.
      - maximinus_thrax 2y ago
        No, some witnesses testified that he allegedly confessed. This is called hearsay. There is an exception to hearsay when it comes to confessions and that's the reason the testimony was admitted during the trial. A hearsay confession is very different than a confession made to the public, the police, the prosecutor, in court or during a deposition. The witnesses received benefits from their testimonies and this again leads to reasonable doubt. > The average person would probably accept just admitting it multiple times to be beyond a reasonable doubt How can you be so sure the confessions actually happened?

truetraveller 2y ago

> on the day or day after the murder. They found this a 8-10 months later, not the next day. So much misinformation, I believe on purpose. And her GF snitched before, not to mention she wanted the reward.