It’s possible that a Charleston woman was killed by her boyfriend over the weekend as a result of the police wanting to protect him as a confidential informant. Publicly, the Charleston police department denies that Desmond Clark was an informant, but the Gazette cites “sources inside the law enforcement and legal system and close to the [woman's] family” who say otherwise. The Daily Mail has reported that “one source familiar with several of Clark’s cases said arresting officers often asked for leniency for Clark because he was an informant.”
It’s appalling to me that this guy wasn’t in prison. He is a convicted felon who has committed a few different gun crimes and who has a four- to five-year history of abusing his girlfriend, including shooting her (the bullet grazed her leg), yet the most he was ever sentenced to was two years of probation. And now she’s dead.
Most people in Charleston have probably seen this surveillance video from a Taco Bell on the West Side. It shows a woman running into the restaurant and jumping over the counter, followed several seconds later by a man running in and jumping over the counter. You then see all of the people in the restaurant scatter, presumably after hearing Clark fire six shots at his girlfriend, who was hiding in a closet.
Unsurprisingly, Clark has a history of domestic violence charges against his now-deceased girlfriend, Nilisha Gravely. They reportedly had been together for five years, and she accused him of domestic battery in September 2004, which means the abuse must have started not long after they began their relationship, when she was 16 and he was 18.
The guy’s got so many domestic violence charges I’m going to list them in bullet form (sorry for the unfortunate pun):
- In February 2005, he broke her nose.*
- In October 2005, he kicked her, dragged her by the hair, and forced her into a car.
- In January 2007, he choked her and pulled her out of her car. He was charged with domestic battery and released on bond.
- Later that month, he tracked her down at her grandmother’s house, forced her into his car, and fired a shot into the air. He was charged with two counts of wanton endangerment and two counts of burglary. He was put on home confinement, then he cut off his ankle bracelet.
- In April 2007, he stabbed her with a kitchen knife in her apartment. She left the apartment covered in blood, stumbled up the street, and flagged down the police, but Clark “eluded” them.
- In May 2007, he grabbed her and pushed her into a car. He shot at her, grazing her leg. He drove around for several hours, saying that he’d shoot at police if they tried to apprehend him. She managed to escape. And so did he.
- In June 2007, Clark was arrested and charged with unlawful malicious wounding (a felony) and violating a home confinement order (a misdemeanor). He was released on bond in July 2007 and was apparently put on home confinement again. In October 2007, Clark was removed from home confinement so that he could start a job as a security guard.
- In December 2007, it was Clark who got shot. Police say that forty minutes later, two of Clark’s “associates” shot and killed a man on the East End in retaliation.
In January 2008, Clark pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling, battery, and domestic battery as part of a plea deal that dismissed charges of breaking and entering, entering without breaking, brandishing, and two counts of domestic battery. He was sentenced to two years of probation.
The standard for sentencing a person to probation is that the person is “not likely again to commit crime and that the public good does not require that he be fined or imprisoned.” I think we can all agree that the idea that Clark was “not likely again to commit crime” does not pass the laugh test.
While on probation in May of this year, Clark was arrested and charged with domestic battery for punching Gravely in the stomach. She filed a domestic violence petition against him and was granted a protective order on May 28th, which prohibited Clark from having contact with her for three months. On July 5th, he killed her.
In addition to abusing his girlfriend, Clark was also accused of battery against a corrections officer and he had other gun and drug charges that were dismissed because police failed to show up to testify. That was apparently an ongoing problem when it came to charges against Clark—the police wouldn’t show up to testify against him. According to “sources,” it was because he was a confidential informant.
The head of the Metro Drug Unit emphatically denies that Clark was an informant for the drug unit and says that because of his criminal history they would not have used him as an informant if he had asked. But the chief detective for the police department, who also denies using Clark as an informant, says that he wouldn’t know whether anyone else was using him as one.
The Chief of Police said: “When I called all three investigation divisions, they all said the same thing: ‘He was a target for us.’” If that’s true, then why the hell didn’t they lock up their “target” after one of his numerous arrests/convictions? Just this past December he was involved at some level in a man’s murder, then in January he gets probation?
Mayor Danny Jones called a press conference earlier today to respond to the Gazette article. He held up the paper with the big, front page headline that reads “Was Clark an informant?” and said no, he was not. He also basically blamed Gravely for being a “reluctant witness.”
The mayor explained the reason for repeated lack of convictions and short jail stints for Clark was the result of “reluctant witnesses.”
“Obviously one (witness) in particular, and that’s the saddest part of all,” Jones said about Nalisha Gravely. “We did everything we could and police did everything they could to lock him up.”
Classy. I don’t think they did everything they could, considering the fact that police officers didn’t show up to testify.
So for now, I guess it remains a mystery. The mayor and the police seem pretty emphatic, but then again, I wouldn’t expect them to reveal Clark’s status as an informant if he was one. What I’d really like to know is who those unnamed sources are.
Either way—whether he was an informant or not—the legal system seriously screwed up by not locking this guy up. I know that domestic violence cases can be difficult for prosecutors, since victims are often afraid to testify against their abusers. (Afraid, not reluctant.) But when the police don’t even show up to testify, then I’m not buying the claim that they did everything they could. And now a woman is dead because of it, and a two-year-old boy is going to grow up without his mother.
* Please forgive me for dispensing with the “allegedly’s.”
Notice how this story never really broke hard on a regional or national basis? Interesting! This story would bust some of the elite wide open for exposure if the right investigative reporter gets the REAL facts and the unknown facts, most likely, effectively covered up by now. We have not had our say on this matter yet, because we are still digging ourselves. Sooner or later, someone will pop to the surface and hopefully that won’t be popping up in the river. Good work RED but probably not a good idea to tell anybody you ever even heard of us.