Ronald Clark Jr, his history and case

Contact him
Ronald Clark_DRIS.jpg

Ronald Clark Jr

By Ronald W. Clark Jr

The United States' legal system presents itself as the fairest and most equitable of all in this world. My name is Ronald Wayne Clark Jr. and I'm here not only to tell you but also to show you the inequality of a system that has served me time and time again, robbing me of equal justice in my eyes. of the Law Undisputed Facts: On Friday January 12, 1990, I was sitting in front of John David Hatch's parents' trailer and drinking beer while waiting for David to leave work...


He arrived around 7pm with a half-pack of beer which we drank while he was doing laundry and showering. He pulled out a 380 automatic pistol from his laundry basket. Her mother, Mary Hatch, saw us handling the gun on the dining table of their 30 foot long camper van. It was a pistol that David had stolen two weeks before, from the closet in the bedroom of Mrs. Mecca Ann Bailey, for whom David worked.At around 9 p.m., John David Hatch (known as David) and I left his mother and father's trailer, located on the grounds of the Bow and Arrow Camp, just off US 17 in Yulee Florida, just north of Jacksonville. We set off on foot, walking south, and stopping at the county store, less than 50 yards from the campsite where we bought a beer. We continued to walk south, our destination was the bowling alley on Dunn Avenue, about 7 miles away. We were armed with this 380 automatic pistol. As we walked we took turns firing at panels in the swamp. About 700 yards before the Nassau County line, Duval, a black Dodge Ram truck approached us and stopped. The driver was Ronald Willis, a 38-year-old white man. He said, "I thought you were someone else I knew from the Amelia Island plantation, but he still asked us if we needed a driver. We said," Yes! It was a cold night, the temperature was 11 degrees, with a temperature sensation of 6 degrees. So we went in, David was sitting in the middle, and I was by the door. David was chatting with Mr. Willis, and he learned he was going to the Admiral Inn, which is right across from our destination. As we drove past the Lil 'Champ store on Pecan Park Road, which was a dark and secluded place, David said to Mr. Willis, "You can let us out here, we want to have a beer." We are 11 km from our destination on a cold winter night. Mr. Willis pulls up to the shoulder of the road, about 40 yards from the flashing yellow light at Pecan Park and US 17. David and I get out of the truck, the gunman is in question, but Mr. Willis is beaten down. His body is driven along Bird Road, removed from the truck, and David heads south towards US 17. We pass Bush Drive and Dunn Avenue, and stop at a Lil 'Champ store located east of US 17 in Imisson Park. We buy a pack of 12 Budweiser beers there. From there we head to Jackie's Seafood, located off US 17 on the Trout River, where David had once worked on a commercial fishing boat called "The Bloody Mary", which turns around in the back. . We entered the restaurant, and had a mixed alcoholic drink, before leaving. We then made it to the Rosemont apartment complex, where David's ex-wife, Missy lived. He stopped outside, an apt pointed at a door, said to knock on that door and ask for Missy. Tell him to come around the corner and talk to me. David parked the truck on the side of the building and waited. I went to the door, knocked and some guys said, there was a party. They said Missy isn't here. and asked me "Who are you?" David told me not to say it. They kept asking me who I was and how I knew her. I did not respond, I returned and left. Two guys, including one named Chris Sweranger, followed me to the truck. David recognized them and spoke with them as I went to sit in the truck. David gets back in the truck, we leave, Chris puts his hand through the open window on the driver's side, and slaps David, who then slaps him while braking. Around the same time, Billy Jo Beman, who is Missy's sister and who is also dating David's younger brother, arrives around the corner. She approaches the truck and begs David to leave. Within 5 to 10 minutes of watching, David leaves. We go back to Bird road, put Mr. Willis in the truck and drive to my father's house located at 716 Trinity Circle in Yulee, we take a few blocks and a rope before

We head towards the Nassau Sound Bridge on Hecksher Drive. Mr. Willis is thrown overboard. His body is never found. We then leave the A1A towards Fernandina, we return to the US17 and we head north. Hatch wanted to go see a friend of his, Ricky and his wife Harriet, who now live in Tennessee. We come to I 95 just before the Georgia state border. We enter Kingsland Ga. Stopping at a gas station to refuel. I go into the store and pay for gas while David fills up. We take the I 95 north. David drives all the time. We take I16 to Ga. And head west with the intention of taking I 75 north, towards Tennessee. Several miles after taking I 16 west, David stops, and we stop at a Huddle House restaurant, which is located on the south side of I 16. We walk in, go to the bathroom, and we go. let's wash. David was covered in Mr. Willis' blood, it had it on his mustache and on his clothes. David told the waitress a story about hitting a deer, and it was deer blood, which reassured her. After ordering and eating, we returned to the truck and fell asleep. It was around 2 to 3 a.m. on Saturday. David wakes up and hits the road again. When we get to I 75, David decides he doesn't want to go to Ricky and Harriet's house anymore. He wants to go back to Florida.

So we head south on I 75. We pull up at a Walmart off the highway and buy new clothes. We go to a car wash where David uses a pressure sprayer, to try to wash Mr. Willis' blood in the truck. We change our clothes at a gas station and wash ourselves. We then got back on I 75 and headed south again. We cross the Florida-Georgia border and take I 10 heading east where we pick up a hitchhiker heading towards Daytona. David tells him that we are going to take him there. We stop first at a gas station or convenience store where the hitchhiker takes money, Western Union. Once done, we take I 10 where we enter Jacksonville. David tells the hitchhiker that we're going to eat seafood at Jackie's, before we go down to Daytona. Once at Jackie's, we order a beer. David kicks me under the table motioning for me to go to the bathroom, we go and David tells me we're leaving. So we walked out the back door, leaving this guy a hundred dollars worth of food to pay for. We get back into the truck and head towards the Ocean Way area. We're heading straight for the crime scene. We went to see a girl I knew. I got pissed off and on the way out I hit the dashboard which opened my joints. We went for a walk in the Ocean Way area. We're at 145 Castleberry Road when David skids on the brakes after seeing a guy named Joseph Lee Strickland, whom he had known from school. David strikes up a conversation with him and brags to Strickland of "HIS TRUCK", yes a dead man's truck! He asks Strickland if he wants to buy it for $ 800. Hatch then takes out the gun he owns and shows it to Strickland and his half-brother Thomas Edgar Coon. They fire the pistol behind the trailer. David asks Strickland if he knows where to buy marijuana. He said he knew it. David and I gave Strickland the money to go buy 14 grams. When he brought us the weed, David and I told him about a place to rent. Strickland mentioned that he knew a woman in the Oasis Efficiency residence, next to the Lil'Champ store, on US 17 and Pecan Park Road, who had a room to rent. We get in the truck and off we go. Strickland leaves his two-year-old son in the truck with a loaded gun. David placed the gun under the seat of the truck. We walk into a tiny living unit, we look around, when two women pulled up behind the truck, and were screaming "Where's Ronald? That's my name, so I walked out and said," I'm here. "They said no to the owner of the truck. I went back and told David that they were looking for the owner of the truck. Strickland saw David panicking, so he tried to leave, to get his truck out. son of the truck. David was trying to stop Strickland from getting out, but he got through. David and I come out the back window, and run out. We come behind the Lil'Champ store, when David says, "We have to. go back to get the weapon, it will bring us back to m

Since this "kangaroo" tribunal, as it certainly was, arose, Mr. Paul William Scott has waited patiently in Raiford, Fla., Appeal after appeal. Since Feorge Barrs, he has had several lawyers who have started to put together the pieces of the true story. Mild-mannered Scott endured 18 years of "pure hell" on Florida death row as the wheels of justice slowly turned.

Rick Kondian got his case "negotiated" and he was sentenced to 15 years in prison for second degree murder, which he served and was released into society. It was 1994. And yet Paul Scott is waiting in his tiny cell. No one has been there longer than Scott, and the wheels of justice keep turning.

After being briefed on these compelling truths, nine of Scott's former jurors expressed shock and dismay at being deceived, lying and tricked into delivering a guilty verdict and conviction. to death. Eight of them actually signed declarations to this effect and expressed regret at having been able to send an innocent man to his death.

For reasons hard to imagine, besides the embarrassment of the blunders they have unmistakably made, the circle of lawyers, judges and lawmakers in the state of Florida continue to push for the death of Paul William Scott. And they won't be satisfied, it seems, until that high-voltage electric chair catches the last brave heartbeat of Paul William Scott.

According to a 1993 ruling, Herrara V. Collins, "history is replete with examples of wrongly convicted people being pardoned following the discovery of evidence proving their innocence." Isn't it time to say enough is enough, Florida? In the name of justice, free this man.

Don't say "no" until you know the true story of Paul William Scott. It's been a long time since she arrived and she refutes so much that you can still believe it's the truth.

oi ". So we run back, without my knowing it, David stopped by this little apt. I'm going to open the truck door, and it's locked. The only woman talking to me, she has the keys to the truck in her hand. I'm trying to retrieve the keys. I pull on the keys, she backs up. She kicks me several times between the legs. I can't feel it. I'm so addicted to pills. I could have knocked her out with a single punch. But I won't hit a woman. Finally, I gave up going back and forth with the keys. I ran away, I passed in front of David who is hiding next to the apt and watching. He tells me where the gun is. I yelled, "over there," continuing behind the Lil 'Champ store. We then crossed US17 and got on walked into a dense wood. Police sirens are heard everywhere. And a helicopter comes right overhead. It's so wooded they can't see us. It took us hours to get there. get out of the. We walk back to Yulee on the railroad tracks.

When we go back, it's midnight or later. We go to my father to explain to him what happened. He asks me what we are going to do. I said to him: "I don't know, I pointed the finger at David and I said to him: ask him, he has made all the decisions so far". I went to bed, got up early and called my girlfriend Tracy, told her we were having problems. She told me she would be there. I went to the store, bought some beer and started drinking. Everyone kept asking me, "What are you going to do? I got frustrated and started taking pills. From there it got blurry. woke up in a bed next to Tracy in a house in Georgia She and David decided that we would go there, take a walk with Tommy, one of Tracy's friends, and go to North Carolina. North. Later that night we drove to North Carolina. I passed out in the car again. Tracy wakes me up. She says, "I just called my house, you and David are all over the news, you are wanted for murder. "I tell her she has to go home. So Tommy dropped us off at the hotel, we got a room. The next morning I put her on a bus to Jacksonville. David and I started walking along the tracks to try and find where we were going. We camped in the woods that night. The next day as we walked along. ns on the tracks, a cop saw us. We went down into the ditch. David stayed while I ran. He was put in jail. He hitchhiked back to Yulee and went to my father's house. It was there that I learned that my father had pointed a gun at him and called the cops. David was arrested. I arrived in St George, South Carolina, where I met a Jim Butt, who was cleaning up after Hurricane Hugo hit in September 1989. I went to work for him. I worked with him until February 7, 1990. I was in a hotel room in Summerville SC when the police surrounded me. I was arrested and taken into custody.
David got a 25-year sentence reduction. He took 11 years and 2 months and now lives in South Georgia. I was offered a life sentence, which I refused. If I had accepted it, I would have been paroled 5 years ago. But I decided to go to trial without realizing what I was going to have to face.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

The case of Ronald W. Clark Jr

(Attachments will be added soon)

While still in Summerville, South Carolina Jail, awaiting the interstate pact and my transfer to Florida around 1:30 a.m. on February 8, 1990, Inspector Jerry Jesonek from the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office told me has met. I told him that I was not interested in speaking. He then showed me a four page written statement that David had made; see EXHIBITION (A). As you can see the statements are almost identical except that it calls into question the identity of the shooter. EXPOSURE (B) David admits he was the one who got Mr. Willis' truck to stop just past the road to Pecan Park. See page 1, line 15 -16 "Where I told the driver we wanted to get out." So we can't say that he organized the murder. Now David is represented by the Office of Public Defenders. I would have liked to have had the chance to be represented by them. When I get back to Jacksonville I am housed in Duval County Jail, David is housed in Nassau County Jail for the murder of Charles Carter, another 38 year old white man. My case is in the hands of Judge David C. Wiggins. He must appoint me a lawyer without conflict of interest. Like David and I do

We cannot be represented by the prosecutor's office. Wiggins therefore appoints Henry Davis as my lawyer. He was a nice guy, I liked him as a person, but he had no trial experience in a capital murder case. And he shouldn't have been appointed just to represent me. Rather, Judge Wiggins should have appointed a co-counsel to assist Mr. Davis in this matter. It would have been the right thing to do. Under the current law, they should have done so. Back then, they got away with unscrupulous garbage like the one you are about to witness. Mr Davis was so incompetent as a lawyer that not only did he not ask for co-counsel, he did not even ask the court to appoint an investigator. And you will see why an investigator was needed and how important it would have been to have an investigator. At the start of the case, David gets the plea deal. The first to turn around always gets the deal. Prosecutor Lance Day drops charges of second degree murder against David and offers him 25 years for the murder of Willis. And 5 years for complicity after the facts for the murder of Charles Carter. These two cases are being conducted simultaneously. David should have been only 10 years old. But he got in trouble once for getting drunk another time for having a shank (prison knife) and was indicted for assault, where he and several other masked inmates jumped on another inmate. As a result of these incidents, he served a sentence of 11 years and 2 months. I have been offered two current life sentences. In this system, I would have had to serve 25 years before I could be granted parole. I refused for several reasons, one of which I didn't think was fair, David being the orchestrator of the two murders and the trigger man as well. Second, I am an uneducated 21 year old who has the mentality of about 15 years old. My father was 42 years old. I considered him an old man, and I wouldn't get out of prison for 46 years. Now I would have liked to accept the deal. A good lawyer would have gotten me a better deal. This is the price to pay for being a poor white man with no education in America, your life is not as valuable, and you can sacrifice it to the American death machine. So I chose to go to trial, without realizing how rigged the game is! And my god, how it's organized! Remember David and I are changing clothes. The clothes David and I are wearing the night Mr. Willis was killed are therefore well behind the truck seat. See what we'll call the EXPOSURE (C) FDLE report showing all of the items that are removed from the victims' truck. There you will see black and white photos with grain as well as descriptions of the clothes that have been highlighted. One would think that this whole affair is based on the clothes, which carry the blood of the victims. Yet prosecutor Lance Day doesn't even present her in court. And my lawyer is so incompetent that he doesn't even cross the street to go to the sheriff's office and look at the evidence that has been gathered. See STATEMENT (D) pages 57, 59-61 and 70 of the February 2007 evidence hearing, where Mr. Davis, now Judge Davis, testifies that he had no one to work on the case with him. On page 70, lines 11-19, Judge Davis admits that he never went to examine this evidence. Failure to initiate, and conduct an investigation, when the lives of your clients are in danger, "cannot be considered a litigation strategy! Because you don't know what your potential investigation will turn out. These are the witnesses Mr. Davis should have found.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

1.) The waitress at the Huddle House on I-16 in Georgia, who allegedly testified that when John David Hatch entered he was covered in the blood of the victims, and that he was able to tell a convincing lie about the suddenly saying he had hit a deer to reassure her. She could also have testified that it was Hatch who made all the decisions. But she was never questioned, let alone called to testify.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

2.) The Interstate 10 hitchhiker. He could easily have been found by walking into this store and identifying the person who took and signed a Western Union wire on Saturday January 13, 1990 between 14 and 17 hours. The hitchhiker would have verified that Hatch was the decision maker and that he was running the show. That he had never seen me with the gun. And that he was left at Jackie's Seafood with all the bill. While Hatch swore we paid for our beer and left. Hatch also said that there was a charity car wash at this gas station, little black kids saw me with the gun, asked me whyuoi and I would have told them, "oh I got it because I use it on people". An investigation would have shown that Hatch perjury himself by lying under oath before even going to the bar!

3.) Witnesses at Rosemont Apartments not only saw David Hatch get slapped in the face, but they also saw Billy Jo Beaman try to convince David to leave. Hatch and Billy Jo said I got out of the truck with the gun, and pointed it at Chris Sweringer. We have twenty or more people who have witnessed this, yet my lawyer cannot locate any of them. Chris Sweeringer is not even called to testify! It would have been the most damaging witness against me, if it had been true. This is not the case ! There is no doubt that prosecutor Lance Day spoke to Chris Swearinger, who did not corroborate this lie. That is why the prosecutor did not call him as a witness. Because he would have made holes in Hatch's and his sister's testimony, perjuring them both. As would the other 20 to 30 witnesses who stood there to witness this event. Mr. Davis should have asked an investigator to speak to everyone who was present and witnessed these events.

The three most damaging witnesses in this case against me are the mother of David Mary Hatch, who put the gun in my hand 20 minutes before the murder. David, who puts the gun in my hand during the murder. And Billy Jo Beaman, David's sister-in-law, who puts the gun in my hand about an hour after the murder. These are therefore three witnesses, who must absolutely be discredited and perjured. Now, Mr. Davis lets Mary Hatch take the stand, give testimony that puts gun in my hand, and Mr. Davis doesn't even cross-examine. Look what he could and should have done. Look at STATEMENT (E), pages 20 and 21 of Mary Hatch's affidavit, where on page 20, lines 24 and 25, Ms. Hatch is asked "Do any of these had a gun when he left? "On page 21, lines 1 and 2. Mary Hatch says," Now I don't know if they took it with them or not. " Yet she rose to the bar. See EXPOSURE (F) pages 526 and 527 of the trial transcript, line 20 to 23 Question, "Who had the gun?" Answer: "Well, they were both handling him in the trailer, but when they left the trailer Ronald Clark had it in his pocket. She sworn 4 months earlier that she was unsure whether or not no we took the gun with us. " See page 527, lines 14 and 15 Mr. Davis said he had no questions. He just let her go up to the "Lie" stand and convince the jury that I left with the gun in my pocket. And how important is all of this? Well, the prosecutor repeats it half a dozen or more times during oral argument to anchor it in the mind of the jury. So it's obviously very important to put this gun in my hand.
Now let's take a look at Billy Jo Beaman's testimony. EXPOSURE (G) pages 529 - 532 of the trial transcripts. We see that she steps up to the bar, puts the gun in my hand and leaves the bar. We see on page 532, lines 10 and 11, that Mr. Davis allows him to lie to the jury, and again, no cross-examination to correct and bring to light what really happened. Now let's look at Exhibit (H) Billy Jo Beaman's Affidavit, taken June 26, 1990 "some five months after the incident", on page 6 lines 20-23, we see that they show him a photo of the gun, and ask if this is the gun you saw Ronald Clark with? She replies: "Yes." It was an incorrect identification! The correct ID would have been a page with several different guns they show her, where she should have been asked to identify the gun she saw. She couldn't do it. She did not see this weapon. She was under the seat of the truck where David was keeping her. And that's where the police picked her up, when she took possession of the truck the next day. Mr. Davis should have opposed it on that sole basis, and quashed that testimony. Again, Chris Swearinger could have discredited his testimony by saying that I pointed a gun at Chris. And again, we have over 20 witnesses who could have testified that they had not seen this. And they spoke to him five months after the incident, which gave his David and David's mother a clear understanding of their story. What they didn't do that well, and I'll show it to you here soon. But Mr. Davis let the Attorney General go up there, and put on the show of a lifetime, doing whatever he wanted without being challenged! Because you have just seen two key witnesses take the bar back to back, place the weapon in my hand without any cross-examination! Without a no dispute! It's either one or two things, ineffective council assistance, called IAC, in the worst case scenario, or the biggest railroad job that exists, where Mr. Davis assists the state in my conviction. Which, I sincerely believe, has happened. No one is so incompetent! That's why you're going to see where Judge Wiggins delays my appeals for over a decade, and then fails me even more with the lawyer he puts in place. When I tell you that the game was worth the candle! It was programmed !!!

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

I will now show you how Assistant DAs Lance Day and Howard Maltz unequivocally make false testimony. For that, we must look at the case of Joseph Lee Strickland Sr. We will examine his affidavit taken on Saturday January 13, 1990 at 8:20 pm. We will cite it as EXPOSED (I). It was taken just a few hours after everything had unfolded. Now he knows David but calls him John. He points to me as the boy with the blond head. If we go to page 10 lines 4-9 Questions from Mr. Maltz Response from Strickland

Q. Did they seem to know what was going on around them? They weren't walking around like they were in a daze or anything like that, were they?
A. The blond-headed boy, he was walking around like he's living, you know, something else, you know, life.
We go to lines 17 to 25. The questions are from Mr. Maltz, the answers are from Mr. Strickland.
Q. Okay. You obviously know there are different levels of alcohol, there is a buzz and there is just a drop ...
A. Oh it's - - they have - - they got a hell of a buzz.
Q. Okay, but some people crumble with no idea where they are.
A. No, it is not a drunken fall.
Q. Q. I see. I see. They weren't so ...
continued on page 11 lines 1-11
A. The boy, he was drunk, the blond-headed boy.
Q. Okay. They...
A. But John - - John he wasn't - - he wasn't.
Q. Okay. Did they always know where they were, did they know what was going on around them?
A. Apparently.
Q. Okay. About what...
A. From what I understand, yes. From what I saw and understood, they - - the blond-headed boy, he was - - I don't know, he was acting like he was gone for something.
Here we are able to understand and see my level of intoxication and that of Hatch's before the prosecutor begins to manipulate the witness and influence the false testimony.
We will now examine pages 426 and 427 of EXPOSURE (J). Joseph Strickland's testimony at trial Questions from Mr. Maltz, answers from Mr. Strickland. From page 426, lines 19-25
Q. Have you ever been around people under the influence of alcoholic beverages?
Yes indeed.
Q. Have you ever worked as a bartender?
Yes indeed
Q. And how long ago was that?
Continued on page 427, lines 1 to 14
A. In 85 and 86.
Q. Very well. And have you had the opportunity to see a lot of people under the influence of alcohol?
Yes indeed.

Q. Let me ask you the following question: How would you describe the manner of the accused as you saw him that day, did you ever see him stumble?
A. No
Q. Have you ever seen him speak with his speech impairment?
A. No.
Q. Did he seem to know what was going on around him?
Yes indeed.

So we saw once again that the jury was misled by unequivocal false testimony orchestrated by the prosecutor's office. And these two assistants to the prosecutor, liars and deceivers, have become sitting judges at the courthouse.
Why did Strickland willfully and openly lie under oath? Let’s see this. Well, Joseph Lee Strickland SR. was a convicted criminal. He lied under oath in the affidavit of January 13, saying that he had never received marijuana. So, they brought charges of perjury against him. He was also holding the stolen weapon. He is therefore a criminal convicted of possession of stolen goods, and in possession of a firearm whose possession is compulsory for 3 years. He left his two year old son in the truck with a loaded gun. Did my lawyer bring all of this? Absolutely not ! As you can see, the bridge was stacked! There was no way for me to have a winning hand in this sham trial.

Let's move on to the testimony of John David Hatch, my childhood friend whom I loved like a brother. I would have died for. And I can still die for him.
Agree in HATCH's written statement taken 1-21-90. We saw on lines 15-16 that he told the driver where to stop. He knew what he was doing and where he wanted to do it. Lines 18-19, it says, "While I was pissing, John D. Hatch heard 7 or 8 gunshots." Ok so we  has established where he is and what he does when the shots are fired he pisses ... If we look at EXPOSURE (K) page 7 of lines 15-17 of Hatch's affidavit "and after I got out I started walking towards, you know towards the side of the road and all I could hear was gunshots. Now, if we look at his testimony at trial, see EXPOSURE ( L) page 448 lines 14-16. “I got out and started walking towards the back of the truck and that's where I heard the gunshot.” ​​This is from my first statement . See EXPOSURE (B) my statement of February 7, 1990. Page 1 lines 18-21 "I went out first, Ronald Clark, then David. Me Ronald Clark walked to the back of the truck and that's when I heard at least 6 (six) gunshots. So we see that David went from flight to flight, which he realized he didn't have enough time to do. So he changes it by walking towards the ditch on the side of the road. And finally, he puts himself in my place in the back of the truck. He doesn't know where he was or where he wants to be, until he is standing at the passenger door with the gun in his hand. The fact that he can't keep his story in order is enough to make everyone doubt. And a good lawyer would have torn David apart on the stand. But we are not done with David's false testimony at trial and in his depositions.
David said he stole the murder weapon from the headboard of the Mecca Ann Baileys bed. See STATEMENT (M) page 479 Trial transcript of Hatch's testimony lines 5-7 Question from the prosecutor Hatch response

Q. And the gun was hidden behind the headboard; is that correct?
A. It was played on the headboard.
We know this is another lie and to verify this moment of unrepentance let's look at the EXHIBITION (N). Ms. Bailey's testimony. page 9 line 9-18
Questions from Mr. Maltz, response from Ms. Mecca Ann Bailey.
Q. I'm going to read you a sentence from a statement by John David Hatch dated January 21st, 1990.
Mr. Maltz, it was given to the police.
Q. It was given to the police. It says: On January 9, 1990, while working at 10165 Owens Road with Don Lee on the renovation of the house, I, John David Hatch, took a .30 caliber pistol in the headboard of a bed.
A. There is no headboard on this bed. There has never been a headboard on this bed. He is not meant to have one.

If my lawyer had called Ms. Mecca Ann Baileys to testify, he would have proven that John David Hatch is perjuring himself again. I understand that this is an insignificant little lie. But those little, meaningless lies add to the arraignment. And totally discrediting the star witness of the States. The jury reportedly said, "We cannot trust what comes out of this man's mouth to be more than a lie. When you lie about the little things you know you won't get the truth about it. the big questions, and we see so many lies in his affidavits and depositions that should have been brought to light for the jury to see.

Let's continue to examine David's compelling testimony by examining EXPOSE (O) pages 28-29 of David Hatch's affidavit of June 27, 1990, where he says we met at the Nassau County Jail and continued the following conversation Questions from Mr. Davis, Answered by John David Hatch lines 1-25

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

Q. When did you see Ronnie Clark after the fact?
A. It was - - the first time I've seen him since I've been in prison, it was in April.
Q. Okay. Where was it ?
A. At the Nassau County Jail.
Q. Okay. Did you have a conversation regarding the case?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay. Have you seen - - have you seen him several times since you were in prison?
A. I saw him another time.
Q. Okay. When was it ?
A. That was about two weeks ago.
Q. Okay. And where was it?
A. In the Nassau County Jail.
Q. Okay. Did you have a discussion with Ronnie Clark at this time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. What was the discussion you had?
A. About everything that happened, how he wished the plan had stayed the same as it started. If it did, none of us would be in the situation we find ourselves in now. I would like...
Q. Did he say which plan he was talking about?
A. Yes, sir.

It is also David's testimony at trial. Please see EXPOSE (P) 475 and 476 of the trial transcripts.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

Had Mr Davis hired an investigator he would have found EXPOSED (Q) An incident report made on May 9, 1990 by Officer Jeannett Sares of the Nassau County Sheriff's Office, where she and Officer Hodges were witnesses to the following incident: "Inmate David Hatch threatened to kill inmate Ronald Clark. I discovered this incident report in 2005, when I acted as a lawyer while going through Hatch's prison files. What this shows is that David is saying that we met two weeks earlier, and that we had this chat which should have taken place the last week of May, but we have an incident report that put personnel on alert. They're not going to allow David and I to date. And it's a document that should and could have been used to help impeach Hatch and keep his testimony out of court. Which would have resulted in a better plea deal than the one proposed. See EXHIBITION (R) Telegram dated September 21, 1990, 2:25 p.m., where the assistant attorney general. Lance Day, contacted Mr. Davis's office, and said, "Re- Ronald Clark- the offer on life is open until September 25". If David had been arraigned the whole case would fall apart, and they come up with a reasonable deal.

Let's take a closer look at this prosecution testimony. Let's look at another little lie David told at the stand. See STATEMENT (S) Page 463 of the trial transcripts. Testimony of Hatch at lines 18 and 19 of the trial.
Questionnaire from the assistant prosecutor Malt. Response, David Hatch

Q. What happened at Jackie's Seafood?
A. Ronald Clark and I left and paid for the beer.

Now the waitress and the hitchhiker should have been found by the investigator and called as witnesses to show David is lying. We can see David's lie just by looking at page 19 of John David Hatch's affidavit of June 13, 1990. There you see David talking about our presence in Jackie's seafood lines 19-21 David states : "So we left Jackie's seafood and went in the back, we left the hitchhiker in there to pay the bill, and got back in the truck. David is lying so badly that he's lying. he can't seem to follow his own story. And you see all this inconsistent testimony could have been used to discredit him. And if I had had a good lawyer, they would have exposed all of this to the jury. They would have held a process. arraignment and a better plea deal would have been put on the table.
We are not finished, far from it! Here we look at EXPOSURE (U) Page 498 of the trial transcript, lines 7-13 of David Hatch's testimony. Questions by Attorney Lance Day, Answers by Hatch.

Q. When you said that Clark told you something at one point, what was it?
A. That he was going to take the man's truck as soon as he pulled up to let us out.
Q. Did you discuss this before you got into the truck?
A. No, sir.
Okay. We will look at two things here. The first is that Hatch says there hasn't been a discussion before. However, if we look at the testimony of Inspector Jerry Jesonek of Wednesday May 16, 1990, pages 42 and 43, starting at line 14, Question M. Maltz, Answer Det Jesonek.
Q. Let me go over something. I want to know if you know anything, based on your investigation, that would tend to refute any of the facts set out in Mr. Hatch's testimony? This is the first thing I want to know, number one. Also, I didn't have to worry a little more about what kind of knowledge or pre-knowledge he had, if any, about what Clark did. Okay ?

In other words, if he was involved in the planning or preparation of Mr. Willis' murder or anything of that nature, why not take care of that first? Okay ? I guess in the lead-up to the interview or during the interview, you asked Hatch: Did you know what he was going to do, if he had a plan.

A. Yes, sir.
Q. What were his responses in this regard?
A. He told me that Mr. Clark had said they were going to kill the first son of a bitch who stopped.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

This is the testimony of Inspector Jerry Jesonek. Which would have proven that Hatch is lying once again on the stand before the jury. And once again, Hatch would have been indicted by a good lawyer. But think about what else it shows. Well if you accept the testimony of the detective here, that the plan was orchestrated before Mr. Willis came looking for us, or even if you accept the story of Hatch that I tell him in the cab of the truck, which would be highly unlikely, anyway we have two issues, its premeditated nature, and Hatch is the one who chooses where this murder is to take place. It is an indisputable testimony! No ifs and buts about it. Hatch chooses the perfect dark and secluded area of ​​US 17 at the exact moment there is no traffic coming! And it is n take it easy! He unequivocally tricked Mr. Willis into this murder. And you can't dispute it!

As we just saw, there was plenty of evidence on file that my lawyer could use against the three key state witnesses. Lance Day was so desperate to get this conviction, that he called two correctional officers from Nassau County to lie and testify, that I told them on the transport that I had shot Mr. Willis. They show up two weeks before the start of my trial. By saying that I said this three months ago. One of them is Chief William R. Brown, who was angry with me for an incident in early 1988 where while working at the Walkers gas station he damaged my father's car. When I came back to town, I was living and working in Savannah, Georgia, my dad gave me a baseball bat; we went to Walker's house, I got out and smashed the front window. That's why Chief William Brown got angry with me, and didn't hesitate to come to the stand and lie for the prosecutor. Over the years we have seen cops on television talk about lying under oath on the stand. There is no risk when the prosecutor's office supports your false testimony. When I spoke to Mr. Davis about it, he said that we didn't want to bring up the fact that you committed a crime against Chief Brown and his employer. None of this was therefore brought to light.

Think about this, why two redneck correctional officers from the backroom contact the attorneys at the DA's office. Nine days before my trial I say I killed Mr. Willis. Think about it. Everyone in the county jail knows that Hatch says I'm the shooter, and I say Hatch is the shooter. If I had said that, surely an incident report would have been written immediately! And they reportedly immediately contacted the Attorney General's office, where they were immediately subpoenaed for an affidavit or deposition. Do you know why they didn't write an incident report? You know why they haven't called Lance Day right now. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is a lie, created by the prosecutor's office to try to consolidate a conviction in a case where they knew their three key witnesses were as fragile as they could get. And the fact that Assistant District Attorney Day and Maltz had Joseph Lee Strickland lie under oath should come as no surprise that they encouraged two junkies in the prison administration to lie for them.

I will now turn to part three, appeals. And if you think you've just witnessed an injustice, you haven't seen anything yet. In this next part, you will see Judge David Cary Wiggins delay appeals, manipulate my lawyer, and do everything in his power to protect the honor and integrity of my trial lawyer who became Judge Henry E. Davis and my trial attorney who became Judge Lance Day. You will be truly amazed at the corruption and unethical conduct that takes place. They will violate a clearly established law, handing over to the state the appeals of my lawyers in violation of solicitor-client privilege. And Judge David C. Wiggins will not relinquish control of this case. Although Florida law requires it. Yes, it's starting to do a lot!

Innocence vs. Ignorance, By Ronald W. Clark Jr

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.


The story needs to be told, now whether it's true or not, I can't tell. But I'm not questioning our American justice system, or the unethical prosecutors and judges.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

James Dailey, is currently on pre-execution watch, waiting to die for a murder he did not commit. While Jack Pearcy confessed to the brutal murder of 14-year-old Shelly Boggio in an affidavit. He was supposed to appear in court to testify to the true facts of the murder. But when he took the stand he refused to speak.

Now there are rumors and speculation that the prosecutor told him, that if he testified, they would make sure he was not paroled. If that's true, and I'm not questioning our unethical justice system, then they'd rather put a child killer back on the streets, and execute an innocent man, than admit another legal blunder. , and one where they nearly murdered another innocent man in the name of justice! Florida has 29 exonerations! TWENTY-NINE innocent men who were to be killed, suffocated by the State! Twenty-nine documented near-fatal errors where they convicted and attempted to kill an innocent citizen. This system The state-run judiciary is riddled with fundamental judicial flaws! It is a state which is incapable of giving such severe and just punishment !!! Twenty-nine innocent men have almost died because of overzealous prosecutors who pursue fame and fortune through political aspirations and the abuse of capital punishment !! And here we are again in the same scenario! Where they try to cover up the facts, rather than finding the truth! The justice of truth and the American way! Well I say: where is the truth and justice in all this ?! Free a potential child killer, and murder an innocent man! It seems the truth lies in the same place as the scales of justice, hidden in the Florida legal cesspool! This is clearly another case, which proves that the great state of Florida is incapable of having such extreme punishment in its care and control. Because when you're ready to bury the truth with an innocent life, and put a potential child killer back on the streets, then your morals are as fundamentally flawed as your judicial process.

In addition to this, you need to know more about it.

God have mercy, for the State of Florida certainly does not have a mercy, compassion, integrity, or moral compass to point them to the righteousness of truth and the American way.