Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who is Marcellus Williams: Execution in Missouri despite evidence of innocence

innocenceproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 514 posts

Re: Who is Marcellus Williams: Execution in Missouri despite evidence of innocence

#181

Post by virissimo »

aguaviva wrote: post #147
knodi123 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's plenty of evidence. He confessed to his girlfriend, and a cellmate. He pawned the victim's possessions. He was seen disposing of bloody clothes. He already had 15 felony convictions in addition to offenses related to Ms. Gayle's murder: robbery (2), armed criminal action (2), assault (2), burglary (4), stealing (3), stealing a motor vehicle, and unlawful use of a weapon. Now, as to whether this evidence is so…

But there's plenty of evidence. Perhaps so. I'm not familiar with the details of the case. But this I do know: prior felony convictions are manifestly not evidence. Presenting them as such causes me to seriously doubt the broader argument you are trying to make here.

Prior convictions are evidence in the broad sense (because they provide information that could update one's belief about a defendant's character or likelihood of committing a crime), but not legally admissible evidence (in many jurisdictions).

Re: Who is Marcellus Williams: Execution in Missouri despite evidence of innocence

#184

Post by alistairSH »

DoughnutHole wrote: post #12
rdtsc wrote: post #2

> Even the victim’s family believes life without parole is the appropriate sentence That is odd, if there is no evidence that links him to the crime why not argue to let him go? Is that just from a desire to have someone punished, no matter who it is.

Presumably they still think he’s (probably) guilty. Victims and their family’s can and often do oppose capital punishment on moral grounds, same as anybody else. They want him punished but believe that killing him is a moral wrong, or they’re more comfortable with the risk that he’s innocent if he’s in prison with the possibility of being exonerated rather than killed.

They who? About the only people who wanted the death penalty were politicians up for re-election.

Re: Who is Marcellus Williams: Execution in Missouri despite evidence of innocence

#185

Post by alistairSH »

shusaku wrote: post #18
rdtsc wrote: post #2

> Even the victim’s family believes life without parole is the appropriate sentence That is odd, if there is no evidence that links him to the crime why not argue to let him go? Is that just from a desire to have someone punished, no matter who it is.

As far as I could find reading about this case, the “evidence of innocence” is very flimsy. But it’s a reasonable moral stand by the family to want to stay the execution if they think there is even a slim chance of innocence.

Our justice system isn’t supposed to require evidence of innocence.

Re: Who is Marcellus Williams: Execution in Missouri despite evidence of innocence

#186

Post by michaelmrose »

snapcaster wrote: post #133
01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

No, we lost Roe v. Wade because the democrat party is so useless at representing our interests they failed to ever pass any law granting the right to abortion. Republicans didn't sit on their hands complacently for 40 years like democrats they followed a systematic approach to overturning it. Meanwhile the democrats did nothing except ask me for more money and continue to take L after L

The filibuster makes this basically impossible to do without some degree of Republican support. Overturning the filibuster is problematic because Democrats either haven't had the votes to do so or it would have required the votes of moderates who want to use it for cover. The senate is so constructed that the senators voting can represent 2/3 of the population and not even have 50% of the votes in the senate.

In the last 24 years the Democrats have had more than a bare majority in both house and senate while holding the presidency exactly 2 years between 2009–2011. The backlash for daring to do anything at all lost them both and they haven't had this since.

Re: Who is Marcellus Williams: Execution in Missouri despite evidence of innocence

#187

Post by slibhb »

nemothekid wrote: post #172
slibhb wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like pretty strong evidence to me!

It's unfortunate that a lot of the messaging has shifted to he's innocent, where I believe the right message (and far less viral message), is the government has not shown enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty is warranted. I don't believe in the death penalty because I don't think the state should have the authority to execute citizens and even moreso when a very high bar of culpability has…

> I believe the right message (and far less viral message), is the government has not shown enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty is warranted.

The jury makes that determination after being locked in a room and forced to hear both sides and all the evidence. How much of the evidence are you aware of? What The Innocence Project posted?

This thread is full of people who are anti-death penalty who don't think some guy should be executed. That's hardly a surprise, but it has nothing to do with the evidence presented by the state.

Re: Who is Marcellus Williams: Execution in Missouri despite evidence of innocence

#188

Post by [deleted] »

JeremyNT wrote: post #88
knodi123 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's plenty of evidence. He confessed to his girlfriend, and a cellmate. He pawned the victim's possessions. He was seen disposing of bloody clothes. He already had 15 felony convictions in addition to offenses related to Ms. Gayle's murder: robbery (2), armed criminal action (2), assault (2), burglary (4), stealing (3), stealing a motor vehicle, and unlawful use of a weapon. Now, as to whether this evidence is so…

> 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…

[deleted]

Re: Who is Marcellus Williams: Execution in Missouri despite evidence of innocence

#189

Post by o11c »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #128
anonzzzies wrote: post #57

Still not sure with so many of the (esp right leaning) in the US claiming to be christian, can also accept this as a punishment. But I get nonsense begets more nonsense.

A large part of the organized activism against the death penalty is also run by christians, especially catholics and orthodox who are a lot more consistent on this. It's not the christianity per se that makes them bloodthirsty. Contemporary american evangelical christianity is a novel social-political-religious movement and in some theologically significant ways has broken with near-universal christian tradition. Try…

As a serious Christian and a dabbling linguist, I really hate that they've ruined a word meaning "gospel" (the English calque).

We really should call them "dysangelical" when they bring death like this (as opposed to warning of death, which is in scope of euangel when there's also a way to avoid it).

Re: Who is Marcellus Williams: Execution in Missouri despite evidence of innocence

#190

Post by kelthuzad »

slibhb wrote: post #174
kelthuzad wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

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 c…

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.

Post reply on HN