Who Killed FYL Jackk? (And Why Doesn't Anyone Care!?)

William Underwood, known to many as FYL Jackk, was murdered in 2019.

Years later, one man is serving life in prison under a complicity theory. But the most important question remains unanswered:

Who actually killed FYL Jackk?

Derrick Bernard Jr., also known as Phoenixx Ugrilla, was convicted under the prosecution’s theory that he ordered the murder from behind bars through one specific person: Aeeshawn Mathews. The state claimed Derrick used coded language in jail calls to solicit Mathews to kill Underwood.

But Aeeshawn Mathews was later found not guilty of the murder.

That leaves the public with a devastating contradiction. Derrick is serving life for allegedly ordering a murder through a man who was acquitted of committing it.

So if Aeeshawn Mathews did not kill William Underwood, then who did?

A Case Closed Too Soon

The justice system treated William Underwood’s murder like it had been solved. Arrests were made. A theory was presented. A conviction was secured.

But a conviction is not the same thing as the truth.

According to the concerns raised by Derrick’s supporters, investigators failed to thoroughly pursue an overwhelming number of alternate suspects. The defense was prepared to point toward other possible suspects, other leads, and other evidence that could have changed the direction of the case.

Instead, the prosecution built its case around a murder-for-hire theory and short interpretations of jail calls.

That theory led to Derrick’s conviction.

But when the alleged shooter went to trial, the theory collapsed. Mathews was found not guilty.

That should have forced the case wide open again.

Instead, Derrick remains in prison, and William Underwood’s actual killer has still not been found.

Alternate Suspects Were Not a Side Issue

Alternate suspects are not distractions. In a murder case, they can be the difference between truth and a wrongful conviction.

When there are multiple individuals who may have had motive, opportunity, direct knowledge, suspicious conduct, statements, forensic links, or other connections to the crime, those leads must be fully investigated. The defense must be allowed to present them. The jury must be allowed to hear why the state’s theory may not be the only explanation.

In Derrick’s case, advocates have raised serious concerns that there were numerous alternate suspects and unresolved leads that were never fully explored in front of the jury. They have pointed to claims involving possible confessions, non-public details, DNA issues, and other evidence that could have pointed away from Derrick.

If those leads were credible enough to raise reasonable doubt, they mattered.

If they were not fully investigated, the investigation was incomplete.

If they were kept from the jury, the trial was not a full search for truth.

Complicity Does Not Answer the Central Question

Derrick was not accused of physically killing William Underwood. The prosecution claimed he was responsible under a complicity theory — that he allegedly caused or encouraged another person to commit the murder.

But a complicity theory still depends on reality. It still depends on proof. It still depends on identifying the actual criminal act and connecting the accused person to it beyond a reasonable doubt.

The state claimed Derrick acted through Aeeshawn Mathews.

Then Mathews was acquitted.

This does not answer the murder. It deepens the mystery.

If the alleged shooter was found not guilty, then the public has every right to ask whether the wrong man was convicted, whether the investigation narrowed too quickly, and whether the actual killer was overlooked while the state focused on a theory instead of the full truth.

William Underwood Deserves More Than a Theory

FYL Jackk was a real person. His life mattered. His family and community deserve real answers.

They do not deserve a case built around selective interpretations if the actual killer was never proven. They do not deserve a prosecution theory that gives the appearance of closure while leaving the central question unresolved.

A wrongful conviction does not honor a victim.

It does not solve a murder.

It does not protect the community.

It allows the real truth to stay buried.

If William Underwood’s killer has never been found, then this case is cold again — no matter what the conviction says on paper.

The Investigation Must Be Reopened

The acquittal of Aeeshawn Mathews should have triggered a deeper review of the entire case.

The prosecution’s theory was not that Derrick personally killed William Underwood. The theory was that Derrick solicited Mathews to do it. When Mathews was found not guilty, the foundation of that story was shaken.

That should have raised immediate questions:

Were alternate suspects ignored?

Were key leads abandoned too early?

Were investigators more focused on proving a theory than finding the killer?

Was the jury allowed to hear the full picture?

Did the state close the case around Derrick because it was convenient?

And most importantly: who actually killed FYL Jackk?

This Case Is Cold Again

The public has been told this case is solved. But the facts say otherwise.

The alleged shooter was acquitted.

The actual killer has never been identified.

Alternate suspects remain unresolved.

The investigation appears incomplete.

And Derrick Bernard Jr. is serving life under a complicity theory that no longer answers the central question.

That is not justice.

That is a cold case with a conviction attached to it.

William Underwood deserves the truth. Derrick Bernard Jr. deserves a fair review. The community deserves a real investigation, not a closed file built around unanswered questions.

Until the actual killer is found, the question remains:

Who killed FYL Jackk?

False Justice is No Justice.