Questions about the Tookie Williams case?

I haven't been following this up until tonight. My question:

Who did he kill? Most of the wire stories mention hew was convicted of killing 4 people. I have no idea of the circumstances, specifics etc. A nutshell version would be appreciated.

First one was a guy working in a mini-mart type place. The other was a mother, father, and daughter-in-law in the living apartment of their hotel. The others involved in the first murder testified against him. Passers-by testified to seeing them all together that night. Then there were people who said he bragged about the second one. Supposedly, a shell was traced to his shotgun, which records showed he had bought.

But, the shotgun was found under the bed of his roommate. The roommate had committed a robbery where that brand of shotgun shell was stolen. Some people got off, others got life sentences, in exchange for their testimony.

I think there may be a bit more, but that's the nutshell.

could only testify to seeing black people and a white station wagon.

There were two vehicles. They were in several locations. And their clothing was known too. All of that was cooberated by passers-by.

This was what was stated by the prosecutors documentation as well.

No passer-by ever postivily identified Williams.

Sorry, but saying "a black man in blue jeans" isn't a positive identification, as any black youth whose been pulled over because he "fit the description" can tell you.

For instance:

Johnny Garcia stated "he saw four black males at the front door of the store. He also saw a station wagon in the parking lot."

Armando Domingues said "he noticed a station wagon in the parking lot, and two people standing at the counter area of the store."

Dale Coates testified "he saw a thin white male walking toward the store entrance, while being followed by two black males wearing three-quarter length jackets."

Sorry, that's not a positive ID by any stretch of the imagination. Two black males in jackets? No way there could be more than one or two of those in LA eh?

Four people, two vehicles, clothing, various locations. That's a little more than a black man in blue jeans. It certainly wouldn't be enough to convict anybody on its face, but it was completely independent testimony that cooberated what the participants testified to.

does that mean it was Shaq?

I guess if you're of the mind that "all those people look alike" it's legitimate, but in the real word, seeing two black men doesn't mean jack shit.

Also there is no such word as cooberated or cooberating.

Also, the shotgun was found in the posession of someone who was being arrested not for a robbery but for killing a business partner.

Excuse me, corroborate, I didn't look up the spelling.

If 3 people WITH Shaq said, we were wearing these particular clothes, standing at the Pizza Hut, then the Ice Cream place, and then sitting at this spot; and then OTHER people said, I saw 4 guys together in those specific clothes, at the Pizza Hut, the Ice Cream place, or sitting in a specific spot, then that is corroborating testimony. It gives the original testimony credibility that it wasn't made up out of thin air. The fact is, those people DID participate in the crime that night, and if they're lying, the only thing they're lying about is whether they were with Williams or somebody else.

Sorry, that means exactly squat.

All that means is that black folks where jackets.

It doesn't place Williams at the scene.

Now, your last sentence actually makes sense.

Oh, and you don't need to look up the spelling, just hit the spell-check button at the bottom of your screen to the left of the "post message" button.

What you've just said is that the only people who say Williams was there are people that were bargaining for their own ass. The only corrobarating evidence was NOT a positive ID but just people that saw some black people at a store. Hardly conclusive in my opinion.

My original point remains, the passers-by didn't ID Williams. They said they saw two black people and a white station wagon.

You cannot poopoo away facts. The accomplices testified. Whether you think all 3 of them were lying or not, the fact is the testimony of these 3 people corroborates what the accomplices testified to. True, only the testimony of the 3 accomplices names Williams as the murderer, but the corroborating testimony of these 3 people indicates they weren't lying about the events of the evening. If they were lying about anything, the only possible thing they could be lying about is either who shot Owens or whether it was James Garrett who was with them, and not Williams.

In February 1979, Johnny Garcia worked the night shift at the Stop-N-Go. (TT 2046). Mr. Garcia testified that on February 28, 1979, at approximately 4:00 a.m., he had just finished mopping the floors. (TT 2047). At that time, he saw four black males at the front door of the store. He also saw a station wagon in the parking lot. (TT 2047-2048).

According to Mr. Garcia, two of the four men entered the store, walked around the store for a few minutes, asked for a cigarette and then left the store. Mr. Garcia described the two men as black males, with one wearing a green jogging suit and one wearing a brown coat. (TT 2048-2050).

Corroborated Alfred Coward's testimony about being at the Stop-N-Go to commit a robbery, that one of the vehicles was a station wagon, and about the clothing worn by two of the men.

Armando Dominguez On February 28, 1979, at approximately 4:30 a.m., Mr. Dominguez was driving to his place of employment. As he drove along Whittier Boulevard, he passed the 7-Eleven. As he did so, he noticed a station wagon in the parking lot, and two people standing at the counter area of the store

Dale Coates worked the night shift as a truck driver. On February 28, 1979, he drove past the 7-Eleven on Whittier Boulevard sometime around 4:30 a.m. As he did so, he noticed two cars in the parking lot. He remembered one of the cars was a light-colored car and the other car was darker and longer.

He also testified he saw a thin white male walking toward the store entrance, while being followed by two black males wearing three-quarter length jackets

What the hell is your point?

Which one of those men postivily identified Tookie Williams? Quick, which one specifically said "Tookie Williams is the man I saw that night."?

Can't find one? Nope, neither can I. Thanks for proving my point.

All you're doing is agreeing with me and trying to make it sound like you're not.

I say that the only people that postivily ID Williams at the scene are criminals bargaining for their own benefit, you say nuh-uh, passers-by ID'ed him.

I say no, none of the passers-by ID'ed Williams.

You say uh-huh, they said they saw a black man in a coat.

I say no, the only ones that identified Williams were people bargaining for their own benefit.

You say no, the ones that identified Williams could have been lying.

What the fuck are you arguing for? You're agreeing with my points, then telling me I'm wrong?

Let's try it this way, three friends of yours rob a liquor store, to get off, they tell the cops it was you. An eyewitness says they say three guys there wearing clothes like you are known to wear.

Does that make you guilty?


Sorry, that's not even worth debating, nor are you. Bye bye.

It backs up the testimony of the 3 accomplices who DID identify Stanley Williams. It lends them credibility. The events unfolded as they said the events unfolded. These 3 witnesses saw what the 3 accomplices said happened. The accomplices told the truth about at least that much. They were there and do have eye witness information to the actual crime. Do you deny that?

You are trying to distort the corroborating testimony to imply that it was identifying testimony, eye witness to the crime testimony. That wasn't the purpose of the testimony. That's what I've said from the very beginning.

qualify as positive identification, nor does testimony from criminals trying to save their own asses. I'm not trying to distort shit.

You are once again repeating what I said, arguing the same thing, then telling me I'm wrong.

I'm done wasting time on you. On to ignore you go.

I never said that. What is the matter with your head. They identified, places, vehicles, and clothing. THOSE identifications matched what the 3 accomplices said. Meaning, those 3 accomplices KNEW what happened that night. There is no doubt about that. Those 3 accomplices absolutely KNEW.

Now, did they lie about the shooter being Williams? Maybe. But that is the ONLY lie that could have been told because there is more than enough evidence to prove that those 3 people were definitely THERE.

One time I had 2 guns pointed at me, do you think I was looking at the assholes doing it? When the cops came to get a description I told them "2 white guys", my friend said "No they were 2 black guys", her mom said "No it was 1 white guy and 1 black guy".

Just a couple of months ago I caught a peeping tom outside our window. Cops came again, all I could tell them was the it MIGHT have been a white guy, about 6 feet tall. I couldn't tell them what he was wearing, the color of his hair (though I THINK his hair was dark), or really how old he might have been, though I want to say late teens early twenties.

I will never trust witnesses, not that I think they are liars, just ones mind plays tricks when in funky situations.

My friend was having her car broken into when her boyfriend and I tried to stop the guy. I almost got ran over on that one trying to get his door open. I only saw him for few seconds but I gave his height, age, weight, race, pants, t-shirt color, style etc. Based on that and my friends memorizing his license plate as he drove off he was caught within 30 mintues and I did the positive ID in the paddy wagon on him.

Back at the police station I saw a copy of his wrap sheet being printed off, the thing was a mile long and he was wanted on multiple warrants.

The cops told me my description was perfect.

eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate.

It's a fact.

Entire books have been written on exactly that topic.

Just forgot what they did?

The testimony of the 3 bystanders simply shows that the evening unfolded the way the accomplices said it did. That's all. It was never eyewitness testimony to be solely relied on for the conviction. If that is ALL they had, I'd agree with you. That would have been a terrible miscarriage of justice. But that isn't ALL they had. They had a gun, shells, his own words that 5 shots were fired at the motel, people who said he admitted the crimes. You would have to believe that literally everybody who got on the stand lied in this case. It's certainly possible, but not terribly likely.

3 accomplices testified. Then, 3 totally separate witnesses had seen various events that corroborated what the accomplices said, places, vehicles, numbers of people. This isn't a case of mistaken identities, etc. Either all 3 accomplices lied, or Williams is guilty. It's pretty simple really.

lied, or . . .

Gee, go figure.

You are trying to say that people outside who saw a couple of black folks are a positive ID, they are not. It IS pretty simple.

You are completely distorting what I said. I said those 3 people corroborate what the 3 accomplices said.

It is certainly possible that they all conspired to lie in order to save James Garrett. But that is the only logical lie that could have been told, which is what I said too.

That's a well known fact.

What you have in this case is testimony from people who are bargaining for their own benefit, testimony from eyewitnesses who saw black men at a store, a gun in someone else's posession (who is being arrested for their own set of crimes) that Williams purchased 5 years before, fingerprints and footprints that belong to someone else at the scene of the crime, and testimony from jailhouse informants which is as unreliable as it gets (you also have completely unrelated inviduals who say they saw a file on Williams handed to the jailhouse informant for him to research and that said informant specifically said he was lying to save his own ass).

I still don't see anything there that's conclusive proof of guilt.