3 ms·

Even if the police were able to establish that the ruler and calculator belonged to the victim, it is merely circumstantial evidence. It does not prove Williams

Even if the police were able to establish that the ruler and calculator belonged to the victim, it is merely circumstantial evidence. It does not prove Williams was the killer. Here is a quick summary of the main issues: (1) There is no reliable evidence that Williams is guilty of the crime; (2) The DNA evidence from the crime scene does not match Williams; (3) Numerous legal experts, including St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell, argued convincingly that Williams' death sentence should have been commuted to life in prison, at a minimum; (4) A Republican governor ignored the facts and legal opinions and simply murdered Williams.

lolinder 2y ago
> Even if the police were able to establish that the ruler and calculator belonged to the victim, it is merely circumstantial evidence. It does not prove Williams was the killer. I agree. You were still wrong in ways that do matter. Acknowledging it gracefully makes your case stronger, not weaker.
qingcharles 2y ago
What percentage of trials rely on circumstantial evidence? It has to be a high percentage.
xapata 2y ago
Isn't the jury responsible for determining what's reliable evidence?
- komali2 2y ago
  Kind of, They can also be instructed to ignore certain evidence, or certain evidence can be barred from being shown to them.
- ekidd 2y ago
  Juries absolutely do make errors, including ones which result in innocent people being put to death. In a number of cases, the Innocence Project has certainly managed to find hard DNA evidence that linked the actual murderer to the crime, resulting in saving people from death row. One of my friends worked on some of these cases. As former law enforcement, he was very much aware of the various ways the system can fail. Police officers commit perjury on the stand, "expert" witnesses use pseudoscience with zero factual evidence (there are processes to prevent this which have gotten slightly better), and there are shockingly terrible public defenders.
- mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
  The jury didn't get to see everything. It certainly didn't get to see the results of dna testing that happened after the trial.
iphoneisbetter 2y ago
[flagged]

lolinder 2y ago

> Even if the police were able to establish that the ruler and calculator belonged to the victim, it is merely circumstantial evidence. It does not prove Williams was the killer. I agree. You were still wrong in ways that do matter. Acknowledging it gracefully makes your case stronger, not weaker.

qingcharles 2y ago

What percentage of trials rely on circumstantial evidence? It has to be a high percentage.

xapata 2y ago

Isn't the jury responsible for determining what's reliable evidence?

komali2 2y ago
Kind of, They can also be instructed to ignore certain evidence, or certain evidence can be barred from being shown to them.
ekidd 2y ago
Juries absolutely do make errors, including ones which result in innocent people being put to death. In a number of cases, the Innocence Project has certainly managed to find hard DNA evidence that linked the actual murderer to the crime, resulting in saving people from death row. One of my friends worked on some of these cases. As former law enforcement, he was very much aware of the various ways the system can fail. Police officers commit perjury on the stand, "expert" witnesses use pseudoscience with zero factual evidence (there are processes to prevent this which have gotten slightly better), and there are shockingly terrible public defenders.
mrgoldenbrown 2y ago
The jury didn't get to see everything. It certainly didn't get to see the results of dna testing that happened after the trial.

iphoneisbetter 2y ago

[flagged]