ADVERTISEMENT

Yearly article- Tallahassee man missing (Mike Williams)

GwinnettNole said:
The only part that could be trouble for Ms Willians is the defense was implying that Denise was just trying to get on with her life. Thus the reason she wanted Ms Williams to drop the picketing, letter writing and sign waving. If I was a juror that knew nothing of this case I can see why the defense was playing that angle.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I could see how she would want to protect her daughter from the Grandmother if she was constantly saying that her dad was alive and would be coming back one day.

And it doesn’t matter if Denise knew for a fact he was dead or not. I could understand how she would want to keep that message away from her very young daughter who could not process the magnitude of the situation.
 
LauderdaleNole said:
She testified that she was at the now infamous Sister Hazel concert at Floyds that night in 1997 (hell I might have been there as well but I don't recall seeing them).
She testified that it was her, Angela, Mike, Denise, and Brian...no Kathy (as Brain stated was parking the car). The state was a little surprised and she reiterated...no Kathy!
She said that Brian and Denise were hugging on each other and she found that odd.
Click to expand...

Who is testifying her when we refer to the "she"
 
jryan said:
Who is testifying her when we refer to the "she"
Click to expand...
This was one of the other 2 young ladies (both had ties to Mike Williams employer and knew them all) that was at the concert the night Brian claims the affair started. They were basically brought in to corroborate, among a few other things, that the concert in 1997 that Brian claims was the start of it did take place. However, Brian testified that Kathy was also there. This girl said nope...she wasn't.
 
So Winchester was having threesomes with Denise and his wife, cheating on both and still killed his best friend to be with her?

Kitty is still undefeated.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FSUBigALNoles#1 and noleclone2
coloradonoles said:
Unless Kathy has a bombshell or 2, I've been completely underwhelmed by the Prosecution... taking the word of an admitted killer is a tough hill to climb.
Click to expand...
Yep. Reminds me a bit of the Markel case where you just know others were involved but the prosecution does not have smocking gun evidence
 
My take so far:

The prosecution has presented just what was expected, a ton of circumstantial evidence. Several things "look bad" for Denise, especially the letter to Brian. But at the end of the day, there are possible explanations that sow reasonable doubt as to her involvement in a murder plot.

Not overly impressed with the defense, however, they have not presented their case yet. We'll see "where they go" today. Its clear they are trying to poke holes in Brian's story and have done a decent job with their cross examinations. I'm anxious to see who all they call.

Right now, I could see convictions on some or all charges or complete acquittal.

The biggest problem so far is there are a few discrepancies which may be nothing, but may give doubt. These include:

- Brian says Kathy was parking car at Floyds, Angela says she wasn't there.
- Brian gave two locations as to where he washed his truck down.
- Brian testified that the body was in or behind a dog kennel, but didn't mention that to the investigator.
- Brian seemed to "revise" his description of his proximity to Mike when he shot him between the deposition and the stand.

These could be minor, or they could lead one or more jurors to conclude there is at least reasonable doubt.

I think the defense is using the "bump" incident and other investigative techniques employed to show that LE was willing to be deceptive and untruthful in an attempt to create doubt in the jury's mind that the State conducted a legitimate investigation and didn't just take the word of a murderer and essentially "set her up".

All in all, I still lean towards acquittal on murder and conspiracy. I'm 80% on murder, probably 60% on conspiracy. I think AATF is the easiest for the jury to accept and it has the highest probability for conviction. Hope I'm wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GwinnettNole
Buddy Green said:
My take so far:

The prosecution has presented just what was expected, a ton of circumstantial evidence. Several things "look bad" for Denise, especially the letter to Brian. But at the end of the day, there are possible explanations that sow reasonable doubt as to her involvement in a murder plot.

Not overly impressed with the defense, however, they have not presented their case yet. We'll see "where they go" today. Its clear they are trying to poke holes in Brian's story and have done a decent job with their cross examinations. I'm anxious to see who all they call.

Right now, I could see convictions on some or all charges or complete acquittal.

The biggest problem so far is there are a few discrepancies which may be nothing, but may give doubt. These include:

- Brian says Kathy was parking car at Floyds, Angela says she wasn't there.
- Brian gave two locations as to where he washed his truck down.
- Brian testified that the body was in or behind a dog kennel, but didn't mention that to the investigator.
- Brian seemed to "revise" his description of his proximity to Mike when he shot him between the deposition and the stand.

These could be minor, or they could lead one or more jurors to conclude there is at least reasonable doubt.

I think the defense is using the "bump" incident and other investigative techniques employed to show that LE was willing to be deceptive and untruthful in an attempt to create doubt in the jury's mind that the State conducted a legitimate investigation and didn't just take the word of a murderer and essentially "set her up".

All in all, I still lean towards acquittal on murder and conspiracy. I'm 80% on murder, probably 60% on conspiracy. I think AATF is the easiest for the jury to accept and it has the highest probability for conviction. Hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

I would have a hard time convicting anyone of murder if they didn't pull the trigger. Maybe I'm not understanding the law.
But I hope she is found guilty on conspiracy and insurance fraud. That won't be life

The inconsistencies on Brian's testimony is minor IMO... heck it was 20 years ago. But you're right the jurors could question anything right now... especially from the guy that pulled the trigger, and already behind bars.
 
My take on Kathy...

The recorded phone conversation was a bunch of nothing. FDLE made up a story for her about getting subpoenad and she called Denise all crying saying her husband would divorce her when he found out she lied about not knowing anything about Mike.. but Denise never really said anything definitive about knowing anything. Kathy was kind of evasive in wanting to tie down times, dates and places in a few questions.

Now they are trying to get the murder charge dismissed based upon court precedent and the fact that no evidence has been presented that makes Denise a principle in the act.
 
Or a directive verdict of acquittal or something.. out of my area of knowledge. They think the state did not meet the burden for the jury to consider the charge. Knew this was coming.
 
The State is arguing that her encouraging to go on the hunting trip is an "overt act". Defense is saying there is no testimony that she did that and that a conversation doesn't constitute an "overt act".

Defense says she does not meet the definition of a "principle" and that case law is clear. State disagrees due to "jury instructions".
 
Massive failure for the State... they might get a conviction on emotion/bias but a truly unbiased juror should not find her guilty, IMO.

A whole lot of "looks bad" but very little proof.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DanC78
coloradonoles said:
Massive failure for the State... they might get a conviction on emotion/bias but a truly unbiased juror should not find her guilty, IMO.

A whole lot of "looks bad" but very little proof.
Click to expand...

Even if she is convicted, they have set the table for the appeal. I think they have a strong argument on the court precedent about the charges. The State's argument of what constitutes an "overt act" is flimsy imo.

Oh, and you just saw two of the people that previous investigators always thought knew more than they were telling.
 
Buddy Green said:
Even if she is convicted, they have set the table for the appeal. I think they have a strong argument on the court precedent about the charges. The State's argument of what constitutes an "overt act" is flimsy imo.

Oh, and you just saw two of the people that previous investigators always thought knew more than they were telling.
Click to expand...
Is the defense even going to present a case?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Random_John
They seem done.

I am a little surprised that they chose not to point out several things like that the original investigators had determined that they did not believe there was a crime scene at Lake Seminole and that the homicide had occurred in Tallahassee, likely at the Williams' home - and that as soon as Brian confessed, they took his word for it without any other proof and didn't really follow up with the people they had interviewed previously.

Further, there is the issue with Mike's grandfathers shotgun, long-believed to be the murder weapon, and why they continued to lie about having it for years. It hasn't even been mentioned, almost as if the defense doesn't know about any of this.
 
From what I'm reading from you all is that the prosecution went to court with nothing tangible connecting Denise Williams to the murder.

Is that fair? or am I off base?
 
Buddy Green said:
My take so far:

The prosecution has presented just what was expected, a ton of circumstantial evidence. Several things "look bad" for Denise, especially the letter to Brian. But at the end of the day, there are possible explanations that sow reasonable doubt as to her involvement in a murder plot.

Not overly impressed with the defense, however, they have not presented their case yet. We'll see "where they go" today. Its clear they are trying to poke holes in Brian's story and have done a decent job with their cross examinations. I'm anxious to see who all they call.

Right now, I could see convictions on some or all charges or complete acquittal.

The biggest problem so far is there are a few discrepancies which may be nothing, but may give doubt. These include:

- Brian says Kathy was parking car at Floyds, Angela says she wasn't there.
- Brian gave two locations as to where he washed his truck down.
- Brian testified that the body was in or behind a dog kennel, but didn't mention that to the investigator.
- Brian seemed to "revise" his description of his proximity to Mike when he shot him between the deposition and the stand.

These could be minor, or they could lead one or more jurors to conclude there is at least reasonable doubt.

I think the defense is using the "bump" incident and other investigative techniques employed to show that LE was willing to be deceptive and untruthful in an attempt to create doubt in the jury's mind that the State conducted a legitimate investigation and didn't just take the word of a murderer and essentially "set her up".

All in all, I still lean towards acquittal on murder and conspiracy. I'm 80% on murder, probably 60% on conspiracy. I think AATF is the easiest for the jury to accept and it has the highest probability for conviction. Hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Unfortunate, but not surprising. The prosecution had to go with what they had to work with, and they reached a point where it was clear that no further evidence would be forthcoming. Hard to get a murder conviction on these wink-wink arrangements. But we’ll see.
 
Random_John said:
From what I'm reading from you all is that the prosecution went to court with nothing tangible connecting Denise Williams to the murder.

Is that fair? or am I off base?
Click to expand...
I will preface my view as I did not watch the entirety of the trail... just Twitter and recaps

That said, IMO they did just that. They relied almost exclusively on Brian's testimony and tried to supplement it will a few secondary witnesses. The entire taped phone calls were nothing and the one "gotcha" was just Kathy saying "tell Marcus (Brain's dad) to tell Brain I'm not telling FDLE anything." That was NOT on the tape.

But in their defense, they didn't have alot to work with and as long as she kept her mouth shut it was going to be hard to convict her...
 
So it's a Casey Anthony situation. We KNOW who did what but can't prove it.
 
While it's reasonable to think she helped it's equally reasonable to think that she had no idea... Brian could have done the whole thing... been there to help her in her time of need, which would have made sense considering they were already loosely together. He could have encouraged her to file for the Death cert to get the money, etc.
 
It at least seems relatively clear that Denise knew Brian killed Mike at some point during their marriage. You've never seen Denise express dismay or disgust at the fact that Winchester shot her husband in the face while he was thrashing around in freezing water. These recorded calls with Denise, along with the police interview, paint a picture of a cunning woman who knew what happened--and indeed wanted it to happen--but is crafty and devious enough to avoid saying anything explicitly incriminating herself.
 
coloradonoles said:
Defense rests.

They are also not asking for lesser charges to be included in the jury instructions, meaning no 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. Gutsy move.
Click to expand...

That part doesn't even make sense to me, actually. How could you change course now and say she's guilty of less than premeditated murder? Either she conspired with Brian or she didn't. If she did, she is guilty for murder just like Brian, and guilty of conspiracy. If she didn't conspire with him, she can't be guilty of either charge, and a "lesser homicide" charge wouldn't make any sense because she has no relation to the murder if she didn't help plan it. What am I missing here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DanC78 and QuaZ2002
Buddy Green said:
That part doesn't even make sense to me, actually. How could you change course now and say she's guilty of less than premeditated murder? Either she conspired with Brian or she didn't. If she did, she is guilty for murder just like Brian, and guilty of conspiracy. If she didn't conspire with him, she can't be guilty of either charge, and a "lesser homicide" charge wouldn't make any sense because she has no relation to the murder if she didn't help plan it. What am I missing here?
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're agreeing with the decision to exclude lesser included charges as possible verdicts. And I agree with you. It's murder 1 or bust.
 
Hankinson to Williams on no lesser charges: "It is a relatively radical decision that’s not made in many cases. You understand it’s a little out of the ordinary?"

"Yes"

Hankinson is the judge
 
The State has alleged that Denise conspired with Brian to kill Mike.

Brian has testified that a)they plotted the death and b) he solely killed Mike.

Nobody has argued that Mike died due to an accident or negligence, or that it was a justifiable killing.

Denise can't be convicted of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter because there has been no evidence presented or even a charge that could include lesser offenses. The State has not alleged a scenario where "less than 1st degree murder" is a consideration. I get he's the judge, but he seems out of his mind here saying that, given the specific allegation and facts of this case. That's why I have asked, "what am I missing?".

Seems to me, allowing the jury to consider lesser charges would result in an almost automatic reversal if she was convicted of a lesser charge - because neither side ever brought up an argument for a lesser charge. Its almost like the judge doesn't understand the actual facts and contentions by the State that lead to this trial.

Does Florida law perhaps require that the defendant gets this option of lesser included offenses in a 1st degree murder trial?
 
Buddy Green said:
The State has alleged that Denise conspired with Brian to kill Mike.

Brian has testified that a)they plotted the death and b) he solely killed Mike.

Nobody has argued that Mike died due to an accident or negligence, or that it was a justifiable killing.

Denise can't be convicted of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter because there has been no evidence presented or even a charge that could include lesser offenses. The State has not alleged a scenario where "less than 1st degree murder" is a consideration. I get he's the judge, but he seems out of his mind here saying that, given the specific allegation and facts of this case. That's why I have asked, "what am I missing?".

Seems to me, allowing the jury to consider lesser charges would result in an almost automatic reversal if she was convicted of a lesser charge - because neither side ever brought up an argument for a lesser charge. Its almost like the judge doesn't understand the actual facts and contentions by the State that lead to this trial.

Does Florida law perhaps require that the defendant gets this option of lesser included offenses in a 1st degree murder trial?
Click to expand...
Doesn't make sense to me either...
 
If it's murder or bust..... she walks. I almost thought for sure lesser charges was always an option.
I'm no lawyer.

In the taped conversation with Denise and Kathy it's clear Denise either was not in the planning (which I don't believe) or she was always always extremely careful in how she was communicating. She's a devil for sure...
 
What it comes down to is Brian shot Mike in the face. He copped a deal to avoid life in prison in exchange for leading them to the body and implicating Denise. While I have my own leanings here the State didn't show any proof that she was involved and aside from Brian's testimony that she even knew about it.
The defense even brought in the proffer (attorney) to testify that she had $1.4 million in assets prior to marrying Brian (2005'ish) and had $1.4 million when she filed for divorce (2016'ish). So the Stae's argument that she was motivated by the insurance money is questionable since she apparently never spent any of it.
 
LauderdaleNole said:
The defense even brought in the proffer (attorney) to testify that she had $1.4 million in assets prior to marrying Brian (2005'ish) and had $1.4 million when she filed for divorce (2016'ish). So the Stae's argument that she was motivated by the insurance money is questionable since she apparently never spent any of it.
Click to expand...

DJIA grew about 70% over that period. What's the average annual earnings she could have scraped over that period to have the same size nest egg at the end of it given that growth rate?
 
Seems to me that if she didn’t use the money then her net worth would of had to grown. No way she spent exactly $1.4 mil of other money. Seems like a bad job of proving that net worth analysis.
 
LauderdaleNole said:
The defense even brought in the proffer (attorney) to testify that she had $1.4 million in assets prior to marrying Brian (2005'ish) and had $1.4 million when she filed for divorce (2016'ish). So the State's argument that she was motivated by the insurance money is questionable since she apparently never spent any of it.
Click to expand...

FWIW, She bought two lots in 2002, one for $275,600 from Sandy Dalemberte and another for $297,500. She still owns the first one and sold the second one in 2017 for $348,500.

I don't know when the insurance was paid out.
 
seminole97 said:
DJIA grew about 70% over that period. What's the average annual earnings she could have scraped over that period to have the same size nest egg at the end of it given that growth rate?
Click to expand...
The family law attorney testified to these and mentioned that only $650k of it was in a Vangard account (ie equities). The interesting witness was the Rico Suave Miami attorney who mentioned several times that his expertise is tax law, estate planning and offshore tax planning (which is coincidentally what my wife does). What did she do with the rest of the cash between 2001-2005?...there's about $500k unaccounted for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S

Notes From the Uninformed

Replies
39
Views
1K
Osceola Village
FSUfan1973
FSUfan1973
F

Clemson

Replies
42
Views
2K
Osceola Village
QuaZ2002
Q
OsceolaPat

Preview: FSU vs. Georgia Tech

Replies
4
Views
607
Osceola Village
OsceolaPat
OsceolaPat
Austin R. Cox

Recap/quotes from Mike Norvell's coaches show (9/27): Dugans

Replies
9
Views
1K
Osceola Village
NoleAPath
N
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back