#1 Posted by joepryor23 on July 31, 2007 at 12:25 p.m.

Why did they argue for a new trial? Guess we'll have to wait for the Palm Beach Post story.

#2 Posted by Dick_Johnson on July 31, 2007 at 12:34 p.m. 

Whah! Please don't put me in jail! I won't steal anymore, I promise! Whah!
LOL
crooks.....get what you deserve.

#3 Posted by Hello on July 31, 2007 at 1:20 p.m. 

I can't believe Mrs. Clark allowed somebody (an employee) to go into her safe deposit box. Who ever said criminals were smart? Totally stupid people that is why they get caught. The moral of this story is that crime does not pay! I wonder if the employee collected a cash reward for turning them in? Dumb criminals!

#4 Posted by Jamess on July 31, 2007 at 1:33 p.m

Glad to see this thief is going to prison.

#5 Posted by debbiehawkins on July 31, 2007 at 1:55 p.m.

Embezzle from your employer and get probation. Steal from an insurance company, and get 10-15 years.

Why is that?

#6 Posted by Hello on July 31, 2007 at 2:38 p.m. 

debbiehawkins:

Good points...Donna whats her name got 10 years for embezzling but the insurance company here got these folks 15. I thought stealing was stealing?

#7 Posted by debbiehawkins on August 1, 2007 at 5:45 a.m. 

Somehow, a part of me thinks that the Clarks never dreamed the penalty would be so severe. For the last ten years, I've watched prosecutors and judges hand out probation and even withhold adjudication to various embezzlers and white collar criminals--a PSL school teacher comes to mind, for example. It looked like if you robbed with a gun, the prosecutors knew what to do, but if you robbed with a pen, you got off lightly. Relatively speaking, the Clarks got hammered. Maybe this will make the next "first time felon" think twice before sticking his or her hand in the company cash register.

#8 Posted by KevinR on August 1, 2007 at 7:05 a.m.

His attorney, Jerome Stone sounds like he had unrealistic expectations that he fed to his client. This guy deserved even more time if you ask me. The fact that he has children who will miss him has absolutely no impact on me whatsoever. The thief of a father should have considered that before committing grand theft and insurance fraud.

#9 Posted by steveswamson on August 1, 2007 at 8:38 a.m.

If you know anyone that is in trouble with the law, Jerome Stone is absolutely the worst lawyer to refer them to. His office is so unorganized & unprofessional. He doesn't return phone calls & is very unprepared for all his cases. His only fame is that he worked at Willie Gary's office.

#10 Posted by CaptJackSparrow on August 1, 2007 at 9:24 a.m. 

Steve, First, your return to Freedom was not part of the prosecutor's negotiations nor our agreement, so we must do nothin'. And secondly, you must be Honest for the Innocent Code to apply, and you're not. And thirdly, the Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome to Prison Mr Boyce. Arrrrrrrgggg

#11 Posted by tcainc on August 1, 2007 at 10:28 a.m. 

LOL Capt!

#12 Posted by jrobinette on August 1, 2007 at 11:01 a.m.

I seem to remember a disgruntled employee was involved in their demise.

They we throwing homosexual slurs around to combat the accusations too....

Sad for the kids but ... don't steal and you won't do time!

#13 Posted by jrobinette on August 1, 2007 at 11:13 a.m. 

NOW I REMEMBER..... it was his gay lover/employee who turned him in.

Watch the video and the lawyer mentions it.

#14 Posted by avad1228 on August 1, 2007 at 11:24 a.m. 

I never thought this guy would stick around for sentencing. Maybe he never thought he would go to jail. The wife got what?

#15 Posted by kramerandnewman on August 1, 2007 at 3:02 p.m. 

You are all blind to the facts of the case. You rely on the press to translate only the information that sells newspapers. Each member of the jury will need to comfortably place their heads on their pillows each night and sleep with an undisturbed conscience. Knowing they sent an innocent man to prison for something he is incapable of doing.

I was there every day and listened to every second of testimony. I was shocked that the jury didn’t hear the same testimony as the rest of the gallery. Here are some facts that you all need to be aware of that came out during the trial.

• The only piece of evidence (1.19 ct diamond) was found in a safe deposit box not owned by Mr. Clark. The safe deposit box was owned by his estranged wife. Bank records show that he had never had access to this box.

• In 2003 Mr. Clark informed his wife that he was gay and that he wasn’t happy in the marriage they established.

• Mrs. Clark began to embezzle cash and jewels to stock pile for a life of comfort once the marriage was dissolved.

• During a domestic violence investigation between the Clark’s; Mrs. Clark informed investigators that the robbery never happened expecting and hoping that Mr. Clark and Mr. Clark alone would be brought up on charges for insurance fraud and sent to prison. Mrs. Clark never expected her comments to backfire and send her to prison.

• Each jewel/stone that was in the box that was stolen were wrapped in their respective “CERT”. An envelope like package that contains the certification of the stone. An experienced jeweler can look into their jeweler’s box and quickly fan through the “CERT’s” to determine what they have in stock. Valuable stones aren’t loosely placed in a box to bounce around on one another.

• The jewel box was stolen along with the “certs” inside. However the 1.19 diamond wasn’t in the box. The “cert” was in the box, but the diamond wasn’t in the “cert”. The diamond had already been lifted by Mrs. Clark and hidden from her estranged husband.

• During the trial, Mr. Clark told investigators that while he was opening his store an individual came into the store to browse his merchandise. He went through his normal routine which included rewinding the security tape for a new day.

• Investigators failed to find on the security tape the customer Mr. Clark described in the store at the time of the robbery. However, during the trial the security tape was “fast forwarded” to the end instead of rewound to the beginning. At the end of the tape it clearly shows the same individual Mr. Clark identified to the investigators. Mr. Clark obviously, through his daily routine pressed the rewind button on the security system after the individual came into the store.

#16 Posted by kramerandnewman on August 1, 2007 at 3:03 p.m. 

• During the trial the Property Management Company that leased the retail space to Wendalyn’s gave testimony that their property cameras didn’t show any person fitting the description that Mr. Clark gave to investigators entering the jewelry store. These same videos also didn’t show Mr. Clark entering the jewelry store.

• Extensive recorded interviews with investigators took place on several different dates. On all occasions you hear Mr. Clark explain the same details over and over again. Never faltering from his original testimony. One significant piece of evidence is the fact that Mr. Clark tells investigators that “he is seriously scared that his insurance company may not settle the claim due to the fact that the front door had remained open during his morning setup”. He continues to tell the investigator that “if the insurance company doesn’t settle the claim that he would be forced into bankruptcy due to the fact that he would have to reimburse his investors out of his own pocket”. Why would someone stage a robbery knowing if the insurance company doesn’t settle he would have to file bankruptcy?

• Testimony from Mr. Clark’s former lover holds no credibility. This individual has been in trouble with the law on several occasions and had promised others that he would get even with Mr. Clark for ending their relationship.

• Testimony from the former disgruntled employees had no credibility. These individuals conspired their stories due to the fact Mr. Clark had accused them of stealing from the store.

#17 Posted by bigdawgmz3 on August 1, 2007 at 3:08 p.m. 

The woman who stole 1.5 million from PB County Visitors Bureau got 10 years and this guy gets 15 years for 130K???? The system is really messed up north of the "border". The Treasure Coast is still run by backwoods yocals.

#18 Posted by rraido on August 1, 2007 at 8:07 p.m. 

I guess I missed something somewhere, but I thought you had to be PROVEN guilty, not suspected of being guilty. I guess "reasonable doubt" has nothing to do with anything; or ANY kind of doubt for that matter. This does not appear to be a balanced scale by any stretch of the imagination. I am becoming increasingly convinced that justice is NOT served in the sunshine state, unless, of course, you have really deep pockets. What a shame. What a travesty. Yes, bigdawgmz, it's indeed "messed up". :-(