Even though he was denied a new trial last week, convicted cop
killer Timothy Williams’s case is still alive as he appealed the
judge’s decision to the state Superior Court.

Williams’s attorney, Sam Stretton, filed a notice of appeal
Thursday in McKean County Court.

Williams had filed a Post Conviction Relief Act petition and
eight amendments claiming to have witnesses who heard Becky Sue
Lucrezi Olson, a passenger in the car Williams was driving, admit
she was the actual shooter. Williams was found guilty of
third-degree murder in Kane Borough Police Officer Steve Jerman’s
death.

“I was disappointed,” Stretton said from his West Chester office
Thursday afternoon. “I believe Mr. Williams did not shoot the
police officer. More important, I believe that if a jury should
hear how Miss Lucrezi bragged that she did the shooting, then have
the jury make the decision whether Williams is guilty or not, Mr.
Williams will be found not guilty.”

“The jury would not be out more than 10 minutes.”

To this day, Williams contends that he does not remember the
events of Feb. 20, 1999.

However, Stretton has an arsenal of people who have claimed they
heard Lucrezi admit to the shooting.

“She told numerous people … all the other evidence – lying in
trial,” Stretton said, adding both Lucrezi and Matt Seeley, another
passenger in the car, thought that Williams had died and he could
take the blame after the shooting.

Both Lucrezi, who was 17 at the time of the shooting, and Seeley
testified in the 1999 trial that they were having sex in the back
seat when the shots rang out.

While Clarion County Judge Charles Alexander, who presided over
the trial, believes Lucrezi actually did make those statements,
that in and of itself was not the basis for a new trial.

“I find that many of the alleged statements attributed to Becky
Lucrezi were in fact made by her, but I will deny (Williams’s)
petition because I find those statements could only be introduced
at a new trial for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of
(Lucrezi) and when such evidence is not admissible as substantive
evidence it can not be the basis for a new trial.”

While Lucrezi could have made those statements to elevate her
prestige to her friends, as Alexander theorized, that does not mean
Williams should get a new trial.

“Despite the fact that I believe that Becky Lucrezi has made
numerous statements that she shot the police officer, I continue to
believe that the jury in 1999 was correct when they found beyond a
reasonable doubt that the Defendant fired the shot,” Alexander
wrote.

Alexander sides with former District Attorney Michele Alfieri’s
closing argument in the trial that Jerman was an excellent marksman
and pointed out his killer when he shot back.

“By directing his return fire exclusively at the Defendant,
actually told us who shot him, and I continue to believe that that
is compelling evidence.”

Williams himself was critically injured and spent several weeks
in the hospital recovering from his gunshot wounds. To this day,
his esophagus has to be stretched every so often.

While Stretton has gone six years trying to appeal his client’s
conviction, he still holds out hope for a different outcome.

Stretton added he thinks Williams’s chance at a successful
appeal is “excellent.” If that falls through, he’s ready to take
the case to federal court, all pro bono.

“There’s no money. I’m doing it pretty much for free,” he
said.

To date, two of Stretton’s witnesses, Marian Kay Nersinger and
Michelle Nelson, have been charged with perjury for their
testimony.

Stretton is representing both Nersinger and Nelson.

A preliminary hearing is set for Jan. 9, but Stretton believed
that hearing would be continued.

He was not sure if any other witness would be charged with
perjury, but was certain Lucrezi should be.

“I feel the judge made an error when he didn’t address a number
of issues,” Stretton said. “Lucrezi admitted to shooting.”

Stretton added that Alexander only addressed one issue in his
ruling -ðwhether inconsistent statements can impeach a witness’s
testimony and be the basis for a new trial.

“No verdict should stand on perjured testimony,” he said. “She
lied directly under oath … that’s why I’m taking the appeal.”