3 ms·

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 po

by 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.

by voisin 2y ago

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.