If Tookie Had Been White


The AP has another article in their continuing media blitz to save a murderer. It’s the same ole crapola they have been printing for years but what piqued my interest in posting about it was the quote from Jamie Foxx:

“If Stan Tookie Williams had been born in Connecticut in the same type of situation, and was a white man, he would have been running a company,” Foxx told the AP when the film aired last year on FX. “But, born a black man who has the capability of having brute strength and the capability of being smart in the ways of the world, he’s going to get into what he gets into.”

Let’s see, If Tookie had been a white boy brought up in the Aryan Brotherhood or the KKK and murdered 4 black’s, but wrote a bunch of childrens books in prision do you think these celebrities would be out protesting? Hell no. They would all want to pull the switch. But because he is black and just killed a few asians they are all out in force. The hypocrisy of the left is mind boggling.

The same article has some quotes deep into the article from the victims family:

Lora Owens, stepmother of victim Albert Owens, opposes clemency and resents the celebrity involvement.

“I think most of them are abusing their popularity and their access to the media,” she said. “It’s an agenda. If they looked at the facts, then they’d realize Williams has not done anything to deserve clemency.”

[…]Such celebrity campaigns rankle victim advocates. Nancy Ruhe, executive director of the National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children, argues that they glamorize a man like Williams and confer unwarranted role-model status.

“He becomes someone to look up to,” Ruhe said. “There are so many people in our country you can look up to, but most certainly it should not be someone who has murdered several people.”

Lets look at the facts of this case, Tookie robbed a 7-11 and while robbing the place he ordered a 25 year old clerk into another room. While the kid begged for his life he shot him twice with a 12 gauge. A few days later he broke into a motel, shot a 53 year old women twice with a shotgun, shot her husband twice in the chest with the 12 gauge and then showed some restraint and only put one shot into the daughters head.

Add in the fact that he founded a organization that has terrorized complete neighborhoods to this day and you get a feel for this man. He deserves to die a much more horrible death then being put to sleep.

If Arnold commutes this scumbags sentence then he is done. But I have a feeling he will commute it unfortunately, and while 4 people who would have contributed way more to this society lie in their graves he will be alive and kicking.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

:guns_tb:you think he was that kind of person…….well he wasn’t he was a man of peace learn more about him not only what you hear its called research

Oh come on Dante, please do a bit more research before you post such drivel. Manson was sentenced to die. But instead your liberal democratic friends outlawed the death penalty in 72 and his sentence was commuted to life. He was never granted clemency.

Tookie didn’t help no one but himself. He was a pathetic killer who should have died a more painful death then the one he received. It’s sad you look up to this man, sad.

I know this blog is old, but I wanted to respond anyway. The clemency for tookie was not to set him free, it was to still let him die in prison. I think he has helped some kid somewhere. The crimes he died for was 4 murders. But at the same time, Charles Manson was convicted of more than that, and was granted clemency, and will still be a burden on society for quite a while still.. That is the reason why I ask, where is the Justice. He is being jailed about 15 miles away from where I live.

About DNA evidence in Tookie’s case. Did you NOT know that there was a boot print found at the scene of the 7- 11 murder? I t was never matched to Tookie. There were finger prints at both crime scenes and on the weapon that were never matched to Tookie. I never said that DNA evidence is the only way to convict someone, but scientifically it identifies someone when there is doubt in the case and it is a ground breaker. If it were not, then why are cases being reopened for reexamination. They are called Cold Cases and that is a real legal term for unsolved cases. In any Cold Case the tool that is most often the ground breaker in the case is preserved DNA evidence and new findings surrounding that evidence. It enables the investegators to finally find the real killer. I am an advocate for justice, I just don’t want thee wrong person behind bars. What in the hell is wrong with that? In that St. Louis prison study the three men that were exonnorated those were innocent people that spent time behind bars. You talk about that as if it’s no big deal. What about those three innocent men. Like Harold Wilson they have to walk around proving their innocence because now they have to face predjudices because of spending time in prison. You act as if DNA does nothing for the case. In the example that you gave WHAT WAS THE ONE THING MENTIONED THAT SET THESE THREE MEN FREE? DNA evidence my friend. DNA evidence is not subjected to predjudices and biases. It either places you at the scene and can prove that you committed the crime or it will show that you’re innocent. You know the problem is, people in the justice system don’t want the extra work of knowing that someone is innocent ant then having to turn around and find the real killer. Those three men that were released in St. Louis, were the real killers ever found, probably not. If they were great. That means three murderers are off the street. If they were not found, then that poses a problem.

also Tara you have a lil’ good comments

One expended twelve-gauge shotgun shell was recovered by investigators during the crime scene investigation at the Brookhaven Motel. (TT 1506-1507). This expended shell was received as exhibit 9E at trial. (TT 1514, 1862-1863, 2300). During the course of investigating the Brookhaven Motel murders, investigators recovered Williams’ shotgun. (TT 1479-1489, 1691, 1863-1864, 1871-1872).
This shotgun, a twelve-gauge High Standard slide-action shotgun bearing serial number 3194397, was received into evidence as exhibit 8. TT 1487). In addition, a federal “Firearms Transaction Record” was received into evidence as exhibit 33. (TT 1483).
This document records Williams’ purchase of the shotgun, trial exhibit 8, on February 25, 1974. Williams signed the transaction record and used his California driver’s license for identification purposes when he purchased the shotgun. At trial, a certified copy of Williams’ driver’s license was received as exhibit 32. (TT 1485).

At trial, a firearms expert testified that the expended twelve-gauge shotgun shell that was recovered by investigators at the Brookhaven Motel, trial exhibit 9E, was fired from Williams’ shotgun, trial exhibit 8, to the exclusion of all other firearms. (TT 1522-1523).
Two expended twelve-gauge shotgun shells were recovered by investigators during the crime scene investigation at the 7-Eleven. (TT 1979-1980, 1984). These expended shells were received as trial exhibits 9C and 9D. (TT 1982).

In the response to Stanley ‘Tookie’ Williams’ petition for clemency, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a response outlining evidence of his plot to escape from jail. Here are excerpts from the report.
In April, 1979, George Oglesby and Stanley Williams were housed together at the Los Angeles County Jail. During that time, Williams approached Oglesby with an escape plan. (TT 2398-2399). Initially, Williams asked Oglesby where Williams would be housed if he was found to be insane. (TT 2398-2399). Oglesby told Williams that he (Williams) would either go to Atascadero or Patton.

Williams asked Oglesby if he had any knowledge about those institutions. When Oglesby told Williams that he did have some knowledge about those institutions, Williams began to inquire about his chances of escape.

TT 2399). Oglesby told Williams that his chance of escaping from either institution was very poor. (TT 2399). Later, Williams asked Oglesby if he wanted to participate in a foolproof escape plan. Oglesby indicated he wanted to be included in the escape. (TT 2399).
In later conversations, Williams told Oglesby that he believed “the weak link” in the entire jail system was when inmates were transported between jail and the courthouse. Williams told Oglesby that he could escape from custody while being transported to court. (TT 2399). Williams drew Oglesby a detailed diagram of the area surrounding the Torrance Courthouse and the path of travel the jail transportation bus took as it approached the courthouse to deliver inmates to court. This diagram was received as trial exhibit 73. (TT 2399-2400).

According to Williams’ escape plan, two people from the outside would assist in the plan. (TT 2400). These two people, who would be armed, would disarm and kill the first deputy to exit the bus. (TT 2400). Stanley Williams would then murder Alfred Coward (“Blackie”) so as to eliminate the witness against him. Williams would also murder the other deputy on the bus. (TT 2400-2401). Lastly, Williams planned on blowing up the bus and its occupants with dynamite, in order to prevent the authorities from quickly discovering who had escaped. (TT 2403).

In a note, Williams wrote that a female had obtained a brand new shotgun for him. (TT 2402). This note was introduced at trial as exhibit 74.

In another note written by Williams and given to Oglesby, Williams explained that he now had dynamite and that the escape would thus happen much sooner than previously discussed. (TT 2403). This note was introduced as exhibit 75.
Williams also wrote a note in which he asked Oglesby if they should delay the escape until his (Williams’) brother was released from jail so that his brother could assist in the escape. (TT 2404). This note was introduced as exhibit 76. (What a model prisoner)

In still another note, Williams asked if they should escape at the next court appearance scheduled in three weeks, or try to be transferred to the jail hospital and escape from there. (TT 2421). This note was introduced as exhibit 77.

In another note, Williams explained that Alfred Coward (“Blackie”) was a “heartbeat away from death.” Williams told Oglesby that he was going to murder “Blackie” because “Blackie” was a witness against him. (TT 2422). In this same note, Williams asked Oglesby about “the weapons.” This note was introduced as exhibit 78 (left side).

On March 13, 1981, the jury reached guilty verdicts on all counts, and found all the special allegations true. After the verdicts were read in open court, Williams spoke out to the jury, calling them “sons of bitches.” (TT 2886-U). He was later asked, outside the presence of the jury, if he would like to take advantage of his Constitutional right to testify in his own defense at the penalty phase (a right Williams chose not to take advantage of during the guilt phase). Williams’ response to this question was “hell no.” (TT 2988).

Moreover, despite the trial judge urging Williams to present mitigating evidence during the penalty phase, Williams indicated he did not want to call any witnesses and did not want to present any evidence in mitigation. (TT 2988-2989, 2996). The following discussion was had among the trial judge, defense counsel, and Stanley Williams (TT 2996-2997):

INGBER: It’s the defendant’s desire that no one testify in his behalf in this phase; and I acquiesce to the desires of the defendant. So there will be no testimony called in this phase of the trial.

JUDGE: I would strongly urge that if there is any mitigating evidence, and if it can be presented, that you would be inclined to do that. But, of course, I realize the decision is yours. Are we to proceed?

INGBER: Yes, Your Honor.

The court then turned to Williams and urged him to put on whatever mitigating evidence he had.

JUDGE: Well, let me indicate, Mr. Williams, that I would strongly urge that if you have any testimony in mitigation that that be presented at this time. I realize the final decision has to be arrived at with you on the advice of counsel; and I suppose as to those matters counsel has the last word as to whether other mitigating evidence should be presented. So I want you to be aware that I’m recommending that you present any, if you have any. Have you had enough time, Mr. Williams, to discuss this matter with your lawyer?

WILLIAMS: (No response).

JUDGE: The record should reflect that the defendant remained mute in response to that inquiry.

It was subsequently discovered that the defendant threatened the jurors after the guilty verdict was read. Specifically, the defendant looked at the jurors and said he “was going to get all” of them. (TT 3072). After learning of this threat, the trial judge inquired of the jury foreperson.

The foreperson confirmed the defendant mouthed the words “I’m going to get each and every one of you mother f******.” (TT 3078). The foreperson further confirmed that this threat did not play any part in the deliberations and was, in fact, not discussed during the penalty phase of the trial. (TT 3078).

The Los Angeles District Attorney’s office reputed the claim made by Stanley ‘Tookie’ Williams that all of the witnesses against him received freedom or vastly reduced sentences for their testimony:
Counsel for Williams claims in the “Petition for Executive Clemency” that: What the District Attorney may not acknowledge is the nature of the evidence against Stanley Williams, who has always asserted his innocence . . . the case rested on the testimony of claimed accomplices and admitted informants, including a notorious jailhouse informant, all of whom were facing substantial prison time and even death for various offenses, and all of whom received either freedom or vastly reduced sentences for their testimony. (Petition for Executive Clemency, Dated November 8, 2005, 9).

This statement is factually inaccurate.

The People’s case rested on strong physical evidence, eyewitnesses, and a series of incriminating admissions made by Williams himself.
The following is a summary of some of the evidence in this case, as well as the witnesses that testified against Williams. It was this evidence that led the trial judge to deny the defense 18 motion to dismiss, to deny the defense motion for a new trial, to affirm the jury’s verdict of death, and to finally conclude that the evidence: Established highly aggravating circumstances in that the defendant (Williams) shot gunned and killed three people in one robbery, and a fourth person at the other robbery.

The victims, who were defenseless, and offered no resistance, were killed with blasts from defendant’s shotgun for the purpose of preventing the victims from ever being witnesses against the defendant These four killings were deliberate, premeditated, and with malice aforethought, as well as being robbery murders…the defendant used force and violence against the four victims for its own sake. (TT 3088-3089).

In 1974, Layduane Douglas worked as the gun supervisor at Western Surplus. (TT 1478). As the gun supervisor, Mrs. Douglas was familiar with the record-keeping process utilized at the store. (TT 1478-1487). Mrs. Douglas, through her testimony and through documentation, proved that on February 25, 1974, Stanley Williams purchased the shotgun used in these murders. (TT 1478-1489).
Despite Williams’ claims in his clemency petition, Douglas was not an accomplice, she was not a jailhouse informant, she was not facing a lengthy prison term or death, and she was not granted freedom or a reduced sentence for her testimony. She was simply a citizen testifying to facts within the scope of her knowledge.

In 1979, Stanley Williams lived with James Garrett. In fact, Williams typically stayed there between 5 and 7 days a week. (TT 1673-1674). He also kept, among other things, his shotgun at the residence. (TT 1673, 1691-1693). On March 13, 1979, just two days after the Brookhaven motel murders, Williams asked Mr. Garrett if he had heard about the motel murders. (TT 1675-1677).
Williams went on to explain that some “Chinese people” or “Buddhaheads” had been killed. (TT 1677-1678, 1720). Williams also stated that the murderer must have been a professional because he picked up the shotgun shells and did not leave behind any witnesses. (TT 1678, 1687).

Williams later provided Mr. Garrett with even more details. Williams explained that a big guy knocked down the door and “blew away” a guy on a couch (Mr. Yang), a woman near the register (Mrs. Yang), and a third person who came out from behind (Ms. Lin). (TT 1682).

Eventually, Williams admitted he was the actual murderer. He stated, in referring to committing a future robbery, he will “blow them away just like I blew them Buddhaheads away on Vermont.” (TT 1720).

In addition to admitting his involvement in the Brookhaven murders, Williams also admitted killing Albert Owens. Specifically, Williams told Mr. Garrett that he had used his shotgun to blow away a white guy at a store, that Blackie (Alfred Coward) was with him, and that Blackie was a “punk” because Blackie couldn’t eat after the murder. (TT 1688-1690).

Williams also told Mr. Garrett that he was considering killing Blackie. (TT 1689). Of course, this was subsequently corroborated by Williams’ jailhouse note where he indicated Blackie was a “heartbeat away from death.” (Trial Exh. 78).
James Garrett was not an accomplice, he was not a jailhouse informant, he was not facing a lengthy prison term or death, and he was not granted freedom or a vastly reduced sentence for his testimony. This is not to say Mr. Garrett had an unblemished past.

At the time of trial, Mr. Garrett was facing sentencing for receiving stolen property. This crime carried a sentence of either one year in county jail or a maximum sentence of three years in state prison. Mr. Garrett also had a pending extortion case.

Ester Garrett was the wife of James Garrett. (TT 1899). She also participated in conversations with Williams regarding his involvement in these murders. Moreover, she relayed these conversations to the jury. According to Mrs. Garrett, Williams told her he broke down the motel door with his shoulder, shot the lady by the register (Mrs. Yang), shot the man on the couch (Mr. Yang), and shot the lady coming through the door (Mrs. Lin). He described the victims as “Buddhaheads.” (TT 1915-1916, 1917, 1931).

Williams also told Mrs. Garrett that he killed some “white dude” for about $63.00 and that Blackie (Coward) couldn’t handle it so he vomited. (TT 1917). Williams also stated that he was concerned Blackie might talk to the police and, as a result, he (Williams) might kill Blackie. (TT 1917).
Ester Garrett was not an accomplice, she was not a jailhouse informant, she was not facing a lengthy prison term or death, and she was not granted freedom or a vastly reduced sentence for her testimony. Like Mr. Garrett, she had previously been in trouble with the law. However, the jury was informed of this criminal past and still found Williams guilty of all four murders.

Alfred Coward (Blackie) was with Stanley Williams the night Williams shot and killed Albert Owens. (TT 2093-2164). Mr. Coward provided the jury with a detailed account of the 20 events leading up to the murder of Mr. Owens. (TT 2093-2164). For example, Coward described how Williams retrieved his shotgun and another gun earlier in the night. (TT 2098, 2117-2118).
Mr. Coward described the vehicles used, namely a 1969 Cadillac and an old brown station wagon. (TT 2097-2099). Mr. Coward explained that he, Williams, Tony Sims, and a fourth man named Darryl, drove to the Stop-N-Go to commit a robbery, that Darryl (wearing a corduroy jacket) and Sims (wearing a green jogging suit) entered the store but failed to complete the planned crime, and that all four men then drove to the 7-Eleven to make a new attempt. (TT 2093-2143, 2186).

Mr. Coward explained that when they arrived at the 7-Eleven, Mr. Owens was sweeping the parking lot. (TT 2145-2147, 2186). The men exited their respective vehicles, at which time Williams put his shotgun to Mr. Owens and forced him into the back of the store. (TT 2145-2154). Coward described how Williams forced Owens to the floor, shot out the security monitor, and then shot Owens twice in the back with the shotgun. (TT 2157-2164).

Mr. Coward also explained how Williams laughed about the murder of Albert Owens. (TT 2195-2197). Specifically, Mr. Coward heard Williams say “you should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him.” Williams followed this comment by making growling noises and then laughing hysterically. (TT 2195-2197).

Albert Coward was an accomplice in this crime. He was with the three other individuals during the time the weapons were gathered by Williams, and he drove his 1969 Cadillac to the various locations. Additionally, he entered the 7-Eleven along with the other men.

Alfred Coward was given immunity. This grant of immunity, which was revealed to the jury, was granted to ensure the successful prosecution and conviction of the actual killer, Stanley Williams.

In February 1979, Johnny Garcia worked the night shift at the Stop-N-Go. (TT 2046). Mr. Garcia testified that on February 28, 1979, at approximately 4:00 a.m., he had just finished mopping the floors. (TT 2047). At that time, he saw four black males at the front door of the store. He also saw a station wagon in the parking lot. (TT 2047-2048).
According to Mr. Garcia, two of the four men entered the store, walked around the store for a few minutes, asked for a cigarette and then left the store. Mr. Garcia described the two men as black males, with one wearing a green jogging suit and one wearing a brown coat. (TT 2048-2050).

Johnny Garcia was not an accomplice, he was not a jailhouse informant, he was not facing a lengthy prison term or death, and he was not granted freedom or a vastly reduced sentence for his testimony. Mr. Garcia, by all accounts, was a hard-working night teller at this convenience store.

His testimony, although it did not directly link Williams to the plot, was notable in that it directly corroborated much of Alfred Coward’s testimony about being at the Stop-N-Go to commit a robbery, that one of the vehicles was a station wagon, and about the clothing worn by two of the men.

On February 28, 1979, at approximately 4:30 a.m., Mr. Dominguez was driving to his place of employment. As he drove along Whittier Boulevard, he passed the 7-Eleven. As he did so, he noticed a station wagon in the parking lot, and two people standing at the counter area of the store. (TT 2051-2056).
Mr. Dominguez was not an accomplice, he was not a jailhouse informant, he was not facing prison time or death, and he was not granted freedom or a reduced sentence for his testimony.

Dale Coates worked the night shift as a truck driver. On February 28, 1979, he drove past the 7-Eleven on Whittier Boulevard sometime around 4:30 a.m. As he did so, he noticed two cars in the parking lot. He remembered one of the cars was a light-colored car and the other car was darker and longer.
He also testified he saw a thin white male walking toward the store entrance, while being followed by two black males wearing three-quarter length jackets. As the white male walked, he looked over his shoulder at the two black males behind him. (TT 2058-2065).

With the testimony of Mr. Coates, the prosecution again corroborated statements made by Alfred Coward. Mr. Coates corroborated the approximate time of the crime, he corroborated the vehicles used, and he corroborated the sequence of events at the time Williams walked up behind Mr. Owens and forced him into the store.

Contrary to the claims made in Williams’ petition, Mr. Coates did this despite the fact he was not an accomplice, he was not a jailhouse informant, he was not facing a lengthy prison term or death, and he was not granted freedom or a reduced sentence for his testimony. Instead, he was a completely uninvolved citizen witness who was able to corroborate some of the relevant facts testified to by Alfred Coward.

Although George Oglesby can be characterized as a jailhouse informant, the jury was fully informed of this. In fact, defense counsel for Williams conducted a lengthy and aggressive cross-examination of Mr. Oglesby on this very issue. Much of what George Oglesby testified to, however, was corroborated by handwritten notes written by Stanley Williams himself.
Not only did George Oglesby identify these notes as being written by Stanley Williams, but Deputy Matthews recognized the writing from having previously received notes from Williams. (TT 2382). In addition, Stanley Williams personally handed a note to Deputy Lichten that was subsequently used for comparison purposes. (TT 2535-2536, 2551).

Herbert Campbell, a court-qualified handwriting expert, then compared the handwritten note passed to Deputy Lichten to the escape notes, and determined that all the notes were written by the same person. (TT 2548-2556).

Tony Sims, like Alfred Coward, was an accomplice in the 7-Eleven robbery-murder. However, Sims did not testify at Stanley ‘Tookie’ Williams’ trial, because he was not granted immunity. Sims was separately prosecuted for his role in the 7-Eleven robbery-murder.
Sims’ statement to homicide investigators following his arrest, along with his sworn testimony over several decades, not only corroborates the testimony of Alfred Coward offered at Stanley Williams’ trial, but further establishes, without question, Stanley Williams’ guilt.

Tony Sims was arrested on March 23, 1979, for his participation in the robbery of the 7-Eleven that led to Albert Owens’ murder. After his arrest on March 23, 1979, Tony Sims spoke to homicide investigators. In that audio-taped interview, Tony Sims openly admitted his involvement and the role he played in the robbery leading up to the murder of Albert Owens.

Moreover, Sims identified the other participants as Alfred Coward (Blackie), Darryl and Stanley Williams (Tookie), identifying Stanley Williams as the man who senselessly executed Albert Owens.

Tony Sims was subsequently prosecuted for his role in Owens’ murder. At his trial, Sims testified in his own defense. Under oath, Sims again identified Stanley Williams as Owens’ killer. (P. Exh. 2).

Sims was convicted of the first-degree murder of Owens based on the felony murder rule (a killing committed during the course of a robbery). Sims was also convicted of robbery. Additionally, the allegation that a principal was armed with a shotgun was found to be true and the special circumstance of robbery-murder was found to be true.
At sentencing, the court specifically found “. . . that the defendant (Sims) was not the actual killer in the sense of handling the shotgun that caused the death of the victim in this case . . .”. On May 20, 1981 Sims was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus one year.

In 1982, the Second Appellate District struck the special circumstance finding of robbery-murder against Sims, holding that there was no substantial evidence that Sims aided and abetted the robbery of Owens with the intent that Owens be killed. Sims was subsequently re-sentenced to an indeterminate term of life in prison.
At subsequent parole hearings, Sims, again under oath, has repeatedly identified Stanley Williams as the man who shot-gunned Owens to death. (P. Exh. 3; P. Exh. 4). Tony Sims, throughout the last 26 years, has never wavered in his identification of Stanley Williams as Owens’ killer.

In addition to the firearms evidence, the admissions, the testimony of participant Alfred Coward, the other trial testimony, and the consistent and sworn testimony of Tony Sims, Stanley Williams also implicated himself in the murders by making incriminating statements to Deputy Fueglein and Deputy Jones of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
According to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s response to Williams’ petition for clemency:

On March 15, 1979, Sergeant Hetzel and Deputy Fueglin of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department interviewed Stanley Williams in an interview room at Firestone Station.

After completing the interview, Williams, Deputy Fueglin and Deputy Jones had the following conversation:

WILLIAMS: How many shots were fired at the motel? Five?

FUEGLIN: What did you say?

WILLIAMS: How many shots were fired at the motel? Five?

FUEGLIN: How many shots do you think were fired at the motel?

WILLIAMS: I don’t know.

JONES: You just told us ‘five’ twice.

WILLIAMS: I didn’t say no numbers, man, you are crazy.

As the evidence at the subsequent trial made clear, five shots were fired at the Brookhaven Motel (two were fired at Yen-I Yang, two were fired at Tsai-Shai Yang, and one was fired at Yee-Chen Lin).

In the above-referenced dialogue, Williams, in a moment of mistaken candor, provided detectives with information only the killer would know. Moreover, he repeated that knowledge twice.
When confronted with this apparent knowledge, Williams, again acting as the guilty party, retracted the statements and denied saying what he had just been heard to say. These statements and Williams’ immediate retraction of them, are admissions to the Brookhaven murders. Williams knew five shots were fired because it was Williams who pulled the trigger each of those five times.
— Public Record: About.com

You’re right; there was no evidence against him. I posted the content of the case agasint Tookie Williams above so no facts can be disputed. You’ll also notice in my first post I did not state what race I was. It is by assumption that most think I’m ‘White.’ Stereotyping is a form of racism. I don’t believe Curt is a racist, and I applaud him for the courage to speak his mind. If you look at the “race” war in this country, or any country, you’ll see there are two sides.

If I commit a crime, I seriously doubt that a jury is going to share my same religious values or skin color. It would be fool hearted to and unfair if every person on the jury was a representation of myself. It’s a jury of my peers, a jury of Americans. What they do share with me is the fact that we are human and have been instilled with the values of this great nation.

Even if the jury was bias, if the evidence against Williams had been flawed, then a higher court would have heard his appeals. There is no proof that Tookie was innocent. The point being is that if somebody of “white” decent says that this is a race issue, they are automatically labeled a racist.

Send the poor ‘Black’ man to jail and kill him. If he had been ‘White’ this never would have happened. When you pull facts that prove that it does happen to ‘Whites’ you get the argument, “Well he couldn’t help it. He was poor and didn’t have a choice.”

When that point is disputed and disproven, then you say… “Well, it’s slavery.” Which is so off base and pointless I’m not even going to touch it again. It’s apparent that history is not above racism and people only read what they want to read.

Nobody has said that the “Black” people should forget about slavery. Nor more than the Jewish people should forget about the tragedy of WWII, or the Cherokee should forget about the Trail of Tears, or the Japanese Americans should forget about the segregation camps after Pearl Harbor or the Natives of Latin American should forget about the Spanish invasion….

It is by forgetting history that we repeat it. However, you cannot point your finger at historical fiction and back a cause. This should not be about race! It should be about the four HUMAN lives that his man took. I think the bluntest shame in this whole situation was how racist it had become.

First of all Curt and Simone the issues regarding the Civil War and slavery are interesting. Some white folk have a lot of nerve telling Black American to just get over slavery. It happened a long time ago. I bet you would never tell a European Jew that. I would even bet that you would never tell a Boxer Revolution survivor from China that. All of the above issues were at hand during the civil war. Obviously Lincoln secondarily stated publically that if slavery would unify the confedaracy and the Union, then the he would allow for slavery to continue. This continued allowance for slavery had restrictions of course because Lincoln originally was for the complete abolition of slavery. Don’t just study the parts of history that only appeal to the point that you are trying to make. See along with that statement were conditions that would be in place. For instance Slavery could not be forced upon Blacks and at any time if a slave desired education and freedom, then morally Lincoln felt it should be granted. Curt you mention that Tookie was convicted for these crimes by a jury of his peers. One balck juror does not suffice in this case. We know that three other balck jurors were removed from the trial. Comparitively in many trials concerning white folk a jury of all black people would never go over well with the defense. Legally the attempt is to rule out any form of cultural and racial bias of the case. It is amazing that some make the point that witnesses quote Tookie of bragging about these murders, but they’re not credible witnesses. They all seemed to have something to gain in the form of reduced charges. That my friend would never go over in a fair trial today. Another thing, if there is any speculation of bias or racism on behalf of any of the attorneys, then it is possible for that person to be removed from the case. That is not the case in Seventies, early eighties and decades before. With all of the doubt surrounding the evidence in Tookie’s case it needed to be reexamined. Case in point there is a recent case like this involving the execution of another African American male inmate. After executing this “brohta” they reexamined the case and DID find evidence that would have completely exonorated him of all charges. Now that man is dead and the real killer is out there still doing what the hell he does best. There are so many cases like these. Things like this that happen not only unfair, but shows the disvalue of life in general. Because in the just mentioned case the family of the victim were relieved when who they thought was the killer was executed. But how do you think they feel now knowing that they advocated the death of a completly innocent man and that the true killer of their loved on is still out there free to do what he wants. Comforting Eh!!!

This is to Curt, the idiot who thinks the civil war was about slavery. The civil war was because the south wanted to become their own nation. Lincoln said himself that if he could keep the union together by not freeing the slaves he would. KNOW YOUR HISTORY MORON! I am suprised how some white people can get so far knowing so little. Tookie Willaims is a murderer and I do believe he should be executed, but unfortunately blacks who have dealt with oppresion and idiots like you view a Tookie clemency as a victory. A murderer avoiding death does not make me feel better for the white people like Curt that I deal with every day. He is right about one thing, stop complaining, work hard, or one day you will end up like him, a man who has nothing better to do than post ignorent blogs on the internet all day. Do you have a job Curt?

nor black or white


heck if all my appeals were exhausted heck I will be writing childrens books and Holy books too to save my hide.

but only at the end he chickens out like a PUNK, WILLING TO KILL BUT NOT HELD REPONSIBLE.




Curt I do speak English. Also there is a such thing as sarcasm. Thats why you are still on here arguing that a man should die, argue that when you have someone in your own family who is doing wrong because I know your family isn’t full of saints and if your urging for someone to die i don’t think you are one either. And I did not put all whites in a category either, I said certain and if it does not say that well then I apologize again but I will not apologize for my comments. look at your hatred and post that to all the other crazy people talking about ways to kill this man. Did you miss the part about when I said

Just as you said there was whitemen put on execution was everybody on this site as emotional to see them die ?? HMM let me check the writings …… NO

See you are taking my writing out of context and I do not appreciate that. Especially when you outlined my quotes. I did not say blacks commit more crimes then whites
Read my dear friend Read.
and if you can’t understand the way I type read slower. Because I do not waste my whole day on these sites perfecting my postings like some.

Also curt you will have your opinion at the end of the day and so will I. Read, I said the other guy who left the postings, Read, i also said killing someone is wrong killing is wrong regardless, I also never said he was great. Please don’t ever try to switch my words around.
With the liberia thing you do know a lot about the movements and that is good. I hope you go on to enlighten more people.

sincerly, openminded
P.S you should keeep one too!

If Tookie were white do you think Jamie Foxx and Snoop Dumbass would be rallying. Just playing the race card, as always. When Tookie is rightfully put to death they will all rise up against “the man”. because it was the man who put the gun in his hand and made him kill innocent people. FUCK TOOKIE-FUCK JAMIE FOXX-FUCK KANYE WEST.We as a society need to realize that we do not owe any particular sect of the population anything. Quit demanding a fucking handout, go to work and quit bitching; it has not really got you too far as of now. If that makes me racist oh well.

What I dont understand is why the judical system alows deathrow inmates to be housed so long. That F****R should have been executed 20 yrs ago!!!!! Oh yeah, dont you think the world is tired of hearing:
“Its because Im black”, “If it would have been a white man” ect. It’s 2005 get over it!

The blood lust of so many which inevitably surges in the last few days before an execution is nearly as sickening and depraved to me as the original crime.

It’s hard to see Jesus in the sentiments behind these above comments. They really speak volumes as microcosms of how pro-death our culture has become.


The Only good Tookie is a Dead Tookie.

Die Tookie!

Tookie deserves no less than he gave his four victims…

The world will be a better place w/out Stanley Williams in it.

Well at least I have a life!!




Yes he changed and became a advocate of peace but what he did remained. The pain remained.
Before you start defending him, ask yourself this : how would you feel if three members of YOUR family got killed like that ?