Marcellus Williams Executed

 

Last night, September 24, 2024, Marcellus Williams was executed. He had been convicted of the 1998 murder of Felicia Gayle Picus, a journalist, who was stabbed many times--some sources say 16 times while others claim 43 times--with a butcher knife taken from her kitchen. She had lived in a gated community in the city of University City, Missouri.  A photo of Felicia Picus appears below. She should not be forgotten because of the controversy over the execution. She had worked as a journalist for the St. Louis Post Dispatch. She was also a social worker. 

Her husband found her body when he came home.

Williams's conviction relied on the eyewitness testimony of two people, both of whom were "incentivized" to testify against him. Both had long arrest records.

• An analysis of the murder weapon revealed male DNA that did not belong to Williams.
• Picus's family did not want Williams to be executed. 

The Innocence Project supported Williams's claims but this blogger insists he was guilty. This blogger's argument rests on the testimony of Laura Asaro, a one-time girlfriend: 

According to her testimony, Marcellus Williams confessed the murder to his girlfriend soon after committing his horrific crime once his girlfriend found Ms. Gayle’s purse in Williams’ car, but he also threatened to kill her and her family if she told anyone, readily explaining why his girlfriend did not approach law enforcement until Williams was in custody.

- The girlfriend never requested the reward for information about Ms. Gayle’s murder, despite claims that she was only interested in money.

- Gayle’s personal items were found in the trunk of Williams’ car.

- Williams sold Ms. Gayle’s husband’s laptop to another individual who later identified Williams as the seller.

Williams's supporters claim, on the other hand, that Asaro is a  notoriously unreliable witness. She has a long arrest record and lied about that record under oath when she testified at Williams's trial.  A second witness, who claimed Williams confessed to him while they were both in jail, faced an armed robbery charge with serious prison time. Therefore, he had an excellent reason for testifying as he did. 

Felicia Picus's laptop was a key piece of evidence that does not work in Williams's favor. A man who bought the laptop belonging to Picus's husband identified Williams as the man who sold it to him. Williams claims that Asaro gave him the laptop. Either way, Williams has admitted to being in possession of the laptop. 

A Wikipedia page on the case summarizes the complex background of the case. The gist of the article is that Williams was no choir boy--he had a long criminal history--but he may not have been guilty of this murder. 

UPDATE on Oct 2, 2024Since I first published this post, I have started to have doubts about Williams's innocence. My doubts can be summed up in this statement by Governor Parsons: 

• DNA technology and testing before trial did not examine “touch DNA," based on standard techniques and practices at the time. Additionally, subsequent DNA testing has never exonerated Williams.
• Williams has a robust criminal history, including 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, which is all consistent with entering the home, attacking Ms. Gayle, and taking her items.
• Williams confessed the murder to his girlfriend soon after committing his horrific crime once his girlfriend found Ms. Gayle’s purse in Williams’ car, but he also threatened to kill her and her family if she told anyone, readily explaining why his girlfriend did not approach law enforcement until Williams was in custody.
• The girlfriend never requested the reward for information about Ms. Gayle’s murder, despite claims that she was only interested in money.
• When speaking with law enforcement, the jailhouse informant provided information about the crime that was not publicly available, yet consistent with crime scene evidence and Williams’ involvement.
• Other individuals were present when Williams bragged about this murder, and they were disclosed to Williams’ team before trial and have been discussed in subsequent proceedings.
• Gayle’s personal items were found in the trunk of Williams’ car.
• Williams sold Ms. Gayle’s husband’s laptop to another individual who later identified Williams as the seller.

Williams’ disrespect for others’ well-being and aversion to order have continued in prison, including attacking other inmates and threatening correctional officers.

The fact that Williams was convicted previously of 4 burglaries, 2 robberies, and 2 asaults suggests that he had the predisposition to burglary and could easily have panicked and stabbed the victim if she caught him. Still, the fact that someone committed a particular crime does not mean that he is guilty of every incident of that type.  

Police have, on occasion, been  known to feed crime scene information to a suspect who then repeates it back during a "confession." Then, the police and prosecutor claim that the suspect knew of evidence that was not publicly available. This tactic seems to work especially well with suspects who are either young or cognitively impaired. Without knowing the full details of Williams's interrogations, it is impossible to say whether or not this type of questioning occurred. 

Also questionable to my mind is the eye-witness identification by a man who bought the stolen laptop is open to question, also. Eye-witness identification is notoriously unreliable in the bests of circumstances.  There is so much we don't know.  Could the witness's ID have been tainted by seeing pictures of Williams in the press? Had he known Williams before the sale? Was the witness white? If so, trans-racial ID is particularly unreliable.  The testimony of an ex-partner is subject to bias. Could someone have planted the victim's belongings in Williams's car? 

Taken individually, none of Governor Parson's claims seem substantial. Taken as a whole, it becomes more difficult to believe in Williams's innocence. To believe in Williams's innocence, one would have to believe that 

1. His girlfriend lied, not only about her criminal history--which she did--but that she also lied about Williams's guilt.

2. Someone planted the victim's belongings in Williams's car. 

3 The eyewitness purchasing the laptop was mistaken.

4. The police either fed him non-public information about the crime or falsified his confession.

5. We have to believe Williams's claim that his girlfriend gave him the stolen laptop.

I could believe one or two of the five. I cannot believe all five of them together. 

While I oppose the death penalty and condemn Williams's execution, I no longer believe that he was innocnt. 

.Right now, I think Williams was guilty; nevertheless, I would like to see more ironclad proof of guilt than what the state pressnted in his case.