Williams Convicted of Attacking, Raping Journalism School Student

Thursday, June 5 marked the first day of the trial of Robert A. Williams, convicted Tuesday, June 24 of raping and brutalizing a 23-year-old student of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in April 2007. Williams faces life in prison for the 44 individual charges against him, including rape, assault, robbery, attempted murder, arson, and kidnapping.

The case was tried in the New York County Supreme Court Criminal Term, with Judge Carol Berkman presiding, and Assistant District Attorney Ann Prunty prosecuting. Williams is represented by Arnold Levine.

In this blog, also at news.specblogs.com, we bring you up-to-the-minute news on the case straight from the courtroom.


TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2008
UPDATE: Tuesday, June 24, 5:16 p.m.
After about five hours of deliberations, the jury found Robert Williams guilty of 44 of the 46 charges.

Williams was found not guilty of one charge of first-degree assault “with intent to cause serious physical injury … by means of a dangerous instrument,” referring to a kitchen knife in the victim’s apartment. He was also found not guilty of another charge of 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.”

Throughout their deliberations, the jury asked several times to review photographic evidence and hear again legal definitions from the judge.

Levine went into Williams’ holding cell, where Williams was sleeping, to deliver the news that the jury had reached a verdict. Williams remained asleep, he said. “He didn’t have any reaction other than what he has shown already,” Levine said afterwards. “We have no relationship at all….I get up there and he makes it known that he doesn’t want me near his cell.”

“My position all along is that he is mentally unfit,” Levine added. “He doesn’t really know what’s going on—he doesn’t appreciate the whole process.”

Levine, answering questions from reporters outside the courthouse, called the verdict “totally disappointing” and said there is “definitely going to be an appeal” on several counts, particularly the grounds of prior occasion necessary for first-degree attempted murder with intent of witness elimination. Williams will be sentenced in mid-July.

Levine called the trial “rushed,” suggesting it was an attempt “to make everyone else feel better ahead of his [Williams’] rights.”

UPDATE: Tuesday, June 24, 4:53 p.m.
The jury has reached a verdict after a day of deliberations. The victim and her family have reentered the courtroom.

UPDATE: Tuesday, June 24, 1:45 p.m.
The jury sent a note requesting to hear parts of the victim’s testimony again. The court reporter read the victim’s testimony describing having boiling water poured over her and her arm twisted behind her back.

The jury also asked to hear Prunty’s opening statement again, but Judge Berkman disallowed it, saying opening and closing statements are not considered evidence.

UPDATE: Tuesday, June 24, 11:00 a.m.
As the court reconvened this morning, Judge Berkman gave the jury, about to begin their first day of deliberations, specific instructions and definitions pertaining to the case.

After Levine and Prunty’s charge conference with Berkman Friday, the jury will consider 46 charges against Williams, rather than the original 71 charges he was indicted with.

The charges submitted to the jury included attempted murder in the first degree intended to inflict “torture,” attempted murder in the first degree “for the purpose of preventing the intended victim’s testimony,” second-degree arson, and first-degree kidnapping with intent of sexual abuse.

In addition, the jury will consider two charges of burglary, five charges of first-degree assault with intent to cause serious physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument, three charges of assault “with intent to disfigure another person seriously and permanently,” two charges of first-degree attempted assault, two charges of first-degree robbery, five charges of first-degree rape, eleven charges of first-degree criminal sexual act, six charges of predatory sexual assault causing serious physical injury, and six additional charges of predatory sexual assault with the use of a dangerous instrument.

After hearing the charges the jury left the room to begin deliberations.


MONDAY, JUNE 23, 2008
UPDATE: Monday, June 23, 5:20 p.m.
Prunty concluded her closing statement by offering numerous examples to demonstrate that Williams was behaving rationally and was capable of forming clear intents and motives.

She said Williams was able to successfully evaluate potential victims, not choosing building resident Whitney Hawthorne because they did not get out on the same floor, and choosing the journalism student because she was small, alone, and looked young. Prunty reiterated Williams’ “trick or ruse” of asking the victim for a fictitious “Mrs. Evans” to gain access to her apartment, and noted his “presence of mind” in turning away the victim’s clock and removing her watch “to deprive her of any sense of time.”

“He responds to her actions as things are unfolding,” Prunty said. “He shows a tremendous amount of rational activity that shows he’s perfectly capable of forming intent.”

The seemingly bizarre questions Williams asked the victim all make sense in context, Prunty said. Questions about whether she had stolen the electronics in her apartment were asked because she had told him she worked at Starbucks. Prunty said other questions, such as whether she was in a gang or was running from home, aimed to determine whether she would be likely to report the attack to police.

“He is literally obsessed with her as a witness throughout this ordeal,” Prunty said, citing numerous attempts to damage her eyes, including pouring bleach, ordering her to gouge them out with scissors, and slitting her eyelids with a knife.

Prunty argued Williams made a “conscious decision” to kill the victim while in the apartment for two reasons that she said are not mutually exclusive: because he is both a “sadistic torturer” who “enjoys the complete control over another human being” as well as “a criminal who does not want to be caught.”

“She survives not because of any lack of intent or desire on his [Williams’] part. She survives because she is an amazing individual who was able to maintain her presence of mind,” Prunty said.

At the end of Prunty’s remarks, Judge Berkman provided the jury with general instructions that apply to all criminal cases, and she said she would submit charges and provide case-specific instructions tomorrow morning. Among other things, Berkman said Williams’ absence from proceedings cannot be used as evidence against him.

UPDATE: Monday, June 23, 4:30 p.m.
Prunty continued her closing statement when court reconvened, returning to her earlier discussion of identification of Williams. “What they [the defense] want you to believe is there’s some other person out there with the exact same physical characteristics [as Williams],” Prunty said.

She addressed Levine’s concerns that the police lineups were meant to lead witnesses to choose Williams, saying that fillers wore sweatshirts to compensate for weight differences and sat down to minimize height differences, and had very similar facial features as Williams.

Prunty also reminded the jury of the phone calls Williams made from the victim’s cell phone—including one to a boarding house where Williams lived—and of the earphones found in his pocket when he was arrested, which matched ones that the victim said she had had in her apartment. “He was carrying them because they’re hers, and this is his little trophy. It reminds him of the hours of enjoyment in her apartment while he was causing her excruciating pain,” Prunty said.

“Aren’t these coincidences starting to add up to just a little too much for you?” Prunty asked the jury.

She brought up the DNA evidence saying that, with so much other identification evidence, the DNA analysis “simply buries him.” She added, “We’re not talking about reasonable doubt anymore, there’s no doubt whatsoever.”

Prunty also countered allegations that witnesses were disingenuous, saying, “If you frame an innocent person you’re letting the person who really did this walk the streets. Nobody wants that in this case.”

UPDATE: Monday, June 23, 2:22 p.m.
Levine concluded his closing arguments, going over individual charges and pointing out what he saw as flaws in evidence. In particular, he contested the charge of attempted murder, saying, “One thing we should all be absolutely 100 percent certain of is that if this man intended to kill her, she’d be dead.”

Levine went on to argue against charges of assault with intent to cause serious physical injury, saying Williams could not have known what kind of harm his actions—such as pouring bleach and boiling water on the victim, and forcing her to ingest massive amounts of painkillers—would cause.

“This guy doesn’t live in your world,” Levine said. “He certainly didn’t think or have any idea what kind of damage these pills could do.”

He compared assault with the intent to prevent the victim from testifying to the intent of causing her pain and physical harm, both of which Williams is charged with, asserting that one precludes the other. “You can’t cut corners; you can’t say, ‘he’s a bad guy, let’s just convict him of anything and go home,’” Levine concluded.

Prunty subsequently began her closing statement. “On April 13 and April 14 of 2007, Robert Williams went on a 19-hour crime rampage, during which he violated almost all of the laws that we as a civil society put in to place,” she said, adding that he “did so very consciously, very deliberately, and very intentionally.” Prunty called on the jury to “hold Robert Williams accountable for what he did,” saying they must draw logical and reasonable inferences from the evidence presented.

Prunty countered Levine’s earlier questions about the process of identifying Williams, saying that the ability to identify someone is a skill everybody has. “There’s nothing magical about it, there’s nothing unusual about it,” she said. Prunty added that by law, only one person’s identification is needed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, calling the evidence in this case “overwhelming.”

Prunty discussed the reliability of the victim as a witness, reminding the jury that she was a graduate student of journalism at the time. “She’s a reporter,” Prunty said. “She is trained to make careful and informed observations about people around her.” The victim would have known Williams’ sight thoroughly after 19 hours, especially given the physical closeness of sexual assault, Prunty added before court recessed for lunch.

UPDATE: Monday, June 23, 11:42 a.m.
After a latecomer to jury duty delayed the proceedings by an hour, Levine began his closing statement, with Williams again not present in the courtroom.

Levine reminded the jury that they still must rationally consider each count on which Williams is convicted. “This is a great test for you. Your ability and willingness to follow your oaths, to follow the law, unswayed by emotion, hatred, revenge, pity, or anything else,” he said.

Picking out what he characterized as flaws in the prosecution's strategy, Levine first suggested that the methods used to identify Williams were faulty. He pointed out contradictions between the testimonies of eyewitnesses Jamie Roth and Celeste DeCamps, alleging that they were “rationalizing evidence” to implicate Williams out of “guilt.”

“They have been living with the thought that they’re the reason that man was in the building at that time,” Levine said. “So if it means exaggerating, if it means saying, ‘I got a better look,’ whatever they’ve got to do.”

He said that in the lineup in which Williams was identified, the person to his left was much taller and heavier, and the one to his right much shorter. “A fair lineup was not what Detective Fiol was trying to do. Detective Fiol’s goal was to obtain an identification of Mr. Williams,” Levine said.

With regard to the collection of evidence, Levine mocked the fact that the sample size for comparing Williams' DNA included only 100-125 people. "I think they interview more people to find out what food is popular for breakfast," he said.

Levine cautioned the jury against accepting the victim’s testimony blindly, saying that even though she may not be lying, she may still not be remembering accurately. Citing rambling questions the victim testified Williams asked her, Levine portrayed his client as operating “not in a rational way” and without the kind of “common sense” the jurors possess, so that intent or motive could not be assumed.


FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 2008
UPDATE: Friday, June 20, 5:15 p.m.
Levine and Prunty held a conference with Judge Berkman today to determine which charges on which Williams was originally indicted would be submitted for the jury's consideration, and to agree upon the instructions Berkman would give to the jury.

The jury will hear closing arguments for the case and begin deliberations on Monday.


THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2008
UPDATE: Thursday, June 19, 4:30 p.m.
The prosecution rested its case today after hearing three witnesses testify. Williams again did not appear in court, as prompted twice by courtroom officers.

The first witness of the day was Dr. Roger Yurt, director of the Burn Center at New York Presbyterian Cornell Medical Center, who oversaw care of the victim. Yurt said the woman had second-degree burns over 12 percent of her body. Many of her burns were consistent with having had bleach and boiling water thrown on her, to which she testified earlier, Yurt said. He described her various treatments and surgeries, which he called “extremely painful.” Much of the scarring is permanent, Yurt testified, accompanied by photos of the victim following the attack.

The prosecution then recalled Mary Quigg, a forensic biologist who performed DNA analysis for the case and who gave partial testimony on Tuesday. DNA analysis concluded that a blood stain found on a black shirt Williams was wearing when he was arrested came from the victim, Quigg said. Quigg also said a gray T-shirt found in the victim’s apartment—which the victim testified Williams took from her closet and wore while raping her—contained a mixture of DNA from both Williams and the victim.

“The probability that it is not Robert Williams’ [DNA] is greater than a trillion to one,” Quigg said.

Levine cross examined Quigg as to the accuracy and randomness of her samplings. He questioned whether she could be sure the DNA found codes for independent genes, which is a requirement for probability analysis. Quigg said the genes are on the same chromosome but far enough apart to be assumed independent and unlinked of each other.

The prosecution’s last witness was Michael Mannion, a video technician for the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. Prunty showed him still photos of a man on a sidewalk, wearing a hood but with his face visible, which Mannion said he captured and enhanced from video surveillance. Levine questioned whether “enhancing” the image meant altering it.

After the People closed its case, Levine argued for the dismissal of several charges against Williams which he said prosecutors did not prove. One of the charges against Williams is second-degree arson, but Levine said it could not be proven Williams started the fire in the victim’s apartment, as the victim testified she regained consciousness only after Williams was gone and a fire had been lit.

Levine argued against numerous charges of assault with intent to cause serious physical injury, which he said is defined as “causing death or prolonged impairment.” The boiling water and bleach poured on the victim, as well as the painkillers the attacker forced her to ingest, did not harm at this standard, and no testimony was given to suggest this could have been the case, Levine said.

Prunty said charges of the use of a “dangerous instrument” and of intent to cause serious physical injury are contingent on the possibility for harm, not the actual result of harm caused. “She was entirely helpless, entirely defenseless,” Prunty said in reference to the arson charge.

Levine also said many of the charges were “multiplicitous” and referred to the same criminal act. Prunty maintained that many acts were separate due to prolonged interruptions between them.

Judge Berkman dismissed several of the approximately 60 charges due to lack of evidence, including predatory sexual assault with the use of a dangerous instrument.

Levine said he tentatively does not plan to call any witnesses or present evidence, though Judge Berkman asked him to inquire again whether Williams would like to testify. The attorneys will meet with Berkman tomorrow in absence of the jury to determine which charges will be submitted against Williams. Assuming Levine does not present evidence, the jury will return Monday morning to hear closing arguments and begin deliberations for a verdict.


TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2008
UPDATE: Tuesday, June 17, 5:34 p.m.
The jury listened to the rest of Detective Fiol's testimony, while Prunty inquired about the procedure of organizing the lineup and of the collection of the DNA swab as evidence. In subsequent cross-examination, Levine grilled Fiol on numerous steps taken in both procedures, attempting to cast doubt on the credibility of tools used to identify his client.

Levine questioned Fiol's compliance with the Police Control Guide, a handbook governing the handling and "vouchering" of evidence by law enforcement. He also shed light on the fact that a few fillers for the lineup—who stood in at Levine's request to readjust the photo—did not measure up to the defendant's size.

It had been earlier elicited from Fiol's testimony that the victim's neighbor, Jamie Roth, and her co-worker Celeste DeCamps, recognized Williams only from his "bloodshot" eyes, a trait that Levine said was not sufficient. As for the reason the victim did not choose to hear the voice of each member of the lineup, Fiol said that she appeared too upset at the sight of her alleged assailant. In fact, one filler in the lineup, he said, refused to sit next Williams out of fear.

The prosecution next called Mary Quigg, assistant director of a forensic biology lab, and declared her an expert in forensic biology. Though Levine tried to dispute Quigg's authority on the basis that forensic biology is too broad a field, Judge Berkman allowed Prunty to continue treating the witness as an expert.

The case will reconvene Thursday morning. Check back for ongoing coverage.

UPDATE: Tuesday, June 17, 3:50 p.m.
The trial did not resume until mid-afternoon, when the prosecution recalled Detective Fiol, the officer in charge of the victim's case who began testimony yesterday. Fiol related various meetings he had with both Williams and the victim, including an incident in which he said he attempted to remove Williams' gold tooth as a sample and the defendant spat it out into a toilet.

Fiol testified that the victim identified Williams from a lineup last June, but Levine insisted that a few changes be made to clarify certain sources of confusion in the picture. Prunty submitted the photos as evidence in court today.

Fiol said he returned to the victim's apartment about two weeks after the ordeal, where he said he found a gray T-shirt with a number "11" logo. The victim testified earlier in the trial that Williams put on the shirt, which belonged to her, while he was in her apartment. The shirt is now in evidence for the prosecution.

The video discussed yesterday in court—in which detective takes a DNA sample from Williams—was shown, with Williams depicted as uncooperative and asking that detectives call him by his middle name, Alonso.


MONDAY, JUNE 16, 2008
UPDATE: Monday, June 16, 5:17 p.m.
The next witness called by the prosecution was Detective Kenneth Fiol of the Manhattan Special Victim’s Squad, who handled the investigation of this case. He said he met the victim the night of April 14, 2007, and “talkative and conscious,” she provided a description of her attacker and depiction of her memory of the scars on his body, which Fiol broadcast to other police. “Our primary focus was to apprehend the person who committed these crimes,” he said.

Fiol said he received custody of Williams after he was arrested nearly a week later by Detective Bellamore, who testified earlier in the trial. Fiol said he gave Williams a cup of soda that he drank from, and later had it analyzed for Williams’ DNA. He identified the cup in court.

Williams was placed in a lineup with “fillers” who resembled him and all were told to wear sweatshirts with hoods, Fiol said. The lineup was shown to Jamie Roth, a resident of the victim’s apartment building, and Celeste DeCamps, her co-worker, who testified earlier in the trial that they saw Williams enter the building.

Prosecutors played a video, different from the one shown before the jury entered, of Williams in police custody. The six-minute video shows Williams, naked, and zooms in on his various scars and bruises. Later moments show the clothes he was arrested in and finally a close-up of the inside of his mouth.

UPDATE: Monday, June 16, 4:02 p.m.
Court reconvened from Friday at 2 p.m. today, with the defendant once again absent. A courtroom officer disclosed a conversation he had earlier with Williams: "I said, 'You coming to court today?' He said, 'No,' and I said, 'OK.'"

Judge Berkman offered the court a rough timeline on the rest of the trial, anticipating that the lawyers will conclude their presentation of evidence this week and that closing statements and deliberations will occur next Monday.

Prior to the jury's entry, Levine stressed his concerns about a video Prunty planned to play during a witness's testimony. In the video, a detective tells Williams he has a court order to collect a DNA sample from him, which, according to Williams, jurors could interpret as proof of guilt. The detective's repeated request that Williams lick the envelope in which the swab was placed Levine also objected to, but Prunty said that this action merely aimed to prevent contamination. Berkman ruled that the audio portion of the tape be cut after the detective asks Williams to seal the envelope the first time.

The prosecution called Fire Marshal Michael Farrell—whom the court declared an expert in the investigation of fires and their cause and origin—to the stand. In his testimony, Farrell said he determined the fire the perpetrator lit in the victim's apartment before fleeing was "non-accidental," though he could not point to a specific cause or ignition device. He testified that the fire began underneath a futon in the victim's living room, as this area had the highest concentration of fire and smoke damage.

In Levine's cross-examination of Farrell, Levine attempted to cast doubt on the role of the futon and the exact spot where the fire started. A futon would normally burn hotter than other objects, Farrell said, and combined with the ventilation from a nearby broken window could cause greater fire damage without being the origin. Levine also contested that in the Fire Incident Report, Farrell stated the fire started in the futon itself, whereas in court he said it began underneath the futon. Yet when one rejects that the fire was not an accident, the origin of the fire is trivial, Prunty argued in a rebuttal.


FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 2008
UPDATE: Friday, June 13, 3:40 p.m.
Court adjourned until Monday afternoon, when the prosecution will continue to call witnesses.

Charlotte Martin, an employee of the risk management department of American Eagle Federal Credit Union, was called to the stand. Martin, who deals with fraud, identification theft, and compliance issues, said the victim had reported her credit and debit cards as lost or stolen following the incident. Martin confirmed from the victim’s bank statement that two withdrawals of $100 failed on April 14 at an ATM at 622 St. Nicholas Ave., a bodega a block away from the victim’s apartment.

The next witness was Carmine Bellamore, a Nassau County police officer who arrested Williams in Queens on April 19, 2007. At the time, he was an officer for NYPD’s 103rd Precinct in Queens. Bellamore said Williams had a lump on his head and other injuries that appeared to be fresh, but said he did not know at the time that authorities were searching for Williams.

“He appeared kind of calm and relaxed,” Bellamore said.

Williams refused medical assistance and was transported to the Manhattan Special Victims Squad wearing a jacket that Bellamore identified in court. Bellamore also identified Williams from two photos shown by the prosecution.

UPDATE: Friday, June 13, 1:28 p.m.
Before the court recessed for lunch, the prosecution called Dr. Toni Wright, an attending physician in the emergency room of Harlem Hospital, who cared for the victim when she was taken there on April 14, 2007. Wright said the victim was fully conscious and was able to give a full account of the origins of her injuries, which included lacerations to her eyes and forehead, first- and second-degree burns to multiple parts of her body, and scalp lacerations that "can potentially be fatal." The cuts on her face were consistent with a knife, Wright testified.

Wright said a blood vessel had burst in one of the victim's eyes, which she testified is indicative of being struck with a hard object. The victim's different burns were consistent with both boiling water and bleach, and there were various signs of bondage.

The injuries to the victim's genital and anal areas were consistent with "forcible penetration," Wright said. She testified that several specialists examined the victim, who described her as in "critical condition," her life having been endangered from the forced ingestion of massive amounts of Tylenol. "Tylenol can kill you—it attacks the liver," Wright said. A neurologist also concluded that she had suffered a concussion and experienced multiple blackouts during the ordeal, Wright testified.

The next witness to testify was Lucia Monteau, a senior physician's assistant at the Harlem Hospital ER and a member of the Sexual Assault Response Team. Upon the victim's consent, he collected evidence from her body, which he turned over to NYPD officer Parolta, who testified yesterday. Monteau corroborated the evidence of forcible penetration in his testimony.

Monteau said the victim "was an extreme case," but the fact that she was conscious and could communicate conveyed her "remarkable spirit."

Prosecutors presented photos of the victim's injuries to the court, but did not display them for observers. Levine did not cross-examine either witness.

UPDATE: Friday, June 13, 11:30 a.m.
Williams is again not in the courtroom today, and Prunty said he "is not here by his own choice." Before the prosecution continued to call its witnesses, Judge Berkman said one juror had been dismissed due to illness, and an alternate will fill his place.

The first witness of the day was Diane Mathis, a recordkeeper for USAA Federal Savings Bank, where the victim holds a deposit account. Mathis said that records reflected two attempts to withdraw money from the victim's account on April 14, 2007, during which someone trying to take out $100 first selected an incorrect option and later entered the wrong PIN. Mathis gave the serial number of the ATM—the same one was used both times—but did not speak with regard to its location.

Earlier in the trial, police officers testified that they found the ATM to be at a bodega on St. Nicholas Avenue. Prosecutors earlier in the trial showed video footage, obtained by police, of who they claimed was Williams withdrawing money, though Levine argued the video was unclear.

The next witness was Jagkeet Bains, a criminalist for the NYPD crime lab whose specialty is in fire debris analysis. The court established him an expert witness. Bains said his job is to interpret the composition of debris in order to determine if ignitable fluid was used to start a fire, without regard to the fire's origin. After analyzing samples from the victim's apartment, he said it is "inconclusive" whether ignitable fluids were used to start the fire because compounds were found that could be ignitable fluid but are also in ordinary household products.

Levine did not cross-examine either witness.

Prunty said a doctor of the victim will testify later, and the prosecution will submit relevant photos at that time.


THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 2008
UPDATE: Thursday, June 12, 3:47 p.m.
Court adjourned for the day, an hour earlier than usual.

The superintendent of the victim's apartment building, 71 years old, cried as he described his encounter with the victim on Saturday, April 14, 2007. That night, he testified, the victim came to his door, bleeding heavily and still tied up, with another resident.

"Please help me, help me, somebody just raped me," he recalled her saying.

He said he removed the electrical cords binding her wrists and a scarf binding her neck. Prunty showed him various wires and a scarf, and he identified them as the ones he removed from the victim. The superintendent said he left various pieces of clothing and wires outside his apartment; NYPD detectives testified earlier in the trial that evidence had been found in a shopping bag there.

Next, the prosecution called Kevin Richards, a 28-year-old deputy sheriff for Ulster County, N.Y., which includes the city Kingston. Richards testified that on May 26, 2006, he was on patrol in Kingston and confronted the defendant for hitchhiking, which is illegal in New York. Williams did not exhibit any unusual behavior at the time, Richards said.

Williams--whom Richards identified from a picture the prosecutor showed him--said he lived at Hummel's Boarding House in Kingston. Richards was shown a chart of calls that had been placed from the victim's phone, and identified that a call had been placed to the boarding house the night of her attack.

After the jury exited, Judge Berkman removed several of the 71 charges against the defendant, saying they were not supported by testimony. One such charge was assault with intent to cause physical injury with a weapon. Berkman said the defendant's intent was originally only to sexually abuse the victim, and the charge was removed, to which neither party objected.

UPDATE: Thursday, June 12, 2:30 p.m.
The next witness the prosecution will call is the superintendent of the victim's apartment building. According to Prunty, the witness will confirm the victim’s testimony that she came with another resident to the superintendent's apartment in the basement and told him she had been raped and that there was a fire.

Prunty argued, before the jury entered, that this testimony should not be classified as hearsay, as she said has been earlier in the trial. She cited the exemption of "prompt outcry," which allows the testimony of an immediate reporting of sexual assault in order to establish credibility, according to the New York Evidence Handbook.

Levine said the evidence was indeed hearsay, adding that he did not contest the victim's testimony. “I haven’t been saying at any time that these things didn’t happen to her. Any more repetition of this outcry is unnecessary and improper," he said.

Prunty responded, “It’s curious to me—it seems a little illogical to say 'We don’t really care, we’re not contesting, but we don’t want the jury to hear it.'”

Judge Berkman ultimately sided with the prosecution, choosing to allow the new testimony.

UPDATE: Thursday, June 12, 12:15 p.m.
The prosecution called an emergency medical technician who was working in the victim's ambulance on April 14. He said the victim was aware and oriented when she was wheeled into the ambulance and placed on a stretcher.

He described the victim's injuries: she had a deep cut in her head and her hair was "hacked, chopped up in different ways." Her hair was shorter than it appeared on the identification card he found in her pocket, he testified. She had a cut on her right hand and burns on her face, neck, abdomen, and inner thighs. Her eyelids were slit and her eyes were bloody, but she was conscious, and "just stated exactly what happened to her that night."

Through what the EMT described as "dry whimpering," the victim described the assault that had taken place in her apartment as rape, bondage, burns, and cuts. He put a collar around her neck to prevent any spinal injuries, and cleaned her burns. In court, he identified the clothing he sheared off the victim to assess her wounds: blue jeans and a striped blue and white shirt.

UPDATE: Thursday, June 12, 12:00 p.m.
Judge Berkman notified the court that the defendant did not respond to inquiries as to whether he would appear in court.

The prosecution called Patrol Officer Parolta of the 30th Precinct to the stand, who described her assignment safeguarding the victim in Harlem Hospital. She received a sexual assault kit and a bag of clothing, which she identified in court. Levine questioned Parolta about the specific procedures concerning filing evidence.

UPDATE: Thursday, June 12, 10:45 a.m.
As the trial resumed from Tuesday, the defendant was not present in court. The first testimonies of the day came from Warren Munroe and Verizon clerk Veronica Alfore, both of whom verified the victim's phone number and confirmed that three calls were made from the phone early on the morning of April 14, 2007.

At 10:45 a.m., the prosecution called NYPD officer James Sequeira, a patrol officer for the 30th Precinct, Sector C, in which the victim's apartment is located. Sequeira testified that he was called at 4:56 p.m. on April 14 to respond to a possible fire at the apartment. Upon arriving at the building, he was sent to find and identify the suspect, but could not find anyone matching the description given.

After that, Sequeira testified, he gathered evidence—including a cable—and placed everything in a paper shopping bag, then taped off the area. He noticed water throughout the apartment, and testified that the walls were black from smoke. He intended to take the elevator downstairs, but walked down instead upon noticing a blood print in the elevator.

Sequeira said he received evidence from Detective Bilella (who testified earlier in the trial)—including scissors, a camera, and a container of bleach—which he identified in court. He wrote vouchers for each item of evidence. Levine questioned whether Sequeira complied with the city's regulations in the Police Patrol Guide and the specific clerical requirements associated with gathering evidence.

Earlier in the trial, Levine argued that evidence had been mispackaged. Prunty objected to this argument, saying Sequeira had no way of knowing whether a document Levine presented was the most recent edition of the Police Patrol Guide. Levine persisted, referring to a handwritten lab request that detectives are supposed to complete, and Judge Berkman asked him to move on.

Sequeira said his role in handling evidence ends after he completes the vouchers and hands the materials, along with the detective's documents, to the desk sergeant.


TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2008
UPDATE: Tuesday, June 10, 5:40 p.m.
Jensen continued his testimony when court reconvened for the last time today, remembering that, as he approached the apartment where the fire was located “it was totally black, black smoke, you couldn’t see anything basically, you could hear the voices of the firemen.” After extinguishing the fire, Jensen said “everything was destroyed, everything, there was nothing to salvage.”

Levine cross-examined Jensen, asking whether he could accurately judge the location of the origin of the fire. Jensen responded that it was clear where the fire started.

Sgt. Salvatore Motta, now a member of the NYPD Bronx special victims squad, though at time a member of the Manhattan special victims squad, took the stand. Motta testified that he was responsible in part for overseeing investigation of the crime. He recalled that on Saturday night he received information about the suspect withdrawing money from the victim's ATM account. Motta said he then assigned an officer to find where the ATM was, eventually locating it inside a bodega on St. Nicholas Avenue.

As the day's questioning came to an end, Edward Gardner, a Detective with the NYPD Technical Assistance Response Unit took the stand. Gardner was responsible for taking and analyzing film from the security cameras at the bodega's ATM. At the end of his testimony prosecutors played the security tapes Gardner had copied, showing the suspect at the ATM and entering and leaving the bodega.

The trial will resume at 10 a.m. Thursday morning. Check back for continuing coverage.

UPDATE: Tuesday, June 10, 3:50 p.m.
The court reconvened this afternoon as Robert Lee continued his testimony on the condition of the apartment. Lee testified that he “saw the orange glow of the fire inside of the apartment” where the victim lived and that the fire was so hot he could feel it through his firefighter’s suit. Lee commented that everything in the apartment was damaged.

Following Lee’s testimony, Prunty presented photos of the fire damage sustained by the apartment.

Next to testify was Daniel Quinn, a member of Ladder Company 23, the first company to respond to the police call. Quinn described the scene of the fire and the actions and responsibilities he and other firefighters had. Quinn also testified that, when he returned to the apartment later he saw pictures and a bloody shirt on the floor.

Before the court took another recess, Mark Jensen, a member of Engine Company 80, the company responsible for putting out the fire, took the stand. Jensen’s testimony will continue when the court reconvenes.

UPDATE: Tuesday, June 10, 1:30 p.m.
Prunty called three more witnesses this morning before the court adjourned for lunch.

Joseph Lasard, a member of the 30th Precinct, was one of the first police officers to respond Saturday, April 14. Lasard testified that he came face-to-face with the victim, who was in a fetal crouching position outside the door of the building’s superintendent’s apartment. Lasard recalls that the victim--who looked terrified, was crying, and appeared to be injured--had a computer cord tied around her neck, was wearing a shirt or sweatshirt on her torso, and had cords wrapped around her wrists. “She has blood around her eyes, it actually looked like it was coming out of her eyes,” Lasard said. Lasard took notes, which he showed to the court, of the assailant's description as described by the victim and then broadcast the description to other patrolling officers in the area.

Sgt. Vincent Greany, also of the 30th Precinct, responded with Lasard. Greany testified that he gathered evidence and stored it in a paper bag, which he placed in his vehicle to keep it secure and later returned it to the basement crime scene where it could be examined by detectives. Later that night, Greany said he searched the 30th Precinct’s coverage area for a man fitting the perpetrator’s description.

Fireman Robert Lee, a lieutenant with the 6th Division, which serves the South Bronx and Harlem, also took the stand. At time of the attack, Lee was in Ladder Company 28, located on W. 143rd Street between 7th and 8th avenues. Lee’s Company responded to fire located on the 5th floor of the victim’s building, and, after conducting a search, found that it was the victim’s apartment that was aflame. Lee’s testimony will continue after the lunch recess.

UPDATE: Tuesday, June 10, 12:52 p.m.
The trial was delayed this morning as Williams again refused to leave his cell, requiring court officers—wearing helmets and carrying shields—to be brought in to coerce the defendant, his hands cuffed behind his back, into the courtroom. Judge Berkman had issued an "order to use necessary force" for the defendant to appear in court today, a spokesperson for the District Attorney's office said.

As testimony began, Prunty called on Whitney Hawthorne, 27, a resident of the 6th floor of the victim's apartment building, to the stand.

Hawthorne testified that when she came home alone at 9 p.m. the night of the attack, she saw a man—dressed in dark clothing, wearing a hood, with dark skin, around the age of 30 or 40, about 5’11”, with a gaunt face—loitering in the front entrance of the building. As Hawthorne went to enter the building, the man returned a pair of boxers to his black, rolling suitcase and engaged Hawthorne in conversation. Hawthorne said she then entered the building with her key, guessing—the judge asked her not to speculate—that the man prevented the door from closing completely with his foot and then entered behind her to wait for the elevator.

Entering the elevator, Hawthorne, uncomfortable, asked the man who he was going to see. The man paused for a while before responding “Evans”—a name Hawthorne didn’t recognize. She told the man that she thought “Evans” lived on the 4th floor and pressed 4th floor button. When the elevator arrived on the 4th floor the man didn’t seem like he wanted to get off, hesitating before finally exiting and heading to the right, she testified.

When asked to look around the courtroom and identify the man she saw that night, Hawthorne looked at Williams, saying she was “pretty sure” that was him, though he “looks a little heavier than that night.”

When Hawthorne came back to her apartment the next day—Saturday—between 4:30 and 5:00 p.m. she saw and smelled smoke. Hawthorne testified that she then saw the victim distressed, laying on the ground with her hands and feet bound. “She looked really beat up,” Hawthorne said, “you could see her back was really bruised and she had blood on her.”


MONDAY, JUNE 9, 2008
UPDATE: Monday, June 9, 5:14 p.m.
Court recessed for tomorrow morning. The victim finished her approximately five-hour-long testimony, but Levine chose not to cross-examine her. Displaying many of the same objects shown to detectives on Friday, the prosecution presented numerous photos and objects from the apartment to the victim and inquired about the roles they played in the incident. It was also demonstrated that several phone calls were placed from the victim's mobile phone during the ordeal to places with which she said she was unfamiliar, though Prunty said that two representatives from phone companies will testify later in the trial.

Steve Guelleimo, a resident of the building where the assault occurred, also took the stand, yet Levine again did not ask questions for cross-examination. "I didn't think anything could be gained by it," Levine told reporters afterward. The 44-year-old printery worker saw the victim in the hallway as she fled her apartment after the 19-hour containment, corroborating details of her testimony.

UPDATE: Monday, June 9, 3:39 p.m.
The victim told of the end of her ordeal and her subsequent hospitalization and recovery. She suffered third-degree burns and a liver failure, among other things.

She said that while she passed out, Williams tied her to a futon in her living room and then set it on fire. Upon waking, the woman said, she used the fire to melt the cables and escaped into the hallway where neighbors helped her.

Levine objected to some of the victim's statements, specifically with regard to the descriptions she said she offered different police officers following the attack. He also raised objections about the prosecution's submission of a sketch—drawn by the victim in the hospital and depicting the attacker's scars—as evidence. Whereas Levine called it hearsay, Prunty argued it was simply written description. Judge Berkman decided it was not hearsay but did not rule on the issue of prior description.

UPDATE: Monday, June 9, 2:28 p.m.
Judge Berkman informed the court that Williams "did not care to come back to court," and will not make an appearance this afternoon, as he told a courtroom officer. The judge had initially issued an order to the New York City Department of Correction, which has custody of the defendant, authorizing the use of force to bring him to court this morning, and Prunty delivered the judge another request for tomorrow morning.

Levine said afterward that he did not know why his client repeatedly refused to come to the proceedings. A spokesperson for the District Attorney's office said the judge had previously issued an order for the use of reasonable force when Williams refused to appear for a jury selection hearing weeks ago.

According to Stephen Morello, a spokesman for the DOC, the city prefers to use force as a last resort, and when inmates do not wish to leave their cells—as is the case with Williams—the department turns to the court. "Force merely means that correction officers will enter the cell and convince the inmate to leave ... or physically remove him from his cell," Morello said.

Morello projected that the defendant will show up in court tomorrow, as court requests are quickly processed by the department.

UPDATE: Monday, June 9, 1:44 p.m.
Court recessed for lunch. The victim proceeded with direct testimony, which will resume after the break. She detailed the defendant's abuse, alleging that he bound her arms and legs and hung her from her own shoulders in her apartment's closet. While severely burning her by hurling bleach on her body numerous times, she said, Williams shouted, "Why did you disrespect me?"

The former journalism student said Williams handed her the pair of scissors and then ordered her to stab her own eyes out. After she refused a number of times, he poured a bucket of boiling water on her, until further demands led her to stab herself in the neck in a failed effort to kill herself, she said.

"I said, 'Just kill me, you know you're going to kill me anyway,' and he said, 'No, you're not good enough for that,'" the woman testified. "I was in so much pain that I tried to aim for my neck and then if I died it would be better than however he was going to do it, but I missed and he really got angry."

She said Williams later used a kitchen knife to slash her eyelids. Prunty displayed photographs taken weeks later of the victim's eyes that showed the scars on her eyelids.

The victim is expected to complete her testimony and then undergo cross-examination when court reconvenes this afternoon.

UPDATE: Monday, June 9, 11:49 a.m.
Continuing her testimony, the victim calmly narrated the events of her 19-hour attack while Williams sat motionless, eyes fixed on the ground. The victim recounted how Williams allegedly made her cut her hair with a pair of scissors—one she later used in an attempt to stab him in the neck while being raped. He repeatedly forced her to ingest handfuls of pain medication, one time with four bottles of beer, she testified.

The victim also revealed that Williams sealed her lips shut with Krazy Glue found in her apartment after raping and forcing oral sex on her multiple times. At other points, he compelled her to microwave him food.

"I knew he could easily overpower me. I knew I couldn't get out," she said. "I knew I could never make it and if I tried I thought he would hurt me or kill me."

During her testimony, the woman elaborated on numerous questions she said Williams asked her, including ones about her family and about whether she had ever testified in court or been arrested. When he saw a book in her bedroom about Algeria, the victim said he taunted her, asking, "Do you like people from Africa? Do you like black people from Africa?"

UPDATE: Monday, June 9, 10:25 a.m.
Court reconvened. Williams, the defendant on trial for 71 charges, entered with chained hands and legs. When recalled to continue her testimony by the prosecution, the victim was asked to identify Williams and responded affirmatively that he is the perpetrator.


FRIDAY, JUNE 6, 2008
UPDATE: Friday, June 6, 5:00 p.m.
A throng of reporters and television cameras awaited the exit of the attorneys from the courthouse. "Today's testimony I don't think damaging against him [Williams], was damning, insofar that the victim hasn't identified him," Levine said. "What she describes is horrific and no doubt that she suffered a great deal." Levine said that he maintains Williams did not perpetrate the assault.

UPDATE: Friday, June 6, 4:45 p.m.
Court is adjourned until Monday morning. The victim of the attack testified, though the prosecution will finish examination of her on Monday. The victim calmly described the detailed events of her attack on April 13, 2007. She said she entered her building's elevator with Williams inside, and he followed out to her apartment door.

Williams allegedly forced himself inside the door and put the victim in a choke-hold, throwing her against the ground. She described the details of Williams' forcing her clothes off and raping her several times in different rooms of the apartment. "I thought he was going to kill me, and I wanted to survive," she said.

UPDATE: Friday, June 6, 3:40 p.m.
Next to testify was Celeste DeCamps, a coworker of a woman named Jamie Roth who lives in the building where the attack took place. The two were unloading boxes from a car into Roth's apartment. They entered the building through an unlocked door, DeCamps testified, and proceeded up a set of stairs to a locked door. DeCamps said as Roth opened the door with her key, a man stepped inside the building and "pushed his way past us" through the door and waited inside by an elevator. The two went up the stairs and dropped the boxes in Roth's apartment, heading back downstairs for a second load. In the lobby, DeCamps said she noticed the man was gone, but saw a pair of boxer shorts on the stairs, which she identified in court. She then drove away in her car, she testified.

DeCamps said she received a call in following days and aided police in their investigation. She testified that she identified Williams, the defendant, in a lineup, and identified him again for the court in a photograph.

The victim is said to be testifying next.

UPDATE: Friday, June 6, 2:00 p.m.
Spectator has received an unconfirmed report from Levine that the victim of the assault may testify this afternoon. "That was the original plan, but we'll have to see," he said during the recess. The victim's relatives declined to comment to reporters.

UPDATE: Friday, June 6, 1:15 p.m.
Court recessed for lunch. Detective Anzali, witness for the prosecution, was questioned as to the scene of the victim's apartment and evidence he collected. Firefighters overturned furniture and threw some out of the apartment windows, into heavy rain, "in order to ensure they would not rekindle," he said.

Prunty presented physical evidence found in the apartment, as well as photos of them at the scene. Clumps of hair, a tube of Vaseline, two empty beer bottles, and an empty bottle of cold and flu relief medicine were found in a garbage can in the victim's living room. Four other empty beer bottles were found on the scene, and a fingerprint was found on one of them, Anzali said. Several articles of clothing and bedsheets—many stained with blood and bleach—were found in a plastic bag in the victim's kitchen. Anzali also described his collection of DNA evidence from various locations in the apartment.

In cross-examination, Levine noted that the garbage pail in the living room had been turned upright from its original position. He questioned Anzali as to the order of processing, asserting that it was done incorrectly. Levine also noted much evidence was found together in a plastic bag in the kitchen, raising the possibility of cross-contamination.

UPDATE: Friday, June 6, 11:16 a.m.
Short recess. In testimony, the prosecutor presented evidence to Detective Bilella, including wires that were frayed and melted and a bleach-stained sweatshirt. These items were found in a shopping bag in the basement of the victim's apartment building, near the superintendent's apartment. Detective Bilella said he was at the crime scene for five-and-a-half to six hours.

Also, Detective Bilella said he lifted one fingerprint from elevator but did not say it was the defendant's. He said prints in those public areas are common. Detective Bilella said he could not recover prints from the apartment because of fire.

Levine contested packaging and handling of evidence and the pattern that was used to search the apartment. Levine showed that on several exhibits, the detective did not write on the evidence label what kind of testing would be done or at which lab it would be tested.

The next witness to present evidence will be Detective Gregory Anzali.

UPDATE: Friday, June 6, 10:20 a.m.
The jury enters. The judge has informed the court with approximately 30 onlookers, including family of the victim, that Williams has refused to come to court today. Levine argues that he cannot know whether the absence is due to medical or mental health reasons.

First witness and detective enters.

news@columbiaspectator.com