4 ms·

You are severely misunderstanding the role of DNA evidence here - you suggest that those arguing for Williams' innocence (including The Innocence Project) rely

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.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> other substantial forensic evidence (fingerprints, footprints, hair) was found AND none matched Williams Do you have a source for this? I thought "staff with the prosecutors’ office had mishandled the weapon after the killing – touching it without gloves before the trial," which "made it impossible to determine if Williams’s fingerprints could have been on the knife earlier" [1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/24/missouri-executes-marcellus-williams https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/24/missouri-exe...
- kelthuzad 2y ago
  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/09/23/missouri-execution-marcellus-williams-death-row/75194051007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/09/23/missou... - "Among the evidence police collected: bloody shoeprints and fingerprints, a knife sheath and the suspect's hair collected from Gayle's shirt, hands and the floor. Missing from the house were Gayle's purse and jacket, and her husband's laptop."
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    That doesn’t say any of the evidence matched someone else. Just that hair and prints were collected. We know the prints were damaged. And hair analysis is notoriously unreliable [1]. [1] https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/622-1 https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/622-1
    - kelthuzad 2y ago
      Read the article, it does say that. "In appeals, his defense team produced evidence that DNA taken from the knife revealed an unknown male profile and did not match Williams."
amadeuspagel 2y ago
There is no objective definition of reasonable doubt. DNA evidence of someone other then the accused but not the accused at the crime scene wouldn't introduce reasonable doubt if there was a video of the accused committing the crime, so it doesn't inherently introduce reasonable doubt, but only if the evidence against the accused isn't strong enough, which is again subjective. Responding to an admission of subjectivity ("to me") with "your subjective opinion is irrelevant" only discourages humilty.
- kelthuzad 2y ago
  >There is no objective definition of reasonable doubt. And I never claimed that there is, I clearly referred to its creation i.e. the _existence_ of reasonable doubt that can be objectively identified through specific factors such as conflicting evidence, inconsistencies in testimony, lack of evidence, or any other substantial issue that undermines the certainty of a defendant's guilt. The degree of the perceived doubt is what's subjective. >DNA evidence of someone other then the accused but not the accused at the crime scene wouldn't introduce reasonable doubt if there was a video of the accused committing the crime, so it doesn't inherently introduce reasonable doubt, but only if the evidence against the accused isn't strong enough, which is again subjective. The presence of forensic evidence[0] such as bloody shoeprints, fingerprints, and hair at the crime scene that does not match Marcellus Williams directly introduces reasonable doubt. This isn't about subjective interpretation but a factual mismatch that challenges the prosecution's assertion of his guilt. When critical evidence linked to the crime does not implicate the accused, it inherently raises questions about their involvement, thus fulfilling the criteria for reasonable doubt under the law. This is a clear and objective basis for questioning the conviction. >Responding to an admission of subjectivity ("to me") with "your subjective opinion is irrelevant" only discourages humilty. I don't see how this has anything to do with humility, it was more like "there objectively exists contradictory evidence that can't be simply downplayed by personal opinions" [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/09/23/missouri-execution-marcellus-williams-death-row/75194051007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/09/23/missou... - "Among the evidence police collected: bloody shoeprints and fingerprints, a knife sheath and the suspect's hair collected from Gayle's shirt, hands and the floor. Missing from the house were Gayle's purse and jacket, and her husband's laptop."

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.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> other substantial forensic evidence (fingerprints, footprints, hair) was found AND none matched Williams Do you have a source for this? I thought "staff with the prosecutors’ office had mishandled the weapon after the killing – touching it without gloves before the trial," which "made it impossible to determine if Williams’s fingerprints could have been on the knife earlier" [1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/24/missouri-executes-marcellus-williams https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/24/missouri-exe...

kelthuzad 2y ago
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/09/23/missouri-execution-marcellus-williams-death-row/75194051007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/09/23/missou... - "Among the evidence police collected: bloody shoeprints and fingerprints, a knife sheath and the suspect's hair collected from Gayle's shirt, hands and the floor. Missing from the house were Gayle's purse and jacket, and her husband's laptop."
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  That doesn’t say any of the evidence matched someone else. Just that hair and prints were collected. We know the prints were damaged. And hair analysis is notoriously unreliable [1]. [1] https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/622-1 https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/622-1
  - kelthuzad 2y ago
    Read the article, it does say that. "In appeals, his defense team produced evidence that DNA taken from the knife revealed an unknown male profile and did not match Williams."

amadeuspagel 2y ago

There is no objective definition of reasonable doubt. DNA evidence of someone other then the accused but not the accused at the crime scene wouldn't introduce reasonable doubt if there was a video of the accused committing the crime, so it doesn't inherently introduce reasonable doubt, but only if the evidence against the accused isn't strong enough, which is again subjective. Responding to an admission of subjectivity ("to me") with "your subjective opinion is irrelevant" only discourages humilty.

kelthuzad 2y ago
>There is no objective definition of reasonable doubt. And I never claimed that there is, I clearly referred to its creation i.e. the _existence_ of reasonable doubt that can be objectively identified through specific factors such as conflicting evidence, inconsistencies in testimony, lack of evidence, or any other substantial issue that undermines the certainty of a defendant's guilt. The degree of the perceived doubt is what's subjective. >DNA evidence of someone other then the accused but not the accused at the crime scene wouldn't introduce reasonable doubt if there was a video of the accused committing the crime, so it doesn't inherently introduce reasonable doubt, but only if the evidence against the accused isn't strong enough, which is again subjective. The presence of forensic evidence[0] such as bloody shoeprints, fingerprints, and hair at the crime scene that does not match Marcellus Williams directly introduces reasonable doubt. This isn't about subjective interpretation but a factual mismatch that challenges the prosecution's assertion of his guilt. When critical evidence linked to the crime does not implicate the accused, it inherently raises questions about their involvement, thus fulfilling the criteria for reasonable doubt under the law. This is a clear and objective basis for questioning the conviction. >Responding to an admission of subjectivity ("to me") with "your subjective opinion is irrelevant" only discourages humilty. I don't see how this has anything to do with humility, it was more like "there objectively exists contradictory evidence that can't be simply downplayed by personal opinions" [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/09/23/missouri-execution-marcellus-williams-death-row/75194051007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/09/23/missou... - "Among the evidence police collected: bloody shoeprints and fingerprints, a knife sheath and the suspect's hair collected from Gayle's shirt, hands and the floor. Missing from the house were Gayle's purse and jacket, and her husband's laptop."