Reply #39: How do we know that he isn't a threat anymore?

[hiaasenrocks]

Some points to consider.

First, he has to this day refused to disclose information about the Crips, the gang he started. Why won't he debrief the authorities on them?

Second, how do we know he has really changed after this:

source: http://www.lacountyda.org/pdf/swilliams.pdf

V.
CONSPIRACY TO ESCAPE FROM CUSTODY
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).


Trial Exhibit 73

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.


Trial 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. 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). Lastly, Williams
wrote that his female accomplice had the new pump shotgun and that he (Williams) hoped that
Oglesby’s “woman has all the other weapons with the silencers.” (TT 2423). This note also
included specific instructions regarding the time of the escape, the day of the escape, the
location of the jail transport bus, and the number of deputies. This note was introduced as
exhibit 78 (right side).

VI.
STANLEY WILLIAMS’ TRIAL BEHAVIOR AND THREATS TO JURORS
On January 21, 1980, Stanley Williams, through his attorney Gerry Lenoir, made it clear
that he wished to replace Mr. Lenoir with his hand-picked attorney of choice, Joe Ingber. In
fact, Williams personally asked the trial judge for a continuance so that he could arrange for the hiring of Mr. Ingber. Williams, in addressing the court, stated, “Well, see, excuse me, your Honor. I’d like to move for a continuance at this time because the attorney of my choice, he’s at this moment downtown fighting a murder trial.” (TT A55-A56).

In response, the trial judge indicated that the next court date was months away, and that
if Williams wished to employ Mr. Ingber, the court would allow Williams to “change counsel.”
(TT A56). At the next court appearance, on April 18, 1980, that is exactly what transpired.
Stanley Williams asked that Gerry Lenoir be substituted out and that Joe Ingber be substituted in on his behalf. When the court asked Williams if that was his desire, Williams responded affirmatively. (TT A58). The court then granted Williams’ request, and Joe Ingber became the attorney of record. During the subsequent trial, Stanley Williams was represented by both Joe Ingber and his associate, Steven Ehrlich.

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 fuckers.” (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).