Talk:Megan Williams case

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources[edit]

Nothing against Associated Content but I think a better source can be found regarding the lack of media coverage.

I've read the article by the member from Associated Content and I'm going to concur. Part of it seems like commentary as opposed to actual facts about the case. We can remove it if necessary. Also, please sign your posts by adding four tildes (~). Keithbrooks 07:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AP link on the grand jury is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.163.218 (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

"Authorities have not filed hate crime charges in the attack, but for many residents, the issue of race is inseparable from the assault on Megan Williams, who said she was doused with hot water, forced to eat animal feces, and taunted with racial slurs."

Is there any way we can prune this? It seems a bit heavy on the hate crimes reference. Keithbrooks 09:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations[edit]

While many may look at this case as cut and dry, words like "allegedly", "suspects", "purported", et cetera need to remain in place until the trial has reached completion. TheWinkel 00:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I came here to ask, but you answered it for me, thanks. AlexWangombe (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newsome-Christian Murders[edit]

"Of course, tihs case received substantially more attention by the press than the Witchita Massacre, the Newsome-Christian murders, or various black serial killers, such as Coral Watts."

I don't understand the point of this. In either case, it needs verifiable references. 74.129.90.68 (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compare national news media treatment of the Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom with their treatment of the case of Megan Williams (who according to her attorney Byron L. Potts has recanted (AP 22 Oct 2009)). 67.232.95.125 (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"CNN contributor Roland S. Martin questioned why this case had not been a source of greater outrage for the public and in media." Personally I recall a great deal of attention and outrage expressed over the Aug 2007 Williams torture case when it was first reported, and what seemed like a media blackout over the Jan 2007 Christian-Newsom murder case. (One reason given in the Christian-Newsom case for limiting official statements was a fear of prejudicing the jury pool against the defendants.) The media seem to want public drawing-and-quartering in the court of public opinion (then a trial after the jury pool is completely polluted). If Megan Williams' recantation is true (no guarantee there either), the defendants may have been railroaded into false confessions. One of the aspects of this case is the effect of trial by media circus on the administration of justice. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roland S. Martin (CNN) was incised that the Vicks dog abuse case got more attention than the Williams or rhe Christian-Newsom cases, both of which he felt deserved more attention than Vicks and his dog. Naaman Brown (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New sources[edit]

http://wvgazette.com/News/200910201215 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk • contribs) 13:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This turn of events may be worthy of its own section on this article, or at least more then a single sentence.--MrSeagull (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woman recants story of West Virginia abuse (Megan Williams)[edit]

(CNN) -- A 22-year-old woman whose claims that she was abused in a trailer in rural West Virginia in 2007 helped send six people to prison now says she made up the story, her lawyer said Wednesday.

"She is recanting her entire story," attorney Byron Potts told reporters in Columbus, Ohio, about his client, Megan Williams, who moved there after the incident. "She says it did not happen. She fabricated it."

He added, "She wanted to get back at her boyfriend. She was mad at him."

In 2007, police acting on a tip found the black woman in a trailer with cuts and bruises. She said she had been stabbed in the leg and beaten, sexually assaulted, forced to eat feces and subjected to a racial slur by her white captors.

The suspects included a mother and son, a separate mother and daughter, and two men. All are still jailed, according to the prosecutor who handled the case.

The incident, which drew extensive media coverage, stirred outrage around the country. Civil rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton called for the incident to be investigated as a hate crime.


Last year, all six defendants pleaded guilty and were given terms of up to 40 years in prison.

Potts said his client was coming forward "to right the wrong perpetrated on these six individuals." He added that she told him all her injuries except for the bruises on her face were self-inflicted. The bruises, he said, were from an altercation she had had with her then-boyfriend before the incident in question.

Potts described Williams' feelings as "total remorse; that's why she's coming forward. She is remorseful for having these people spend time in jail."

Asked if she was being pressured to recant, he said, "No, she's not being pressured into this."

Williams had been expected to speak herself, but Potts said she would not appear before the news media because she was afraid for her safety.

He said she was "fully aware" that she might face criminal charges, "but she still wanted to go forward with this."

Brian Abraham, the former Logan County prosecutor who handled the case, defended the convictions. "The case wasn't based on her statements," he said, noting that Williams never testified in the case. "The case was based on the evidence discovered by the police, including the confessions of the six defendants."

He added, "All six of them have been in jail without filing appeals. If they file something afterwards, the evidence was pretty overwhelming for the charges on which they were convicted."

The current county prosecutor, John Bennett, said he could not comment on whether the case would be reopened. He said he represented one of the suspects in 2007 and so would let a judge decide how to handle the potential conflict of interest.

Sharpton said, "If they are being held under false information and she misled authorities, and if the authorities went solely on her testimony, then they should be released." But he added, "If there are other circumstances around the recanting, we should know what they are." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.157.146 (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Also Russell Goldman, "Torture Victim Recants Story, but Cops Believe It's Still True", ABC News, 23 Oct 2009. Megan Williams may be one of those abused women who wants her abusive boyfriend back at any cost: we should not get too heavily invested emotionally in picking sides here. Naaman Brown (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Convicted Men[edit]

This story is incomplete; last info given is dated 2010.

Do the police still think they did anything, or not?

And if not, why are they still locked up? Or are they?

Did they plead guilty, knowing they were innocent but advised that a prejudiced court would convict them anyway? Or did the police have a case based on objective evidence and Williams' recantation is a lie?

Any information on these points would improve the article. 12.152.78.2 (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Megan Williams case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Megan Williams case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Megan Williams case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Megan_Williams_case&oldid=1203960021"