My personal take - of course he was guilty as unrelated people recounted confessions he made to them that included details that were never made public. And the property findings.
Saying that I’m not sure killing people is the greatest thing.
Do you have a source?
"The case against Mr. Williams turned on the testimony of two unreliable witnesses who were incentivized by promises of leniency in their own pending criminal cases and reward money. 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 committed the murder while they were both locked up in jail. Cole directed police to Laura Asaro, a woman who had briefly dated Mr. Williams and had an extensive record of her own.
Both of these individuals were known fabricators; neither revealed any information that was not either included in media accounts about the case or already known to the police. "
My brain is short-circuiting over the two parts of this snippet from The Innocence Project. Presumably both are intended to suggest unreliable individuals and an unjust guilty verdict, but I find a mismatch between the two. It's one thing to suppose the individuals revealed some details that were featured in media accounts. But it's quite a different thing to suppose the individuals revealed some details that were known only to police. The former point is of no consequence, but the latter point, if true, supports the reliability of the individuals and the guilt of the accused.
Not that I support the death penalty anyway. But I'm leaning toward nemo44x's personal take mentioned above. And the snippet was presumably written to coax us that the man was innocent. Am I missing something? They seem like weasel words, as another poster put it. :(
https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-...
He stabbed that women 43 times. And yet these fools support this evil monster of a man.
The system works almost always but does get it wrong sometimes. I doubt that this was that time. Justice was served.
Not really - the legal discovery rules require full disclosure of all evidence, yet you regularly hear about how prosecutors don't disclose evidence. Sometimes the appeals process will grant a new trial, sometimes they overturn, but often the judges will just say "we're not going to bother worrying about the lack of a fair trial". It happens often enough that prosecutors are willing to take the gamble on it, otherwise it wouldn't continue to be a common news story.
Read the background here and tell me you really support this man who stabbed that woman - mother and wife - 43 times.
https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2003/sc-...