Skip to main content

Marcellus Williams


Marcellus Williams is dead. He has been executed by a state of the United States, (Missouri) and likely for no offense more grievous than that of having been a convenient scapegoat.

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/09/24/marcellus-williams-execution-missouri-faq/  

Three DNA experts have concluded that the DNA on the murder weapon was not Marcellus'. There is no battle-of-the-experts here. No DNA expert disagrees with this. The evidence was contaminated. The DNA was that of a investigator and an assistant prosecuting attorney who handled the murder weapon, a knife, improperly.

Williams' death was an injustice that the former Governor, Eric Greitens, seems to have been interested in correcting. Greitens in 2017 convened a board to review the evidence, including material that jurors had never heard at trial. 

Unfortunately, for justice and for Williams, Greiten resigned from office in the midst of a charges that he had sexually assaulted a former hairdresser. That brought Mike Parson into office. 

Parson has insisted on Williams' death with the intensity of an Inspector Javert. And he has now obtained that end.

How did things end for Javert? 

At any rate, William's execution was the first in a spree of official killings. It was followed in short order by the executions of Khalil Divine Black Sun Allah, 46, AKA Freddie Owens (South Carolina), Emmanuel Little John (Oklahoma), Alan Miller (Alabama) and Travis Mullis (Texas).  It was a coincidence that all five complicated legal journeys ended in the accused' deaths within a single week. The temporal bundling was a coincidence. But it  is a fitting one for our moment. 

Labels:

Comments

  1. HenryOctober 5, 2024 at 9:58 PM

    Many innocent people have been executed over the years, but I am aware of no prior case in which the killers (including the governor of Missouri and the six Republic politicians on the Supreme Court) executed a person unashamedly, knowing that the person was innocent. Although I don't know this for a fact, I believe that the rationale of the six Republican politicians (I won't call them "justices" because they long ago abandoned that role) for murdering Marcellus Williams was that a defendant who is convicted after a fair trial (never mind that Williams did not receive a fair trial) has received the due process to which he is entitled under the Constitution, and is not entitled to have subsequently discovered evidence considered. The problem with this rationale is that the Constitution does not define "due process," and there is no reason that the justices can't define it to prohibit the execution or imprisonment of any person known to be innocent. Although I oppose the death penalty in all situations, if anyone deserves it, it is the governor of Missouri and the six Republican politicians on the Court.

    I can't prove this, but I believe that Trump's coarsening of the Republican Party played a role in the murder of Williams. Just as Republicans can now express racism without dog whistles and can lie about matters of which everyone knows the truth (such as that Haitian immigrants are eating pets), so can they execute innocent people without apology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ChristopherOctober 6, 2024 at 11:52 AM

      I have some hope for Glossip, although I couldn't defend that hope in analytical terms.

      Delete
  2. HenryOctober 6, 2024 at 12:10 PM

    The reason that there is more hope for Glossip is that he was denied a fair trial, because prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence, which the Supreme Court has held to violate due process. Of course, we know how much the six Republican politicians on the Court respect precedent, but we nevertheless have reason to be hopeful in Glossip's case.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
17 comments
Read more

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...
4 comments
Read more