7 ms·

That seems like pretty strong evidence to me!

by slibhb 2y ago

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?
        ImJamal 2y ago
        The girlfriend heard it directly from the accused and testified to that fact. It wasn't hearsay. Despite claims to the contrary, she didn't request any money for the testimony. Why do people keep ignoring the girlfriend's testimony?
      - alistairSH 2y ago
        He allegedly admitted. To paid snitches. Who were also known liars and criminals.
        ImJamal 2y ago
        His girlfriend apparently did not ask for any money so she was a paid snitch though?
  - maximinus_thrax 2y ago
    He doesn't need to provide any explanation for anything. The burden of proof is on the government. Possession of property is not proof of murder. It is circumstantial evidence. He might have come across the property, he might have stolen the property, etc.. Do you understand what reasonable doubt is? Did you serve on a jury?
  - I_am_uncreative 2y ago
    The burden of proof is on the state, not the accused. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused is not obligated to provide anything in his defense.
    - 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?
sparrish 2y ago
[flagged]
- kelthuzad 2y ago
  Sentencing a man to death when there is reasonable doubt of his guilt is a miscarriage of justice. "A crime scene covered with forensic evidence contained no link to Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams has been seeking to prove his innocence throughout the 23 years he has spent on Missouri’s death row. On August 11, 1998, Felicia Gayle, a former reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, was found stabbed to death in her home. The perpetrator left behind considerable forensic evidence, including fingerprints, footprints, hair, and trace DNA on the murder weapon, a knife from Ms. Gayle’s kitchen. _None_ of this forensic evidence matches Mr. Williams." https://innocenceproject.org/who-is-marcellus-williams-man-facing-execution-in-missouri-despite-dna-evidence-supporting-innocence/ https://innocenceproject.org/who-is-marcellus-williams-man-f...
  - slibhb 2y ago
    It's pure speculation that the partial DNA profile recovered years after the murder came from the murderer. The police recovered the murdered woman's property from his car. How did it get there? Either it was an elaborate frame-up or a career criminal murdered a woman and stole her property. You (and The Innocence Project) apparently think that DNA must be found at the crime scene in order to convict. But is it the case that DNA will always be found? I doubt it. To me, the detailed testimony of Williams' girlfriend combined with the dead woman's property in his car puts Williams' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm disappointed in The Innocence Project -- seems like a lot of spin in that link.
    - kelthuzad 2y ago
      You are severely misunderstanding the role of DNA evidence here - you suggest that those arguing for Williams' innocence (including The Innocence Project) rely solely on the absence of DNA evidence linking Williams to the crime. However, this misrepresents the argument. The absence of DNA evidence is significant not because DNA is expected to be found in every case, but because other substantial forensic evidence (fingerprints, footprints, hair) was found AND none matched Williams. This discrepancy raises reasonable doubts about his presence at the crime scene and involvement in the crime. You point out that the victim’s property was found in Williams' car, suggesting this implicates him in the crime. However, this piece of evidence does not explain how the items ended up in his possession. Without a clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding how these items were transferred to his car, this evidence alone cannot definitively establish guilt, particularly when contrasted with the forensic evidence that fails to link him to the crime scene. Furthermore you mention the testimony of Williams' girlfriend as part of the evidence putting his guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." However, the reliability and motives of witnesses can also be questioned, and testimonies can be influenced by various factors. The weight of a testimony should be considered alongside all other evidence, particularly when forensic evidence does not support the testimony. >"TO ME....is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" When it comes to fundamental principles of criminal law like "reasonable doubt" your subjective opinion is irrelevant, what matters is what objectively creates reasonable doubt. The fundamental principle in criminal law is that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - the presence of conflicting evidence, particularly in forensic data, inherently introduces reasonable doubt. Dismissing or distorting this principle undermines the legal safeguards designed to prevent wrongful convictions.
makeitdouble 2y ago
It seems strong enough to keep someone in jail, potentially forever. Executing him requires there's absolutely no room for a reversal, and from that point of view the evidence isn't that strong.
nemothekid 2y ago
It's unfortunate that a lot of the messaging has shifted to he's innocent, where I believe the right message (and far less viral message), is the government has not shown enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty is warranted. I don't believe in the death penalty because I don't think the state should have the authority to execute citizens and even moreso when a very high bar of culpability hasn't been reached. In this quest for vengeance I think people forget these rules are in place for the State to not abuse it's powers. I'm not against the death penalty because I'm a hippy vegan. I'm against it because I don't think it's a power the state should be able to wield.
- slibhb 2y ago
  > I believe the right message (and far less viral message), is the government has not shown enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty is warranted. The jury makes that determination after being locked in a room and forced to hear both sides and all the evidence. How much of the evidence are you aware of? What The Innocence Project posted? This thread is full of people who are anti-death penalty who don't think some guy should be executed. That's hardly a surprise, but it has nothing to do with the evidence presented by the state.
  - SadTrombone 2y ago
    The prosecutor's office and the victim's family both pushed to stop the execution due to reasonable doubt. Think they might have an idea of the available evidence? The previous governor had begun an inquiry into the matter but the new governor shut that board down and blocked any and all attempts to halt the execution.
    - xyzzyz 2y ago
      No, a prosecutor at no point argued that this guy was not guilty. Nobody argued that, except dishonest activists who lied to you. All prosecutor offered was commuting the death penalty to life without parole. In addition, I don’t see how a random prosecutor’s opinion is relevant. If this was the original prosecutor who prosecuted the case, then it would have some evidentiary value. In this case, this is just some guy with zero connection to the original case. Why should we care what he believes, over opinion of hundreds of prosecutors in this country who are happy that the justice has finally been served?

That seems like pretty strong evidence to me!

by slibhb 2y ago

That seems like pretty strong evidence to me!

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?
      - ImJamal 2y ago
        The girlfriend heard it directly from the accused and testified to that fact. It wasn't hearsay. Despite claims to the contrary, she didn't request any money for the testimony. Why do people keep ignoring the girlfriend's testimony?
    - alistairSH 2y ago
      He allegedly admitted. To paid snitches. Who were also known liars and criminals.
      - ImJamal 2y ago
        His girlfriend apparently did not ask for any money so she was a paid snitch though?
- maximinus_thrax 2y ago
  He doesn't need to provide any explanation for anything. The burden of proof is on the government. Possession of property is not proof of murder. It is circumstantial evidence. He might have come across the property, he might have stolen the property, etc.. Do you understand what reasonable doubt is? Did you serve on a jury?
- I_am_uncreative 2y ago
  The burden of proof is on the state, not the accused. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused is not obligated to provide anything in his defense.
  - 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?

sparrish 2y ago

[flagged]

kelthuzad 2y ago
Sentencing a man to death when there is reasonable doubt of his guilt is a miscarriage of justice. "A crime scene covered with forensic evidence contained no link to Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams has been seeking to prove his innocence throughout the 23 years he has spent on Missouri’s death row. On August 11, 1998, Felicia Gayle, a former reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, was found stabbed to death in her home. The perpetrator left behind considerable forensic evidence, including fingerprints, footprints, hair, and trace DNA on the murder weapon, a knife from Ms. Gayle’s kitchen. _None_ of this forensic evidence matches Mr. Williams." https://innocenceproject.org/who-is-marcellus-williams-man-facing-execution-in-missouri-despite-dna-evidence-supporting-innocence/ https://innocenceproject.org/who-is-marcellus-williams-man-f...
- slibhb 2y ago
  It's pure speculation that the partial DNA profile recovered years after the murder came from the murderer. The police recovered the murdered woman's property from his car. How did it get there? Either it was an elaborate frame-up or a career criminal murdered a woman and stole her property. You (and The Innocence Project) apparently think that DNA must be found at the crime scene in order to convict. But is it the case that DNA will always be found? I doubt it. To me, the detailed testimony of Williams' girlfriend combined with the dead woman's property in his car puts Williams' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm disappointed in The Innocence Project -- seems like a lot of spin in that link.
  - kelthuzad 2y ago
    You are severely misunderstanding the role of DNA evidence here - you suggest that those arguing for Williams' innocence (including The Innocence Project) rely solely on the absence of DNA evidence linking Williams to the crime. However, this misrepresents the argument. The absence of DNA evidence is significant not because DNA is expected to be found in every case, but because other substantial forensic evidence (fingerprints, footprints, hair) was found AND none matched Williams. This discrepancy raises reasonable doubts about his presence at the crime scene and involvement in the crime. You point out that the victim’s property was found in Williams' car, suggesting this implicates him in the crime. However, this piece of evidence does not explain how the items ended up in his possession. Without a clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding how these items were transferred to his car, this evidence alone cannot definitively establish guilt, particularly when contrasted with the forensic evidence that fails to link him to the crime scene. Furthermore you mention the testimony of Williams' girlfriend as part of the evidence putting his guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." However, the reliability and motives of witnesses can also be questioned, and testimonies can be influenced by various factors. The weight of a testimony should be considered alongside all other evidence, particularly when forensic evidence does not support the testimony. >"TO ME....is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" When it comes to fundamental principles of criminal law like "reasonable doubt" your subjective opinion is irrelevant, what matters is what objectively creates reasonable doubt. The fundamental principle in criminal law is that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - the presence of conflicting evidence, particularly in forensic data, inherently introduces reasonable doubt. Dismissing or distorting this principle undermines the legal safeguards designed to prevent wrongful convictions.

makeitdouble 2y ago

It seems strong enough to keep someone in jail, potentially forever. Executing him requires there's absolutely no room for a reversal, and from that point of view the evidence isn't that strong.

nemothekid 2y ago

It's unfortunate that a lot of the messaging has shifted to he's innocent, where I believe the right message (and far less viral message), is the government has not shown enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty is warranted. I don't believe in the death penalty because I don't think the state should have the authority to execute citizens and even moreso when a very high bar of culpability hasn't been reached. In this quest for vengeance I think people forget these rules are in place for the State to not abuse it's powers. I'm not against the death penalty because I'm a hippy vegan. I'm against it because I don't think it's a power the state should be able to wield.

slibhb 2y ago
> I believe the right message (and far less viral message), is the government has not shown enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty is warranted. The jury makes that determination after being locked in a room and forced to hear both sides and all the evidence. How much of the evidence are you aware of? What The Innocence Project posted? This thread is full of people who are anti-death penalty who don't think some guy should be executed. That's hardly a surprise, but it has nothing to do with the evidence presented by the state.
- SadTrombone 2y ago
  The prosecutor's office and the victim's family both pushed to stop the execution due to reasonable doubt. Think they might have an idea of the available evidence? The previous governor had begun an inquiry into the matter but the new governor shut that board down and blocked any and all attempts to halt the execution.
  - xyzzyz 2y ago
    No, a prosecutor at no point argued that this guy was not guilty. Nobody argued that, except dishonest activists who lied to you. All prosecutor offered was commuting the death penalty to life without parole. In addition, I don’t see how a random prosecutor’s opinion is relevant. If this was the original prosecutor who prosecuted the case, then it would have some evidentiary value. In this case, this is just some guy with zero connection to the original case. Why should we care what he believes, over opinion of hundreds of prosecutors in this country who are happy that the justice has finally been served?