Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's plenty of evidence. He confessed to his girlfriend, and a cellmate. Be careful, this is hearsay and not evidence. Those people claim that he confessed to them, but there is a lot more context. Here is what the linked story says about the "he confessed" part: > The investigation had gone cold until a jail inmate named Henry Cole, a man with a lengthy record, claimed that Mr. Williams confessed to him that he…
> 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, h…
> 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.