YOUR WORSE NIGHTMARE
YOUR WORSE NIGHTMARE
I'm sure you've had your share of nightmares but what if you woke up one morning after dreaming you were wrongfully accused, wrongfully convicted and wrongfully sentenced to death? And, on top of this your conviction and death sentence were a product of lies by police and civilian witnesses, evidence which had been deliberately withheld, destroyed, manufactured and manipulated plus an assortment of other corrupt and racist police tactics? Well, for me this is far more than a nightmare... it's a reality! I wake up each and every morning in a 9 by 12 foot cell an innocent, wrongfully accused, wrongfully convicted man who's been sentenced to death! Now, I'm sure many of you who are reading this are saying to yourself, "yeah right", "oh sure", "that's what they all say", "police and prosecutors don't lie, don't fabricate evidence and they're certainly not corrupt or racist". Skepticism is a natural reaction because we are taught to trust the police as well as the District Attorneys who prosecute people who commit crimes. I truly understand this belief because I was taught the same thing! But, if you read my story with an open mind and request documented proof for the claims I make that you may find unbelievable it will eventually become obvious to you that not all police and prosecutors are honest or fair-minded. But, more importantly you will realize I am an innocent, wrongfully convicted man who's been sentenced to death.
COMPUTER STORE ROBBERY/MURDER
On October 18, 1991 at
about 10:30 pm there was an attempted robbery at a computer store in Fountain
Valley California. During the course of the attempted robbery a woman,
Kathy Lee, was killed. Ms. Lee's body was found next to her vehicle
which was subsequently dusted for fingerprints.
Numerous prints were found and of course none of them were mine. At
the crime scene a suspect was apprehended by a police officer named Raymond
Rakitis. The suspect had the gun in his pocket which later
was found to have killed Ms. Lee. While officer Rakitis was in
the process of apprehending the suspect, who happened to be on foot,
he spotted a silver gray 5 or 600 series series BMW speeding from the computer
store parking lot. The parking lot was well lit and officer
Rakitis could clearly see the occupants in the BMW. Officer Rakitis
spotted two male blacks both in the front seats 9f the BMW. He described
the driver as being between the age of 20 and 24 while he said the passenger
was browned skin with a shoulder length Jheri curl. Officer Rakitis exited
his vehicle as the BMW passed, had his weapon drawn
and trained on the occupants as the car passed within 15 feet of him.
Officer Rakitis saw neither occupant duck down and he saw nobody in the back
seat of the BMW. The occupants of the BMW drove off and
were never apprehended. The night of the attempted robbery there
were several employees still in the store all of whom later
identified the suspect as being inside the store about
9:00pm asking questions about computers. And, it's very important
to note that none of the computer store's employees have
ever seen me or identified me as
being associated with the crime in any way.
The suspect was subsequently interviewed and he identified
the individuals he was involved with. And,
at no time did he say he knew me or that I was involved with
him. These interviews occurred shortly after his arrest.
About four days later a U-Haul truck was found in
a nearby parking lot and investigators determined that the truck was
probably a part of the attempted robbery.
The truck was subsequently
dusted for fingerprints and numerous prints were recovered.
None of which were mine!
THE INVESTIGATION
The night of
the attempted robbery/murder an investigator FROM
THE Fountain Valley police department named Steven Williams was assigned
to the case. Within a month he was joined in his investigative efforts
by an investigator from the District Attorney's office named Frank Grasso.
From October 1991 until February 1992 investigators Grasso and Williams
discovered the following:
1. They found
out the U-Haul truck was rented with
a fraudulent driver's license by a woman named Jeanette
Moore, a convicted thief and known crack cocaine addict.
2. They found out who the
silver 5 or 600 series BMW belonged to.
3. They found
out I once lived at the address that was listed on the
fraudulent driver's license Jeanette Moore used
to rent the U-Haul truck.
4. They found out I had
been in trouble with the law before for minor, non-violent offenses.
5. They found out
I once owned a gold BMW 735 and that It was sold at an
auction on October 23, 1991.
6. They found out I had
been arrested in Las Vegas Nevada on September 22, 1991 for passing stolen Traveler's checks
7. They found out I was
arrested in Las Vegas with a female by the name of Ardell Williams.
8. They found
out Ardell was on probation for a theft she
committed while working at a computer store in Torrance California.
9. They found out who the
individuals were who assisted Ardell in the theft at the
computer store where she worked.
10. They found out I was
not involved in the theft Ardell committed at the computer store
where she worked.
11. They met
and found out from an F.B.I. agent
Todd Holiday that Ardell was a willing informant
who had been providing information on any and all crimes
I had committed or planned to commit.
12. They found
out from agent Holiday and from talking to Ardell that she had
no knowledge or information about the October
18th computer store attempted robbery/ murder or that I had any involvement
in it.
13. They found
out I was in custody on a non-related,
non-violent offense.
14. They found a witness
and/or evidence which identified the BMW that was involved and an individual
that was involved by the name of Matt
Weaver. (He later turns out to be their star witness)
THE LIES, DECEIT AND WEB OF CORRUPTION BEGINS
Please pay close
attention to the following because this is the part that
you're going to find most unbelievable! By
the end of January Investigators Grasso
and Williams had concluded four months
of investigation and the only evidence to even remotely connect
me to the attempted robbery/murder was the fact that I once lived
at the address on the fraudulent driver's license
Jeanette Moore used to rent the U-Haul truck.
My BMW was completely different in color and model than the
one seen by officer Rakitis the night of October 18th.
I didn't fit the description of either of the occupants
of the BMW that officer Rakitis had given and written in his report.
In October of 1991 I was 38 years old so I couldn't have been the driver
of the BMW. And, since I
had very short hair, a receding hairline and
I'm fair skinned I couldn't be the passenger of the
BMW either. And, with
Ardell not having any knowledge or information about the crime or my
involvement, with the witness and/or evidence that connected
other individuals and another BMW investigators Grasso
and Williams had absolutely no evidence on which
to arrest me or charge me with any crime. But, in spite
of their lack of evidence and in spite
of the evidence that connected other individuals
and another BMW they decided I was guilty and even if I
wasn't I was a convenient scapegoat. And,
since they lacked the evidence the District Attorney
would require to bring charges against me investigators
Grasso and Williams decided they would just manufacture and fabricate
the evidence they needed, lie about it while
hiding and destroying any
evidence that connected other individuals or other
BMW's. In fact, investigators Grasso and Williams decided to lie
about and hide the fact that they had
an on going investigation from November of 1991 until February
of 1992. Needing evidence to connect me to
the crime, to the individuals involved while hiding the results of their
initial investigation investigators Grasso and Williams
decided to fabricate a letter and fraudulently represent that
this letter was:
1. The first time they had
ever heard the name William Clark.
2. How and when their investigation
of me began.
3. The first piece
of credible evidence they had connecting me to the crime.
4. How and when they first
learned I once owned a gold BMW 735.
5. And, that prior to receiving
this letter they had no knowledge of Ardell Williams
or any contact with her or any of the
individuals involved.
To hide their lies and corruption,
to protect the integrity of their investigation
and to prevent any defense attorney from discovering the results of
their initial 4 month investigation investigators Grasso and Williams decided
to have this letter mailed to themselves anonymously. When you think about
it an anonymous letter is an ideal way to connect me to
the attempted robbery/,murder, to the individuals involved,
to implicate my BMW, to begin their investigation
of me, to hide the results of their initial
4 month investigation and an ideal way to prevent
any defense attorney from disputing, impeaching or finding out
the source of the letter. Speaking of
the source of the so called anonymous
letter it was written by an individual
who investigators Grasso and Williams had fed
details about me and the
attempted robbery/murder. What they did was they went to this individual
of whom they had witness information or evidence that her BMW was involved
and hey told her that if she
wrote and mailed this letter for them
implicating me and my BMW they would never disclose the fact that they
had credible evidence that it was her BMW that was involved. But, most
importantly, they guaranteed her that she
would not be arrested or prosecuted!
Investigators Grasso and Williams realizing
that the anonymous letter alone wasn't enough to get me
arrested or charged. They also had to figure out a way to overcome
officer Rakitis's report where he identified individuals whose descriptions
didn't match mine and the fact that in his report he identified
a BMW completely different in model and color
from mine. Therefore, they decided
to make an undercover deal with Ardell
keeping her out of jail for her probation violation for
the Torrance computer store theft and her
Las Vegas arrest. With that they met with her
either in person or over the telephone and fed
her details about me, my personal life and about the attempted robbery/murder
including other individuals they wanted her
to implicate. They actually helped
Ardell concoct an absurdly unbelievable story where she's
relating dates and events that couldn't have possibly
happened. This story was one that any
competent, aggressive defense attorney could discredit.
It is important to note that all these initial
contacts Ardell had with investigators Grasso and Williams occurred
prior to receipt of the anonymous letter and were not only undocumented
they were lied about when both Grasso and Williams
first testify in court. The next act of corruption and deceit that
investigators Grasso and Williams commit is
they locate and interview Jeanette Moore, the female who rented
the U-Haul truck using the fraudulent driver's license.
They first interview her off tape at which time they tell her what they want
her to say then they interview her on tape where
she tells a bogus, contradictory story that defies belief.
But, even with the so called anonymous letter, the fabricated
stories of Ardell Williams and Jeanette Moore investigators Grasso
and Williams still didn't have the evidence they
needed to arrest me or charge me with any crime. Why? Because
they had nothing to connect me to the actual crime scene.
You must remember that all of the physical evidence
connects someone other than me! Officer Rakitis's descriptions
of the occupants of the BMW and the
BMW itself didn't match me or my car! None
of the stores employees had ever seen or identified me!
And, with no evidence to place me at the crime scene arresting
me and charging me was out of the question. So what they
do next is they locate an individual who was involved by the name of
Matt Weaver. Matt is a white male who was approximately
21 years old on October 18th 1991.
Investigator Grasso has a recorded telephone
interview with Matt on August 12th 1992, 10 months after the attempted
robbery/murder. during that interview Matt denies having
any involvement in the attempted
robbery/murder but more importantly he truthfully tells
investigator Grasso that he never met me and
didn't even know of my existence. A few days after his August
12th interview Matt calls a police officer frIend
of his named Jim Kimmering. Matt tells officer
Kimmering that he was indeed involved in the attempted
robbery/murder then officer Kimmering contacts investigator Williams at the
Fountain Valley police department where an arrangement is made for Matt
to go to the District Attorney's office for an second
interview. It is important to note that none
of the contacts between Matt and officer Kimmering and
officer Kimmering and investigator Williams were preserved or documented
in any way. Some interview! Matt goes to the District Attorney's
office with full knowledge he won't be arrested or charged as
long as he does what investigators Grasso and WillIams tell him
to do. And, of course he complies!
He's interviewed off tape first where he's fed
details and information about me and the crime. He is then
interviewed on tape where he tells
a story even more contradictory and unbelievable than the stories
of Ardell Williams and Jeanette. In spite what Officer Rakitis says
he clearly saw the night of October 18th 1991 Matt says
that the occupants of the BMW were he and I with me being the driver.
He says there was another person in
the back seat, a BIG black guy. He also says the BMW he was
riding in was gold, he ducked down and he saw two police cars with flashing
lights as the BMW left the parking lot. Now, if
you recall what officer Rakitis said you have to conclude
that either he or Matt Weaver is lying! There's
just no getting around it. Officer
Rakitis has maintained throughout "ALL" his court
appearances that the driver was a much
younger man than me, the passenger was not
a white male, there was nobody in the back seat of the BMW and
the BMW was not a gold 735 but a silver 5 or 600 series. But,
most importantly, officer Rakitis has ALWAYS maintained that the passenger in the BMW looked
him straight in the eye and he was a black
male with a shoulder length Jehri curl! But,
in helping Matt fabricate his story investigators
Grasso and Williams realized they still had one HUGE
obstacle to overcome. They had the August 12th
interview where Matt was truthfully admitting he never met me
and didn't even know of my existence. How can Matt say he was in the
BMW with someone he never met and didn't even know about?
What investigators Grasso and Williams do next defies belief!
Because they know Matt was telling the truth when he said he never met me
and didn't know of my existence, in order
to help him identify me investigators Grasso
creates a photo line-up and asks Matt if he can pick me
out. Now, this is a standard
police procedure and it's routinely done in
the course of all types of investigations
where identity is an issue. But,
the photo line-up investigator Grasso creates is
what you're not going to believe! He takes
my photograph, an obvious black man and places me in the midst
of photographs of all obviously caucasian
men. All this after he and investigator Williams
tell him I'm the focus of their investigation and with Matt knowing
I'm black. Who do you think Matt picked out of the line-up? I'll
give you one guess! ME! The photo
line-up is a violation of my civil and constitutional rights alone and on top of that it was perhaps
the most sinister and blatantly racist acts investigators
Grasso and Williams
committed. Armed with
the bogus anonymous letter, the fabricated
stories of Ardell Williams, Jeanette Moore
and Matt Weaver plus their own lies about how and
when their investigation begin investigators Grasso
and Williams sought and got a warrant
for my arrest. I was subsequently charged with attempted
robbery and murder. All this even though they knew
I wasn't present, did not plan or participate
and wasn't involved in the crime! All this
in spite of the evidence they had of other individuals'
involvement and other BMW's! All this
in spite of their own lies, deceit and corruption!
MY ALIBI
I'm sure you're wondering why officer Rakitis' description of the passenger and driver of the BMW does not match mine and why his description of the BMW does not match mine! I'm also sure you're wondering why Matt Weaver admits in his first interview that he never met me and didn't even know of my existence! The answer to these questions is actually quite simple. I was not in the computer store parking lot the night of October 18th 1991! My gold BMW was not there ana I certainly wasn't in my car with some BIG black guy and Matt Weaver, a white guy I had never seen or met until he was pointing at me in court in August of 1994! Where was I that night and where was my BMW? First of all I was in a recording studio in Glendale California from about 6:45pm until about 9:45pm. My being there was the result of a music project I had been working on. Myself along with four friends were working to produce a demo tape the hope of getting a record deal. The October 18th Session was actually the third time we had been in the studio within a week and a half. The previous weekend we had recorded the vocals and the music tracks. Our plans for the 18th were to produce the final mix. Now, how or why in Heavens name could I or would I plan our music project and at the same time be in my BMW participating in an absurd robbery attempt 45 to 50 miles away. This alibi is credible and indisputable! My witnesses included several of the friends who were working with me on the project, the recording studio's manager, one of the owners and I presented the signed appointment book indicating the dates we were in session, including October 18th. And, because I had to transport some T-shirts I had produced to the studio that night I drove my van to the studio. My BMW was at my house parked in my garage. And, after I left the recording studio I drove my van straight home. I must have gotten there around 10:30 or l1:OOpm.
ORANGE COUNTY JAIL
On September
23rd 1992 I was transferred from the institution
I was serving time at for the minor, non-violent,
unrelated offenses to the Orange County Jail. When I first
got to the Orange County Jail the court
appointed me an attorney and an investigator and that is when the nightmare
became even more frightening. Oh, and it is
important to note that prior to my arrival at
the Orange County Jail I had never seen, met or heard of the individual
officer Rakitis arrested in the computer store
parking lot the night of October 18th
1991! At this time I was also having regular telephone contact
with friends, family members, my attorney and my investigator.
One of my regular visitors was a young woman I had been dating prior to my
arrest named Antoinette Yancey. One of the things myself
and my attorney thought was critical was to interview Ardell Williams to get
her to clear up the numerous lies and
contradictions in her story but more importantly to find out
who fed her the details about me, my personal life and
the attempted robbery/murder. You see there were many things
that Ardell mentioned in her interviews that she
had "NO WAY" of knowing unless someone told her. Around
the time my investigator was attempting to
interview Ardell she was involved in a bitter, sometimes
violent child custody dispute with her child's father,Tony Mills.
The child's father had threatened Ardell's life on numerous
occasions and she and her family signed sworn affidavits
to that effect. Tony even, at one
point, attempted to run Ardell and her new boyfriend
off the road during a high speed car
chase. Around this same time Ardell had been working part-time
at the Disney Store in Torrance California. My investigator
had not only gone to Ardell's Mom's house to try to interview
her, he had made a few trips to the Disney store also hoping
to interview her. All his attempts, by the way, were unsuccessful.
Ardell would set up meetings with him then mysteriously
fail to show up or be at the place where the interview was supposed to occur.
One day my investigator came to visit me in the Orange County Jail to tell
me that Ardell was giving him the run around and
that he was having problems discerning whose house Ardell was
actually living at. You see we had several addresses where
we knew Ardell was known to have resided.
One day while I was talking to Antoinette I was telling
her the problems my investigator was having
interviewing Ardell and that he couldn't figure out
which house she was actually living at, her Mom's, her
sister's or her new boyfriend's. Antoinette knew where Ardell's
Mom lived because she had gone there with me several
times prior to my arrest. Armed with this knowledge Antoinette
decided to, without my knowledge
or consent, deliver some flowers to Ardell at her Mom's house just to
see if Ardell was actually living there. With that on February
10th 1994 Antoinette personally delivered some flowers to Ardell at her Mom's
house at about 1:00 in the afternoon. Because
I soon told Antoinette that Ardell declined
to be interviewed Antoinette never told me about
the flower delivery or why she did it. It
is important to note that although I now know Antoinette delivered the flowers
and why, at the time she did it I had NO IDEA she did or
why! Within days after Antoinette delivered
the flowers she called investigator Grasso to explain to him
what had happened.
The reason Ardell called investigator Grasso was because the flower delivery
was just one of many suspicious events that were occurring at her Mom's
house around this time. Investigator Grasso then took photos of all
the women who had visited me to Ardell's house and showed them to her
family to see if they could identify the woman who delivered the flowers.
Ardell, her Mom and her sister Nina all identified Antoinette as the
woman who delivered the flowers.
ARDELL'S MURDER
ON March 13th 1994 Ardell's body was found in the parking lot of a business in Gardena California. She had been shot in the head execution style. The murder occurred early Sunday morning. There were no eyewitness to the murder however, there was substantial physical evidence. Fingerprints were retrieved from the car Ardell drove. There was a cigarette butt found in close proximity to the body which was subsequently tested and DNA evidence was retrieved. On the Sunday Ardell was killed Antoinette came to visit me in the Orange County Jail. She was in her usual jovial, relaxed mood, she got there about 7:00 in the morning, she was dressed very provocatively as always and we had our usual short but enjoyable conversation. During our visit neither of us had any idea Ardell had been murdered that very same morning.
ANTOINETTE'S ARRESTED,
WE'RE BOTH CHARGED WITH
ARDELL'S MURDER
Four days after Ardell's
murder Antoinette came to visit me at the jail as usual and she was arrested.
Subsequently she and I were both charged with Ardell's murder.
After Antoinette's arrest investigator Grasso and the investigators
from Los Angeles discovered that Ardell was lured to the murder scene by
an anonymous female who had befriended her and her family via telephone.
This anonymous female got Ardell to go to the murder site under the guise
of a bogus job interview. Around this same time investigator Grasso
and the investigators from Los Angeles informed Ardell's
family that Antoinette Yancey had been arrested in connection with
Ardell's murder. Ardell's family also learned of Antoinette's
arrest from newspaper articles which they admitted reading
shortly after Ardell's murder and Antoinette's arrest. Investigators
formulated a ridiculous theory that Antoinette
had murdered Ardell at my request in order to prevent her from testifying
against me. The problem with this theory is that Antoinette did
not murder Ardell, did not plot with me to murder Ardell, didn't own
or possess a gun of any kind, had never been in trouble with the law
before in her life, would never hurt or harm anyone, and under
no circumstances would she murder anyone for me or anyone else for that matter.
If you recall, Antoinette was visiting me the morning Ardell was murdered.
But, on top of this none of the physical evidence collected connected
Antoinette. The fingerprints found on the vehicle Ardell drove did
not belong to Antoinette. The DNA found on the cigarette butt near
Ardell's body did not match Antoinette's DNA. A very critical point
to understand and remember is that Ardell was lured to her death as the result
of an anonymous female caller who set up a bogus job interview. What
must be understood is that whoever set up the bogus job interview had
to KNOW that Ardell was in need or looking for a job. As far
as myself and my defense team knew at the time of her death we were under
the impression that she was employed at the Disney store in Torrance
And, it wasn't until after Ardell was
murdered that we found out
that Ardell had been fired from the Disney store for stealing on February
10th 1994, a month prior to her death. My investigator also uncovered the
fact that the person responsible for Ardell~bi being fired was none other
than Tony Mills, the father of her child. What Tony did was he had
knowledge that Ardell was having her friends come in and she would allow
them to make fraudulent credit card purchases as well as buy merchandise
at a fraction of the actual cost. Tony related all this information to Ardell's
manager who then related it to the store's security manager. Now, think
about it! Tony and Ardell are locked in a bitter, sometimes
violent child custody battle, Tony gets Ardell fired from the Disney store
on February 10th, Tony is the one responsible for getting Ardell fired from
the Disney store and it was Tony who knew Ardell was in need of or looking
for employment! Therefore, it doesn't take a genius to figure out who
was responsible for having the anonymous female call to set up the bogus
job interview. That's right, Tony MIlls! But, at my trial the
judge, who was clearly trying to help the District Attorney to convict me
would not allow my defense attorney to present any
of this evidence to the jury, consequently
they never heard or saw it and were unable to consider it. The judge said
the reason he wasn't letting the jury see or hear this evidence was because
he didn't want to confuse them. What he really meant was he
didn't want the jury to see or hear any evidence that proved me and Antoinette
Yancey's innocence.
If anyone is reading this who was a juror on my case I can assure you there were tons of evidence of my innocence that you were not allowed to see! I'm talking about evidence of police and prosecutorial misconduct, perjury, corruption and of my innocence. And, I truly believe had the jury seen or heard this evidence I wouldn't be living this nightmare, in other words their verdict would have been different.
MORE LIES, DECEIT AND CORRUPTION
With no
eyewitnesses and no physical evidence to connect
me or Antoinette Yancey to Ardell's murder investigator
Grasso decides to pick up where he and investigator Williams
left off on the computer robbery/murder and
just manufacture the evidence needed to connect us. Since I
was in the Orange County Jail the
day Ardell was murdered therefore there
was no way investigator Grasso could
manufacture evidence to place me at the crime scene.
So he decides to connect me vicariously by manufacturing evidence to connect
Antoinette. Because Ardell's family had no idea who this anonymous
female caller was who lured Ardell to the murder scene Grasso decides to fabricate
evidence that Antoinette was the female who made the anonymous
calls. What Grasso does is he creates a voice identification
procedure that's just as corrupt and unfair as the photo line-up he
created in the computer store case. If you
recall earlier in this story I told you that Nina and Angie Williams (Ardell's
Mom) were aware of Antoinette's name and of her arrest.
Remember, they got
this information from the investigators and from
the newspapers which they admitted reading shortly after Ardell's murder.
So investigator Grasso gets three taped interviews he conducted with females
associated with the computer store robbery/murder. All three
of these interviews were of Grasso asking questions
about the computer store robbery/murder, he
then takes a fourth tape of the investigators
from Los Angeles asking Antoinette questions about
Ardell's death. The investigators from Los
Angeles play a portion of the four tapes for Nina and Angie
Williams then ask them if they can identify the voice of the anonymous
female who set up the bogus job interview. The KEY
issues here are the differences in the voices on each tape as well
as the portion of the tape that
was played of the interview with Antoinette. You see when
Nina and Angie Williams listened to the 3 tapes where investigator
Grasso was asking questions about the computer store
crime
they knew none
of these females were the one who had been arrested for Ardell's murder.
On the other hand, when Nina and Angie Williams heard the tape where
the investigators from Los Angeles were asking questions about Ardell's murder
they knew this was the woman who had been arrested and charged with Ardell's
murder. Consequently, they picked Antoinette's voice as the voice
of the woman who set up the bogus job interview. But, what's even more
corrupt and unbelievable is the fact that the portion of the tape that was
played for Nina and Angie Williams, Antoinette is saying her name and
spelling it! How obvious and suggestive can you get! And, let's
not forget the fact that Nina and Angie Williams knew the name Antoinette
Yancey prior to listening to the tapes. Because I knew the voice identification
procedure was rigged I suggested to my attorney and investigator that we develop
our own voice identification procedure.
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 1994
In the summer of 1994 I and Antoinette were taken before a judge to have our preliminary hearing. For those who don't know, a preliminary hearing is where the District Attorney presents facts to see if there is enough evidence for the defendants to stand trial. One of the important things we did at our preliminary hearing was we presented our voice identification procedure. What we did was we made a tape of four females saying the same thing and my attorney asked Nina and Angie Williams if they would listen to our tape to see if they could identify the female who lured Ardell to her death. The District Attorney immediately jumped up and made a heated objection because he knew our procedure was fair and it would uncover the fact that the police procedure was rigged. But, more importantly it would prove that Nina and Angie Williams could not identify the voice of the anonymous female caller. While the District Attorney was making his objection and stating his reasons Nina Williams was in the courtroom observing and listening to the arguments from the District Attorney and my attorney. From this she realized listening to our tape would prove to be a disaster for the District Attorney's case so she immediately refused to listen to our tape. After much legal haranguing Nina decided to listen to our tape to see if she could make an identification. And, just as we knew Nina did not pick out the voice of Antoinette as the anonymous female caller. Nina identified the voice of a female totally unrelated to the case! My attorney also asked Angie Williams if she would listen to our tape to see if she could identify the anonymous female caller and like Nina she refused at first. Through more legal haranguing Angie Williams agreed to listen to our tape and, of course, she also identified a female totally unrelated to the case. And, Antoinette's voice was on our tape clear and unaltered! Also, at my preliminary hearing was the first time investigators Grasso and Williams testified about the facts and circumstances surrounding their investigation and a critical piece of evidence... the anonymous letter! And, of course they committed numerous acts of perjury that were fully KNOWN to the District Attorney. Jeanette Moore and Matt Weaver also testified and committed numerous acts of perjury fully KNOWN to the District Attorney. Prior to the testimony of the investigators and civilian witnesses my attorney turned over evidence to prove that not only were Jeanette Moore and Matt Weaver lying but investigators Grasso and Williams were also lying! All this with the District Attorney's knowledge, assistance and blessing.
MY TRIAL:THE ULTIMATE TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE!
Between my preliminary
hearing and my trial the police and District Attorney had time to
review the impeachment evidence my investigator had uncovered and they all
realized they had a HUGE problem! The testimony of Jeanette Moore,
Matt Weaver and investigators Grasso and Williams would not be believed
as it was given at the preliminary hearing. So what does the District
Attorney do? He has Jeanette Moore and Matt Weaver come into court
and admit they lied at the preliminary hearing, he gives them a grant
of immunity for the lies they told and he puts them back on the witness stand
at my trial and tells them to lie some more! With investigator Williams
he just has him change his story without admitting his previous lies. And,
the District Attorney even brings in F.B.I. Agent Holiday to support the
NEW LIES told by investigator Williams. Investigator Grasso being a
more seasoned liar just got on the witness stand and either avoided my attorneys
questions or conveniently lost his memory. The following is a
list of a few of the lies investigators Grasso and Williams were caught in
at my trial:
1. Investigators Grasso
and Williams lied at my preliminary Hearing when they testified the anonymous
letter was the first time they heard of me or my BMW.
2. Investigators Grasso
and Williams lied at my preliminary hearing when they testified that the
anonymous letter was how and when their investigation of me began.
3. Investigators Grasso
and Williams lied at my preliminary hearing when they testified that prior
to receiving the anonymous letter they had no knowledge of the individuals
associated with the computer store robbery/murder, including Ardell Williams.
4. Investigators Grasso
and Williams lied at my preliminary hearing about and hiding evidence
that resulted from the four month investigation they conducted prior to receiving
the anonymous letter.
5. Investigators Grasso
and Williams were lying about and hiding evidence that proved Jeanette Moore,
Matt Williams and Ardell Williams were fed details in order to concoct stories
that implicated me.
6. Matt Weaver and Jeanette
Moore would have to admit in front of the jury that they lied in ALL their
interviews with police and in ALL of their previous court appearances.(And,
of course they both did just that)
INCOMPETENT, INEFFECTIVE, INCOMPASSIONATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION
This is the part of my story that I find most painful to talk about and that you may find most believable and tragic. The simple fact remains that if you are poor and a minority and you are unfortunate enough to get caught up in the American criminal justice system any legal defense you have will be SEVERELY inadequate. The sad reality is that those who have money can pay for a good or great defense! I hate to bring it up but look at the defense team that O.J. Simpson was able to afford! At my trial I had nothing even remotely close to that. I was defended by an attorney by the name of Jack Earley who cared more about the paycheck the state was paying him to defend me then he did about me or defending me. What difference did it make to him he got his $150,000 dollars whether I was found guilty or not guilty. Here I am sitting in a death penalty trial with an attorney who's NEVER won a murder trial and I mean never! What chance did I have? Shocked! Don't be! this happens every single day in courts all over the United States! This may surprise you but defense attorneys who represent indigent defendants are all part of this little circle. I like to refer to it as the "Good Ole Boys Club" or the "Clique To Convict". These attorney's sole goal is to keep getting paid and they are sent the message that if they win cases they will be cut off from the flow of state appointed cases. Consequently, they happily and eagerly INTENTIONALLY lose cases with great regularity. I can't begin to tell you how incompetent Mr. Earley was. He allowed perjury testimony to go unchallenged and unobjected to, he allowed fabricated evidence to go unchallenged or unobjected to, he allowed the police and prosecutor to break the law to convict me.
WHAT CAN DO TO HELP ME?
The first thing you can do is pray because I'll need it! You would be shocked at how many innocent people have been executed throughout American history. Secondly, you can help by becoming an "ACTIVIST" to help lobby for my unconditional release. Third, you can help by sending donations to help me pay for a competent, caring, experienced appellate attorney. Finally, you can help by being a friend, by writing me to help add a sense of enjoyment and normalcy to an otherwise demeaning, dehumanizing, frustrating situation.
For those who want to send donations send to
THE CALIFORNIA LEGAL ASSISTANCE
PROJECT P.O. BOX 43-A-35
LOS ANGELES, CA 90043.
And, for those who want
to write directly to me
WILLIAM
CLARK
P.O.
BOX K-80703
SAN
QUENTIN, CA 94974
All letters will be answered
immediately and I encourage attorneys and activists to write!
STILL SKEPTICAL?
If, after reading and digesting my story you still find it hard to believe I am an innocent man, wrongfully convicted by corrupt law enforcement officials all you have to do is write me requesting proof for any of the things you don't believe and I'll happily send it to you.
And, if you don't
believe innocent people get wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death
all you have to do is write to the:
DEATH PENALTY INFORMATION
CENTER 1320 18TH STREET NW
5TH FLOOR
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
Or you can call and ask,
(202) 293-6970.
I'm sure most of you will
be shocked at what you read in this report!
The CCADP offers free webpages to over 500 Death Row Prisoners
Contact us for more information.
"The Eyes Of The World Are Watching Now"