5 ms·

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

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.
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    Right, these types of hearsay are only useful if they can lead investigators to more evidence that is actually supported by a solid source/chain-of-legitimacy. So it can be valuable but probably shouldn’t be submersible to court or at least the defense should really be able to lay into and tell the jury it is -highly- suspect.
  - amoorah 2y ago
    He did not convert to Islam until he was in prison.
  - qingcharles 2y ago
    As someone who has personally known jailhouse snitches, I don't think this is accurate. The biggest problem with becoming a snitch is that you are then forever more labeled as a snitch, and while (unlike the movies) this is unlikely to result in violence, you will certainly be shunned for the rest of your prison life.
- knodi123 2y ago
  > Both of these individuals were known fabricators Careful- it we're considering their history, then Mr Williams has a history of over a dozen counts of armed violence, burglary, robbery, and assault. > this is hearsay and not evidence Conflicting reports say that Asano provided verified information that had not been publicized. And Asano refused a cash reward for relaying the confessions she had heard. Regardless, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3501 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3501 > Nothing contained in this section shall bar the admission in evidence of any confession made or given voluntarily by any person to any other person without interrogation by anyone, or at any time at which the person who made or gave such confession was not under arrest or other detention
  - atmavatar 2y ago
    I would think the far more compelling detail is the one you overlooked: > 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. Not only were the two known liars, but their accounts could not be verified, and they conflict with each other as well as the existing evidence. That seems enough reason to me to call their testimony into question. Also, I'm a little curious about your assertion: > Conflicting reports say that Asano provided verified information that had not been publicized When TFA specifically included the following: > neither revealed any information that was not either included in media accounts about the case or already known to the police. That, coupled with the fact that apparently none of the evidence at the scene was linked to Marcellus Williams makes me wonder how he was ever convicted in the first place. If we can take TFA at its word, the whole thing smells wrong.
    - knodi123 2y ago
      TFA is published by The Innocence Project, which obviously only presents one side of the story. I was also using a statement from the governor, 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... who makes some assertions which contradict the innocence project's.
- soerxpso 2y ago
  > Be careful, this is hearsay and not evidence. You're mistaken. There are many exceptions to the evidentiary rules against hearsay in the US, and one of the more common exceptions is a statement made by the opposing party (i.e. while the prosecution is questioning a witness, a statement made by the defendant to that witness) (Rule 801(d)(2)). It's evidence. Your issues with the credibility of those witnesses are valid, and the defense had the opportunity to bring those issues up at trial (that's why we have jury trials and why you have a right to defend yourself at your jury trial). They certainly weren't the only pieces of evidence against him (there's a lot), and I'm sure the jury considered that.
- pcthrowaway 2y ago
  There was also a $10,000 reward for information which easily could have incentivized them to provide false testimony
  - knodi123 2y ago
    According to the governor, > The girlfriend never requested the reward for information about Ms. Gayle’s murder, despite claims that she was only interested in money.
    - amatecha 2y ago
      except.. > 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. 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...
      - truetraveller 2y ago
        Wow...that is amazing dishonesty on the part of the governor if this is true. Incredible how hard people are trying to hide facts.
        pcthrowaway 2y ago
        There should be criminal penalties for prosecution or people involved with the chain of evidence for criminal trials failing to mention details that might sway the jury towards defense
- xboxnolifes 2y ago
  It's not hearsay to go to the witness stand and say the defendant told you something. That defendant is there in court and is able to defend themselves.
  - klyrs 2y ago
    That's literally the definition of hearsay. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay
    - jkhdigital 2y ago
      …did you read the link you just posted? If the person whose words are being presented as evidence is available for cross-examination then (legally) it’s not hearsay. The defendant in a criminal case is always available, so any statement they make out of court is never hearsay.
      - tzs 2y ago
        That's not quite correct. An out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein is always hearsay. The exceptions given in that Wikipedia article are not exceptions to it being hearsay. They are exceptions to the rule that hearsay is not admissible. > The defendant in a criminal case is always available, so any statement they make out of court is never hearsay. That's also not quite correct. A declarant is considered to be unavailable for example if they refuse to testify about the subject matter despite the court ordering them to. They are also considered to be unavailable if they testify that they cannot remember the subject matter. See rule 804(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence for the criteria for being unavailable. (I'm using FRE because that seems to be what others are using. Really though we should be using Missouri's rules of evidence. I think most state's rules of evidence are fairly close to the FRE so that's probably reasonable).
    - lazy_moderator1 2y ago
      from the article :) > if Susan is unavailable for cross-examination, the answer is hearsay
- TZubiri 2y ago
  >Be careful, this is hearsay and not evidence. I think you are out of your element. To my understanding hearsay refers to a claim made by someone not in court. In this case the girlfriend and jailmate were called as witnesses and gave testimony in court. Witnesses are evidence and they are one of the oldest forms of evidence, your view that evidence is only material is a gross misunderstanding of trial procedures.
  - twojacobtwo 2y ago
    Here's a more thorough definition: > Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness, such as testimony regarding statements made by someone other than the witness, and that therefore may be inadmissible to establish the truth of a particular contention because the accuracy of the evidence cannot be verified through cross-examination. Tying the two together, basically it would be anything that can't be verified (in court) by the one who the witness is 'quoting'. Regarding witness testimony, I don't think the tradition of it makes it any more iron clad. We used to have a lot more testimony of sorcery and such as well that got people killed. Further, we have only recently begun to study it scientifically. From what I gather, from my very limited knowledge of the studies thus far, it doesn't look good for eye-witness accuracy in general.
    - TZubiri 2y ago
      That's a take, but it's far from reality. Witnesses are a central evidence in most cases. When the parties are present for cross examination it's not hearsay.
      - twojacobtwo 2y ago
        > When the parties are present for cross examination it's not hearsay. That's exactly what I just said.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- concordDance 2y ago
  > Be careful, this is hearsay and not evidence. Note that it's possible the person you are replying to was using the everyday "observation increases relative likelihood of theory" definition of evidence rather than the legal one.
diogenes_atx 2y ago
As stated in the article written by the legal scholars at the Innocence Project: > "There is no reliable evidence proving that Marcellus Williams committed the crime for which he is scheduled to be executed on Sept. 24. The State destroyed or corrupted the evidence that could conclusively prove his innocence and the available DNA and other forensic crime-scene evidence does not match him." DNA evidence is based on proven science, and the DNA evidence that was not destroyed by the state is exculpatory.
- makomk 2y ago
  As far as I can tell, this isn't actually true: "the DNA evidence that was not destroyed by the state is exculpatory". The Innocence Project are being very careful with their wording here. Initially, they relied on trace DNA on the knife that didn't match the accused murderer, but that ended up being from someone in the prosecutor's office handling it after it had been processed for forensic evidence. Then they tried to argue that this showed the state had destroyed evidence which would've proved his innocence, but the courts didn't buy it because all available evidence suggests the killer's DNA was simply never on the knife. (Which isn't that surprising - DNA evidence isn't perfect and gloves exist.) The other "forensic crime scene evidence" seems to be hothingburgers like a few non-matching hairs in a house that'd had a large number of people going in and out in the recent past.
  - rysertio 2y ago
    DNA evidence is where it's hard to get a false negative then false positive.
- CSMastermind 2y ago
  It's sad to me that the Innocence Project, instead of being a neutral third party investigating and then pushing back against wrongful convictions, have just become an all out 'stop the death penalty' advocacy group. Ultimately I think this undermines their cause and hurts their ability to save truly innocent people.
  - 2y ago
sam1r 2y ago
[flagged]
- frostburg 2y ago
  This is an abuse of statistics, because you're not considering the likelyhood that a random 15-time felon killed someone, but the likelyhood that a specific 15-time felon that was accused of killing a specific person actually did it. If you were trying to pick a realistic scapegoat he would have been a great candidate.
  - ljsprague 2y ago
    >If you were trying to pick a realistic scapegoat he would have been a great candidate. It also helps if the scapegoat had the victims property in his car.
    - frostburg 2y ago
      I have not reviewed the details of the case and have no opinion on actual guilt, I was commenting on a specific line of reasoning.
- karaterobot 2y ago
  I don't think it follows. If someone is convicted of 15 counts of felony tax evasion, that doesn't mean they're guilty of any other crime they're accused of (including a 16th count of tax evasion—but set that aside). Especially not murder. You need more information other than their rap sheet to conclude someone is guilty.
- seadan83 2y ago
  Reasonable implication, find someone with many prior convictions, accuse them of any crime, present past convictions, and then they are guilty? This seems to defy the very concept of innocent until proven guilty.
aguaviva 2y ago
But there's plenty of evidence. Perhaps so. I'm not familiar with the details of the case. But this I do know: prior felony convictions are manifestly not evidence. Presenting them as such causes me to seriously doubt the broader argument you are trying to make here.
- virissimo 2y ago
  Prior convictions are evidence in the broad sense (because they provide information that could update one's belief about a defendant's character or likelihood of committing a crime), but not legally admissible evidence (in many jurisdictions).

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.
- EasyMark 2y ago
  Right, these types of hearsay are only useful if they can lead investigators to more evidence that is actually supported by a solid source/chain-of-legitimacy. So it can be valuable but probably shouldn’t be submersible to court or at least the defense should really be able to lay into and tell the jury it is -highly- suspect.
- amoorah 2y ago
  He did not convert to Islam until he was in prison.
- qingcharles 2y ago
  As someone who has personally known jailhouse snitches, I don't think this is accurate. The biggest problem with becoming a snitch is that you are then forever more labeled as a snitch, and while (unlike the movies) this is unlikely to result in violence, you will certainly be shunned for the rest of your prison life.
knodi123 2y ago
> Both of these individuals were known fabricators Careful- it we're considering their history, then Mr Williams has a history of over a dozen counts of armed violence, burglary, robbery, and assault. > this is hearsay and not evidence Conflicting reports say that Asano provided verified information that had not been publicized. And Asano refused a cash reward for relaying the confessions she had heard. Regardless, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3501 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3501 > Nothing contained in this section shall bar the admission in evidence of any confession made or given voluntarily by any person to any other person without interrogation by anyone, or at any time at which the person who made or gave such confession was not under arrest or other detention
- atmavatar 2y ago
  I would think the far more compelling detail is the one you overlooked: > 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. Not only were the two known liars, but their accounts could not be verified, and they conflict with each other as well as the existing evidence. That seems enough reason to me to call their testimony into question. Also, I'm a little curious about your assertion: > Conflicting reports say that Asano provided verified information that had not been publicized When TFA specifically included the following: > neither revealed any information that was not either included in media accounts about the case or already known to the police. That, coupled with the fact that apparently none of the evidence at the scene was linked to Marcellus Williams makes me wonder how he was ever convicted in the first place. If we can take TFA at its word, the whole thing smells wrong.
  - knodi123 2y ago
    TFA is published by The Innocence Project, which obviously only presents one side of the story. I was also using a statement from the governor, 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... who makes some assertions which contradict the innocence project's.
soerxpso 2y ago
> Be careful, this is hearsay and not evidence. You're mistaken. There are many exceptions to the evidentiary rules against hearsay in the US, and one of the more common exceptions is a statement made by the opposing party (i.e. while the prosecution is questioning a witness, a statement made by the defendant to that witness) (Rule 801(d)(2)). It's evidence. Your issues with the credibility of those witnesses are valid, and the defense had the opportunity to bring those issues up at trial (that's why we have jury trials and why you have a right to defend yourself at your jury trial). They certainly weren't the only pieces of evidence against him (there's a lot), and I'm sure the jury considered that.
pcthrowaway 2y ago
There was also a $10,000 reward for information which easily could have incentivized them to provide false testimony
- knodi123 2y ago
  According to the governor, > The girlfriend never requested the reward for information about Ms. Gayle’s murder, despite claims that she was only interested in money.
  - amatecha 2y ago
    except.. > 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. 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...
    - truetraveller 2y ago
      Wow...that is amazing dishonesty on the part of the governor if this is true. Incredible how hard people are trying to hide facts.
      - pcthrowaway 2y ago
        There should be criminal penalties for prosecution or people involved with the chain of evidence for criminal trials failing to mention details that might sway the jury towards defense
xboxnolifes 2y ago
It's not hearsay to go to the witness stand and say the defendant told you something. That defendant is there in court and is able to defend themselves.
- klyrs 2y ago
  That's literally the definition of hearsay. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay
  - jkhdigital 2y ago
    …did you read the link you just posted? If the person whose words are being presented as evidence is available for cross-examination then (legally) it’s not hearsay. The defendant in a criminal case is always available, so any statement they make out of court is never hearsay.
    - tzs 2y ago
      That's not quite correct. An out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein is always hearsay. The exceptions given in that Wikipedia article are not exceptions to it being hearsay. They are exceptions to the rule that hearsay is not admissible. > The defendant in a criminal case is always available, so any statement they make out of court is never hearsay. That's also not quite correct. A declarant is considered to be unavailable for example if they refuse to testify about the subject matter despite the court ordering them to. They are also considered to be unavailable if they testify that they cannot remember the subject matter. See rule 804(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence for the criteria for being unavailable. (I'm using FRE because that seems to be what others are using. Really though we should be using Missouri's rules of evidence. I think most state's rules of evidence are fairly close to the FRE so that's probably reasonable).
  - lazy_moderator1 2y ago
    from the article :) > if Susan is unavailable for cross-examination, the answer is hearsay
TZubiri 2y ago
>Be careful, this is hearsay and not evidence. I think you are out of your element. To my understanding hearsay refers to a claim made by someone not in court. In this case the girlfriend and jailmate were called as witnesses and gave testimony in court. Witnesses are evidence and they are one of the oldest forms of evidence, your view that evidence is only material is a gross misunderstanding of trial procedures.
- twojacobtwo 2y ago
  Here's a more thorough definition: > Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness, such as testimony regarding statements made by someone other than the witness, and that therefore may be inadmissible to establish the truth of a particular contention because the accuracy of the evidence cannot be verified through cross-examination. Tying the two together, basically it would be anything that can't be verified (in court) by the one who the witness is 'quoting'. Regarding witness testimony, I don't think the tradition of it makes it any more iron clad. We used to have a lot more testimony of sorcery and such as well that got people killed. Further, we have only recently begun to study it scientifically. From what I gather, from my very limited knowledge of the studies thus far, it doesn't look good for eye-witness accuracy in general.
  - TZubiri 2y ago
    That's a take, but it's far from reality. Witnesses are a central evidence in most cases. When the parties are present for cross examination it's not hearsay.
    - twojacobtwo 2y ago
      > When the parties are present for cross examination it's not hearsay. That's exactly what I just said.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
concordDance 2y ago
> Be careful, this is hearsay and not evidence. Note that it's possible the person you are replying to was using the everyday "observation increases relative likelihood of theory" definition of evidence rather than the legal one.

diogenes_atx 2y ago

As stated in the article written by the legal scholars at the Innocence Project: > "There is no reliable evidence proving that Marcellus Williams committed the crime for which he is scheduled to be executed on Sept. 24. The State destroyed or corrupted the evidence that could conclusively prove his innocence and the available DNA and other forensic crime-scene evidence does not match him." DNA evidence is based on proven science, and the DNA evidence that was not destroyed by the state is exculpatory.

makomk 2y ago
As far as I can tell, this isn't actually true: "the DNA evidence that was not destroyed by the state is exculpatory". The Innocence Project are being very careful with their wording here. Initially, they relied on trace DNA on the knife that didn't match the accused murderer, but that ended up being from someone in the prosecutor's office handling it after it had been processed for forensic evidence. Then they tried to argue that this showed the state had destroyed evidence which would've proved his innocence, but the courts didn't buy it because all available evidence suggests the killer's DNA was simply never on the knife. (Which isn't that surprising - DNA evidence isn't perfect and gloves exist.) The other "forensic crime scene evidence" seems to be hothingburgers like a few non-matching hairs in a house that'd had a large number of people going in and out in the recent past.
- rysertio 2y ago
  DNA evidence is where it's hard to get a false negative then false positive.
CSMastermind 2y ago
It's sad to me that the Innocence Project, instead of being a neutral third party investigating and then pushing back against wrongful convictions, have just become an all out 'stop the death penalty' advocacy group. Ultimately I think this undermines their cause and hurts their ability to save truly innocent people.
- 2y ago

sam1r 2y ago

[flagged]

frostburg 2y ago
This is an abuse of statistics, because you're not considering the likelyhood that a random 15-time felon killed someone, but the likelyhood that a specific 15-time felon that was accused of killing a specific person actually did it. If you were trying to pick a realistic scapegoat he would have been a great candidate.
- ljsprague 2y ago
  >If you were trying to pick a realistic scapegoat he would have been a great candidate. It also helps if the scapegoat had the victims property in his car.
  - frostburg 2y ago
    I have not reviewed the details of the case and have no opinion on actual guilt, I was commenting on a specific line of reasoning.
karaterobot 2y ago
I don't think it follows. If someone is convicted of 15 counts of felony tax evasion, that doesn't mean they're guilty of any other crime they're accused of (including a 16th count of tax evasion—but set that aside). Especially not murder. You need more information other than their rap sheet to conclude someone is guilty.
seadan83 2y ago
Reasonable implication, find someone with many prior convictions, accuse them of any crime, present past convictions, and then they are guilty? This seems to defy the very concept of innocent until proven guilty.

aguaviva 2y ago

But there's plenty of evidence. Perhaps so. I'm not familiar with the details of the case. But this I do know: prior felony convictions are manifestly not evidence. Presenting them as such causes me to seriously doubt the broader argument you are trying to make here.

virissimo 2y ago
Prior convictions are evidence in the broad sense (because they provide information that could update one's belief about a defendant's character or likelihood of committing a crime), but not legally admissible evidence (in many jurisdictions).