UNDERSTANDING REAL CRIMINAL TRIALS – A HYPOTHETICAL USING THE MARCELLUS WILLIAMS CASE

The proof Marcellus Williams was guilty came from two jailhouse confession witnesses. In other words, it came from coerced lies which the jury was misled about the reliability of. And which the Fifth Amendment would have prohibited if there were populations of inmates facing drug sentences, at the time the Fifth Amendment was written. Coercing confessions moves the decision of guilt from the judicial to the executive branch.

I don’t know all the details of the Marcellus Williams case any more than I know the sales and profits of my local McDonalds. Because in a society designed for distributed decision making not voters deciding guilt, I cannot know the details and therefore I am not supposed to know them. But when I pointed out to someone the supposed Marcellus Williams confessions were the oldest scam, the person responded that the property of the murder victim was confirmed to be in Williams’ possession.

Assuming this is true, possessing the property of a murder victim is not proof of murder. It is the kind of case where the prosecution needs to produce fake confessions, and hide from the jury that there is a reward and no penalty for such lying, to turn possessing stolen property into proof of murder.

Assuming Marcellus Williams did possess the stolen property of the murder victim, and not knowing the actual details, here is a hypothetical: Wouldn’t Marcellus Williams tell police and the jury where he got the stolen property and lead them to the real murderer, assuming Williams was not the murderer?

No. And here is why: Marcellus Williams’ attorney is likely to be friends with the attorney of the actual murderer. And that person’s attorney has told Williams’ attorney that if he tried to blame his own client the actual murderer, his client would just swear Marcellus Williams did it.

Is it possible to sort out who is lying, in a case like this? There is no incentive to fix an error, if it is even possible. Police and prosecutors can never admit prosecuting the wrong person, because they would lose elections. Their initial error would be used against them at trial when trying to convict the right person. They cannot admit any confusion about who did it. The best thing for everyone except Marcellus Williams, is just to prosecute Marcellus Williams, even if they know he didn’t do it.

Prosecutors choose whom to prosecute and who testifies against whom, totally at their own whim and restrained by no law but only political benefit. So if Williams was able to tell police and prosecutors where he got the stolen property – who the real murderer was – the prosecutor would just choose to put the real murderer on the stand to lie that Williams was the murderer. And the voters and the victim’s family would never know any different.

So Marcellus Williams’ lawyer would know there is greater cost than benefit, for naming the person Marcellus Williams got any stolen property from. It would create problems for his attorney friend, the attorney of the real murderer. And it would just produce another witness – one with credible inside information – rewarded by the state for lying about Williams.