freshapple
Active Member
Maybe not but he shouldn’t have done the murder.Should he have been there in the first place?
Maybe not but he shouldn’t have done the murder.Should he have been there in the first place?
I'm 100% against the death penalty but which bit of that says he's innocent?The DP is wrong for many reasons, many of which are shown up in this case. An innocent man executed after just 41 years on death row. He maintained his innonce throughout.
Missouri Man Executed After Long Fight for Exoneration
Marcellus Williams, who was convicted of a 1998 murder in suburban St. Louis, maintained he was innocent. But the courts and the governor were not persuaded.www.nytimes.com
"Mr. Bell, a Democrat who recently won the Democratic primary for a congressional seat, also wrote that there was ample reason to believe that Mr. Williams was innocent. He detailed multiple issues with the credibility of the two key witnesses against Mr. Williams and noted that Mr. Williams was not the source of footprints or hairs found at the crime scene, nor of DNA found on the murder weapon."I'm 100% against the death penalty but which bit of that says he's innocent?
"A hearing on Mr. Bell’s motion was scheduled for August. But just before that date, his office received a new analysis of the DNA on the murder weapon, a kitchen knife. Instead of pointing to an unknown suspect, which would have bolstered the case for Mr. Williams’s innocence, the analysis showed that the knife had been handled by a prosecutor and an investigator at the trial.""Mr. Bell, a Democrat who recently won the Democratic primary for a congressional seat, also wrote that there was ample reason to believe that Mr. Williams was innocent. He detailed multiple issues with the credibility of the two key witnesses against Mr. Williams and noted that Mr. Williams was not the source of footprints or hairs found at the crime scene, nor of DNA found on the murder weapon."
See also here:I'm 100% against the death penalty but which bit of that says he's innocent?
The State destroyed or corrupted the evidence that could conclusively prove his innocence and the available DNA and other forensic crime-scene evidence does not match him.
Governor Greitens recognized that the new DNA results raised serious doubts about Mr. Williams’s guilt, and he convened a Board of Inquiry to investigate the case. Under Missouri law, the stay was to remain in place until the Board of Inquiry concluded its review and issued a formal report.
However, in June 2023, while the Board of Inquiry’s review remained ongoing, Governor Mike Parson without warning or notice dissolved the Board without a report or recommendation from the Board. Immediately after Governor Parson dissolved the Board of Inquiry, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey sought a new execution date.
Mr. Williams filed a civil suit against Governor Parson because the dissolution of the Board without a report or recommendation violated Missouri law and Mr. Williams’s constitutional rights. After a Cole County judge denied the Governor’s motion to dismiss this lawsuit, the Governor persuaded the Missouri Supreme Court to intervene.
On June 4, 2024, the Missouri Supreme Court dismissed Mr. Williams’s civil lawsuit and immediately scheduled his execution for Sept. 24.
Absolutely, the whole system is rotten to the core. I've seen far too many cases of innocent people getting framed by cops in America. I'm just not certain enough about this case. I don't see sufficient evidence to support the claim that he was innocent.See also here:
Man Faces Execution on Sept. 24 Despite Evidence of Innocence
Technically it might not have been possible to prove 100% beyond a shadow of any doubt that he was innocent, same goes for thousands and thousands of people who've been acquitted, but there's a lot of evidence that strongly suggests he was. The conviction was dodgy and the subsequent dismissal of relevant info even more so.
The whole rotten system is heavily weighted against Black men.
They already did that.The accused shouldn't be proving innocence. The state should be proving guilt.
Correct. But (and I'm talking generally here, rather than this specific case) the fresh new evidence, or the witness statements retracted, or the flaws in chain of custody of evidence, or anything pertaining to the case; none of it has to prove innocence. It has to cast reasonable doubt on the conviction.They already did that.
Indeed, which is why the death penalty should be scrapped. Reasonable doubt should be used to ascertain whether or not the death penalty should be allowed, and given that more than one person has been exonerated after being sentenced to death, it obviously shouldn't be an option.Correct. But (and I'm talking generally here, rather than this specific case) the fresh new evidence, or the witness statements retracted, or the flaws in chain of custody of evidence, or anything pertaining to the case; none of it has to prove innocence. It has to cast reasonable doubt on the conviction.
Very uncomfortable and sickening reports. How do those governors sleep at nightSix days of horror: America’s thirst for executions returns with a vengeance
Five executions, five states: a glut of judicial killing not seen in 20 years took place last week – and there was nothing random about itwww.theguardian.com
Ffs
Robert Roberson was spared at the last minute. For now.There's a petition to save a man from execution for a crime that didn't occur.
He's been on death row for 20 years.
Stop the Oct. 17 execution of Robert Roberson, an innocent father
BBC are now declaring it was a political act as opposed to an act of compassion