The State of Georgia v. Wayne Williams

                                         The State of Georgia v. Wayne Williams

Wayne Williams was born on May 27, 1958 to a couple, both of whom were teachers. He grew up in Atlanta’s Dixie Hills (Blanco, n.d). This was the same region from which most of the Atlanta child disappearances and murders would be reported. After numerous disappearances and murders, William would later emerge as the key suspect in the murders due to evidence from different quarters. The murders were committed between 1978 and 1982. William first became the key suspect in these murders when his car was spotted by law enforcers directly above the bridge of a river where there had been a loud splash. The law enforcers questioned William about his actions, and he claimed that he on his way out of town to an audition. His alibi later failed to hold any truth because he had falsified what he claimed to be his phone number and address (Blanco, n.d). Three days after being questioned, the body of Nathaniel Carter was found floating in the same river. Nathaniel had initially been missing for days before his body was recovered from the river. According to the medical examiner, Carter had died of ‘probable’ Asphyxia, but the examiner never authoritatively stated that Carter was strangled (Blanco, n.d).  The law enforcers concerned with the case theorized that William had probably killed Carter and thrown his body over the bridge on the night that they pulled him over. Later on, suspicion would even increase further after William failed three polygraph tests. Additionally, fibers and hairs gotten from the victims were found to match those from William’s dog, car and home (Blanco, n.d). Workers at the studio where William worked also confessed that they had seen William with scratches on his arms and face around the time when the victims disappeared. This increased suspicion because the police thought that the marks were inflicted by victims trying to defend themselves.  Prior to his arrest, Williams made press conferences at his parents’ home stating that he was innocent. Nevertheless he was later arrested in June 1981, for the murder of Jimmy Payne and Nathaniel Carter (Blanco, n.d).

The trial of the case started on 6th January, 1982.  The prosecutors heavily relied on the seemingly abundant circumstantial evidence found and linked to the case (Blanco, n.d). In the trial that lasted for over two months, the prosecution team matched different sources of fiber from his home environment to fibers found on the victims. Fibers were acquired from his dog, carpets, clothes, gloves and bedspread (Blanco, n.d). The prosecution also relied on testimonies from eye witnesses, who placed the defendant with the victims before their disappearance. Additionally, blood stains found in his car matched that of some of the victims. There were also some testimonies that William was a pedophile attracted to children (Blanco, n.d). As the case proceeded William took the stand, but he alienated the jury because of his combative and angry nature. The defendant did not recover from the outbursts, and on February of the same year the jury found him guilty for the murders of Payne and Carter. As a result, he was sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment (Blanco, n.d).

The fibers found on the victims’ bodies and clothing served the purpose of incriminating William. This is because they apparently made a connection between the murdered victims and the crime scene because of their similarity (Blanco, n.d). The fibers thus linked the defendant and the victims to a common place, which was William’s house. The fibers acquired from the victims’ bodies matched those of William’s dog, carpet and other fabrics in his house. These matches imply that there is a high probability that victims had been to William’s house either alive or dead. The fact that some fibers such as carpet fibers and bedspread are common and similar in most homes could not have exonerated Williams because William’s dog could not have been shared by other people. Therefore, the dog fibers are perhaps the most significant piece of evidence that tie William to the murders. In a nutshell, the fibers establish a relationship between the defendant, the victims and his place of residence.

The fibers therefore presented a significant piece of evidence in the case. However, it is possible that a conviction could still have been rendered because the blood stains in William’s vehicle also presented a strong piece of evidence because the blood matched that of some of the victims. Such DNA matches provide significant pieces of evidence that would still have established the relationship between the defendant’s vehicle and the victims. The matching of blood is a strong piece of evidence, which would still have been used to convict William by supporting the circumstantial evidences presented. Apart from the fiber and blood evidences, the prosecution also presented testimonies from people at the studio who stated that they had seen the defendant with scratch marks at a time when the victims supposedly disappeared (Blanco, n.d). Additionally, some testimonies linked the defendant to the victims because they stated that the defendant had been seen in the company of one of the victims before his disappeared. All these pieces of evidence coupled by the fact that William gave a false address and phone number could still have incriminated him because the alibi failed to hold (Blanco, n.d).

Expert testimonies serve one significant purpose, and that purpose is to strengthen the evidence provided (Saferstein, 2010). Evidence may be well presented, but if it lacks professional backing and explanation that would make it significant then it may fail to incriminate (Saferstein, 2010). For example, a DNA test on the blood spots should be shown to have a high probability of determining the link between the owner of the blood and stain. If matches on blood stains and actual collected samples from the defendant can only match with very little probability, then, such evidence may be discredited. However, if such matches can offer a certainty level of about 98% then such evidence would turn out to be strong. The same applies to forensic experts delivering evidence such as that of matching fibers. As such, prosecutors should be ready to prepare expert witnesses by explaining to them the basics on how to link the evidence to the crime and also explain the probability or certainty of establishing such links (Saferstein, 2010). This important because showing strong linkages or association increases the weight of the evidence presented. The chances of the evidence being false should also be explained by such experts to the jury so that the jury can weigh the likelihood of the defendant having committed the crime.

References

Blanco, J. I. (n.d). Murderpedia: Wayne Bertram William. Retrieved from http://murderpedia.org/male.W/w/williams-wayne.htm

Saferstein, R. (2010), Criminalistics: An Introduction to Forensic Science, 10th edition, Prentice Hall PTR.

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]