Yearly article- Tallahassee man missing (Mike Williams)
- Thread starter GwinnettNole
- Start date
While that is all true......why would she not want to launch an extensive search to find him if she had no idea about the plan and rush to declare him dead so quickly (and threaten the grandma if she launched any kind of search)
It really is a his word vs her word unless there are other witnesses or things we don't know about yet. I think this is Buddy's concern as well.
However, the mere fact of Denise's behavior after the murder which includes not allowing the grandmother to see her grand-child among other things does not bode well for Denise.
It will be interesting to see who the State calls and who the State doesn't call that Way does. I imagine every person FDLE has ever interviewed and internally considered a person of interest, for starters, and the cross examination of the investigators who concluded there was no crime scene at Lake Seminole will be very interesting. His cross examination of BW is probably what conviction hinges on. If he gets BW to admit that anything he told the SAO isn't 10000% true, case is over.
I doubt BW's ex-wife can give any testimony that proves Denise had knowledge and was involved in planning the murder. Not sure why she would be called.
One other thing...
If the State has already reached an agreement with someone else exchanging immunity for their testimony that they knew BW killed Mike and previously lied, wouldn't we know about it already? Wouldn't that have to be in the charging document? This is why I had asked earlier if anyone knew when the defense "gets everything". Unless the existence of another witness has been kept secret(is anything sealed in this case?), it appears they are going to trial with nothing other than BW's statement. This is troubling if you understand the history of the investigation and the prior theory of the case. Way is going to hammer on the fact that the State concluded the crime scene wasn't at Lake Seminole and that others had to have helped.
If the State has already reached an agreement with someone else exchanging immunity for their testimony that they knew BW killed Mike and previously lied, wouldn't we know about it already? Wouldn't that have to be in the charging document? This is why I had asked earlier if anyone knew when the defense "gets everything". Unless the existence of another witness has been kept secret(is anything sealed in this case?), it appears they are going to trial with nothing other than BW's statement. This is troubling if you understand the history of the investigation and the prior theory of the case. Way is going to hammer on the fact that the State concluded the crime scene wasn't at Lake Seminole and that others had to have helped.
The way a "conspiracy" works, Denise can also be "100% at fault" even though she may not have actively lifted a finger or actually "planned" the crime. If the state can show that she "knowingly joined the scheme" in any way -- including accepting benefits from it -- she too can be found just as guilty as the triggerman.
She is going to be convicted on something, I suspect.
Asking @NotePadRick to weigh in here and share with us a likely “Day in the Life” of Defendant Williams as she awaits trial. He has some unique insights on these matters. Thanks in advance, Pad.
Last edited:
RE: "just BW's testimony".
That's a lot. People are convicted every day based off of eye witness testimony. He is essentially an eye witness.
And it's not "just BW's testimony" - they have circumstantial evidence (her behavior etc) and an incredibly strong motive for Denise to have done this: money and love.
BW's story makes perfect sense so it's easy to believe his testimony. Why on earth would he kill Mike if Denise was NOT involved? With desperate hopes he could marry her years later? Yeah right. Common sense tells us what happened and the jury will also hate Denise and see why Mike dying benefited her most.
I think BW's testimony is a lot, and that's not all they have.
That's a lot. People are convicted every day based off of eye witness testimony. He is essentially an eye witness.
And it's not "just BW's testimony" - they have circumstantial evidence (her behavior etc) and an incredibly strong motive for Denise to have done this: money and love.
BW's story makes perfect sense so it's easy to believe his testimony. Why on earth would he kill Mike if Denise was NOT involved? With desperate hopes he could marry her years later? Yeah right. Common sense tells us what happened and the jury will also hate Denise and see why Mike dying benefited her most.
I think BW's testimony is a lot, and that's not all they have.
I have not heard this and it is pure speculation on my and some other folks parts, but I would not be surprised if they have some damning texts between her and Brian from before their 2012 separation through the 2015 divorce up to the 2016 when he kidnapped her. His reason for kidnapping her was she stopped returning his calls and texts.
Maybe they don't say it directly, but if he has a compelling story, and there are even some innuendo filled texts about "what they did", the Jury will then really buy it I think.
Maybe they don't say it directly, but if he has a compelling story, and there are even some innuendo filled texts about "what they did", the Jury will then really buy it I think.
You have to keep in mind they offered a confessed murderer complete immunity from the murder charge if he would implicate the woman he just kidnapped(with the intent of killing) of helping plan the murder. In return, they want the woman he just kidnapped with the intent of killing to do life in prison while the confessed murderer gets another 18 years for the kidnapping, simply for testifying she helped plan the murder.
A man will be getting away with murder for telling the State that the woman he planned on killing to keep quiet is a co-conspirator.
Think about that for a minute.
Obviously, the State will emphasize her actions and behavior. Her defense will simply point out the "deal" makes no sense and is akin to suborning perjury. He'll point out that Jack Campbell is a new DA looking to make a name for himself with this instead of solving the cold case his father had been covering up for decades(which was back in the news).
I hope they have some secret testimony we don't know about yet, but it doesn't appear they do.
A man will be getting away with murder for telling the State that the woman he planned on killing to keep quiet is a co-conspirator.
Think about that for a minute.
Obviously, the State will emphasize her actions and behavior. Her defense will simply point out the "deal" makes no sense and is akin to suborning perjury. He'll point out that Jack Campbell is a new DA looking to make a name for himself with this instead of solving the cold case his father had been covering up for decades(which was back in the news).
I hope they have some secret testimony we don't know about yet, but it doesn't appear they do.
Where did that come from?
As far as I know he didn't kidnap her so she would "keep quiet".
-----------
They offered him immunity because they weren't going to solve it and find his body without doing so. They know Denise was involved, so they offered him the deal to confirm it.
I don't think people realize that co-conspirators flip all the time and testify against their partners in crime. A ton of people have been convicted in a case like this where someone testifies against their partner in crime in exchange for a lighter sentence or immunity.
You make some good points, and this case is not a slam dunk. But I think the circumstantial case against her, alone, is very compelling. More than one investigator will testify as to how she did not seem too interested in actually finding her husband, and, in fact, said and did things in the opposite direction. And God knows what else the state may have in terms of “coded” emails, texts, etc.
Is she going to take the stand to tell her side of the story?? That is always a dangerous move, and doubly so when you have a non-likable persona. But don’t you think the jury will wonder why it failed to hear from such a completely innocent victim?? What could she possibly have to hide if Brian was the lone wrongdoer??
Agree.
Not just circumstantial, but motive is always key.
Brian had no motive to kill him unless Denise was involved and they were having an affair.
Denise had all the motive in the world. Add that to her behavior and his testimony confirming what obviously happened and I think they have enough.
She may get off, but I think they can put enough together to convict her. It's an easy story to believe because it makes perfect sense. Brian killing him without Denise being involved makes no sense.
He kidnapped her at gun point and had all the tools/supplies for cleaning up a crime scene and getting rid of the body(bleach, zip ties, bags, etc..). Its why she pleaded for life in prison.
You would be hard pressed to find one where the one admitting to actually committing the murder is getting immunity to testify against another he says did not commit the murder. It is usually the other way around. The only exceptions I can think of is like in the case of something like Sammy "The Bull" Gravano where he was a mob hit man and testified to his involvement in the murders against John Gotti. That's organized crime and completely different.
Exactly. Plus, there's a really good chance she had seen/helped him murder before.
Bumping for an update. Anything. Brian’s mom? Denise’s siblings? The sex tape? Status of trial prep? Help a brother out in mid-July.
Yep, just checking back in to see if we had any updates on the sex tape. Or the murder case, that too.
http://www.wctv.tv/content/news/Aud...d-in-Mike-Williams-murder-case-484527221.html
"They had some codes. They did some things. They had some anti-tape recording, anti-eavesdropping mechanisms that they both employed during their relationship."
From my understanding they have these devices in evidence also some texts between them as BW alludes to in this quote below from the article.
“There was a lot of communication between Denise and I from then until 2000, you should be able to pull the texts,” Winchester said.“
We know Anslee she was classmates with my son and she cheered and he played for NFC. If you noticed during all of this she has been going on cruises and traveling around and didn’t even go to the bond hearing to support Denise. All of her friends say she doesn’t talk about it at all but that she has distanced herself from Denise and just spending time with her friends and such from her sorority at FSU, Alpha Phi. She does have a very similar physical appearance to Mike for those wondering about paternity. From my understanding from sources that I know that are more “in the know” they have plenty of evidence that has not been disclosed at this time. Some of which are the texts and equipment mentioned above but also more that is being kept very quiet
"They had some codes. They did some things. They had some anti-tape recording, anti-eavesdropping mechanisms that they both employed during their relationship."
From my understanding they have these devices in evidence also some texts between them as BW alludes to in this quote below from the article.
“There was a lot of communication between Denise and I from then until 2000, you should be able to pull the texts,” Winchester said.“
We know Anslee she was classmates with my son and she cheered and he played for NFC. If you noticed during all of this she has been going on cruises and traveling around and didn’t even go to the bond hearing to support Denise. All of her friends say she doesn’t talk about it at all but that she has distanced herself from Denise and just spending time with her friends and such from her sorority at FSU, Alpha Phi. She does have a very similar physical appearance to Mike for those wondering about paternity. From my understanding from sources that I know that are more “in the know” they have plenty of evidence that has not been disclosed at this time. Some of which are the texts and equipment mentioned above but also more that is being kept very quiet
^^^^All of this has to be extremely difficult for Anslee. Parent-children relationships through the teens and early 20s can be difficult.....this backdrop has to take things to a new level. Wishing her the best for the balance of this chapter.
I don’t, but I’m on the alligator alibi Facebook page. Some good discussions on that page over the years...
I’ve had the paternity discussion with Ms Williams (Mike’s mother) one time in the past. The details of the conversation can be found a few pages back... short to say she was very affirmative that Ansley is Mike’s. I see the resemblance as well.
Oh yea I know I saw them and I wasn’t like trying to come at you in any way at all. I just was saying from the looks of it and all, if you ignore the long hair and just look in her face I can see the resemblance strong. I mean I wouldn’t know for sure if she was but i definitely think they look alike . And yea I’m over on that in Facebook too but they took the book off of download until after the trial but they said they are going to release it again after the trial is over and also a new book following up from the first one.
Who is it anyway that runs that. I have yet to figure it out
Is it kind of a small family funeral? Or is it more of an open deal for whoever wants to pay their respects?
I’m actually not sure. I understand many on this board (who may have never met Mike) want to pay their respects. If/when I find out more I’ll let you know....
Last edited:
The State released the case file to the defense and the public yesterday. Apparently, there's nothing really there we don't already know about. Ethan way said "no surprises" and "we are ready to go to trial".
Cant't link it. Go to either TDO or WCTV.
Cant't link it. Go to either TDO or WCTV.
This is the face of evil, creeps me out to even look at it:
Oh, this is rich:
"The new insurance fraud allegations detail how Denise Williams began the insurance claims process a mere 11 days after her husband went missing, while a massive search for him at the lake was still underway. A Dec. 27, 2000, "notice of death" sent to the Kansas City Life Insurance company said the cause of Mike Williams' demise was "ducking hunting, disappear (fell out of boat), acc. drowning." The form is signed by Denise and Winchester's father, Marcus Winchester."
So, guess who isn't getting charged with insurance fraud now either? So the entire Winchester family gets off. And I was told a few weeks ago that his family knew that he told FDLE where Mike's body was before they told the public or Mike's family too.
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2018/08/10/denise-williams-charged-insurance-fraud/954793002/
"The new insurance fraud allegations detail how Denise Williams began the insurance claims process a mere 11 days after her husband went missing, while a massive search for him at the lake was still underway. A Dec. 27, 2000, "notice of death" sent to the Kansas City Life Insurance company said the cause of Mike Williams' demise was "ducking hunting, disappear (fell out of boat), acc. drowning." The form is signed by Denise and Winchester's father, Marcus Winchester."
So, guess who isn't getting charged with insurance fraud now either? So the entire Winchester family gets off. And I was told a few weeks ago that his family knew that he told FDLE where Mike's body was before they told the public or Mike's family too.
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2018/08/10/denise-williams-charged-insurance-fraud/954793002/
So all they have to go on is Winchester's word with no corroboration? And they gave him immunity for shooting his best friend in the face with a shotgun after shoving him out of the boat into Lake Seminole? Oh boy.
I apologize for my ignorance as I really have only kept up with this story here.
As I understand it Winchester shot Mike and buried him. He married Mike's widow and got to enjoy the benefits of the insurance policy. If that's true, and it seems common knowledge she was in on it, how will it be proven that she was in on it?
We have the confession of a murderer who seemed motivated by money. How does he prove she was in on it beyond just saying so?
As I understand it Winchester shot Mike and buried him. He married Mike's widow and got to enjoy the benefits of the insurance policy. If that's true, and it seems common knowledge she was in on it, how will it be proven that she was in on it?
We have the confession of a murderer who seemed motivated by money. How does he prove she was in on it beyond just saying so?
It just makes zero sense for Brian to kill Mike without Denise being in on it. Denise benefited the most from this, she had all the motive.
What motive would Brian have IF Denise wasn't in on it? None. Him having motive would only occur IF Denise was in on it, so he could be with her and share the insurance money.
It makes perfect sense for Brian and Denise to conspire to murder Mike, be together, and collect millions.
Brian's testimony will be 100% believable because it is the only scenario that makes sense IMO.
I do think the circumstantial evidence could be enough and I hope the jury uses common sense. They also have a co-conspirator testifying against her with a story that makes perfect sense. It's not like he has some outlandish tale. His testimony is exactly what we all knew happened.
What motive would Brian have IF Denise wasn't in on it? None. Him having motive would only occur IF Denise was in on it, so he could be with her and share the insurance money.
It makes perfect sense for Brian and Denise to conspire to murder Mike, be together, and collect millions.
Brian's testimony will be 100% believable because it is the only scenario that makes sense IMO.
I do think the circumstantial evidence could be enough and I hope the jury uses common sense. They also have a co-conspirator testifying against her with a story that makes perfect sense. It's not like he has some outlandish tale. His testimony is exactly what we all knew happened.
Last edited:
Brian wasn't the beneficiary of the life insurance policy. He would only be motivated by money IF Denise was in on it and they planned to kill him, get together, and share the money.
Brian got no money if he killed Mike, Denise would get it. Brian had no motive UNLESS Denise was in on it.
It's unbelievable to think Brian and Denise weren't having an affair, Brian kills Mike in hopes he can later woo Denise and marry her and share the money, and then that's just exactly what happens.
This was obviously a plot - why would Brian talk Mike into buying a huge amount of insurance money if he wasn't scheming with Denise to share in the profit?
Here's the thing though, we all know she was in on it, but if she has half way decent lawyers the "zero sense" argument is pretty easy to spoil. He was a whack job (he's a confessed murderer after all) who had delusions that if he killed Mike he could be with Denise forever and share the insurance money that he knew about.
The only thing that's gets her in my mind is how quick she wanted to have him declared dead. Seems like they could get her on insurance fraud, but off on murder.
Hopefully there are texts between the 2 of them that prove her guilt,
Not really. Theoretically he could be motivated by the longshot chance of getting money. He was already hooking up with her, she can say that they were "in love" and that would give him reason to believe he had good odds to get his hands on her money.
I think she's in on it, but her lawyers can craft a story that is more believable than the one that got Casey Anthony acquitted. Just say he was a master manipulator who pushed the policy on her, and then swooped in to comfort her later. She can pass off the insurance claim stuff as his idea too.
Denise filing a claim 10 days after he went missing is fairly close to a smoking gun. She's toast.
