3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
  - jasonlotito 2y ago
    Did they explain why they convened a board to research the topic to get to the bottom of this and then disbanded the board before they finished? Seems kind of shady when the government says "We are not sure, we need to do more research before we do this" and then never actually do that research and just kill someone? Either you trust the government, and agree that they should have waited. Or you don't trust the government, in which case you really can't trust them to kill someone. So which is it?
    - awb 2y ago
      The previous governor stayed the execution and created the commission to investigate which lasted 6 years until the new governor was elected. The new governor disbanded the commission. They were from different political parties and probably had different views on the death penalty / the use of state resources.
      - jasonlotito 2y ago
        So you agree they should have waited. Gotcha. Thanks!
- randallsquared 2y ago
  The quote > neither revealed any information that was not either included in media accounts about the case or already known to the police. from The Innocence Project seems carefully worded to imply that they didn't say anything that mattered, while still leaving open that they provided information that the police had, but which had not be publicly released.
  - boomboomsubban 2y ago
    It's worded that way as if one side of the interview knows something, it can easily leak to the other side intentionally or accidentally.
    - awb 2y ago
      Whereas the Governor’s statement does say that information provided to the police by one witness was not known publicly.
  - pjfin123 2y ago
    > When speaking with law enforcement, the jailhouse informant provided information about the crime that was not publicly available, yet consistent with crime scene evidence and Williams’ involvement. This is hard to fake and seems like pretty compelling evidence that the informant is telling the truth. 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...
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
klyrs 2y ago
> 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 all superfluous to the question of the credibility of the two witnesses. It isn't about being "fair" and treating Williams and the two witnesses the same -- one is on trial, the others are not.

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.
- jasonlotito 2y ago
  Did they explain why they convened a board to research the topic to get to the bottom of this and then disbanded the board before they finished? Seems kind of shady when the government says "We are not sure, we need to do more research before we do this" and then never actually do that research and just kill someone? Either you trust the government, and agree that they should have waited. Or you don't trust the government, in which case you really can't trust them to kill someone. So which is it?
  - awb 2y ago
    The previous governor stayed the execution and created the commission to investigate which lasted 6 years until the new governor was elected. The new governor disbanded the commission. They were from different political parties and probably had different views on the death penalty / the use of state resources.
    - jasonlotito 2y ago
      So you agree they should have waited. Gotcha. Thanks!
randallsquared 2y ago
The quote > neither revealed any information that was not either included in media accounts about the case or already known to the police. from The Innocence Project seems carefully worded to imply that they didn't say anything that mattered, while still leaving open that they provided information that the police had, but which had not be publicly released.
- boomboomsubban 2y ago
  It's worded that way as if one side of the interview knows something, it can easily leak to the other side intentionally or accidentally.
  - awb 2y ago
    Whereas the Governor’s statement does say that information provided to the police by one witness was not known publicly.
- pjfin123 2y ago
  > When speaking with law enforcement, the jailhouse informant provided information about the crime that was not publicly available, yet consistent with crime scene evidence and Williams’ involvement. This is hard to fake and seems like pretty compelling evidence that the informant is telling the truth. 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...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

klyrs 2y ago

> 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 all superfluous to the question of the credibility of the two witnesses. It isn't about being "fair" and treating Williams and the two witnesses the same -- one is on trial, the others are not.