Woman Changes Prostitute Murder Story 23 Years Later

WCVB-Boston ^ | 10/22/2004 | AP

[cwiz24]

Woman Changes Prostitute Murder Story 23 Years Later
Witness Says She Was Threatened Into Lying

TAUNTON, Mass. -- A woman who helped put away a Fall River, Mass., man for life for a gruesome ritualistic murder has changed her story. Carol Fletcher told a Taunton Superior Court judge that convicted killer Carl Drew wasn't there when Karen Marsden was killed. That differed from her 1981 testimony, when Fletcher said she, Drew and two others took Marsden to woods in Westport, Mass., to kill her. The hearing Thursday was held to determine if Drew should get a new trial.

Fletcher said she actually witnessed another woman, Robin Marie Murphy, begin to murder Marsden on the roof of a Fall River apartment building. She said she was threatened into lying on the stand by prosecutors and Murphy. Murphy pleaded guilty and testified against Drew. The hearing is scheduled to continue Friday.

[cwiz24]

This hooker ought to be put away for providing false information to the police and for perjury. How could she sleep at night?

[writer33]

My same thought. Why does it take someone 23 years to come forward?

[Buck W.]

"This hooker ought to be put away for providing false information to the police and for perjury. How could she sleep at night?"

As a hooker, she doesn't have to...

[Prime Choice]

Woman Changes Prostitute Murder Story 23 Years Later

Okay, fine. Stick her dumb ass in the jail and let's see what her story is 23 years from now. That should do just fine.

[FormerLib]

Guess it's a good thing they didn't execute him.

[cwiz24]

Yeah, but the guy's lost 23 years of his life just because some slut said she was afraid for 23 years . Appalling.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Really fast death penalty application would stop this sort of thing from happening.

[cwiz24]

That's freaking hilarious. /sarcasm

[Grut]

Prosecutors believe, for instance, that the only thing wrong with the Crucifixion was that the state didn't do it again when the opportunity arose. Therefore, the official line will be that the guy was rightly convicted despite this recantation and he'll stay in jail.

[Henchman]

Once convicted, it is my opinion that the 5th Amendment does not apply to the convicted person for that crime. It should be mandatory in all possible Capital Cases, that the person be given a lie detector test under sodium pentathal (or better if available) and at least 2X. If they pass, a death sentence would be ruled out and a reinvestigation mandatory. JMO

[Martin Tell]

So she's said she lied 23 years ago?

And we are supposed to believe her NOW?

[cwiz24]

It's all dependent on his involvement in the crime. Perhaps he was an accessory after the fact. Somehow, I assume he was involved in the murder, even if he didn't actually commit it.

[cwiz24]

Maybe she's one of those born-agains that has seen the light after so many years of bad behavior. Or maybe she's in AA and she's reached the eighth step...

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

You are on to something. Recantations long after trial are notoriously unreliable. The recanting witness is often a bitter and maladjusted person. Their "new" evidence has to considered in the light of all the evidence available at the time of the trial..

[gridlock]

No comment, except to say the grammar in this piece is really, really bad.

[ProudVet77]

Interesting idea.
In a general sense, should we consider a change in our judicial system? We have adapted all other systems based on new technology. The judicial system already deals with new forensic evidence, not possible even 5 years ago.
If there was a truth detector, would we want to use it in court? It could put lawyers out of business.

[mlocher]

"A woman who helped put away a Fall River, Mass., man for life for a gruesome ritualistic murder"

either way, this poor guy got screwed

[RobRoy]

>>Really fast death penalty application would stop this sort of thing from happening.<<

I agree. I also have a question. The woman is giving two opposite stories. Which is the correct one? And how can we be sure?

I ignore what she is now saying.

I will add this, however: If she IS telling the truth now, would she have lied before if she knew she was sending a man to his death? Then again, was her testimony alone what nailed him?

I dunno. I'm more concerned about nov. 2nd right now...

[monday]

you said; "This hooker ought to be put away for providing false information to the police and for perjury."

from the article; "She said she was threatened into lying on the stand by prosecutors and Murphy."

I suppose the prosecutors should be doing time for witness tampering if she is telling the truth. I mean if we are to believe her when she says she lied in her testimony back then, why should we doubt her when she explains why she did it. Why else would she have bothered to lie.

Murphy must have gotten a deal. She probably wouldn't have gotten that deal if it wasn't for the 'false' testimony of Fletcher.

[monday]

"Really fast death penalty application would stop this sort of thing from happening."

? You are probably being sarcastic, but you really need to add the /<sarcasm tag. Writing it the way you did just makes you look like a flaming moron, or a troll.