The case against Jerry Hill: my Florida Bar complaint for his Leo Schofield misconduct
The former State Attorney's 2023 false statements to the Florida Commission on Offender Review - and his abusive behavior toward the public - clearly violate the plain language of Florida Bar rules.
I filed this complaint with the Florida Bar via email on July 3. I’m publishing it here so that anyone can access it.
The complaint has an executive summary and then a detailed discussion of the two incidents of Jerry Hill’s behavior — in 2020 and 2023 — that form the factual basis of the complaint. The full document will likely truncate in email; so I would encourage you to click through to the actual website post.
Complaint concerning former 10th Circuit State Attorney Jerry Hill’s misconduct in the Leo Schofield case
June 30, 2023
Alleged rule violations
The specific allegations of my complaint fall into three buckets:
4.3.3. – Candor toward the tribunal
4.8.4. (c) and (d) -- Misconduct
4.4.1 – Truthfulness in statements to others
Incidents in which Jerry Hill violated one or more of these rules as a private lawyer
1. Jan. 8, 2020, Leo Schofield parole hearing before the Florida Commission on Offender Review (FCOR)
2. March 7, 2023, responding to a citizen’s question about his FCOR appearance with “Fuck you” just before an open meeting of the Polk County Commission.
Executive Summary
On May 3, 2023, former Florida prosecutor and current State Sen. Jonathan Martin, R-Fort Myers, chair of Senate’s Criminal Justice Committee appeared before the Florida Commission on Offender Review (FCOR) to advocate parole for Leo Schofield Jr.
Martin blasted the prosecution, conviction, and continued incarceration of Leo Schofield Jr., which has recently generated new publicity and media attention through the Bone Valley podcast.
“Everything that I’ve seen about this case turns my stomach. I don’t know why Leo Schofield wasn’t released years ago when he went before this board.
“You have the opportunity to release him immediately. He wasn’t released last time because he wasn’t remorseful. You cannot be remorseful for something you did not do. It’s not your job to consider guilt or innocence, but if you are going to consider whether someone is remorseful and whether they should be released today or should have been released years ago, you have to at least crack the transcript, wonder why the fingerprints of a serial killer were inside Michelle’s car and were never tested and never presented to the jury in Polk County over 30 years ago. I was 5-years-old of when Leo Schofield started doing time for this murder.
“I stand by the criminal justice system here in the state of Florida. We’re one of the best on the planet. But there’s a whole lot of doubt right now about how good we are. You guys have the chance today to restore credibility to a system that thousands of people know an injustice happened and is continuing every single second that Leo Schofield is behind bars.”
Longtime former 10th Circuit State Attorney Gerald Paul “Jerry” Hill is the number one reason for the ongoing, stomach-turning injustice cited by Martin – and the profound doubt in our state system that Martin identified.
Hill’s misconduct in Schofield case comes both as elected state attorney and as private lawyer
While Hill was elected state attorney for the 10th Circuit, his office tried Lakeland man Jeremy Scott twice for two different Polk County murders – one in 1985 and another in 1988. A jury acquitted Scott on the first and convicted him on the second. Scott has since been connected to a third murder, from 1987, in nearby Osceola County. [The third murder is detailed in Bone Valley.]
Jeremy Scott has also confessed multiple times, in thorough and escalating detail, to a fourth Central Florida murder in this area and time frame – the 1987 stabbing of Lakeland resident Michelle Schofield. Moreover, Scott left a handprint on her car the night she was killed.
Yet, Hill’s office and 10th Circuit judges have steadfastly refused to consider Scott as a suspect in Michelle Schofield’s killing. They are indifferent to his confessions, his physical evidence, and fact that Scott was likely the most dangerous and violent person in Polk County between 1985 and 1988. Scott’s extensive history of violence as a young man includes rape and brutal domestic violence, in addition to the murders. This is also detailed in Bone Valley.
By contrast, no physical or eyewitness evidence has ever connected Leo Schofield to his wife’s killing. Yet Leo Schofield has been in prison for more than 30 years, largely because of the incompetence of his defense lawyer in his 1989 trial and the unwavering refusal for the state to consider Jeremy Scott a suspect.
No jury has ever heard any of Scott’s confessions or considered his physical evidence in the Michelle Schofield murder. Polk County’s 10th Judicial Circuit – its prosecutors and judges – have never allowed it.
As elected state attorney, Jerry Hill oversaw Schofield’s prosecution, which did not test the fingerprint later found to be Scott’s, destroyed hair evidence, and aggressively fought for Schofield’s continued incarceration after the fingerprint and confessions emerged.
But Hill’s misconduct did not end after his retirement as State Attorney in 2016. His misconduct has only deepened after leaving office and acting as a private lawyer.
Uncorrected falsehoods spoken by a private lawyer to influence a tribunal
Recall that Sen. Jonathan Martin said “[Schofield] wasn’t released last time because he wasn’t remorseful. You cannot be remorseful for something you did not do.”
The “last time” Sen. Martin is referring to was Leo Schofield’s Jan. 8, 2020, parole hearing before the Florida Commission on Offender Review (FCOR).
At that hearing, Jerry Hill spoke as a private lawyer “on behalf of” current 10th Judicial Circuit State Attorney Brian Haas. [See Exhibit 1 for full transcript of his statement.] Hill was the only person who spoke on behalf of the state or for denying Leo Schofield parole at the hearing. Hill relentlessly attacked Leo Schofield’s character for continuing to assert his innocence.
In his testimony/argument, Hill also made at least three blatantly false, uncorrected, material statements, including this one: “In September, the defendant sends a letter to counsel admitting to the murder of Mrs. Schofield.”
Leo Schofield has never wavered in declaring his innocence. Hill’s statement is either an egregious, uncorrected mistake – or a blatant lie. The line between the two is very hazy, as you’ll see in Hill’s full statement.
Hill’s client, the 10th Judicial Circuit State Attorney’s Office, acknowledges Hill’s falsehoods, while trying to explain them away as accidental or unimportant.
In addition to the three specific false statements, Hill’s 2020 testimony/argument was profoundly misleading and prejudicial in two overall, general ways:
Repeated, constant conflation of Leo Schofield Jr. and his father, Leo Schofield Sr. in ways so imprecise and careless as to suggest an intentional effort to confuse the public and the commissioners.
Repeated attacks on Leo Schofield’s lack of remorse and his personal character, unsupported in any way by his record as 30-plus year inmate.
Hill’s behavior as a private lawyer in the 2020 hearing, on behalf the public, which was his ultimate client, was so appalling that the State Attorney’s Office did not bring him back to represent it for the 2023 hearing.
Clear violation of the Bar’s rules about “misconduct” and “candor toward the tribunal”
Whether Hill intended to lie and willfully confuse the public and the commissioners is a difficult question to resolve definitively without an open confession from Hill, who has now gone silent on his behavior and the Schofield case as a whole.
I believe the totality of the evidence clearly says Hill acted with intent to deceive the FCOR and the public. Hill’s ongoing, three-year failure to correct the record after the fact also speaks loudly to his intent.
However, the Florida Bar does not have to make any determination about Hill’s intent at the time of the 2020 statements in question, according to Florida Bar Rule 4.3.3. – “Candor toward the tribunal.”
That rule states in part:
“A lawyer shall not knowingly:(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer”
Hill’s false statements of material fact, which he clearly made on “on behalf of Brian Haas, state attorney of the 10th circuit,” clearly violate rule 4.3.3. As of this writing, he has “knowingly” failed to correct them in public for more than three years.
Hill’s statements at the 2020 FCOR hearing also violate Florida Bar Rule 4.8.4, concerning “Misconduct.” Parts (c) and (d) are directly on point.
They forbid a lawyer to “engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation” or to “engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis.”
Hill’s testimony and subsequent failure to correct the record demonstrates, at the very least, “callous indifference” to the public and truth. As of this writing, Hill’s failure to correct the public record from his Jan. 8, 2020 testimony means he is actively engaging “in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”
Moreover, Hill knew that Schofield was standing on a claim of innocence and was asking for parole based on his many years as a model inmate and man of proven character. Yet, Hill repeatedly attacked Schofield’s character for asserting his innocence. In doing so, Hill did “knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate” Leo Schofield in a way was “prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
Rather than address his candor and misconduct, Hill has responded with profanity and then silence
Hill has sullenly refused every opportunity to correct the record and repair the damage to justice that he caused with his 2020 FCOR appearance.
On March 7, 2023, Hill responded to a question I asked in a public setting about the truthfulness of his FCOR appearance by snapping, “Fuck you.” This happened in the Polk County Commission chambers, just moments before the beginning of a public meeting. This abusive behavior also violates the Bar’s misconduct rules. This incident forms the fact basis of my complaint’s second count.
To my knowledge, Hill has not spoken in public about the Schofield case since the “Fuck you” incident.
Hill did not attend the same May 3, 2023, FCOR hearing for Leo Schofield that Sen. Jonathan Martin did. Hill did not use that occasion to address his misconduct and material violation of candor toward the FCOR in 2020. Thus, his 2020 material violation of candor and misconduct continues unabated.
The Florida Bar has an important role in guarding the credibility of the state legal system and the lawyers who practice within it. That’s why I’m coming to you today with these specific allegations regarding Hill’s conduct as a private lawyer – and a more general plea for review of his handling of the entire case while an elected official.
Some sort of special counsel should be appointed to investigate Hill’s overall leadership of the case against Leo Schofield and the state’s repeated failure to allow a jury to see plainly exculpatory evidence.
I recognize that the Florida Bar may have limited ability to investigate and sanction Hill for his conduct as an elected official. But the Bar could offer a public recommendation for a larger investigation of the handling of the case.
Remember Sen. Martin’s plea to the FCOR:
“I stand by the criminal justice system here in the state of Florida. We’re one of the best on the planet. But there’s a whole lot of doubt right now about how good we are. You guys have the chance today to restore credibility to a system that thousands of people know an injustice happened and is continuing every single second that Leo Schofield is behind bars.”
Summary of allegations and supporting facts
Count 1: Jan. 8, 2020, Leo Schofield parole hearing before the Florida Commission on Offender Review (FCOR)
On January 8, 2020, Jerry Hill spoke as a private lawyer “on behalf of” current 10th Judicial Circuit State Attorney Brian Haas at the previously discussed parole hearing for Leo Schofield. [See Exhibit 1 for full transcript.] The official name of the parole governing body is the Florida Commission on Offender Review. (FCOR)
Three flatly false material statements
Hill made three at least three flatly false, prejudicial statements, repeated as follows: (On the third, note the part in bold, which is the material false statement, put into context.)
1. “In September, the defendant sends a letter to counsel admitting to the murder of Mrs. Schofield.”
2. “Year and a half ago, we’re in courtrooms in Bartow, where he produces a fella by the name of Jeremy Scott, who he says has confessed to the crime. He calls it newly discovered evidence.”
3. “Leo said uh he began to search, the closer he got to Michelle, the worse his head hurt. He saw an opening in some bushes along where a pit was, and as he searched along the sides of the pit looking for her shoes, and stepped up into this opening, he looked in the water and saw a white arm from under the board. He said he continued to look and saw that it was Michelle. He then flagged down the car. Found it by some… super intervention. I think this is worthy of note. On 16 March 87, at about 14:50 hours, Leo Schofield Senior and Junior, dad’s always with him, arrived at the C.I.S. Central Operations Building where Leo was to take a polygraph.”
Let me document the falsehood of each specific statement:
1) “The defendant sends a letter to counsel admitting to the murder of Mrs. Schofield.”
This statement is simply false. This never happened. Leo Schofield has never stopped maintaining his innocence.
As of this writing, Hill has not responded to emails about this falsehood. But the 10th Circuit State Attorney’s Office declares it “obvious” Hill was referring to Jeremy Scott.
This is absurd because Jeremy Scott is obviously not the “defendant” in the Leo Schofield case. Scott is the 10th Circuit-convicted murderer who has confessed multiple times, in escalating detail, to Michelle Schofield’s murder — and who left physical evidence on Michelle Schofield’s car the night she was killed.
Moreover, in his FCOR statement, Jerry Hill referred to Leo Schofield as “defendant” 18 times before he declared: “In September, the defendant sends a letter to counsel admitting to the murder of Mrs. Schofield.”
If Hill meant to switch to Scott as “defendant” on the 19th reference, it was the first and only time — just one of 19 examples — in which Hill referred to Scott as “defendant.” It allowed Hill to declare Leo Schofield a confessed murderer, by supposed, uncorrected accident.
If this was an error by Jerry Hill, on behalf of his client, it should have been immediately corrected by Hill or the client. Obviously, any uncorrected, false assertion that a defendant standing on his innocence actually confessed to the crime is deeply prejudicial to a tribunal. This is the opposite of “candor” toward a tribunal.
2) “Year and a half ago, we’re in courtrooms in Bartow, where he produces a fella by the name of Jeremy Scott …”
To say Leo Schofield, circa 2018, “produces a fella by the name of Jeremy Scott” as exculpatory is blatantly false.
Jeremy Scott was produced as the prime suspect in Michelle Schofield’s killing 14 years earlier in 2004. That’s when a finger/palm print found on Michelle Schofield’s car was finally checked against criminal databases, which was not done for trial in 1989. An evidentiary hearing built around Jeremy Scott and the evidence against Scott occurred in 2010.
Hill’s statement is prejudicial in that it seeks to diminish the seriousness and durability of Schofield’s claims of innocence by pretending he just produced Scott out of some sense of 11th hour desperation. It belies the fact that Leo Schofield has always maintained his innocence and always maintained that the evidence against Scott points to him as the actual killer – for roughly 20 years now.
3) “Dad’s always with him”
Hill’s “dad’s always with him” statement is very important to his testimony because it clearly asserts that Leo Jr. and Leo Sr. found Michelle’s body together. They were “always” together, in Hill’s telling. That is false. Leo Jr. was not with Leo Sr. when Leo Sr. found the body.
Moreover, Leo Schofield Sr.’s so-called “premonition” that supposedly led him to find Michelle Schofield’s body is very important to the state’s case. The state has often used Leo Schofield Sr.’s “premonition” to incriminate Leo Schofield Jr. by implication – to say Leo Jr. must have known where Michelle’s body was because Leo Schofield Sr. claimed to have a premonition from God.
“Dad’s always with him” puts the Leos together in that context. This is false and prejudicial.
If Leo Schofield Jr. was present when his father found Michelle’s body, it could somewhat bolster the state’s case, which is based entirely on strained inference and innuendo. But Leo Schofield Jr. was not “always” with his father and was not present when Michelle Schofield was found.
Statement number 3 bears directly on my general complaint concerning Hill’s repeated references to Leo Schofield Sr., made in a confusing variety of different names, nouns, and pronouns. And it bears on Hill’s repeated conflation “Leo” Sr. and “Leo” Jr., using only first names, with only the barest of verbal footnotes to distinguish them.
Reckless, likely intentional, imprecision in describing Leo Schofield Jr. and Leo Schofield Sr.
Leo Schofield Sr. has never been charged or implicated in any way in Michelle Schofield’s killing. But Hill’s Office and prosecutor once considered him the prime suspect, according to Leo Schofield Jr., as discussed in the podcast Bone Valley.
Leo Schofield Jr. claims that lead prosecutor John Aguero told him in a private, pre-trial meeting that he believed Leo Schofield Sr. actually killed Michelle. Aguero pushed Schofield Jr. to blame Schofield Sr. and testify against him, according to Leo Schofield Jr. When Schofield Jr. would not blame his father for the killing, Aguero moved to prosecute Schofield Jr. for the crime, according to Schofield Jr.
That background is important for explaining why Jerry Hill chose to refer to Leo Schofield Sr., who is irrelevant to the case, at least 25 times in his 2020 testimony/argument against Leo Schofield Jr.’s parole.
The totality of Hill’s statement has the effect of making Leo Schofield Sr. an extension of Leo Schofield Jr., someone whose actions define Leo Schofield Jr.’s guilt or innocence. But Leo Schofield Sr. was not up for parole because Hill’s office never sought to prosecute him. Hill had no reason to include him in his testimony/argument except to confuse commissioners and the public with interchangeable names, particularly in addressing the circumstances under which Leo Schofield Sr. found Michelle Schofield’s dead body.
By my count, Hill referred to Leo Schofield Sr. 25 times in his testimony/argument using seven different ways of identifying him – including 15 times where he simply referred to Leo Schofield Sr. using male pronouns.
For comparison, Hill referred to Leo Schofield Jr., who was actually the subject of the hearing, 52 times, by my count, using 12 different ways of identifying him, including male pronouns.
That imprecision in identity is highly prejudicial in a case in which the prosecution uses Leo Schofield Sr.’s actions as evidence of Leo Schofield Jr.’s guilt. I encourage any investigator to listen to the audio file in its entirety, put yourself in the place of the commissioners or the public, and determine if you could follow and process in real time Hill’s shifting arguments and references to Schofield Sr. and Jr.
Here is an extended passage that illustrates Hill’s reckless imprecision (or intentional efforts to conflate and confuse) in discussing Leo Schofield Jr. and Sr.
Only a person with deep, intimate knowledge of the case and its players could even attempt to follow this in real time as spoken, while separating the irrelevant role of Leo Schofield Sr. from the state’s accusations against Leo Schofield Jr.
“The defendant's car and his wife's car was abandoned on I-4. It was discovered by the father and Leo before law enforcement could find it. Mrs. Schofield’s body was discovered in a canal located in a heavily wooded area on the morning of February 27th, 87, by Leo Schofield, Senior. Mr. Schofield claimed at various times that God’s voice, or a premonition, led him to her body. Or that an inner force had driven him to that location. And the reason I’m going over this is that he’s never admitted his guilt!
“During the investigation, Mr. Schofield Senior interfered with law enforcement when they attempted to survey the master bedroom in the trailer, a possible crime scene. It was in disarray, dresser drawer broken, missing sheets from the bed. Mr. Schofield became angry, and barred law enforcement from entering the trailer the day the victim was discovered. The defendant was with him at that time, side by side. Immediately following Ms. Schofield’s funeral, the defendant was out to clubs and dating other women. He did not assist in planning the funeral.
“Very quickly, some law enforcement notes, too. Very quickly.
“Again, how was the body found? Leo said he was driven by an inner force to go back to the pit area again, and on Friday he started searching along State Road 33. Leo said he felt drawn to that area and felt that Michelle was calling out to him. He said he had told Detective Russell that his daughter-in-law was within a certain distance.
“Leo said uh he began to search, the closer he got to Michelle, the worse his head hurt. He saw an opening in some bushes along where a pit was, and as he searched along the sides of the pit looking for her shoes, and stepped up into this opening, he looked in the water and saw a white arm from under the board. He said he continued to look and saw that it was Michelle. He then flagged down the car. Found it by some… super intervention. I think this is worthy of note. On 16 March 87, at about 14:50 hours, Leo Schofield Senior and Junior, dad’s always with him, arrived at the C.I.S. Central Operations Building where Leo was to take a polygraph.”
Again, “dad’s always with him,” is the kicker here, which clearly creates the impression that Leo Jr. and Sr. were together when Leo Schofield Sr. found Michelle Schofield’s body.
Hill’s imprecision often makes it impossible to know when he’s talking about which Leo unless you know already that father and son did not find the body together. But even then, even if you know that, Hill tells you: “Dad’s always with him.” That’s the state’s official position.
Leo Schofield Sr.’s so-called “premonition” or “super intervention” is crucial to the state’s case, which illustrates how weak the case is. Making the commissioners hear “Leo” had a premonition and that “dad’s always with him” extends the premonition, as evidence, to Leo Schofield Jr. That’s why this conflation of Leos is so material and in such bad faith.
Tellingly, Hill only refers to Leo Schofield Jr. and Sr. interchangeably as “Leo” in discussing how Michelle Schofield’s body was found. That’s when it would be most helpful to Hill’s argument against parole for commissioners to confuse Leo Schofield Jr. and Leo Schofield Sr.
The importance of Leo Schofield Sr.’s supposed premonition the state’s fatally weak case is one of two reasons I allege that Hill intended to conflate the Leos.
The other reason is Hill’s reaction to me three years later, on March 7, 2023, when I asked him when he was going to correct his conflation, which I referred to as a lie.
I’ll cover Hill’s profane abusivesness in Count 2.
But Hill also told me, as means of exonerating himself: “What’s the father’s name, Billy? It’s Leo.” That doesn’t suggest an error or sloppiness. That suggests a lawyer who has never stopped thinking hard about how to bamboozle the tribunal with “Leo said he was driven by an inner force to go back to the pit area again” while keeping a Get-out-of-jail-free card in his rhetorical back pocket.
Indeed, investigators should ask Jerry Hill, point blank, why he chose not to refer to Leo Schofield Sr. consistently as “Leo Schofield Sr.” and Leo Schofield Jr. as “Leo Schofield Jr.” – as I have here – for the sake of clarity for the tribunal. They should ask why he only drops into “Leo” at the most crucial and helpful moment for conflation.
The only two possible answers are 1) bad faith intent to confuse 2) incompetent argument. Hill should be forced to acknowledge one of the two – or both.
Bad faith, unsupported attack on Leo Schofield’s character and right to assert innocence
One notices that Jerry Hill could not, in 2020, cite a single piece of physical or eyewitness evidence connecting Leo Schofield Jr., who maintains his innocence, to his wife’s murder.
By contrast, Jeremy Scott, a convicted murderer, has confessed multiple times in escalating detail to killing Michelle Schofield. He also left a fingerprint on her car.
This imbalance of the evidence — overwhelming evidence against Jeremy Scott, none against Leo Schofield — makes Hill’s most significant and obviously false statement all the more material and important.
Private lawyer Jerry Hill, acting on behalf of the 10th Circuit State Attorney, attacked Leo Schofield’s innocence claim with a factual falsehood never corrected in public for the record. Hill asserted: “In September, the defendant sends a letter to counsel admitting to the murder of Mrs. Schofield.”
As already noted, “the defendant” Leo Schofield Jr. has never confessed to killing his wife, as the 10th SAO acknowledges today. Convicted murderer Jeremy Scott is the only person who has ever confessed to killing Michelle Schofield.
Thus Hill, facing a total vacuum of evidence against Schofield, invented evidence against Schofield — a confession — that does not exist. That’s an awfully powerful way of closing the imbalance in evidence.
Jerry Hill may have intended to refer to Scott when he gave this flatly false statement; but Hill has never said that. And investigators should demand that he clarify publicly and for the record.
Moreover, the SAO’s theory that Hill unintentionally misspoke about Leo Scofield Jr. admitting guilt is severely undercut by the entirety of Hill’s testimony/argument to the commissioners.
Here’s just one example of Hill attacking Leo Schofield Jr.’s character and fitness for release entirely because Schofield will not admit to or express remorse for a crime he did not commit. It was the first thing Hill said to commissioners after introducing himself:
“I listened to that presentation, and how this individual has taken advantage of a lot of opportunities. But folks, I gotta point out an absolute glaring hole in that presentation. I didn't hear one word about regret, sorrow, wish I hadn't done it, I was a different person then.”
Here’s another example, near the end, where Hill attacked Leo Schofield’s character because Leo Schofield had the temerity to assert innocence. Hear the unprofessional sarcasm drip off Hill’s tongue:
“Lastly, let’s bring it current. This good man. Year and a half ago, we’re in courtrooms in Bartow, where he produces a fella by the name of Jeremy Scott, who he says has confessed to the crime. He calls it newly discovered evidence. Now, we know Jeremy Scott broke into that car and took the radio, that was his M.O. during that particular time. After the defendant’s trial in 89, fingerprints were found in the car, they belonged to uh Jeremy Scott. Uh, and then the defendant starts filing motions on newly discovered evidence, it wasn’t newly discovered, and Scott testified he stole the equipment. Now this is the man that our good defendant is going to put on the stand to help him out. This is the quality individual that we’re dealing with. This is the character that we’re talking about.”
Those two passages – and others – put the blatant falsehood about Leo Schofield’s non-existent confession in the correct context.
And it’s vital to note that Hill was emotionally desperate to impeach Leo Schofield’s consistent claim of innocence. Hill made it clear that he harbors powerful negative, personal emotion toward Leo Schofield Jr. He even apologized for the effect of that emotion on his testimony/testimony. Note the bold:
“I know this is a subsequent and I’m sorry I’m so emotional about it. I just feel very strongly that this is a cold, calculating first degree murderer. He’s a manipulator, and he’s exactly where he ought to be. I hope you’ll deny him the opportunity for F.I.U.”
I allege that Hill, overcome by his openly confessed, hateful emotion towards Schofield, willfully said: “The defendant sends a letter to counsel admitting to the murder of Mrs. Schofield” in the guise of committing an error. I allege that’s why he’s never corrected his false assertion about Schofield.
But again, the Bar does not need to agree with me. It does not need to consider Jerry Hill’s intent. I have only included my reasons for considering Hill’s incompetence intentional misconduct so that Bar investigators have the full context.
The self-evident failure to correct the record for three years and counting is sufficient to find Hill in violation of Rule 4.3.3 – Candor toward the tribunal, which clearly states:
“A lawyer shall not knowingly:(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer”
Notice the “or” in bold.
There may be some technical legal dispute as to whether the FCOR is, in fact, a “tribunal.” To consider it otherwise would be silly, in my view, and an embarrassing technicality.
However, even if the FCOR is not technically considered a “tribunal,” Hill’s 2020 statement “on behalf of Brian Haas, state attorney of the 10th circuit” also clearly violates Florida Bar Rule 4.4.1 – “Truthfulness in statements to others.”
Here is the key language of the rule:
“In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person…”
Moreover, Hill’s behavior and statements at the 2020 hearing clearly violate the Florida Bar Rule 4.8.4. (c) and (d) – Misconduct, as previously noted.
They embody “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”
They “engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis.”
I don’t know what penalties Hill’s behavior exposes him to. But at the very least, Hill and his client should be compelled to publicly submit an amended statement to the FCOR.
That statement should:
Strike all false statements, especially the false assertion to Schofield admitted guilt and that Leo Schofield Jr. and Sr. were “always” together.
Refer to Leo Schofield Sr. only as “Leo Schofield Sr.” and Leo Schofield Jr. only as “Leo Schofield Jr.”
Strike all references to Leo Schofield’s character – whether direct attacks or sarcastic sneers.
The best evidence of Hill’s malfeasance and bad faith comes from his own client
In effect, the 10th Circuit State Attorney’s Office attempted to do something like this at the most recent FCOR hearing for Schofield on May 3, 2023 – without acknowledging it.
This time, the SAO did not use Jerry Hill as its private lawyer. It represented itself, in the form of Jacob Orr, Chief Assistant State Attorney and office spokesman. Orr, while forced to defend the indefensible, did so in a legally and ethically honorable fashion.
Orr made zero reference to Leo Schofield Sr. And Orr did not falsely declare that Leo Schofield Jr. admitted to killing his wife.
Orr did not repeat factual falsehoods about the case and its history. He essentially amended and edited Hill’s assertions down to nothing – and even corrected the assertions about Leo Schofield Jr.’s character and attacks on his right to claim innocence. Here’s his statement:
“I became a prosecutor 15 years ago and in that time I have learned that you cannot pursue justice unless you first pursue truth. In this case, that’s what the court systems have been doing for many, many years.
“I’ve told others I think this is the most reviewed case in this history of Polk County. I really don’t know if that’s true, but I think it might be. Because we’ve looked at this; we’ve litigated this. And every time we go to court we re-litigate and we re-review the case based on the actual transcripts and the actual available evidence. And every one of those reviews results in the same outcome.
“That there’s overwhelming evidence in support of the guilty verdict that was handed down many years ago. But that’s not really why ya’ll are here today.
“You’re here today to decide if this inmate is gonna get out of jail. And I won’t go too much in detail into the facts of the case because I know you’ve heard some of them before and you know there was a heinous murder committed.
“But you’ve got to compare that with what has been a long time of being a very good inmate. I’m telling you about truth and I think we need to recognize the fact that he’s been a very good inmate.”
If Jerry Hill had just said that in 2020, my complaint would not exist. But Hill said much much more than that; and my complaint does exist because of it.
I discussed this complaint via email with Jacob Orr. I’ve included Orr’s side of the email exchanges as Exhibit 3.
Orr acknowledged that Hill, acting on behalf of the SAO, falsely asserted that Schofield admitted to killing his wife. But he didn’t care:
“Further, it is obvious that he was referring to “defendant” Jeremy Scott that wrote a letter admitting to a murder and was later found to be not credible.”
Orr’s glib assumption about other people’s understanding on a matter of life and death – guilt and innocence – is breathtaking. It’s an incredibly irresponsible position to take for an institution supposedly dedicated to justice, honor, and the public. It also ignores the totality of Hill’s statement.
In fact, Jerry Hill referred to Leo Schofield Jr. as “defendant” 18 other times in his statement before the “defendant” reference in question, which is the last time Hill used the word “defendant.”
As in the earlier conflation of “Leo,” it seems a remarkable that Hill would make such a wordplay “error” in the most damaging possible way for the actual defendant. Nothing could hurt Leo Schofield more in his parole hearing than FCOR commissioners believing he had confessed in the past to a crime he was now denying.
Can anyone dismiss two such strategically sloppy moments of argument as just sloppy when Hill and the State Attorney’s Office has never corrected them?
Imagine what you would have heard in this real-time statement: 18 consecutive references to Leo Schofield Jr. as “defendant” – and then a 19th and final reference declaring the “defendant” confessed.
The 10th Circuit SAO would have you believe it’s “obvious” that Hill suddenly shifted his use of “defendant” to Scott at the most strategically advantageous way possible for the state’s argument – and everyone could identify the correct “defendant.”
The 10th Circuit would have you believe it’s “obvious” that every stakeholder knew Hill wasn’t talking about Leo Schofield in that sudden, highly material, unannounced shift in the meaning of “defendant.” It’s so “obvious” that Hill doesn’t even have to address it or correct it.
I find that preposterous and devoid of common sense.
I’ve listened to this audio clip multiple times; and it’s not “obvious” to me that Hill is talking about Scott. I don’t see how it could be obvious to anyone. Perhaps I am unusually stupid. If Hill made an “obvious” error, it should be easy to publicly admit and correct the error – as Florida Bar rule 4.3.3 requires.
Sorting through differing interpretations of the record is the reason we keep a record.
Thus, it beggars belief that Orr and his office remain ethically comfortable with “In September, the defendant sends a letter to counsel admitting to the murder of Mrs. Schofield” remaining as part of the record, more than three years after Jerry Hill said it to a tribunal while acting as the SAO’s private attorney.
Of course, the entire Leo Schofield case is about the 10th Circuit’s inability to publicly admit an “obvious” mistake. If it begins to admit Jerry Hill’s “obvious” mistakes and falsehoods from 2020, other admissions of mistakes are likely to follow.
When I asked Orr if his 2023 statement and Hill’s in 2020 were consistent, he dismissed the differences as “irrelevancies”:
“As Chief Assistant, I chose to attend that parole hearing because the case had received a great deal of publicity. At the hearing, I decided to not review the facts of the case because the Commissioners had heard them before. I did remind him that he had committed a heinous murder. Mr. Hill’s comments in 2020 were accurate; so were mine in 2023. Your focus seems to be on differences of our style and tone; I will decline to comment on such irrelevancies.”
Falsely declaring that a defendant confessed is not a question of tone or style
Attacking a defendant’s character because he maintains his innocence – with overwhelming exculpatory evidence to back him up – is not a question of tone or style.
Orr did not change tone or style from Hill.
Rather, Orr eliminated vast paragraphs of wrongly asserted content that demonstrated Hill’s misconduct and lack of candor to the tribunal. But Orr did so without acknowledging it, without formally and publicly correcting Hill.
Count 2: March 7, 2023, responding to a citizen’s question about his FCOR appearance with “Fuck you” just before an open meeting of the Polk County Commission.
Hill compounded his FCOR hearing misconduct and violation of candor more than three years later during a spoken exchange that occurred between him and me (Billy Townsend) on the morning of March 7, 2023, in the front row of the Polk County Commission chambers.
Hill was again representing the 10th Judicial Circuit State Attorney at the time, according to Chief Assistant State Attorney and spokesman Jacob Orr, who witnessed the exchange. Orr was looking right at us, two or three feet away.
I had come to attempt to raise awareness of Leo Schofield’s case to elected officials.
The exchange with Hill started like this:
Billy Townsend: “Good morning, Jerry. When are you going to correct your lie [about Leo Schofield] at the Parole Commission?”
Jerry Hill: “Fuck you.”
In this exchange, I was a “third person” asking a private lawyer, subject to Bar discipline, when he was going to correct a serious violation of candor toward the tribunal.
As a private citizen and “third person,” I allege that “Fuck you” is a clear extension of Hill’s failure to correct his false statements. This violates Florida Bar Rule 4.4.1 – “Truthfulness in statements to others.”
Again, here is the key language of the rule:
“In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by rule 4-1.6.”
Again, to my knowledge, Jerry Hill has never publicly or formally corrected his 2020 material misstatements of the record before FCOR. He did, however, address it with me through vague inference a few moments after telling me “Fuck you” in 2023. He spoke to me from a few seats away in the County Commission chamber.
“What’s the father’s name, Billy? It’s Leo.” He said this several times.
The point I think Hill was trying to make was that he didn’t lie to FCOR because Leo’s father is also named “Leo.” But again, he refused to clarify. Indeed, he asked me a question instead.
And far from exonerating his 2020 testimony, Jerry Hill’s self-aware “Leo” word play just deepens his guilt. Rather than simply correct the record publicly, Hill asked, “What’s the father’s name, Billy? It’s Leo.” In doing so, Hill showed all of us his ongoing intent to cleverly hoodwink the FCOR commissioners and act as a legalistic defense lawyer for himself.
The 2023 instinct to shroud his statement in a defensive fog of excuses – rather than simply own it and correct it – makes a powerful suggestion of Hill’s intent in 2020.
Based on his statements to me, I allege that Jerry Hill intentionally conflated his “defendant” references in 2020. I allege that he intentionally conflated “Leo” and “the father” into one “Leo.” However, as I’ve said repeatedly, Florida Bar rules show that Hill is culpable either way – uncorrected error or intentional falsehood.
Hill’s abusive behavior toward me, a member of the public, also supports a violation of Florida Bar Rule 4.8.4 concerning “misconduct,” which I have quoted below.
The following excerpt is from The Florida Bar’s “Professionalism Expectations.” You can see under “Honest and Effective Communication” that the Bar connects specific behavioral expectations to Rule 4.8.4, concerning misconduct:
2. HONEST AND EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION
A lawyer’s word is his or her bond. Effective communication requires lawyers to be honest, diligent, civil, and respectful in their interactions with others.
Expectations:
A lawyer should inform every client what the lawyer expects from the client and what the client can expect from the lawyer during the term of the legal representation.
Candor and civility must be used in all oral and written communications. (See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.4(c)).
A lawyer must avoid disparaging personal remarks or acrimony toward opposing parties, opposing counsel, third parties or the court. (See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.4(d)).
Jerry Hill responded to a simple, polite factual question I asked about his professional and legal obligations with “Fuck you.”
That violates part 2 and 3 of the Bar’s “Professional Expectations,” which are explicitly tied to its enforceable rules for private lawyers.
In that way, I think it’s clear that “Fuck you,” as voiced by Jerry Hill, violated the Bar’s interpretation of rule 4.8.4 against misconduct.
I don’t need or care about apologies. But if Hill were forced to write an apology letter to me, I think he would find that a painful and effective punishment.
Count 3: Hill’s comprehensive misconduct as elected State Attorney in the Schofield case demands a special counsel or review
Finally, I want to add Hill’s handling of the entire Leo Schofield case to this complaint.
I am unclear whether Hill is immune from Bar discipline for his behavior while he was an elected state attorney. But here are two examples of that behavior that are contrary to justice and due process in my view.
A. Continual suppression of exculpatory evidence, as already discussed.
B. A credible accusation of perjury against Hill’s employee John Aguero
The fact record of the case suggests prosecutor John Aguero, working on behalf of Jerry Hill, may have committed perjury during an evidentiary hearing in May 2010 that could have provided a new trial for Leo Schofield.
That hearing considered post-conviction evidence directly tying convicted murderer Jeremy Scott to the Michelle Schofield crime scene. Scott’s palm print was found on Michelle Schofield’s car. It was not processed as evidence until roughly 15 years after Schofield’s trial. No jury has ever heard that evidence. And no jury has ever heard Jeremy Scott’s subsequent detailed confessions to Michelle Schofield’s murder.
Aguero testified in 2010 that he summoned convicted murderer Jeremy Scott from prison to a closed-door, one-on-one meeting in Aguero’s office five years before in 2005, just after the palm print evidence first emerged. Aguero kept no account of this meeting; but Aguero testified under oath at the 2010 evidentiary hearing that he offered Jeremy Scott immunity if he were to confess to the Michelle Schofield murder.
According to the hearing transcript, Aguero testified:
“So I had Mr. Scott brought back from whatever correctional institute he was in to my office by subpoena, gave him immunity, and questioned him myself…
“… I told him that his fingerprint had been found in a car. That I had put Mr. Schofield in prison for the rest of his life for killing his wife. And if he didn’t do it, I had to know it. Therefore I would give him immunity, that it was more important for me to know the truth than it was anything else. …
“Mr. Scott, as I said, was cooperative. I think he fully understood immunity, fully understood that it was important to me that if he did this murder it would – I couldn’t prosecute him but I could let Leo Schofield out of jail.”
Asked what he did after speaking with Scott alone, without documentation, Aguero said:
“Well I did not go any further. I made notes in my folder concerning my investigation and I closed my investigation.”
Jeremy Scott confirms the 2005 meeting with Aguero happened. But he denies Aguero ever offered him immunity. And Scott told podcast producers Gilbert King and Kelsey Decker that he told Aguero he killed Michelle Schofield in that 2005 meeting. “I told him did it… I told him I had something to do with it.” Scott says Aguero offered to sit on his parole hearing use his influence for leniency if Scott stuck to the story of only burglarizing the car during the 2010 hearing.
That discussion happens during the final episode of the Bone Valley podcast. Jeremy Scott said Aguero knew Scott killed Michelle Schofield in 2005.
“He knew it. He knew it was gonna fall out like this. He knew everything. But he didn’t care.”
The Florida Bar should investigate what Jerry Hill knew about Aguero’s 2005 meeting. It should compel discovery of any records that have not been released concerning the supposed “immunity” offer and Scott’s claimed 2005 confession to Aguero. It should find the supposed notes in Aguero case folder. It should attempt to determine if Jeremy Scott is telling the truth.
If Jeremy Scott is telling the truth, Aguero perjured himself in 2010. And the public should know if Jerry Hill knew about it.
John Aguero died a few years ago. But Jerry Hill supervised him. And Hill should be questioned about Aguero’s potential perjury. What did Aguero tell Jerry Hill about what happened in the Aguero-Scott meeting? Is the meeting itself an example of misconduct, as defined below?
The prosecutorial and judicial misconduct in the ongoing wrongful conviction of Leo Schofield is so vast that it merits some sort of special counsel or review.
I am not sure how to request that in the context of a Bar complaint – but I am noting that request here for the record.
Conclusion
The Florida Bar may choose to ignore Hill’s obvious violations based on Hill’s prominence or fear of reverberating consequences for the 10th Circuit and Florida’s legal system as a whole. But I hope it will not. Hill’s prominence and the fear of consequences do not change reality.
They do not change the point Sen. Jonathan Martin made to the FCOR:
“I stand by the criminal justice system here in the state of Florida. We’re one of the best on the planet. But there’s a whole lot of doubt right now about how good we are.”
Legal and institutional failure and cowardice define the Schofield case. Abject failure to admit and correct mistakes defines this case.
Jerry Hill – and the toxic hold he maintains on the entire 10th Judicial Circuit even in retirement – is the prime reason for that. The Bar should do something about it before more people are damaged by it.
[Final note: Tami Haas, who I believe is Brian Haas’ wife, sits on the local Bar grievance committee in the 10th Circuit. If this complaint comes before that body, she should recuse herself.]
Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Transcript of Jerry Hill’s testimony before the Florida Commission on Offender Review on January 8, 2020
Morning commissioners, Jerry Hill on behalf of Brian Haas, State Attorney for the 10th circuit.
I listened to that presentation, and how this individual has taken advantage of a lot of opportunities. But folks, I gotta point out an absolute glaring hole in that presentation. I didn't hear one word about regret, sorrow, wish I hadn't done it, I was a different person then. This guy is an unrepentant, jury convicted, first degree murderer, proven beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. Rather than uh talk about autopsies, allow me to share with you, ‘cause it's worth a thousand words, the following.
They talked about how he's done, let's talk about what had got him there, and this is from an appellate record that cites the trial transcripts, so it was all evidence in a courtroom. This individual was murdered February, 24th, 1987, an 18 year old wife. The defendant and his wife had a violent relationship, including fights in which the defendant would drag her by the hair. The defendant was known to become especially angry when Mrs. Schofield was late meeting him and he would become physically violent with her on those occasions. The night she was murdered, she was late meeting the defendant at a home of a friend and the defendant was quote at his wits end. That morning an eyewitness saw the defendant and Ms. Schofield getting out of Ms. Schofield's car at their home between 1 a.m. and 1:30. The witness was positive that she had witnessed the defendant and Ms. Schofield together.
The defendant uh… ‘scuse me.
The witness heard sounds of a fight once they had entered the house, arguing and screaming, and sounds as if the defendant was pushing uh the wife against the walls of the trailer. The defendant exited the home alone and drove away in his car. Shortly after he returned, opened the hatchback, went in the house, and carried out a heavy object, which he put in the back of the car. The next morning, the defendant uses a carpet cleaner in the residence. That day at work, and I'm not going to read too much, but he told his employer that he had a feeling Mrs. Schofield was dead, made similar statements to the boss's wife, saying that uh, he hoped she would help him retain an attorney. The defendant's car and his wife's car was abandoned on I-4. It was discovered by the father and Leo before law enforcement could find it. Mrs. Schofield’s body was discovered in a canal located in a heavily wooded area on the morning of February 27th, 87, by Leo Schofield, Senior. Mr. Schofield claimed at various times that God’s voice, or a premonition, led him to her body. Or that an inner force had driven him to that location. And the reason I’m going over this is that he’s never admitted his guilt!
During the investigation, Mr. Schofield Senior interfered with law enforcement when they attempted to survey the master bedroom in the trailer, a possible crime scene. It was in disarray, dresser drawer broken, missing sheets from the bed. Mr. Schofield became angry, and barred law enforcement from entering the trailer the day the victim was discovered. The defendant was with him at that time, side by side. Immediately following Ms. Schofield’s funeral, the defendant was out to clubs and dating other women. He did not assist in planning the funeral.
Very quickly, some law enforcement notes, too. Very quickly.
Again, how was the body found? Leo said he was driven by an inner force to go back to the pit area again, and on Friday he started searching along State Road 33. Leo said he felt drawn to that area and felt that Michelle was calling out to him. He said he had told Detective Russell that his daughter-in-law was within a certain distance.
Leo said uh he began to search, the closer he got to Michelle, the worse his head hurt. He saw an opening in some bushes along where a pit was, and as he searched along the sides of the pit looking for her shoes, and stepped up into this opening, he looked in the water and saw a white arm from under the board. He said he continued to look and saw that it was Michelle. He then flagged down the car. Found it by some… super intervention. I think this is worthy of note. On 16 March 87, at about 14:50 hours, Leo Schofield Senior and Junior, dad’s always with him, arrived at the C.I.S. Central Operations Building where Leo was to take a polygraph. FDLE Agent Wayne Porter arrived, and conducted the polygraph; upon completion of the polygraph, Porter advised Ryder that Schofield Junior had flunked the polygraph. This man has never… he can’t express any remorse, ’cause he says he didn’t do it. And these circumstances are as strong a chain as you could ever ask for.
Lastly, let’s bring it current. This good man. Year and a half ago, we’re in courtrooms in Bartow, where he produces a fella by the name of Jeremy Scott, who he says has confessed to the crime. He calls it newly discovered evidence. Now, we know Jeremy Scott broke into that car and took the radio, that was his M.O. during that particular time. After the defendant’s trial in 89, fingerprints were found in the car, they belonged to uh Jeremy Scott. Uh, and then the defendant starts filing motions on newly discovered evidence, it wasn’t newly discovered, and Scott testified he stole the equipment. Now this is the man that our good defendant is going to put on the stand to help him out. This is the quality individual that we’re dealing with. This is the character that we’re talking about. In September 2015, counsel for the defendant sends a letter to Scott, asking if he has any information that might be helpful in the defendant’s case. Some ten months later, Scott answers the letter and says, “What’s in it for me helping him?” In January, by the way, 2017, investigators for the State interviewed Mr. Scott; he denied killing Mrs. Schofield. Scott then says he needs money and indicated that he would admit to the murder for one thousand dollars. This is the man that they’re saying is new evidence. He’s the one that really committed the crime… for a thousand dollars. In September, the defendant sends a letter to counsel admitting to the murder of Mrs. Schofield. Several days later, he sends a letter to the Court admitting to all the murders in Polk County in 87 and 88, and asking that all the inmates be set free. At the evidentiary hearing, Mr. S… uh… the Court observes Mr. Scott’s demeanor while testifying, basically, the bottom line is, finds him completely untruthful. And it says, of course, everything was accompanied by, “what’s in it for me.” They can talk about all they want. There’s no remorse, there’s no sorrow; how do you put a man in a program, getting him ready to be released into society, when he can’t say, “I’m sorry.” When he can’t say, “I did it.” I know this is a subsequent and I’m sorry I’m so emotional about it. I just feel very strongly that this is a cold, calculating first degree murderer. He’s a manipulator, and he’s exactly where he ought to be. I hope you’ll deny him the opportunity for F.I.U.
Exhibit 2: Email from Jacob Orr explaining Jerry Hill’s presence at March 8, 2023 Polk County Commission meeting
Transcript:
Again, I was there on behalf of the State Attorney. When this criminal case appeared on the agenda for the County Commission (something that never happens), I decided to attend the meeting to represent the State. I wanted Mr. Hill to be there to answer any questions that may have come up because he was State Attorney at the time of the conviction.
Jake
Exhibit 3: Email statements from Jacob Orr related to the core content of this complaint.
[To avoid the 25-page limit, I have not included my emails to Orr, but can do so upon request.]
Transcripts:
June 16, 2023
While it may be hard to believe, but you are just as wrong now as you were last time. No one was ever confused about any of those points except you and Gilbert King. If you read the entire transcript that you just sent me, it is obvious that Mr. Hill was communicating that Schofield Sr. found the body (direct quote). Further, it is obvious that he was referring to “defendant” Jeremy Scott that wrote a letter admitting to a murder and was later found to be not credible. Your argument that Mr. Hill was misleading the Commission or that the Commission was confused is absurd and it is intellectually dishonest.
You either do not understand what happened in the case or you are intentionally misleading people. When Mr. Hill referenced the hearing in 2018 regarding newly discovered evidence, that is because in 2018 the Court heard the defendant’s latest motion requesting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence based on Scott’s latest version of events (it is constantly changing). The Court had previously heard a motion based on the fingerprints being identified to Scott. You are aware that there has been “litigation for nearly 20 years” on these issues; yet, you seem ignorant of what actually happened during that litigation. You should review those transcripts and orders, as well. It may be enlightening. I think you have proven that the podcast is not a reliable source for the truth in this case.
June 17, 2023
As Chief Assistant, I chose to attend that parole hearing because the case had received a great deal of publicity. At the hearing, I decided to not review the facts of the case because the Commissioners had heard them before. I did remind him that he had committed a heinous murder. Mr Hill’s comments in 2020 were accurate; so were mine in 2023. Your focus seems to be on differences of our style and tone; I will decline to comment on such irrelevancies.
[Note from Billy Townsend, complainant: Jacob Orr actually said: “you know there was a heinous murder committed.” Orr did not name Leo Schofield Jr. as the killer at the FCOR hearing, which I found significant.]
June 17, 2023
I have personally reviewed the entire file in this case, including the entire trial transcript. I have no doubt as to the guilt of Leo Schofield, Jr. As I have state many times, there is overwhelming evidence of his guilt. Any attempt to frame my comments as unsupportive of the conviction is dishonest.
I have been responding to your inquiries because you hold yourself out as some sort of journalist. However, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that you are not interested in reporting facts or even in the pursuit of truth.
A final note not in the complaint. Here is how I responded to Orr’s last email:
“Sure you’re convinced of his guilt. Sure. Lol. I don’t hold myself out as anything but Billy. I never have. I’m not paid to do any of this. Just a citizen.
“My question, Jacob, was do you think Scott Cupp and Sen. Martin are not interested in truth and bamboozled by a podcast or unscrupulous people like me?
“If you don’t want to answer that, fine. I won’t bother you any more.”
Jerry Hill should have been disbarred 30 years ago for his prejudice he’s been holding. He saw one suspect and can’t admit when he’s wrong. That is so arrogant!! For the mere fact that he raised his son, his son shouldn’t even be allowed to be sitting in the position he has. He should be disbarred also and become a music teacher since he also went to school for that. Thank you, dear old father, for that outcome… “Sins of our fathers”. He’s not even capable of making decisions concerning his own life that he had to change from Democrat to Republican. I don’t care what party you are, but I do think you should’ve known that before you were 60 years old. I just wish there was a way that THEY would be able to read this so it would impact them