Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey recently announced the emergence of new evidence that reinforces his office’s stance regarding the DNA found on the knife in the Marcellus Williams case. The DNA, initially believed to exonerate Williams, has been confirmed as belonging to a member of law enforcement who handled the knife during the trial.
The St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office had previously asserted that the DNA would prove Williams’ innocence by matching a mystery killer. However, the new findings contradict this claim, revealing that the DNA belongs to an investigator who did not wear gloves while handling the knife.
Attorney General Bailey expressed his satisfaction with the outcome, stating, “I am proud of how hard we have fought for the rule of law in this case. The defense created a false narrative of innocence to get a convicted murderer off of death row and fulfill their political ends. Because the defense failed to do their due diligence by testing the evidence that supposedly proved their point, the victims have been forced to relive their horrific loss for the last six years (0.5 years). The victims in this case deserve better. Missourians deserve better.”
The new round of DNA testing confirmed that the knife had been handled by several individuals, including law enforcement officers, since its discovery. The defense’s own DNA evidence substantiated this, proving that an investigator handled the knife without gloves during the trial. Additionally, one of the defense’s experts had previously testified that he could not rule out the possibility that Williams’s DNA was also present on the knife. The expert could only confirm that multiple individuals had handled the knife, leading to the presence of others’ DNA.
Despite the defense’s claims, all evidence that led to Williams’s conviction remains intact. The victim’s personal belongings were found in Williams’s car after the murder, and a witness testified that Williams had sold the victim’s laptop. This evidence was available during the trial and played a crucial role in the jury’s decision.
Rather than using the scheduled hearing to prove his innocence, Williams is now expected to plead guilty to a crime he has long claimed he did not commit. Bailey concluded, “The juries of the State of Missouri under the Sixth Amendment have a right to participate in the process, and someone needs to assert the jury’s determination in the legal process. Too often, people forget about all of the evidence that was used to convict the defendant — the evidence the jury relied on — and the victims. The public has been deceived every step of the way. That is why the truth of this matter must get out.”
The newly discovered DNA evidence is available for public viewing via this link.
