3 ms·

> Rather, the argument is that the presence of substantial forensic evidence at the crime scene that explicitly does not match the accused introduces significan

> 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. Right, and this argument is just obviously wrong. The existence of forensic evidence which doesn't match the accused just proves that people other than the accused were in the victim's house at some point. It doesn't in any way contradict the hypothesis that the accused was also there. It would be a different story if there were something like a bloody fingerprint, or other forensic evidence which could be presumed to come from only the real perpetrator. But there wasn't. (Although I can understand if you got the impression that there was from the way people talk about this case!)

kelthuzad 2y ago
When substantial forensic evidence such as fingerprints, DNA, or hair found at a crime scene does not match the accused, it does more than suggest the presence of others, it significantly undermines the hypothesis that the accused was involved in the crime, especially when such evidence is likely to have been left during the commission of the crime. In Marcellus Williams' case, the absence of his DNA or fingerprints amidst a wealth of forensic evidence collected directly from the crime scene (including the murder weapon) is essential. This isn't just incidental evidence but it's directly tied to the crime itself. The presence of another person's forensic markers on the murder weapon and at key points of interaction within the crime scene (like entry points or near the victim) strongly suggests involvement of someone other than the accused. >It would be a different story if there were something like a bloody fingerprint, or other forensic evidence which could be presumed to come from only the real perpetrator. But there wasn't. The claim that there was no forensic evidence like a bloody fingerprint which could be presumed to come only from the real perpetrator in Marcellus Williams' case is not accurate. According to reports, the crime scene did include bloody fingerprints and footprints, among other forensic evidence. However, none of this evidence matched Marcellus Williams.[0] In criminal law, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. When significant forensic evidence contradicts the involvement of the accused, it introduces reasonable doubt and not merely about their level of involvement but about their presence at the scene altogether. [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."
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  My understanding of that quote is that the shoeprint but not the fingerprints were bloody, and it's of course impossible for a shoeprint to positively exclude someone unless you know every shoe they've ever worn. The hair I haven't heard anything specific about. And while it's not forensic evidence, I would note the glaring absence of any followup to that second sentence of the quote. What the article never gets around to mentioning is that some of the victim's missing items were found in his car, and the laptop was recovered from a guy he sold it to. (He claims that he got the victim's laptop from his girlfriend, and as far as I know didn't offer any explanation of where the items in his car came from.)

kelthuzad 2y ago

When substantial forensic evidence such as fingerprints, DNA, or hair found at a crime scene does not match the accused, it does more than suggest the presence of others, it significantly undermines the hypothesis that the accused was involved in the crime, especially when such evidence is likely to have been left during the commission of the crime. In Marcellus Williams' case, the absence of his DNA or fingerprints amidst a wealth of forensic evidence collected directly from the crime scene (including the murder weapon) is essential. This isn't just incidental evidence but it's directly tied to the crime itself. The presence of another person's forensic markers on the murder weapon and at key points of interaction within the crime scene (like entry points or near the victim) strongly suggests involvement of someone other than the accused. >It would be a different story if there were something like a bloody fingerprint, or other forensic evidence which could be presumed to come from only the real perpetrator. But there wasn't. The claim that there was no forensic evidence like a bloody fingerprint which could be presumed to come only from the real perpetrator in Marcellus Williams' case is not accurate. According to reports, the crime scene did include bloody fingerprints and footprints, among other forensic evidence. However, none of this evidence matched Marcellus Williams.[0] In criminal law, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. When significant forensic evidence contradicts the involvement of the accused, it introduces reasonable doubt and not merely about their level of involvement but about their presence at the scene altogether. [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."

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
My understanding of that quote is that the shoeprint but not the fingerprints were bloody, and it's of course impossible for a shoeprint to positively exclude someone unless you know every shoe they've ever worn. The hair I haven't heard anything specific about. And while it's not forensic evidence, I would note the glaring absence of any followup to that second sentence of the quote. What the article never gets around to mentioning is that some of the victim's missing items were found in his car, and the laptop was recovered from a guy he sold it to. (He claims that he got the victim's laptop from his girlfriend, and as far as I know didn't offer any explanation of where the items in his car came from.)