Like our site ?    Donate $1 or more...   Every little bit adds up to help support our important work !


                              WILLIAM CLARK
Wrongfully Accused, Wrongfully Convicted & Wrongfully Sentenced To Death
The following text was written and provided by William Clark.
He asks that you write him (address below) with any questions or  for more information.


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.


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 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)


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!


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.


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.


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.


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.

IMPORTANT: 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.


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.


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.


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)


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.


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


And, for those who want to write directly to me
please write:

P.O. BOX K-80703
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:
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
                                                       "The Eyes Of The World Are Watching Now"

This page was last updated April 25, 2005                Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty
This page is maintained and updated by Dave Parkinson and Tracy Lamourie in Toronto, Canada