"Nude" Skater Hits Rockefeller Ice
Straphanger Who Pulled Emergency Brake Comes Forward
Should MTV's Jersey Shore Be Cancelled?
Adam Lambert Says He's A Performer, Not A Babysitter
Boy with Asperger's Syndrome Rides Subway for 11 Days
Yesterday, a jury of eight men and four women found Robert Williams guilty of 44 counts, including, per the Post, "attempted murder, kidnapping, arson, burglary, robbery, 10 assault charges, five separate rapes and 11 incidents of sodomy," related to his 19-hour rape and torture of a Columbia University graduate student in her Hamilton Heights apartment a year ago.
According to his lawyer, Williams, who has rarely been in court during the trial, responded to the verdict by remaining asleep in his cell.
The two charges Williams was not found guilty of were, according to the Columbia Spectator, first-degree assault “with intent to cause serious physical injury … by means of a dangerous instrument” (the knife he used to slash the victim's eyelids) and "first-degree assault “with intent to disfigure another person seriously and permanently, and to destroy, amputate, and disable permanently a member and organ of such person’s body" (the victim has scars on her eyelids).
Still, the jury was emotionally overcome many times during the trial, which included the harrowing testimony from the victim, now a 24-year-old graduate of Columbia's journalism school, describing how Williams made her overdose on pills, poured bleach and boiling water on her, asked her to blind herself, how she awoke to find herself tied to a burning futon and much more as well as graphic photographs of the victim's injuries. One juror, 22-year-old Andrea Sepulveda, said, "I was crying for her. I guess she had to stay strong.” The victim and her family were in court during the reading of the verdict; though they did not make any comments, reports say she gave a small smile upon leaving.
Another juror, 21-year-old David Prince, noted that there was a lot of evidence (the victim vividly remembered a specific scar that ID'd Williams, the police had DNA evidence) and said the jury was pretty much sure Williams was guilty on most charges, “It was just going through the definitions and making sure.”
Williams, 31, will be sentenced at the end of next month. He will likely spend most of the rest of his life in prison.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
It's unfathomable that he was found innocent of the other two charges. Also, it's a shame that the same judicial system that brought him to justice cannot mete out true justice; putting him through 19 hours of torture before removing his existence from this world.
Is putting him through 19 hours of torture really any kind of "justice," though? I think it is impossible to attempt justice on some sort of an eye for an eye scale.
The victim was tortured for 19 hours but still [I assume] deals with the pain of her attack (emotionally, etc.) on a regulary if not daily basis. There's no way for Robert Williams to ever know exactly what he did to this victim.
he needs the old Hanoi peanut butter on the genitals with a release of a case of fire ants trick.
Remember that five Supreme Court Justices have just decided that no one can be executed for rape, even for rape of a child. No matter how young the child, no matter how may times it's done, no matter how sadistic the rape or attendant torure, no matter what maiming and disfigurement occurs at the time.
Remember that next time some bleeding heart says that we must do this or that "for the sake of the children".
This man needs to die. He is not human.
...so when do we get to see the photos?
I can't help but find it funny that this ass was sleeping during all of this.
I always find it interesting how armchair lawyers always think it's unfathomable that someone is found not guilty of a charge leveled against them but has absolutely no evidence to suggest why they should receive them.
Does any of us know what really happened in the court and did he meet the guidelines for 1st degree charges as understood by the jury of his peers? There is information there that the media always neglects to mention in violent cases like this that demonize the courts for merely adjudicating our laws. I guess this is the price we have to pay for the medias bottom line.
Yes, this was a horrible criminal and should be punished for his crimes. Don't get me wrong on that but we should understand that the law is very different place from the excessively emotional world in which we live. Justice is not about vengeance, it is about finding the best solution to a crime using the framework of our legislative system.
@diabolix
Just because I have a football avatar/username doesn't mean that I'm an 'armchair' anything. I was giving my opinion of the verdict. This guy used a weapon to slice her eyelids. I admit that I was not in the courtroom and may have missed out on some key pieces of evidence, but in what reality is what he did to her not a crime that should be punished? Or did the jury think, as you seem to, that her eyelids just split open spontaneously? Or maybe she was walking down the street after this happened, and the bleach he put in her eyes prevented her from seeing a low hanging branch that poked her and sliced open both lids? Are you seriously telling me that after reading the third paragraph of this article that you did not think something was askew?
HowBoutDemCowboys, you're being labeled as an "armchair lawyer" because you're not reading this like a lawyer would. A lawyer would see that the charges for which the guy was found not guilty were "first-degree assault with intent to cause serious physical injury ... by means of a dangerous instrument" and "first-degree assault with intent to disfigure another person seriously and permanently, and to destroy, amputate, and disable permanently a member and organ of such person’s body" and say that "intent" is very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, even in such a disturbing case as this, and reason that the jury's thinking was probably along the lines of "we're finding him guilty on the 44 other charges, and he's going to prison for the rest of his life anyway, so these last two aren't really that big of a deal."
In what world is anyone saying that "what he did to her not a crime that should be punished," as you seem to think, given that the jury convicted him of 44 other charges?
We don't live in ancient Babylon. Our judicial system doesn't operate on the "eye for an eye" principle, we don't torture convicts, and personally I'm OK with that. The bloodlust you're disturbing is pretty primitive, honestly.
HBDC - I never suggested that any of the information presented was incorrect, only that it was an extremely truncated view of the facts presented in this case to the jury as is consistent with the general habits of the media.
I know only what I've read here and a few local sources and cannot with any real conviction say that he should have gotten first degree charges (unlike those who want arbitrary judgments based on hearsay). The jury must have seen it that was as well because they acquitted him on those charges but not others. Did something happen to her? Absolutely but was it a first degree charge as defined by NY State & City laws? The jury says no and inclined to agree since we live in a society that values the phrase "innocent until PROVEN guilty". I can only hope that you remember that phrase when you or someone you care about is arrested and tried.
As for calling you an armchair lawyer, it is exactly what you are based on your unsubstantiated opinion and has nothing to do with your interest in sports. You are a a "person who theorizes without the benefit of practical experience". It's pretty easy to find that one in the dictionary, I suggest you use it more often before responding in the future.
I guess this is what happens when you don't have a daddy. I guess this guy was born before 1973 or else he would've been outted by Roe v. Wade.
Doh, he was born in 1977. Why isn't the sterilization punishment constitutional yet?
How about castration by shotgun?
It's too bad that the Supreme Court is doing their best to limit the death penalty.
he deserves nothing else but death.
How about just locking him in a cell and then abandon the cell block.
Oh that guy. He was in block B. Hernandez do you know when they shut down block B was it ten or twenty years ago?
What about using a giant paper shredder? Oops. He just fell in. Awfully sorry.
Instead, it looks we'll pay for his dental insurance for next 40 years.
Hopefully, where he's going, "11 incidents of sodomy" will just be another week at the office.
What happens to somebody that would make them do this to another human? How bad of a childhood do you need to have?
44 or 46 counts, it doesn't really matter, he's going away for life. Maybe the jury threw in those two just to show that they were paying attention.
Thank you JMH and Diabolix for pointing out my bloodlust in wanting a violent criminal to be put through what he put his victim through. I know the laws of my great country and completely beleive in innocent until proven guilty. My discourse here was an emotionally charged one and I do not believe I said anything to go against that belief. Just because I personally want this piece of trash to be subjected to severe and inhumane punishment does not mean that I want our judicial system to work that way. I voiced my disbelief of the other two charges because, from what I've read and heard, I didn't see how he could be acquitted on them. I guess I'm supposed to believe his intent wasn't to hurt her, but to 'open her eyes' to the crazy, crazy world out there. Maybe it's a good thing that he wasn't found guilty on those charges because some hotshot, asshole attorney, trying to make a name for him or herself, may have tried to get the verdict overturned or a mistrial declared.
Diabolix, my vocabulary includes many more words than 'armchair'. I suggest yours should too. There's a HUGE difference between a theory and an opinion.