5 ms·

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 l

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.
  - slibhb 2y ago
    I didn't misunderstand or misrepresent anything. Your argument, and The Innocence Project's, seems to be that a lack of physical evidence tying the accused to the crime scene constitutes reasonable doubt. I disagree, and so did the jury. > 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. Where in criminal law does it say "if there's no clear forensic data then you can't convict someone?" You just made that up! And the justice system is subjective. It's not a formally specified algorithm that decides guilt or innocence. It's a jury deciding a fuzzy boundary ("reasonable doubt"). I think there's a chance Williams didn't commit the murder, but it's awfully low, and I'd say unreasonable.
    - kelthuzad 2y ago
      >I didn't misunderstand or misrepresent anything. Your argument, and The Innocence Project's, seems to be that a lack of physical evidence tying the accused to the crime scene constitutes reasonable doubt. I disagree, and so did the jury. Wrong. The point isn't that the mere absence of physical evidence tying the accused to the crime scene inherently constitutes reasonable doubt. Rather, the argument is that the presence of substantial forensic evidence at the crime scene that explicitly does not match the accused introduces significant reasonable doubt. In Marcellus Williams' case, the key issue is that the forensic evidence collected: including DNA, fingerprints, and other traces, clearly does not match him. This is NOT merely an absence of evidence but a _direct contradiction of the hypothesis_ that he was present at the crime scene. This kind of conflicting evidence challenges the prosecution's narrative and thereby substantiates the reasonable doubt about Williams' guilt. The role of the jury is to interpret evidence and decide whether it meets the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' However, when forensic evidence actively contradicts key aspects of the prosecution's case, it is not just a minor detail but a fundamental flaw in the argument for guilt. This isn't about creating arbitrary thresholds but about ensuring that convictions are based on clear and convincing evidence that aligns with all the facts, not just those that fit the prosecution's narrative. >Where in criminal law does it say "if there's no clear forensic data then you can't convict someone?" You just made that up! At no point did I claim that a lack of forensic evidence automatically prevents a conviction. What I have consistently highlighted is that when forensic evidence actively contradicts the prosecution’s case, such as not matching the accused, it significantly fuels reasonable doubt. >And the justice system is subjective. It's not a formally specified algorithm that decides guilt or innocence. It's a jury deciding a fuzzy boundary ("reasonable doubt"). While it's true that the justice system involves human judgment and isn't a formally specified algorithm, this doesn’t mean that the standards for determining guilt should be vague or arbitrarily interpreted. The concept of "reasonable doubt" is determined by a jury, but it's guided by very specific legal standards and precedents that ensure fairness and consistency across cases. Describing reasonable doubt as a "fuzzy boundary" is reductionist and misrepresents the rigorous process by which evidence is evaluated. Jurors are instructed with detailed criteria on how to weigh evidence and what "beyond a reasonable doubt" entails. These instructions are designed to minimize subjectivity as much as possible.
- jasonlotito 2y ago
  > How did it get there? It's explained already. That you don't know and are asking this question really means you didn't spend any time researching the case. Maybe if you were going to kill someone, you would do more research, don't you think? Like how Missouri said it needed to do more research before killing him? And then before the group designated to do that could render a conclusion, they were disbanded and then he was killed? Meaning, Missouri said "We don't know enough about this and should research further, but instead of reading the results, we are just going to kill someone?" So real the question is: why do you support the government killing someone they say they need more information on before killing them but deciding to kill them anyways?
- seadan83 2y ago
  The laptop being in the car came from the ex-girlfriend. "the only evidence connecting Mr. Williams to the crime was a witness who said Mr. Williams sold him a laptop taken from Ms. Gayle’s home, but the jury did not learn that Mr. Williams told the witness he had received the laptop from Laura Asaro." > You (and The Innocence Project) apparently think that DNA must be found at the crime scene in order to convict. Why exactly do you think this given the more than half dozen points outlined which illustrate the weak case?
- arp242 2y ago
  It says "None of this forensic evidence matches Mr. Williams", which includes the "fingerprints, footprints, and hair". I haven't looked at this case in great detail, but it seems a mistake to focus solely on the DNA.
AmericanChopper 2y ago
[flagged]
tengbretson 2y ago
Doesn't a conviction imply that it is beyond reasonable doubt?

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.
- slibhb 2y ago
  I didn't misunderstand or misrepresent anything. Your argument, and The Innocence Project's, seems to be that a lack of physical evidence tying the accused to the crime scene constitutes reasonable doubt. I disagree, and so did the jury. > 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. Where in criminal law does it say "if there's no clear forensic data then you can't convict someone?" You just made that up! And the justice system is subjective. It's not a formally specified algorithm that decides guilt or innocence. It's a jury deciding a fuzzy boundary ("reasonable doubt"). I think there's a chance Williams didn't commit the murder, but it's awfully low, and I'd say unreasonable.
  - kelthuzad 2y ago
    >I didn't misunderstand or misrepresent anything. Your argument, and The Innocence Project's, seems to be that a lack of physical evidence tying the accused to the crime scene constitutes reasonable doubt. I disagree, and so did the jury. Wrong. The point isn't that the mere absence of physical evidence tying the accused to the crime scene inherently constitutes reasonable doubt. Rather, the argument is that the presence of substantial forensic evidence at the crime scene that explicitly does not match the accused introduces significant reasonable doubt. In Marcellus Williams' case, the key issue is that the forensic evidence collected: including DNA, fingerprints, and other traces, clearly does not match him. This is NOT merely an absence of evidence but a _direct contradiction of the hypothesis_ that he was present at the crime scene. This kind of conflicting evidence challenges the prosecution's narrative and thereby substantiates the reasonable doubt about Williams' guilt. The role of the jury is to interpret evidence and decide whether it meets the standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' However, when forensic evidence actively contradicts key aspects of the prosecution's case, it is not just a minor detail but a fundamental flaw in the argument for guilt. This isn't about creating arbitrary thresholds but about ensuring that convictions are based on clear and convincing evidence that aligns with all the facts, not just those that fit the prosecution's narrative. >Where in criminal law does it say "if there's no clear forensic data then you can't convict someone?" You just made that up! At no point did I claim that a lack of forensic evidence automatically prevents a conviction. What I have consistently highlighted is that when forensic evidence actively contradicts the prosecution’s case, such as not matching the accused, it significantly fuels reasonable doubt. >And the justice system is subjective. It's not a formally specified algorithm that decides guilt or innocence. It's a jury deciding a fuzzy boundary ("reasonable doubt"). While it's true that the justice system involves human judgment and isn't a formally specified algorithm, this doesn’t mean that the standards for determining guilt should be vague or arbitrarily interpreted. The concept of "reasonable doubt" is determined by a jury, but it's guided by very specific legal standards and precedents that ensure fairness and consistency across cases. Describing reasonable doubt as a "fuzzy boundary" is reductionist and misrepresents the rigorous process by which evidence is evaluated. Jurors are instructed with detailed criteria on how to weigh evidence and what "beyond a reasonable doubt" entails. These instructions are designed to minimize subjectivity as much as possible.
jasonlotito 2y ago
> How did it get there? It's explained already. That you don't know and are asking this question really means you didn't spend any time researching the case. Maybe if you were going to kill someone, you would do more research, don't you think? Like how Missouri said it needed to do more research before killing him? And then before the group designated to do that could render a conclusion, they were disbanded and then he was killed? Meaning, Missouri said "We don't know enough about this and should research further, but instead of reading the results, we are just going to kill someone?" So real the question is: why do you support the government killing someone they say they need more information on before killing them but deciding to kill them anyways?
seadan83 2y ago
The laptop being in the car came from the ex-girlfriend. "the only evidence connecting Mr. Williams to the crime was a witness who said Mr. Williams sold him a laptop taken from Ms. Gayle’s home, but the jury did not learn that Mr. Williams told the witness he had received the laptop from Laura Asaro." > You (and The Innocence Project) apparently think that DNA must be found at the crime scene in order to convict. Why exactly do you think this given the more than half dozen points outlined which illustrate the weak case?
arp242 2y ago
It says "None of this forensic evidence matches Mr. Williams", which includes the "fingerprints, footprints, and hair". I haven't looked at this case in great detail, but it seems a mistake to focus solely on the DNA.

AmericanChopper 2y ago

[flagged]

tengbretson 2y ago

Doesn't a conviction imply that it is beyond reasonable doubt?