Letter implicates gang member in Darrent Williams shooting

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by sixtimeseight

Also, it's not even a confession, it's a letter. If a written confession has ever been used to convict someone, it was written by the perpetrator and can be verified as such, likely by someone in a position of authority watching over his shoulder to verify its authenticity. If you can't see the problems with convicting someone based solely on an unverifiable letter that doesn't even explicitly state the crime or the victim, I don't know what to tell you and you should probably educate yourself on the legal system.

Handwriting experts have verified that the letter was written by Clark. I'll refer you back to the post above by BroncoBuff that says the letter will be admissible in court.

As to your last sentence...

[sixtimeseight]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5AC0A962958260

ummmmm...... lol?

Yea, that confession letter probably helped convict him, as did the BODIES OF DEAD WOMEN THEY FOUND IN HIS PICKUP TRUCK. And I never once said that I didn't think the letter would be admissible in court, I said that you need a little more evidence than that to convict someone in a court of law (like dead bodies for example!) And as such, I'm not going to get excited over a flimsy piece of evidence that in no way directly implicates anybody. Nor do I think he should be found guilty in the court of public opinion until you can make a little better case against him than a spurious letter written in vague language.

Please do try to keep up.

[sixtimeseight]

P.S. I'm still waiting for a link to a case where someone has been found guilty of murder based solely on a handwritten confession. You're going to have to do a little better than the Rifkin trial (lol).

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by sixtimeseight

ummmmm...... lol?

Yea, that confession letter probably helped convict him, as did the BODIES OF DEAD WOMEN THEY FOUND IN HIS PICKUP TRUCK. And I never once said that I didn't think the letter would be admissible in court, I said that you need a little more evidence than that to convict someone in a court of law (like dead bodies for example!) And as such, I'm not going to get excited over a flimsy piece of evidence that in no way directly implicates anybody. Nor do I think he should be found guilty in the court of public opinion until you can make a little better case against him than a spurious letter written in vague language.

Please do try to keep up.

Why do you suppose this suspect hasn't gone to trial yet? Here's a clue: it's because they haven't yet uncovered enough evidence to be reasonably certain of winning a conviction and don't want the case to go to trial until they do have enough evidence... the reason for this is they don't want double jeopardy laws to allow the murderer to go free. The letter may or may not provide enough evidence for the prosecutors to feel confident in taking the case to trial. The letter... verified by handwriting experts hired by the newspaper as well as by law enforcement... as having been written by Clark... isn't nearly as trivial as you're suggesting and it does directly implicate him, as well as asserting that an eyewitness exists.

Hey, it ain't me who's presuming that the letter is the only evidence the police have against Clark... or that he hasn't been the prime suspect all along.

[Sassy]

No matter how "fair" a jury is suppose to be...I'd have a hard time not convicting knowing that the defendant confessed in a written letter.

...I've served on a jury for robbery...and the defendent confessed...granted it's not murder but he was found guilty.

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by sixtimeseight

P.S. I'm still waiting for a link to a case where someone has been found guilty of murder based solely on a handwritten confession. You're going to have to do a little better than the Rifkin trial (lol).

If a handwritten confession is deemed admissible, then it's going to carry a lot of weight with a jury. While the article says that the letter is the only evidence that has been made public, that does not necessarily mean that the police are empty-handed as you appear to have assumed. There are times when law enforcement agencies do not tell the public everything they know about a crime, particularly a high-profile one.

[sixtimeseight]

It's not a confession, that's the problem. It's a vague letter that doesn't specifically mention the crime or the victim. It is a highly suspect piece of circumstantial evidence at best and while it might be used in a court case, the prosecution is going to need a lot more and better evidence than that to get a conviction. Hopefully they do, but charges would likely have been filed by now if that was the case.

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by sixtimeseight

It's not a confession, that's the problem. It's a vague letter that doesn't specifically mention the crime or the victim. It is a highly suspect piece of circumstantial evidence at best and while it might be used in a court case, the prosecution is going to need a lot more and better evidence than that to get a conviction. Hopefully they do, but charges would likely have been filed by now if that was the case.

According to the article linked in the OP, it does mention DWill and also mentions an eyewitness to the shooting. It is most definitely an admission of guilt and not at all "circumstantial". When his own writing says "(Blank) might say somethin stupd talk to law enforcements about the death of D-Will (Williams). (Blank) seen me withe gun + shoot out the whip (car)", that's important; not trivial. It will be a solid bolster to whatever else the police already have. Do you really think these guys were smart enough to leave NO evidence in the abandoned SUV? I don't (and the fact that this guy has been the prime suspect all along would support the contention that the police do have some evidence). The thing with juries is that they do tend to be swayed by words written in the accused person's own handwriting.

*edited to add the source of the quote...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?...denver+broncos

[Los Broncos]

Man, it must be a bad feeling to know you killed a man in cold blood.

Just cant imagine it.

[broncocalijohn]

Originally Posted by Lynch Mob72

Man, it must be a bad feeling to know you killed a man in cold blood.

Just cant imagine it.

I heard Johnny Cash did it just to watch a man die. It was in a song that he WROTE so it also could hav ebeen used against him in a court of law.

[sixtimeseight]

Originally Posted by Blueflame

According to the article linked in the OP, it does mention DWill and also mentions an eyewitness to the shooting. It is most definitely an admission of guilt and not at all "circumstantial". When his own writing says "(Blank) might say somethin stupd talk to law enforcements about the death of D-Will (Williams). (Blank) seen me withe gun + shoot out the whip (car)", that's important; not trivial. It will be a solid bolster to whatever else the police already have. Do you really think these guys were smart enough to leave NO evidence in the abandoned SUV? I don't (and the fact that this guy has been the prime suspect all along would support the contention that the police do have some evidence). The thing with juries is that they do tend to be swayed by words written in the accused person's own handwriting.

*edited to add the source of the quote...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?...denver+broncos

The fact that it's been a year and a half and no charges have been filed do not bode well for the case. If the police had enough evidence to press charges, they would have done so a long time ago. This letter is not going to provide that final piece of the puzzle that they need to charge him, I guarantee it. Unless someone starts talking, this case will never be solved and I will put money on that fact. Not to be morbid or pessimistic, but I understand how these things work.

[Bronco Yoda]

Let me on his jury, Please, please, pretty please! That's all I'm saying...

[Blueflame]

Originally Posted by sixtimeseight

The fact that it's been a year and a half and no charges have been filed do not bode well for the case. If the police had enough evidence to press charges, they would have done so a long time ago. This letter is not going to provide that final piece of the puzzle that they need to charge him, I guarantee it. Unless someone starts talking, this case will never be solved and I will put money on that fact. Not to be morbid or pessimistic, but I understand how these things work.

The fact that it's been a year and a half with no charges filed only means that people who do know what happened are afraid to come forward because it wouldn't be the first time someone who was scheduled to testify against the gang turned up dead. The police are being thorough... it makes no sense whatsoever to bring a weak case against these guys because they can only be tried for DWill's murder once (double jeopardy) and it's better to wait until they can build a stronger case before bringing it before a jury and sometimes that takes time. The letter... and the witness who is risking his life (and the lives of his family) to provide the evidence... are an important breakthrough that could lead to even more evidence. While I'll concur that there's a big difference between knowing a certain person committed a crime and proving they did beyond a reasonable doubt...(see, I know a tiny bit about how these things work, too ) the police will do their best to build a solid case and find justice for DWill and his family.

[Los Broncos]

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

I heard Johnny Cash did it just to watch a man die. It was in a song that he WROTE so it also could hav ebeen used against him in a court of law.

I've heard the song, rockabilly boy.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by sixtimeseight

P.S. I'm still waiting for a link to a case where someone has been found guilty of murder based solely on a handwritten confession. You're going to have to do a little better than the Rifkin trial (lol).

Actually, convictions are had with far LESS evidence than this. And the truth is, confessions of any kind are the Rosetta Stone of evidence, they're even better than an eyewitness. But "confession" is prolly not EXACLTY the right word for this letter ... it doesn't say "I did it," it says "someone saw me do it." I realize that doesn't seem like much of a difference, but from an admissibility of evidence standpoint, it's probably better, because he'll have fewer objections to its admissibility if he's "worried about witnesses" than if he confesses. Sounds funny, but it's true.

And somebody (sixtimes) said the leter doesn't specify the victim. Actually it DOES. According to the article:

In the letter, Clark says he is worried someone who saw him shoot "D-Will" - a nickname for Williams - will start talking to police about the killing. "(The person) seen me with the gun and shoot out the whip," the letter states.

If this letter is authenticated, (and the Dallas handwriting expert sounds 110% sure), then it is very very damning evidence. Parse the sentence there: He's worried "somebody saw him shoot D-Will," not worried that "somebody THINKS they saw him shoot D-Will." The assumed fact in that writing is damning, to say the least.


And BTW, it only SEEMS like there's a delay in filing charges here. Remember this is a HOMICIDE case ... as long as the suspect is in custody, there's no rush to charge him, because there's no limitations period. Often prosecutors will wait until a homicide suspect (or any suspect within the statute of limitations period) is close to "hitting the street" before formally charging him. The reason for this is, one - once you formally charge him, his "speedy trial" rights kick in and might push the DA faster than he wants to move and might complicate the prosecution, and two - there's no hurry if he's in custody, take your time to make the case properly.

Also remember, there are other pieces of evidence here. Clark or an associate of his was the registered owner of the hand-painted Chevy Tahoe found abandoned near DIA ... and there's a couple other pieces of evidence I don't recall specifically, but there has been some buzz about bits of evidence here and there.

[BroncosinDC]

So basically this guy wouldn't get a fair trial in Denver. People shut up and talk about how much we want a fair and honest trial...that way we can do it in Denver and be sure he does time in Denver County Jail. The key is keeping the prick in Bronco country.

[Rausch 2.0]

Originally Posted by BroncosinDC

So basically this guy wouldn't get a fair trial in Denver. People shut up and talk about how much we want a fair and honest trial...that way we can do it in Denver and be sure he does time in Denver County Jail. The key is keeping the prick in Bronco country.

If DT was shot by some goon instead of thrown from a vehicle...well...how do you think that would have gone?