Crimeatorium - The State of Florida vs. Laurie Shaver | The Murder of Michael Shaver | Part 4

Episode Date: September 27, 2026

In November 2015, Michael Shaver, a Disney World employee and father of two, seemingly vanished from his Florida home. His wife, Laurie, told friends and family that he had abandoned them and started a new life. But as the years passed without anyone seeing or speaking to Michael, questions began to mount.When a concerned friend finally contacted authorities, investigators turned their attention to the Shaver property, where a disturbing discovery would transform a missing-person investigation into a murder case.What followed was an extraordinary trial involving conflicting accounts, accusations of deception, and testimony that would leave jurors with difficult questions about what really happened to Michael Shaver.In this eight-part condensed courtroom series, Crimeatorium takes you inside the trial of Laurie Shaver through carefully selected testimony, evidence, and courtroom proceedings. Follow the prosecution and defense as they present their cases..New episodes of this series will be released every Thursday and Sunday. Look for Part 5 this Thursday October 1.If you’d like to support Crimeatorium and help fund its research and production, visit crimeatorium.com/support.Music:CO.AG Music https://www.youtube.com/@co.agmusic1823If you have a case suggestion for Crimeatorium, please send it to [e-mail] this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/crimeatorium4542/donations

to true crime stories with crime atrorium. Please introduce yourself in the jury. Sure. Good afternoon. I'm Corporal Jared Strickland with the Lake County Sheriff's Office. And how long have you been with the Lake County Sheriff's? Since 2006. What is your current position or asylum? Currently I'm a corporal. I'm one of the supervisors within our criminal investigations unit. And how long have you been in that session?

Since 2021. Now, I've taken you back to February of 2017. what was your proceeding in this? In February 2017, I was one of our economic crimes detectives. When you say economic crimes, detectives, what kind of crimes would you investigate? Different types of fraud, credit card fraud, identity theft, sometimes things that deal with computers and electronics. How did you become involved into the investigation, into the depth? Sure. I was asked to start getting bank records, financials from the different people that are involved,

and to review those records as well as social media. When a case, a homicide piece in particular, is being investigated by the Lake County Sheriff's office, is it assigned to just one detective or is the whole team working on this issue? Sure, typically it's an entire team of detectives that are working on it because we all bring different things to the table. Was your background training experience with various forms of financial social media records, things like that from your economic? crime's background useful in the investigation. Yes, it was. As part of the records that you looked into, did you seek out information and documents from Facebook in this case? Yes, I did. And in order to obtain records from Facebook, how do you go about doing that? We have to get a search

warrant. If you prepare warrants to get information for a Facebook profile associated with a Mike the shape. Yes, I do. I'm sure you has already been entered into evidence in the state's exhibit number 10. Some drive in that Apollo. Can you go ahead and take a look at that? And state's number 10 are those in Facebook records

that you obtained through Facebook? Yes, they are. And when you obtain these types of records, are they sent to you? PIN it out in boxes or how are they sent to? They're not. So Facebook has a law enforcement records request portal where they will upload all of that information to and then we

then download it in a zip folder because it's usually quite large. And do they assign it any special number? Yes, they do. Does that number appear in the records themselves? Yes, it does. Does that number also appear on the business record certification that's included in that? Yes, it does. Records that we're dealing with there on a thumb drive,

do we have over 3,000 ages on that thumb drive? Yes, correct. As you've gone through, after you've initialed it, you have gone through all of those records, looked at the pictures, things of that nature. Yes, I have. And as you went through that, are there pieces of information that identify potential owner of that profile? Yes, there is a phone number, as well as an email that's associated with that, along with what Facebook calls the vanity name, which is a unique identifier that cannot be

changed within the Facebook records. And as you went through those particular records, does that include photos that the user may have uploaded or someone using that account may have uploaded? Yes. Did you see photographs of Michael Schaeber throughout the Facebook profile associated? They did. Are you familiar with Facebook? I am.

Did you ever have a Facebook account? Previously, yes. You no longer have one? Yes, sir. All right. Is there anything that would prevent another individual from blogging into someone's Facebook account as long as they had either the password or a device that was already associated with that and currently love? No.

What is an ISP? So an ISP is a internet service provider. That is the company that you pay for internet through. And what is an IP address? An IP address stands for internet protocol. This is a unique identifier to a network that a device is connecting to the internet on. As you went through the Facebook records, do they maintain IP logs or activity associated with that account? Yes, they do.

And does that IP address give you a physical address that's associated with that IP address? No, it does not. Are you able, once you get that IP, to do anything to start investigating where the physical location of that may? Yes, I can. And what is that? Once we have an IP address, we're able to use internet resources to find out who the internet service provider is. Once we have the internet service provider, we can send them a subpoena and they will give

us subscriber information, which includes the service location, the names on the account, billing information if we request it and so forth. And the ID addresses that we are going to be referencing, go back to how far back. The IP addresses that we have go back to at least 2015. And when did you become involved with this investigation, start looking into the issues involved with this IP address, thanks for that. February 2018. When you got the IP address that's associated with the Facebook account,

were you able to determine which service provider was linked up with those IP addresses? Yes, there was. Which service provider was that? By and large, it was CenturyLink. And when you went to try to obtain information from Century Lake to associate it with any physical addresses, weren't able to get that information? I was not. Why not?

CenturyLink told us that they only keep records for one rolling calendar year. Now, as part of your review of the Facebook profiles, did you also obtain a search warrant in order to get the information from Lord? That's correct. Showing you a surferitus in the mark that states a page, you recognize those records and the thumb drive contained with that? Yes, I do. What is contained all that thumb drive?

These are Lori Shaver's Facebook records. Have you reviewed it and initials the thumb drive? Yes, I have. All the records that Facebook sent to you with their identifying a number associated all that associated on that buckrat. Yes, it is. This time to say it went H.H. into evidence as 36.

35, I believe. Is it 35? 35. Yes, sir. Any objection? Your motion on the digital data. Yes, sir, because this been raised before. All right.

And the motion, the objection is overruled. Now, similar question. Have you gone through all the data that's contained on there? Yes, sir. And did that have information associating it with Floreshue? Yes, it did. What kind of information was that? The same information.

It will have the vanity name, which is a unique identifier that is set up whenever the account is established, along with phone numbers and email addresses. Did it include pictures of herself, her children, or homes, thinks of that picture? Yes, it did. And how far back does that activity go? I believe 2015, at least. And that would have been the type frame that you've obtained the warrant for. Correct.

And the amount of information on that thumb drive, how is that in relation to the records from Michael Scherner? Significantly larger. Based on the activity that you saw, was a more frequent poster on Facebook than the Michael Schaeber account? Yes. As part of those records that are already in evidence, does Facebook maintain all of those IP addresses associated with yet? Yes, they do. And now does that mean every single time somebody just... pulls up Facebook scrolls, looks at a picture,

if that's something like that, that activity is going to be referenced on those IP logs? Typically no. What text of things register on the IPLog history that you get from these records? Sure. Logging activity is one of the big ones. Anytime anybody access Facebook on their device, whether it's a phone or a computer,

Facebook will log that IP address. Whenever messages are sent, photos are shared, statuses are updated, Facebook will log that IP address for that activity. And does the actual IP logs contain information, not only that the account is accessed, but the type of activity that was stopped? Yes, it does. I'm showing you what's previously marked by identification as states I-I and J-J. And what are those exhibits?

These are the IP logs for each of the Facebook accounts. And specifically, does I-I match up with the IP logs for Winkle Shaver? Yes, it does. And states JJ, is that the IEP in flawed history for Newark, yes, it is. Right, this time the statement states J.J.J. and evidence, the state's 37. Sayron.

Jack. Yes, your objections have ruled. Can you first pull up Michael Schaver's IP log history and just tell the jury, how many pages? I put in the number of the top. The Michael Schaber IP logs for Facebook span 13 pages. The Morny Schamerichamer Facebook. How long is it?

77 pages. Now, in order to assess the jury with your testimony regarding the information that was contained in those IP logs, was a summary prepared of the information contained in those forms. Yes, it was. Specifically, what types of IP addresses were summarized foreign districts? We did a comparison based on IP addresses for both Michael Schaever and Lori Shaver's Facebook activity that were shared. IP addresses. Those were IP addresses that hit both of the accounts. As this was a trial exhibit, who actually prepared the summer?

The state attorney's office. Now, as you went through both sets of IP logs, how many different IP addresses did you find that both the Michael Schaenber account and the Laurie Schaibber account shared? There were 13 shared IP addresses. Now, if someone were to connect to their home line line, we'd have multiple people. in that home and using that phone Wi-Fi. Would they all register the same IP address? Yes, they would. Publishing page 72 from the Lori Shaver records

and page 13 from the Michael Schamer records. Can you basically just summarize first for the jury the information that we're looking at? Sure, so this is the Facebook IP address logs for both of the accounts. The Michael Schaever records were on the left, the Lori Schaver records were on the right. You'll notice that it's in reverse order.

So at the bottom of the page is actually the oldest activity that we got. And as you go up, it becomes more recent in the history. The information that you will see is an action, which tells you what kind of activity was done while it was logged in. You'll get the Dayton time. The time is in universal coordinated time, which, depending on whether or not we're in daylight savings or standard time, is either four or five hours time, our permit time. Detective Strickle, let me just look it falls there. When you talk about the universal time, what is that?

So it's a basically, it's a time zone that for many different purposes we use, so that we don't have different time zones for everything. Because we all live in different time zones, things are relevant. You talked about the time, what other information are on these IPOWRES? The IP address itself. Now the area, first of all, that is in the blue box. Both on the vital shaver records and the Lori Schaever records, what is the significance of those two entries in that one box?

So those are the same shared IP address that both of the accounts conducted activity on within a certain about time of each other. And can you just point those two IP addresses and rate them out loud for the jury? Sure. 7.49.1.14.136. 7.1.49. 0.14.0.13. Okay. And then what is the next line in that one block?

The next line is the time. So January 5th, 2016 at 1605 Universal Coordinated Time. January 5th, 2016 at 208 Universal. and then what is the last line that is in the blue box range for us the action that was done photo web loaded it now what about the red box is that the same IP address that is here in the blue box area it is the same line what is the time difference between when the michael the device accessing the michael shaver records access compared to the device accessing the lawyer shaffer records 2 of 3.1.03.

So with approximately within an hour. Correct. And because it's utilizing the same IP address, that indicates that those devices were in the same hearing. That's correct. All right. Moving on to the next slide. First of all, what is the date of this activity?

The date of this activity at Pantle 3rd, 2016. Now, this particular April 3rd date, is that utilizing the same IP address? Yes, those. And is that why it's together on that same line? Yes, that. And the activity on the Michael Schaver account and the twice associated with that,

how far apart is that from the activity on the Lori Schaeber account? 1139, 4.07. So that's within a half an hour. Correct. We'll be going April of 2016, specifically, specifically April 21st. Was there another instance of close activity?

Yes, there is. And Scott, can you describe that? The action on the Mike Schaever account on the login and the activity on Lori Schaver's account with an uploaded photo. And what was the time different? 1709, 1741, 30 minutes. Moving on,

now in May 3rd of 2016, what was significant about the activity on the two accounts? The same IP address, Mike Shaver's account with a login, Boris Shaver's account was a uploaded photo. The times were constantly sit turn of the part. I want to focus specifically on Michael Shaver's account. Did you review Facebook messages from that account

between the Michael Schaver Facebook account and Vanessa Capps? Yes, I do. Moving on, what was the Facebook account? What was the first message and the date that that message was sent from the Michael Schroederer? So the first date was February 2017-7-43 Universal coordinated time. And did you find Facebook messages preceding the delivery of any sort of flowers to Vanessa Townsend to Facebook? Yes, I did. I'm showing you previously been admitted into evidence of seats number 32.

Are those records? Yes, they are. Moving on to the messages themselves. When was the message sent that said that the individual utilized in the might shaver account had something for this tells? It is the top, which is on 10 pages. April 5th, 2016. Was there a phone number shared to to Vanessa Townsend utilizing this account?

Yes, it was. And what was that content and when was that sent? That message was set on April 9th, 2016, at 2126, Universal Coordinated Time. The message read, please contact me at 352-801-0941. And then is there something that indicates that Vanessa Townsend should receive something at that? Yes.

When was that sent and what was the content of that message? On April 11th, 2016, the message stated your special delivery is to arrive today. Hope to finally hear back from you. When you went back to the IP logs, were you able to find consistent IP shared history on February 25th from the Michael Schaver account and the Lori Schaeber account? Yes, I was. Can you go ahead and describe to the jury the information that we have here? These are the things of the records that we received. The IP activity log that was put into summary.

This is Michael Schaver on this side, Lori Schaver on this side. The purple highlight is all from the same IP address, and it also shows the date and times and what activity was conducted. Is there activity from Michael Schavers account using that IP address on the day that these messages start based on? Yes, there is.

And what was the dating time? That was February 25th, 2016 at 2157 Eastern Time. And then did Lori Shaver's account utilize that same IP address on that same day? Yeah, they're doing. And what was that time? February 27th of 706 Eastern 9. When did Michael Shaver's Facebook account have the most activity during the time frame that you were working? Sure, the most activity we concentrated around this time in the end of February.

to that extent to the timeframe that messages were being sent to Vanessa Townsend? Yes, sir. What was the time frame that you obtained these Facebook records and IP addresses for both the Michael Schaver and the Lord Schumer account? We tried to go back to 2014 until whatever in front of the time was that we got these records sometime in 2018. It's fair to say that this shared IP history extends from November 2015 to 2015 to November of 2017. Yes. And going through the time frame in April once the flowers are received, is that when the majority of the activity appears on this fellow Whiteley Schaeber's account? Yes. We're publishing page 27 and 28 of the history of the summary, sorry. And can you summarize the types of activity that you're seeing on the Michael Schaber account and talk about how

that relates to Worries here? Sure. So according to the summary, it looks like once a day, Michael Shaver's Facebook account with that. Using the same IP address, the Rory Shaver's account were also accessing while Rory Shaver was uploading photos. Now, during this timeframe, is this when Facebook messages are being sent to Vanessa Townsend

prior to the flowers actually arriving at Vanessa Townsend's work? Yes. And these are the timeframes that the messages were not being responded. Correct. is Lori Shaver's account utilizing the same IP address throughout that same time frame? Yes, it is.

Moving on to patients 29 and 30 from the summary, does this activity reflect actions that happened after the flowers had been received five mess accounts? Yes, it does. And what type of activity is being reflected here? So this activity, there are photos that are being uploaded, but there are also photos that are being sent. Now, when it says photo, does that differentiate between actual picture and then screenshots of text messages? And does not differentiate. And during this time frame of all this activity on the Michael Schaeber Facebook account,

are there large number of photos and share, basically screen captures of text messages between Lori Schaver and Jeremy Townsend's Texas? Yes, sir. Moving on to page 31 and 32 of the summary, what is the activity? So it's very similar. You have logins. This one says that there were 40 photos of percent, eight photos stunt, another login, 16 photos sent, 20 photos sent, 20 photos sent. Page is 33 and 34.

And it's still all the same day as the previous page? Yes, it is. All right. And what is the activity here? 44 photos sent, 29, 15, 31, 44, 31, 31, 27 photos sent. And moving on to page 35 to 36, are we seeing activity both on Michael Schaeber,

Facebook and a more Schamer Facebook, you need a lot of saying that same ID address? Yes, we are. 37 and 38, what information, first of all, what day, time of friends are we talking about here? April 22nd, 2016, this is the 23rd, this is the 24th. So this is basically everything that we have here

as far as once this activity heightens up is from April 16th to April 24th. That's all this activity is just no room. Correct. Now on April 24th, does Lori Shaver's account start utilizing that same IP address that we've been talking out the whole time again?

Yes, it does. Is there an entry at approximately $2,100 that is close in time to each other? Yes, there is. And what is the time difference between the activity on the Michael Schaeber Facebook account and the Lori Schaever Facebook account on April 24? So it says about $2,100 to $2,100. So we're done minutes for the Mike Schaver, and then Lori Schaver's account of the 2130, 2013. That flurry of activity over that week where he kept up saying,

this many pictures, this went to figure. How much actual data are you talking about that was sent to Fidda? There were approximately 500 images that were sent for the in which were actual further those the rest were screeched out the 10 liches. John U.S. PPP for identification, do you recognize those? Judge W. that's too relevant? All right. Let's have a sideboard.

Thank you. All right, please proceed. I'm showing you as from previously the board for identification of states PPP. Do you recognize those photos? Yes, they do. What are those photos? These photos are from Roy Schaever's Facebook account that were set to enough accounts approved by changing account.

And just to go ahead and make sure there wasn't a misunderstanding or a tip of misperance. The source of this information was from Michael Schaever's Facebook. Correct. And this is. that information that was sent to but that's the not correct. This time, the state moves states PPP into evidence as states. Number 39. 39.

Yes, sir. All right. Any further? Okay, objections overruled. These photos that are contained here are these, some of the photos that are in that that you just went through? Yes, they are. And on the left, do you recognize that individual?

Yes, I do. And who is that? That's Lori Scherer. And on the right, do you recognize those? What did you get to do? And who are that? Lori Shaver and Jeremy Townson. Photographs identified as P1145 and 115 and 0.

Who is that? Jeremy Townton. 1156, 116, 14. What's that? Jeremy Townsend. 117-E? Who is that? Jeremy Townton.

118-4. Who is that? Jeremy Townton and Lori Shaver. 1-192? Jeremy Townton and Lori Shaver. And 1192. 13. Lori Schaer.

119 6. Lori Scher. Now is that all the photos that were in that that hole? No, I'm not. That's just some of them for it now. It's a good third. Correct. The last message to Michael Schavers,

from Michael Schavers' Facebook account, to Vanessa Telson, when was that person? Last message was the end of 2016. Was there a message? Well, when September 20th, if they were? September 20th, 2016, from the Mineshauber account to the Vanessa Thompson account. Yes.

And what was that message? The final message was on September 20th. And it says, hi, Vanessa, how are you? Moving on, what's good on you? Hope you and your son are doing well. Based on your review of the Orie Schaeber Facebook records, were there pictures of the cement slab that was covering Michael Schaeber's body?

prior to the September 20th day that that message was prior to you at the U.S. and what was the IP address associated with that? 199.116.1.175.8. Now, did you also obtain bank records associated with Lori Schaeer? Yeah, they do. Joining the fence states fell fell. You're on this time. The state moves states fell L into evidence. defense's the circuit circuit

being attached. Just if we have approached. All right sidebar, please, thank you. I'm showing you 640. He recognized those documents. Yeah, thank you. And what are those? These are

Lori Schaver and the United States. Did Michael Schaver and Lori Schaver maintain separate account? Seated. Was there activity contained within those records that showed payments to send for you sent for you like the internet service provider than pay up this

cow. Yes, I would. Was there any sort of records associated with the purchase of flowers around the time that the flowers were sent to Bidessa and Allison? Yes, it was. And publishing portion of that exhibit the area in red, can you go ahead and state the date of that? The date that the transaction posted to the account was on April 8th, says Phoebe and and fee check card purchase from you flowers. Transaction date was April 7th and the amount of $42.92. The $98.

Is it unusual in your experience, both personal and in investigating financial crimes that the actual purchase would come on the bank records on the date other than the purchase date? Yes. The actual purchase that we are looking at here is that consistent with the flowers that were sent to the mess of that.

The company that is reflected on there, is that a local business or is that an online company? From you, Flower is an online company. So whoever is purchasing flowers through that business would not be writing out a cord or anything like that, but they include the message to be sent with the flowers. Correct. And then is that from you flowers,

do they then associate with local forests who do the taxable deliver? That's correct. this transaction associated with the local delivery of the flower sent to Vanessa Towson. Yeah, it is. Nothing further at this time. Mr. Wiggs. Mr. Wiggs.

This one moment, Mr. Wiggs. Okay. And just to be clear, as I did mention the backman would be talking about Michael Schaver bank records, these BD&C records, do they indicate in there who this account blocks to? Yes, it does. And who does this? say you know, with the flower purchase the law. So this is where you're sharing the account.

All right. Thank you, sir. And anything further? No, sir. Your Wikes, please proceed. Thank you. Yes, sir. Did you just handle the digital data that you've just testified to in this case?

Did I handle it, yes, sir. Okay. Anybody else? Yes, sir. Pardon me? Yes, sir. Who was that? The entire team of investigators that were working this would have reviewed it at some point.

Who was the lead officer on this case? case. There were several of us that could have been considered the lead detective. Who did the primary report? There were a few of us that did primary reports. Tell me everybody. Who was the primary on the case? I did very lengthy several reports. Now Lieutenant Tammy Dale also did lengthy primary report as well as Detective Doria also did primary lengthy reports. Okay, anybody else? Yes, there were several. Okay. Who all?

Sir, I couldn't name them all without seeing all of them. I know Detective Clay Watkins did reports. I know that the initial responding deputies did report. There were a multitude of people that did several reports. Okay. Who handled all the digital data as to the officers involved? So I can only attest to myself to maintain that chain of custody whenever I received those records.

I was the one that was responsible for submitting it to evidence. Once it was put typically back then, data was put on a C-Dust. once it was placed into evidence, I would have a working copy on my computer that would then be shared with the other detectives that were also working the case. But the records that they were, as they were received in their original format, I was responsible for those, and I can't speak to everybody else. Okay. Thank you. You had mentioned early on that you were advised that the IP addresses were rolling accounts or rolling IP addresses, correct? No, sir. What I advised was that CenturyLink only maintained subscribers. record for one rolling calendar year.

Rolling year. Okay. Now, what happens after an extended period of time? What happens to the IP addresses that are on record with the company? For CenturyLink, I don't know what they do with their records after a year. Okay. Do you know whether they expire, they're deleted, anything that happens to them? Sir, I do not know what happens to CenturyLink's record after a rolling calendar year. What do you know about Facebook? What happens to their records after? after an extended period of time. I don't know what their retention time frame is. However, we were able to go back at least four years in this case.

Okay. With Facebook? Through Facebook, yes. Okay. Now, does Facebook, do their records go back and allow you to trace the records they have back to the physical address of the individual? Facebook, I do not believe, collects address data. Okay.

The registered address for the IP is a registered. physical address, correct? The IP address that is provided by the Internet service provider would be the subscriber information. And it would be registered to a physical address, correct? Correct. Okay. Now, after a period of time, do you know whether or not that data is deleted, expires, or anything happens to it? Some companies are different.

Some companies, their records will expire sooner than others. Some companies keep their records for perpetuity. Do IP addresses change at all? Yes, they do. Okay. So IP addresses that may be out there for a period of time can actually change. Yes, they can. And identify or use somebody else's address, correct?

That is correct. Okay. Which is why the date and time stamp that is on the activity is so important. Okay. In this case, were you able to link up an IP address with a physical address and a device? Not through a sentry link, no. Okay, not through CenturyLink. Were you able to link it up from Facebook to a physical address to a device?

I think I was, yes. You think he was? Yes, sir. What do you mean? Tell me, what do you mean? The same IP address that was used for Lori Shaver's account was also used on Mike Shaver's account. Okay. An IP address is a unique identifier that works similar to mailing a letter through the U.S. Postal Service.

So if your address was constantly changing, there's a possibility that you would not the mail that was intended for you and vice versa. That's why the date and time stamp this on IP address logs are so important. I'm going to show you states exhibit 35 for identification. Okay. You look at that place. On the business record certificate, correct? Yes.

Okay. And on that business record certificate, where does that come from? This comes from Facebook. Does Facebook identify with 30 degrees. specific people in the center and leverage your law enforcement. They received a search warrant requesting IP address logs, messages, photos, transactional information, and other content for the Facebook unique identifier. In response to the warrant, Facebook meta, as they're called now,

provided responsive records on March 8, 2019, and those records were downloaded by me. Does it identify the records? It does by the Facebook user account number. Okay. Does it identify the records and does? by the user Facebook identity. By paragraph form, does it not state the records providing were an exact copy? Yes. Okay. But it doesn't tell you what the exact copy was. There, does it?

No, it does not. That we made and kept in via automated systems. Doesn't tell you what was there, does it? Sure. Okay. And in the course of regularly conducted activity as a regular practice of that. The records were saved in the format after searching the... after searching Mata's automated system in accordance with the above specified legal process. The records were made at or near the time the information was transmitted by META.

Correct? That's what it says, yeah. And then it says further, META no longer retains a copy of the records provided, correct? So they send you a certificate saying, we have some point in time had this gap. we're sure at some point of time we sent you some accurate information but we don't have the documents anymore to verify anything

correct that's what you've got a certificate saying so Facebook records back in 2018 whenever we sent the search warrants please allow the witness to finish answering they please conclude whenever we received the records back in 2018 in their original format

Facebook records back then were self-authenticating what that means is that the records were contained in a Please allow the witness to finish the response. Thank you. Please allow the witness to finish. Please finish your response. The records were received in a dot-zip folder because the files were so big that it had to be compressed to where it could be sent via internet portals.

So whenever those records were received, they were in one singular folder. That folder was then put through an algorithm that's called SHA 256, which generates an extraordinary. extremely long chain of letters and numbers that is unique to those records that were provided by Facebook back then. The records back then were self-authenticating. Facebook did not provide business records certifications back then because their records according to Facebook were self-authenticating. Okay.

But we're dealing with records today. We're here in court today dealing with the case before us, not what was received and sent in a prior procedure, correct? No, sir. those records were the records that I received in 2018. Right. But we're here today, and now the records don't authenticate what you declare was self-authenticating on a prior date, correct? General Jack, can be your phone.

All right, come up for a sidebar. You'd acknowledge, though, the records we just looked at doesn't contain any representation specific of any documents, doesn't, sir? And your testimony is based as well in a vanity name, correct? And that's a verify, a method that you used to verify the documents that you proclaimed that you received, correct? Can you please repeat that? Yeah. You were talking about on direct examination that there's ways of verification, and one was the vanity name on the account, correct?

Sure. The vanity name is one of the unique identifiers. Okay. Do vanity names ever change? Vanity names that are internal to Facebook cannot change. Can anybody use another person's account? Absolutely. Okay.

So when you say, well, we're relying on a vanity name that other people have access to, that's not a real dependable or reliable system to identify documents in the user, correct? The way that I answered that was based on the assumption that you meant that somebody could use that account. No, the vanity name is not recycled. It cannot be issued to somebody else. That vanity name is unique to that account forever. Yeah, but I just spoke to you and I just said other people. can use that have access to that account.

Correct. They have access to the device that is logged into. If anybody within the residence has access to the browser or knows the password, they have access to that information. Access to the device or knows the password, absolutely. And as you said here today, you don't know which, if any of those multiple documents that were submitted were utilized by any other individual, correct? No, sir, I know who they were used by.

Okay. Did you witness the person signing in? No, sir, I did not. Okay. Did you witness the person sending? No, sir, I did not. Okay. Did you witness who was at the house at all hours, all times?

No, sorry, did not. Okay. And when somebody is at, as we spoke at, like, Starbucks and people are accessing one account, you would acknowledge other people can access that same account, correct? Sure. Accounts can be hacked, correct? They can. So out of the multitude of all the documents you've spoken,

to you can't direct attention to this specific document or this specific document and say that came only from Lori Shade. Yes, sir, I believe I can. Okay. In light of what you just testified to, correct? The multitude of the evidence when taken of the totality and

taken to the whole, yes, sir. Okay. Okay. Now, did you request the Facebook records of Jeremy Townsend? No, sir, I did not. Do you know anything about Jeremy Townsend? I've met him and spoke with him. Okay. Did the state talk to you about Jeremy Townsend at all?

No, sir. Anybody in law enforcement mentioned his name to you? In what capacity? I'm asking you. Yes, sir. We were conducting a thorough investigation, and he was obviously part of that. Okay. Did you look into his records? No, sir, I did not. Did you look into Jeremy Townsend's bank records?

No, sir, I did not. Okay. Was any kind of audit done of Jeremy Townsend? An audit? Yes. No, sir. Now, in the records that have been thrown into evidence at this stage, is there any statement in there and any single record about commission of a crime? No, sir.

Any statement within those records about any collusive effort to cover up a crime? No, sir. So these records allegedly deal with purportedly Lori Shaver and Deborah Townsend. Which records? Posting the records that have been introduced here? Deal with Michael and Lori, yes. Okay. And yet there's no bearing on any crime

or an attempt to cover up any crime within those records, correct? By whom? Whoever's communicating. Did you see any evidence or communications in those documents of any effort to cover up a crime? No. Any mention of a crime? No.

And had there been, surely law enforcement would have made an arrest, correct? Yes. Now we spoke about or we saw messages dealing with flowers. Do you know the motive of the individual that sent those? That sent the flowers? Yes, I do. Okay. Did it have anything to do with the crime?

No, sir, it did not. Okay. And the flowers that have been referenced, they have anything to do with the crime? Not directly. They have anything indirectly to do with the crime. Yes, sir. Okay. And did you put that in your report?

Explain that to law enforcement? The portion of the flowers was not part of my investigation other than the finding of the records in the bank statement. And was there some follow-up on the flowers that showed that the flowers were utilized in the commission of a crime? Not in the commission of a crime, no, not directly. Now, CenturyLink, is that associated in a connective link with, Facebook. That was the internet service provider that the IP address is using Facebook were accessed from.

Facebook is one system. CenturyLink's a different system where the browsers connected to, correct? With internet connectivity, yes. Okay. Did you obtain a business record certificate from CenturyLink? Yes, I did. Okay. Did that business

record certify the reliability of any of the records that you received from Facebook? rejection, your honor, your approach. Sidebarer. Have you seen any personnel from Facebook here today? No, sorry, I'm not. Okay. Have you spoken to anybody directly about Facebook?

No, sorry, I'm not. Okay. Now, when we talk about routers as well, and people have an access to a router, if somebody's in the vicinity of a router, they can proceed to that router if they can have access to it. As long as they have access to the path key.

Okay. So when we talk about the records that have been moved into evidence at this stage, do you know who, if anybody may have had access at all hours at all times, for any and all of these documents? Yes, sir. One moment, please. Yes, sir. I don't have any further questions.

Thank you, John. I thank you. Redirect. Yes, sir. Those IP addresses where the information is shared between both the Michael Schaber, Facebook, and Lori Schaver, Facebook. Does that go from November 2015 to November 2007? Yes, it does. And how many separate IP addresses were shared over those two-year terms?

13. And did that basically go that entire two-year theory? There was continual shared IP address information with those three years. That's correct. So for an individual that was hacking into each and every one of those IP addresses, this would have to be a systematic two-year period where they were trolling outside the Shabler residence or wherever that IP address would be in order to make that. That's correct.

Overruled. I'm sorry, what's your answer? That's correct. Now, when you were talking about information regarding criminal activity and those spaces, records on cross-examination, let me ask you this hypothetical. If an individual killed another person and had access to their Facebook account, and then after the person was dead, proceeded to post on that Facebook account over a period of years to try to show activity that that person was still alive, would that be evidence of her?

Yes. As it relates to potential hacking, into someone's account. If someone in China is getting into Whitefield Shaver's Facebook account, would the IP address be the same one that is accessing the Lori Shaver account? No, it would not.

That would be an IP address somewhere in China. That's correct. The Facebook records that you obtained on that business record certification, did that spell out the specific number that was associated with those records? Yes. And if you were to pull those records up on the various thumb drive, would that number be contained there as well? Yes, it would. When you obtained those records originally in 2018, did it contain that same identifying number? Yes, it did.

And when you went back to Facebook because of the fact of that the documentation for evidence and submission change in the timeframe that the investigation was going on, Did you ask them for the same information that you received that in 2018 utilizing that number? Yes, I did. Did they give you that and give you the same information that you had original? They gave us to business record certifications, yes. And was that tied together with the records that you already added? That's correct. Nothing else, Judge.

All right, Mr. Wiggs, I've been for him. Please introduce yourself. Yes, sir, good morning. My name is Tamara Dale. Where do you work? Lake County Sheriff's Office. How long have you worked there? Been there for 21 years.

What is your current position? I'm a lieutenant in criminal investigations. Back in 2018. 2018, I was a sergeant in criminal investigations. How did you become involved in the investigation, my lady, to the death of my own? So the lead detective in that case, she moved positions just within criminal investigations,

and I became her supervisor, her sergeant, at the time and the case moved with her. I don't remember exactly when she moved positions, but I think it was sometime in 2018. Now, at some point, did detect authority leave? Yes, she did. And when she left, did you kind of step up in order to take on some of the responsibilities of this semester back? Yes, I did.

Now, during the course of this investigation, were you provided with potential names from Mr. Wiggs that he thought you needed them looking into an end up. We were, yes, sir. And what were those names? Jeremy Townsend and James or Jimmy Ballou? And were those individuals interviewed? They were. Did long horse go and look into the assertions made by Mr. Wiggs about them?

Yes, sir. In the sheriff's office and when an investigation like this is being investigated, is there just a single detective assigned or is there a team? There would be a team. We have a lead detective, as I mentioned, but several detectives will work on a case of this complexity in size. Basically, everybody worked together, so not everybody's doing every interview, but all the information has been solved. Correct, yes, so the lead detective kind of organizes everything and delegates to some of the other detectives. some duties. Now, starting the course of the investigation was information about Michael Schaeber's phone obtained from the

service provider. Yes, sir. What was the phone number of Mr. Schaefer that was that was looked at? Michael's phone was 252, 431, 5121. Okay. And why efforts were made in order to track down the information associated with that? So he served a search warrant on his service provider, which was Verizon. wireless and that was to get of course more information about the number itself excuse me

are those the records associated with the phone number that you just this case yes sir 5121 and who is the account of sight and we're in there multiple phone numbers associated with lori shaver through this account yes sir focusing first on the phone records associated with the 5121 number associated with Michael Schaber, what information is contained in those records? So it has, we call it a call detail record, and it details date and time that calls came to or from this phone, duration of those phone calls. Of course, who the subscriber is, like you just mentioned. Does that include information, that would include content of text messages or things like that? No, sir.

The records that you have solely talks about actual phone calls, that's correct. When we are looking at the various phone calls, does it indicate incoming outgoing things of that nature? It does. It doesn't indicate call duration. It does. Throughout the records, are there numerous entries for calls that have a duration of one man? Yes, sir. Does that mean that every call of that type of duration is necessarily answered by the person that is being called?

No, sir. And if you were to look at the records of a person being called, if the call was not answered, would it then not register on their account? No, it would not register on their account. And the timeframe for what you got the phone records associated with the 5121 number, what is that? Well, we asked for what we received. What you asked? We asked for August 1st, 2015 through March 9th, 2018. that being the day Michael Shaver's body was found.

And I want to go ahead and direct your attention to November of 2018. And if you need to step down in order to demonstrate the jury, the information that we have here, please do my guess. Now, first of all, up here in this red box, what information is contained there? It says detailed for Lori Shaver, which again is the person who pays for the phone. The first in the phone is in and the name the phone is in. And it says 352, 431, 5121, so the phone number.

Now, what is the last phone call that was made from the device associated with 512? Really, the last phone call out. That's highlighted in blue at the bottom, and that's on November 7th, 2015, at 548, Pito. And what phone number was called on November 7th of 2050? Was there a 7-560-69.99. And did you do research into what that phone number went to? Yes, it's a line for EDFOT, which is where it might look. Now the phone numbers and the activity that's highlighted in yellow, what phone number is the areas highlighted in yellow associated with?

That number is 352-431-0-419, which, you know, at least at the time, was Lori Schaeber's cell phone number. Okay, and how do you do that? We would ask, at the time, we would ask to fund people, what's Lori Schaefer's cell phone number? You also take that information from Verizon itself? We, and is that the other number at the back in November of 2015 that was associated with the whole issue?

Yes, all the same account, and this. Can you go ahead and summarize the activity between the two numbers, the 5-1-21 and the, I think you said, both 4.1. dying number for the month prior, the time prior leading up to the November 7th, 2015. O-4-19, yes. So this is, would be my cell phone, and these are all his incoming or outgoing calls to or from the 0419 number or his cell phone. And leading up to the month or the day that he disappeared, there are 19 attempted or completed calls to or from from Mike's phone, to or from.

And you say to or from. So this is back and forth. He's calling her, she's calling back. They're caught, there's at least some entries where they actually talk. Correct. And they sell these entries that you're referring to here on these records.

Do they have that duration time of one minute? Yes, or moved. And so some of the activity that we might see in the 5-1-21 number, if it is a call out to the other number, what the duration is one. we might not see any activity on that other numbers account. That's correct.

Is there any activity on the number, the 5121, the number associated with Michael Schaefer's account after the November 7th, 2050? There is one incoming call. I'm going to go ahead and move that. What call was that? So February 17th, 2016, that's 3.47 p.m., an incoming call. and what was the number associated there? 352787-2277.

And did you do record, did you do research into where that phone numbers was associated? We did. It wants to a loan company called Mariner Finance. I'm showing you what has been entered into evidence. It's the same number 29. He shot the business records from Mariner Finance. and these records reflect a phone call to that 5121

number on February 17th of 2015. Yes, sir. 2016. Did you also obtain the records for that second number associated with the account? 0.419? Yes. And then

was that also obtained through the search form? 07 search forms. And I'm going to ask. that you go ahead and look at those records or those the records associated with the second phone number associated with that account? Yes, sir, 041 there. And do these records also reflect

activity to or from the 512 number belonging to Michael Schamer preceding November 7, 2015? Yes, sir, those are the highlighting portion? And how long after November 2015 to the records that you obtained associated with Lord Shaver's phone number do these records weren't until 18th 2016 and during that time frame between November of 2015 April 2016 is there any attempts to call on you find one to what number

associated with Michael finger is there any calls to that phone number associated with Lori Schaeber from that 5-121 number associated with Michael Schaeber. Now, during the course of the investigation, there was a phone number that was submitted through a Facebook message from Michael Schavers account to Vanessa Coulson. Were you familiar with that phone number?

Yes, sir. And was research and attempts to look into that phone number done through search warrant as well? Yes, we did. Showing that what has been previously been marked for identification of states OO. Down stage 43, what kind of records are reflected in that document?

These are called customer notes by Barrejian. First line, go to. And what type of activity referenced there? So it's kind of an ongoing narrative, I guess type by a customer service representative of activity on the account. I mean, they added a feature or took away a feature, things like that.

Does it also include information when an account told her does things such as changing a phone number. Yes. And is there record activity on that Verizon account for the 5121 number being changed at any time? Yes. When was that 5121 number changed? April 6, 2016, 5121, which was my number. The cell phone number was changed to 352801, 09401.

In order to have a phone number change that is successive with the individual having in the place itself to change the phone number. Correct. And the period of time that the phone number was sent to Vanessa Townsend was that after that April 6th, 2016, actually. That was three days later, I believe on a whole night. It is Ryan here, and I have a question for you. What do you do when you win? Like, are you a fist pumper? A woo-hooer?

a hand clapper, a high-fiver. If you want to hone in on those winning moves, check out Chumba Casino. Choose from hundreds of social casino-style games for your chance to redeem serious cash prizes. There are new game releases weekly, plus free daily bonuses, so don't wait.

Start having the most fun ever at chumbacasino.com. Sponsored by Chumba Casino, no purchase necessary, VGW Group, voidware prohibited by law, 18 plus, terms and conditions apply. How long did that 0944 number remained under Lori Shaver's account? was 10 days until it was turned. And what happened on April 16th?

So the number was changed again. Okay. On April 16th, 2016th, 0941 was changed again to 2-4-3-1-8-4-4-4. Then did you do any research into the phone number ending at 844- Yes, okay. Your Honor, I'm showing the defense was previously marked as C6-7-P-P.

All right, any objection? No objection. Do you recognize this document? Yes, sir. And what is that document? It's a link any court document. It's titled Notice of Current Contact Information. And who is that notice of contact current information associated with?

Or is she? And does it include her address? Yes. What is that address? 985, 70, Sandy Feud, Florida, 347. And is that the address where the skeletal remains of Michael Schable were found underneath the fire in the backyard? Yes.

And what is the date of that document? The July 6th, June 1916. And does that document also include a phone number? Yes, sir. And what phone number is that? 3, 5, 2, 431, 8444. The same code number that the number originally associated with Michael Schaver had been changed to

in order to contact Vanessa Trousson and now change again 10 days after that. Yes, sir, 8444. During the time frame that Mr. Wicks provided you with information or lading to nays, he thought you needed to investigate, did he give you any information regarding Isabelle Schaeber? Yes, sir. And at some point after Lori Schavers' arrest, did you interview Ms. Belcher? Yes, I did.

At that time, how old question? It was in 2018, and she had just had a birthday. day, so I think she had just turned 12 a few days earlier. And in the course of your training experience, have you had training about how to interview children? Yes, sir. What do you also interview at the Child Advocity Center? Yes, sir. And what is the child advocacy?

So it's a place where child victims or witnesses can be interviewed in a very friendly, child-friendly setting by people whose only job it is is to enter. interview kids. But to be clarify, would you interview Isabelle Schaefer, where did that occur? That was at their house. Did I say I interviewed her in 2018?

What did you? I interviewed her in 2020. If I got the year wrong, I'm sorry. I'm not as, I'm not as in it. But that was not done in the sheriff's office. No, that was at her house, yes, sir.

Now, not getting in any specific things that she said at that time, did she bring up anything related to her involvement or Jeremy Townsend's involvement that required further investigation by the sheriff's office at the time she gained in her of those areas? No, sir. Are you aware that there have been discussions through Mr. Wiggs about Isabel Schaeber's involvement in this case since the time that you would have interviewed her in the Charlotte Avenue City. Yes, I am aware. the point that those statements came forward or charges already pending against

Lauren Schaeer. Yes. Any other talking of witnesses would be done through the state attorney's office at that point? Correct. And Ms. Visebel Schaeber, where it was deposed through the course of this pending case. Yes, sir, I'm aware of that. As part of your duties, are you a firearms instructor? Yes, I am. Now, as part of any sort of firearms training or defensive tactics or law force officers or anyone else trained in that a similar fashion trained to basically try to make headshots in stressful situations no why not well we're trained if we're using deadly force it's to eliminate a threat so we're trained to shoot what's called center mass which is right in the middle of the largest target which is the person's body

nothing further trust all right thank you mr wiggs thank you mr wiggs yes sir Good afternoon. You replaced Lisa Doria on this case, correct? I didn't, I wouldn't say I replaced her. She left, and I helped out more after she left. I got to inherit the job, correct? I wouldn't say that either. She was a detective.

I was a sergeant, but I helped more after she left. Okay. You graduated by understanding from, and went to work immediately with the sheriff's office, correct? I'm sorry, you said I graduated and... Got your certificate for law enforcement? You went to work with ESO, correct? Yes, this is my first law enforcement job, yes, sir. You've only worked with law enforcement there, correct?

That's correct, yes. Okay, not to belittle you in any respect, okay? Do you have any certificates or training in digital? No, sir. No, sir. And so you relied on other people within your report to gather information, correct? Correct. Within my report together information. You were the case officer, correct?

I was never the case officer, no, sir. Is your name on the incident report? I did supplements. I don't know what you mean by... Okay. By your friend, Stuart. Yes, sir. Showing, yeah, most work as I guess, on the clerk on that front.

All right, sidebar, please. Oh, sir. Showing you a dog. Is your name anywhere? honor within that document. What are you looking at? I'm looking at page one at the moment. Are you talking about this post a note?

No. You've been handed. It looks like just a bunch of typed notes. I don't know what it is. This notes are your notes? I think so. I don't. Do you bring any records with you

to your deposition? I think I did. What would you have brought? Do you recall? No, I don't recall. Okay. Does that document that you hold in your hand, does it contain your name anywhere within it? I'm looking. Good time.

There are three corrections. Yes, sir. Come on up. Officer Dale. Do you have something like that probable cause on this case? Yes, I did. Okay. You see your name in there?

Yes, on the probable cause after he. So when I asked you, your name on any of these documents, correct? Yes. Your name's not the probable cause, correct? Yes, it is. You made the decision to arrest. Lori Shaver, correct? I signed the probable cause affidavit.

Okay. Is it fair to assume you would have made a decision? No. I signed the probable cause affidavit. Does he tell you? No. No. Okay.

You signed that affidavit after receiving other information of other people, correct? Yes. Yes, that's correct. So, based on your... conclusions that Lori Schaver was arrested, correct? You're the one that

vouched for the arrest? I signed the probable cause affidavit. Okay. And based on that probable cause, Lori Schaever was arrested? Yes. Okay. Thank you. As his case was going about, was it listed as a cold case

file? No, it was not. Okay. How long was the investigation? Well, from March, 2008, 18 to September 2020 was when the arrest was made. Did you ever put it on the internet as a cold case file?

We put it on the internet. So we have a section called cold case files, yes, and I know what you're talking about. But that's the only place we had at the time to put cases to get more information. But we did not determine it to be a cold case. Because a cold case is something in our eyes where we have nothing else, no other information to go So you weren't hot on the trail of Lori Shaver or any particular individual when you put that on the internet, correct?

I don't remember exactly the time frame that happened, but I think we were waiting on more information to come in of search warrants. I don't remember exactly what day that happened. Maybe you do if you have that in front of you. When that was put on the internet, were you holding any evidence, any inference that you could suggest guilt to Lori Schamer? I don't remember when that was put on yet. Okay. What we had at that time. Yeah, I don't know when it was put on the internet. It was just basically to get out to the public, to get the case out in the public's eye,

to get tips if anyone had any. That was our intent. Were you aware of any internal conflicts within Shaber residents? Michael and Lori Shaver? Yeah, I heard of some of the witnesses described, of course, this is third party because I never spoke to Michael or Lori, but having both of them described some domestic violence incidents. And the probable cause affidavit, was there a decision that you signed off on the arrest, Lori Shaver for the charge of murder?

Yes. And that was your decision, correct? I signed the affidavit. Okay. What do you say you signed the affidavit? Was somebody telling you to sign the affidavit, write murder in there, and write accessory? No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I just want to make it clear that I'm not the only I wasn't the only detective working on this It was a somebody there's a group effort absolutely not no sir. I'm saying

I'm saying No, no It was my decision. It was a group decision, but I signed the affidavit, yes Yes Decision but that you were part of that Yes, absolutely This is not the Declaration of Independence. We can't all sign it So I signed it

Recall me taking your deposition Yes, sir. Okay. Did at any time you believe when I was taking your deposition that I may be there trying to trick you or did you assume that? Oh, yes, I did. You did? Yes.

Okay. And thus, if you assume such, would your answers maybe possibly be guarded? I'm sure they were. I don't recall specifically. You along with others made the decision to charge Lord. Shaver with the crime of second degree. Sidebar, please. You and others, evidently, within the department,

proceeded to charge and arrest Lori Shaver with the crime of murder in the second degree, correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Do you know what the elements of murder in the second degree are? Yes, Your Honor. Sidebar, please. Officer, I was asking you about the decision that you all made internally. And as to the crime of murder in the second degree, are you aware of the elements?

I can't quote them, but generally yes. For me? I can't quote the statute book, but generally yes. Okay. What are the elements for the crime of second degree murder? So unlawful taking of a human life, not premeditated, obviously. I'm sorry. I said obviously not premeditated. Okay. Okay. Tell me, so there's a death, correct?

Yes. By another individual, correct? Yes. Anything that surrounds the nature of the killing? I have a statue book. No. I can't quote it. No, I can't. Okay. Okay. And you understand that all elements must be established?

Absolutely, yes. Pardon me? Yes. When you went through this case, case, did you consider elements or issues of self-defense, whether there were any? What do you mean, did I consider them? Yeah, well, there was a death. I'm unaware of any.

Okay. Were you, you were aware that there was a death? Did it enter your mind that possibly there was an issue of self-defense involved? But I'm unaware of any. Okay. Did you investigate to determine whether or not self-defense, was plausible in this case. I'm unaware of any, no one made a self-defense claim.

Michael was shot in the back of the head. I don't know of any self-defense. No one made that claim. Okay. Well, you wouldn't expect me to come in and make it, correct? No. No. I would expect someone to make it if they acted in self-defense.

That's how it normally occurs. So let me ask you then. If you see certain elements, but nobody suggests in self-defense, do you just presume guilt and make the arrest? No. Okay. Did you do anything, therefore, to see whether or not there was any issue of self-defense? If no one suggests self-defense, how would I know their self-defense? Okay.

And I didn't see any evidence of self-defense. And normally in self-defense, you don't bury the body in a backyard. I've never seen that before anyway. There was testimony, I think, that you provided about address changes, correct? When? Earlier on direct examination. You looked at some documents, saw a certificate of an address change? I think it was just declaring that was her address at that time.

Okay. I think is what that was. Did the address change have anything to do with the homicide? I don't know what it had to do with. It was a court document. Pardon me? I don't know what it had to do it. It was a court document declaring that was her address at that time and phone number.

Okay. Would that suggest to you a homicide? No. Okay. You also testified about documents of utilities in somebody's name, correct? Cell phone bills? Yes, sir. Okay.

Would that suggest a homicide? Just a cell phone bill by itself? No. Okay. Is a cell phone bill? With anything else going to suggest a homicide? I mean, it's the contents of the record, not the cell phone bill. Those records don't suggest a homicide in any form or any manner, do they?

The cell phone bill? It's what they show, and not by themselves. No, of course not. It's the totality of everything. Your investigation never uncovered any kind of financial motive as a motive for homicide. No. No. Did you put that fact in your report? That we didn't uncover a financial motive? Right. No. That wasn't in there? And my, my report or my PCF adabit? In the report? That we didn't uncover a financial motive? No. Do you think it's important for the jurors and

everybody that you document all facts, including exculpatory evidence? Yes, absolutely. Okay. That would be an exculpatory factor, correct? Yes, but... No financial motive in this case. Well, I mean, I wouldn't put in there, I would have to put then, I didn't uncover a financial motive, I didn't uncover this motive, I didn't uncover that motive. So I can't list every motive that I didn't uncover.

That's often a primary factor in a homicide, is it not? Well, you don't have to prove motive, but yes, if you have one, it would be a primary factor. And in your investigation, you discovered that the body had been dead through your correspondence and with other witnesses for several months to years, correct? I believe that is what the K-Fill lab said. Okay. So we've heard testimony in this case about people getting emails on this date and the last time Michael Schaver showing up at work on this date or that date. Those don't suggest homicide, do they?

I mean, well, his cause a matter of death is what suggests homicide. I mean, the fact somebody doesn't show up for work is not an element suggested that Lori Schaever murdered by money, particularly, right? No. Yeah, you understood pursuant to the requirements that the death had to have been the criminal act of Lori Schaever, correct? Yes. Okay. Or somebody acting on her behalf, correct? Correct.

Now, you weren't present during the death. to Michael Shaver, correct? No, it was not. You can't testify what happened during that incident, can you? No, sir. Can't testify who was present, correct? No, sir. Can't testify who was any aggressor, correct?

No, sir. Can't testify whether or not somebody was exercised and self-defense, correct? No, sir. Neither can you testify as to who if anybody shot a guy? I wasn't there, so no, sir. If that's what you mean. And yet such facts are imperative as essential elements to the crime of homicide, correct? That the criminal death occurred by a particular individual.

Correct? Yes. Okay. Those are essential elements that are not revealed in any report, correct? Well, I never witnessed any homicide. I've never witnessed homicide. But those facts are not gleaned by other evidence within this investigation, correct? I believe that they are.

Okay. Now, there was a point in time in which law enforcement responded to the residents in reference to a well-being check, correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Were you there for that? No, I was not. Okay. Do you know how many officers were there? I don't. I think at least two, but there may have been more. I don't know. Now, when law enforcement went there for a well-being check, you can't make any declaration they were hot on the trail and were making headway on that case, correct?

Correct. And in fact, they went to the residence as a consequence of a call from Scott Emettuccio, correct? Yes, sir. And Mr. Amatuccio never indicated he had witnessed a crime, correct? No, he didn't. Yeah, he was working on a suspicion, correct? But something may have happened at that house. I guess you could call it that, yes, sir.

Yeah, because he hadn't seen his friend in some time, correct? He had other suspicions, but yes, including that. And Mr. Amatuccio stated he hadn't seen his dear friend for some years, correct? Since the end of 2015. Did your ears go up when you heard that? He hadn't seen his friend for several years, what his relationship was with Mr. Shaver. Did that spark your suspicion? at all?

I wasn't involved in the case at that time. Okay. If you were involved in the case at that time, would that raise some suspicion in your mind? I don't know. Okay. I mean, but it quickly went from one person hadn't seen him to several people hadn't seen them. Okay. So it became a numbers game?

Your word's not mine, but one person hadn't seen him and then his family hadn't seen him, and then no one, we couldn't find anyone who had seen him. You know what his relationship was with his family? Specifically, no. Okay. But I know the point is, people he worked with, actually no one had seen him. No one.

People who saw him at work, no one since the end of 2015. Okay. My understanding was your position that Lori was arrested because it was your feeling she was key in covering up the body that was found on the property, correct? That's part of it. Okay.

When you made that conclusion, did you reach any particular conclusion based on any physical evidence that Lori knew he was buried there? I'm sorry you say that Lori knew he was buried there? Right. Physical evidence, no, sir. Pardon me? No, sir. Physical evidence, no.

Okay. So you had no evidence to suggest that Lori knew his body was there. but basically she was just the closest one to the body, correct? That's part of it, but not all of it. Okay. So she's closest to the body. She gets arrested. No, sir.

Okay. Well, you say that's part of it. Well, that is part of it. She was, it was on her property and his property under a fire pit or, yeah, fire pit that she built, but that's not the only reason she was arrested. Well, what was it? What else I miss that that you can fill me in on that was that, factored into that decision?

Well, she was the last person seen with him alive. That means she murdered him. Let's stop there. We are taking each thing I'm going to say and ask, does that mean she murdered him? Each thing, no, by itself, no, never have arrested her for any one thing I'm going to say, no, sir. No. So, he's the last to see him. Does that mean she murder?

By itself, no. Okay. What's go to the next session? What's the thing? the factor So she was the last person She left with him The two of them left together

Last person to see him that we know of on planet Earth Alive she immediately started lying about His whereabouts Right there Is Lori sitting here today Charge with lying? No Okay

Is that an element to the crime of murder? No What other factor did you rely upon? She immediately started lying about his whereabouts to everyone. She took two and a half years lying about to everyone, his whereabouts, which delayed his friends and family reporting him missing, which delayed discovering his body, which delayed discovering his homicide, and investigating his homicide. I don't know who that would benefit other than the person who killed him and put him in the ground.

We'll stop a second. You initially began this, your testimony, saying that you were aware there were the issues have the shape or faith, correct? Yes. But if there were tensions with him, that people, correct? Yes. Did it enter your mind, considering those facts, that maybe Ms. Schaeber was happy he was gone? Well, that could be, except that he wasn't gone.

He was dead and buried under her fire pit. Well, he wasn't there bothering her. But he wasn't gone. He was murdered under her fire pit. Do you have evidence of only Shaver plays? Mr. Sheaver-up with that firefitt. Well, everything I'm listening to you is what led me to conclude that no one else did.

I'm sorry. No, just everything I'm listening. Everything you're listening to. Okay. And as one of the agents on this case, you reviewed what was gathered in that fire pit, correct? Yes. Okay.

And you have personal knowledge that not one single item in that fire fit. link Lori Schaeber to that. Physical evidence, you're correct, yes. Okay, there's no forensics, correct? Correct. That factor into your decision to charge Ms. Schaever

with homicide. Correct, yes. The fact there was no connective link. Yes, but by that logic, then we can never charge anyone. You think? Well, by that logic, yes. There's no evidence against anyone.

There's no forensic evidence. There's no anyone DNA in there. For instance, do homicides? It's affirmative with people lay eyes with thick and pencil? Yes. Okay. Do they leave a gun registered in their name? Were holastics link up to that gun?

Yes. Yes. Okay. Were those present in this case? No. So when you say you could never charge somebody with such a place, okay? That's not an accurate statement, is it? Well, you're making it sound as if there's no DNA in that pit with his body,

which there wasn't, then we can't charge anyone. Let me ask, was there any DNA on his physical life? No. Any fears from her? From no one, though. Okay. The word here is found in the pet, correct? Not foreign to him.

You don't know about that? Not that we could test on anyone else that can compare to anyone else. So Lori's closest, so Lori gets charged, correct? All I'm saying is, by your logic, if we find no physical evidence and with his body. We can't charge anyone, which would mean we could never charge anyone. So, I mean, I think you would agree that with his body being on their property, it would have to be someone who knows him. He wasn't robbed on I drive by a stranger, and they brought him back to his property and buried him. You don't know who was residing in that residence, do you?

Well, it wasn't there, but I know who says. You don't know how the altercation occurred, correct? I wasn't there. Correct. Did you see or uncover any photographs of Lori Shaver having anything to do with the patio itself? The fire pit or the concrete because those were built at separate times. Did you see anything? Any images or photographs of Lori pouring the patio?

Not pouring the patio. Anything to do with the patio? I think she had some photographs of bags of cement on her Facebook, yes. Correct. Okay. And where did you see those images? On her Facebook? So Lori Shaver is going to pour a patio, and she's got on Facebook photos of the concrete

she's going to do it with, correct? I sold photos of bags of concrete on our Facebook, yes. Did you make a note that I put you in your incident report? This may constitute exculpatory evidence suggesting this person didn't know the party was in there? I don't know what you mean. You usually know about advertised that they're going to put a patio over a body, do you think? I don't know. This is my first case with a patio over a body. and it was in my report,

so whether you call it exculpatory or inculpatory, I don't know. In fact, you would acknowledge that that doesn't suggest guilt. What doesn't suggest guilt? The fact that she had anything to do with the patio and that the concrete had been posted. Here's what I find out about that is she had a five-acre property

and she put it over his body. So that would... Do you know what? what the ground looked like before? Before what? To Crawford was lying. No. Do you know what was going at?

I was told a duck pond. Did you put that in the report as potential exculpatory evidence? It's in the report about the duck pond. It's not in my part of the report. Do you make any notations that that would be evidence potentially for consideration? That what would be evidence? Pardon me? That what would be evidence, I'm sorry.

That this patio was put there for a reason specific, not necessarily to cover up a crime. I don't know her reason for putting it there. Right, correct. But you made the decision, one of the people, made the decision to arrest Lori Shaver. Yes. Implicating she had knowledge of the body being there, correct? Well, yes. Yes.

knowledgeable of the fact that there was another ulterior purpose for the existence of the ground prior, correct? I'm sorry, say that again, I apologize. And at the same time, you knew that the ground had another intended purpose, correct? We were told that Mike was making a duck pond. Correct. Yes, we were told that. Now, it's my understanding that you have a belief that that, that the crime can't be committed just on a bare suspicion, correct?

Of guilt? Right, yes. I mean, that's your feeling, correct? Some bare inference, correct? Yes, sir. Yeah, when you arrested Ms. Shaver, there was no evidence that you held establishing any knowledge on her part that the body was under the patio, correct? Well, to me, her building the patio over the body was,

what did it for me? If you call that exculpatory, that's our agree-to-disagree moment, I guess. You disagree with that statement? That her building the patio over his body means she did not know it was there, is what you're saying? Okay. Have you made a statement inconsistent with that in the past? Is what I'm asking you? Inconsistent with what?

What you just stated. I'm referring you to your deposition. I'm going to refer you to page 30, line. 14 through 16. You'll read that. Line 14? 14 through 16. Question, but how do you know that Ms.

Shaver, back to my question, had anything to do with filling in that pit? Answer, with actually putting the dirt in. Question correct. Answer, I don't. So you don't know whether or not she had any knowledge, any body

in the ground, or had any partaking in the pricing of the body the ground for that by your prior state what was filling the pit if you have any knowledge that the body was in the pit or pertake and placing the body in the pet can i see that again i don't think that's what that said i just want to see it again i apologize may i because i was i was reading rather than paying attention tell me my brain will only do one thing that's fine it's late after me i'm okay i mean without the rest for context, it says, had anything to do with filling in that pit?

Yeah. And I said with actually putting the dirt in. Question was, but how do you know that Ms. Shaver, back to my question, had anything to do with filling in that pit? It doesn't sound like you're asking, did you know the body? Go further. Okay. With actually putting the dirt in there, you asked me? And I say, correct.

And your answer? I don't. Correct? So it's not a manner that the pung, that the tinge is in her yarn. You know there's got to be some evidence, Philist Fablish, that the shaver had knowledge of the body and the ground, correct? It doesn't sound like that's what you're asking me there without reading more context. I apologize.

But you're asking about filling in the pit? Now, Mr. Camuchio was asking you about information gleaned from myself or anybody else. Did Mr. Camuchio relay to you any conversations and facts I had relate to him about the minor child? Just general facts of her story, yes. Okay. And a revelation of what had come forward for that minor? Yes, sir. And when you met the child at Child Services?

The Children's Advocacy Center? Yeah. It wasn't that the child misrepresented anything. The child didn't want to speak to you, correct? I didn't speak to her at the Children's Advocacy Center. She was interviewed by the professional interviewers. And no information was gained from that child, correct? About anything.

Did she relate to them? one story that changed from another. I mean, that's a broad statement. She didn't say anything about shooting Mike. Right. She didn't say anything about anything, did she? What do you mean? She didn't say anything about anything.

Do you know anything that the child? Yes. This minor child didn't fail to provide a statement. The child didn't give you any statement. correct? It sounds like you're saying. She gave a statement. Okay.

Yeah. Is the statement materially different or did the child just say she did it was personal? Materially different than what? What was later revealed? Was materially different in that she did not say at the Children's Adiccy Center that she shot her dad, if that's what you mean. She didn't want to talk about it, correct? About? The event.

About shooting her dad? I mean, they didn't ask her, did you shoot your dad? Did the child indicate in any form of manner? He didn't want to talk. About some things, yes. Did the state converse with you at any point in time about any conversations that I may have communicated to the state from that child? not in detail.

Just generally what she said, yes, sir. And whatever the state revealed to you, did you follow up on whatever was communicated to you by the state? No, by that time, you know, Lori had been arrested and charged, and the state would be responsible for, if they wanted me to interview her, I would have. But it's my understanding they deposed her. In this case, there was no, we've covered the grave, but there was no evidence that you're aware. of that was unturned from the residents implicating Lori Shaver. No. And you've testified previously that you take the position that there must be some evidence,

not it's simply a bare suspicion? Yes. Okay. And you understand there was no late ballistics, correct? No ballistics, you said? Correct? Yes, sir, I understand. You were aware of that, correct?

Yes. Was there any DNA within the residence that, that linked Lori Shaver. No, sir. To this crime. No, sir. There was no digital device recovered in this case, was there? No, sir.

You would agree with me that creates, to a degree, a lack of evidence? Oh, physical evidence. No physical evidence, correct? Yes, sir. Did you learn in this investigation how Facebook maintains or takes care of their IP information? No, I didn't. and do anything with IP. Okay.

Did anybody supply you information about the IP information from Facebook? I don't remember learning anything about IP. Okay. Had Lori Shaver posed as Michael Shaver on Facebook? You would agree that doesn't mean Lori Shaver murdered Michael Shaver? By itself, no. No. Okay.

Do you know whether or not any other, anybody in the house could have posed as Michael Shaver. Well, it only benefited Lori. Did it? Correct. Okay. You were supplied information about Jeremy Townsend, correct? Correct.

And you were aware that Jeremy Townsend was in a relationship for some term with Lori, correct? Correct. And if Jeremy Townsend was in the residence, did it enter your mind that possibly Probably Jeremy Townsend had been on the router and the computer. Well, why would Jeremy Townsend try to break up his own relationship with his wife? Okay. Let me ask you. You can't segregate some emails to the exclusion of all these mails.

For instance, you can't say, this is from Jeremy, this is from Lori, this may be from Jeremy, this name. I don't know what you mean. You know whether or not you have evidence that every single. single email document that's my hood and evidence came some Lori Shaper exclusively. Do you mean Facebook? Facebook is seasoned. That every single one came from Lori exclusively. So again, if I say no, then by what you're suggesting, both Lori and someone else,

potentially Jeremy was pretending to be Mike, then sure, someone, two people could be pretending to be Mike. You would agree with me. That's a reasonable inference, correct? I don't think so. No, but okay. The other individual was involved in the homicide. I don't know.

I don't know. You never looked at anything, any accounts of Jeremy Townsend, correct? I didn't, no. Did anybody? I don't think so. Did you meet with anybody from Facebook or CenturyLink? No, sir. Do you know whether any of these records are linkable?

connected to one particular person, location, or device? No, I don't know. Do you know how long Facebook saves IP addresses? I didn't deal with IP addresses at all, sir. Pardon me? I did not deal with IP addresses at all. Is there any information in your report dealing with that? I don't think in my report.

I didn't deal with IP addresses. Did you talk to who was the IP investigator? What's his saying? They just testify, do you know? Detective Strickland, Corporal Nile Strickland? Yeah. Did you talk to Strickland about his findings? I'm sure we talked, yes, sir.

Did he talk about revolving IPs? We talked, yes, sir, but I didn't deal with it. I didn't research that at all. Yes, I signed the probable cause. Okay, and you factor in other people's findings as well, correct? Yes, sir. You testify on behalf of the state about, and I think I covered this, but about utilities being listed in Lori's name, correct?

The cell phone bill? Well, utilities, I think, on the residence, correct? And other information. Earlier today? Correct. Do you know how long they've been listed in Lori's name? Earlier today I talked about the cell phone bill. Okay.

Do you know how long that's been in her name or if it was ever in Michael Schavers' name? If I had the records, I might. Okay. Did you, in your investigation, go back to discern if they were ever in Michael's name? We, again, we asked for, I think we got from, whatever date we got from, I don't have in front of me. But from the dates that I had, it was not in Michael's name. Okay. So you just assumed because they were in Lori's name, something happened.

No. I don't see what you're saying there. No, sir, I didn't. A lot of husbands and wives have their cell phones in one person. person's name. Now, you didn't look into the history of Mr. Townsend, it's my understanding, because you felt it was years later, and a lot of the records had been gone or were gone in that time frame, correct? Are you talking about Facebook or? Facebook records? I don't know why they didn't. Pardon me? I don't know why they didn't. I didn't deal with Jeremy.

Sorry, page 45? The question was asked of you. Did you ever look into the history of Mr. Townsend? Page 45, line 13. Okay. In your response? Okay, yeah. You also have to remember that a lot of what we were doing was years after, you know,

a lot of records that would be requested were gone because of the time frame. Okay. So Lori Shaver's records were allowed. It could be lucked at. It could be rocked before the court gear mine. But Mr. Townsons were unreliable, correct? I didn't say unreliable, but... Is that what you said?

It said, we're gone, did it say? Unreliable, gone? I'm sorry. My memory's unreliable, sir. Well, it's afternoon, I'm tired to... I'm sorry. I know I just read it. 45 line through 18.

It says... I want to read that aloud. I will. You also have to remember that a lot of what we were doing was years after. after, you know, a lot of records that we requested were gone because of the time frame. Okay. So Mr. Townsend's records were not available. They were gone for events of proven at the same time, correct?

I don't know. I didn't deal with Mr. Townsend at all. That was the answer to you supplied, correct? Okay. Yes, sir. I did. And did you speak to Kendall Davidoowski? Yes.

Okay. And who was she? She at one time dated Mike Schaver. Okay. Did you look at her computer? No. Her digital data. No.

And that, again, was because years had gone by. No. And hers wasn't available. I don't. No, I don't think that's fine. I refer you to page 61. Line 10 through 12. Again, this is a couple years afterwards, so a lot of things are lost, but I felt like we were

comprehensive in what we did. Okay. So you didn't look. at misstated Ausstees because of age, correct? Assuming that's what we're talking about. That was your answer, correct? I don't know what you asked me there, but yes, okay. You answered.

That's correct. If that's the question you asked me, you just had me read the answer. But yes, okay. Having brought Jeremy Townsend to your attention, you were advised, I believe, that this man had been in the military, correct? I'm aware that he was. Okay, in special forces?

That's what I heard. Okay. And yet still that didn't trigger anything in your mind as to maybe the dispositional attitude or mindset of Jeremy Townsend to look into, correct? We did look into him. Okay. You can't say you looked into this man in depth, did you? We did look into him, yes, sir.

Yeah. We did look into him, yes, sir. Do you look into him in depth? I believe so. You believe so? Yes. You never went through any financial records? any financial records of Mr. Townsend,

did you? No. We just heard your testimony a moment ago that his Facebook data was not looked into because you perceived it as to age old and insufficient to be able to evaluate, correct? We didn't look at his Facebook data. Right. Yeah, Ms. Shavers

was, correct? We looked at hers, yes, sir. Right. Now, let's talk about the fire pit in the house. You were aware that there's a simple distance between the house in that park. I don't know what you call a considerable distance, but yeah. We did. I don't know the distance, but yes. Did it find sure it to your mind before you sign that probable cause affidavit that somebody had to get the body to the ground?

Yes. Just factor at the physical strength of any and all of. Do you know the physical abilities of Ms. Shaver at that date and time? Meaning what? Her physical abilities. I know her approximate weight. I know that everyone said she was athletic. She went to the gym.

Muscular is how she was described to me. Did you look at the gravesite, evaluate the depth, and think about the height that the individual and anybody that may be staking in there and safety did it was i was told it was about three feet deep i never saw it did you link that up in your mind possibly with mr townsen versus miss shaver yes and and i fully believe miss shaver could have drug a body presumably on a tarp across grass that distance to the grave yes and reaching that conclusion that you just did Did you ask for any specific analysis on the tarp to see if there was any chlorophyll or any ingrained soil within the tarp that would suggest movement by Ms. Schaever? Chlorophyll, you mean from grass?

From grass? No, sir. No. Did you do that? No. Did you point that out in your probable cause affidavit? No. And I believe when we discussed this, it was your position that,

really this case could be evaluated just based on common sense. I don't know if those are my words, I don't recall. Okay. I'll refer you to your deposition. Okay. Okay. Page 50, you're like, you know, it's a line, 50, uh, excuse me, bottom, page five, line one, I think it has. Page 50, line one?

Uh, I think it's page 50. I think it's, and carrying on to page 51. So we get in on the bottom. Oh, okay. I think at some point common sense has to come into play. Yeah. Okay. So that was really the fact you relied upon it and signed that affidavit, correct?

I mean, again, this is one line in an entire defoe. Can we... Go ahead, read it? How much of it do you want me to read? Well, was that a fact that you relied upon signed that probable cause that. I mean, yeah, I'm sure. Okay. Okay.

Because we know there was no feudal down at the house. We know there was no DNA and the crime site, correct? Correct. There were no forensic. We know there was no ballistics, correct? Correct. We know there was no eyewitnesses, correct? Correct.

So in your conclusion, absent all that evidence, that was your possession, just relying on your common sense, correct? In so many words, I guess so. According to my depot, yes, sir. Again, I want you to tell me, when was the last date that a call went into Epcot from Michael Schaver's phone? November 7, 2015. Okay. You've also made the decision to charge lawyers Schaeber with excessive.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay. In your investigation, did you ever determine to do the primary event? was she uses that. I believe it was Lori. So Lori committed the crime and Lori's assessing yourself? Sign bar, please. Thank you.

Would you tell us what the elements of that crime? Helping essentially clean up the crime or cover up the crime afterwards. Okay. Okay. For another in. Could be. Okay. As your dissuant, Lori was my saying that was covered the crime for herself? I believe so. Okay.

Okay. So, what was the hate or assistance that she was offering herself that she went to cover? Well, covering up the crime for two and a half years and disposing of the body. So you said that she disposed of the body, you've offered no evidence in support of that, correct? I believe she did. Okay. And in all the digital data, we see we've seen messages from Lori Schaeber to Lori Schaeber, offering a couple of around the price for herself.

No, no, sorry. We've seen communications from Lori Schaever or presumably Michael Schaeber, offering any evidence to cover up any court for anybody. No. Anything further, Mr. Wiggs? Nothing further. Thank you, Judge. Redirect.

Lieutenant Dale, when you refer to totality of the circumstances, talking about it. Well, the entire case. everything in the probable cause affidavit. In other words, as I point out, if you take any one line in the affidavit or anyone, anyone thing, no, I wouldn't have arrested Lori for any one thing, for her phone bill, for any one thing, but you have to look at the case as a whole and put all those elements together. And then we play pushing this case together as a whole, is that where the common sense analysis? And that's what I meant by that. You have to look at it globally. not microscopically at one thing, because even I would agree, no, you wouldn't arrest someone on one thing, on any case. There was discussions about why you didn't look at this at any self-defense cases.

Yes. And when you are investigating self-defense cases, aren't generally dealing with someone that is shot in the back? In the back of the head, no, no, no, sir. Are you dealing with individuals whose body is thin, hidden? for over two years. Never. When you're dealing with self-defense types of allegations,

are they normally reported? In my experience, they've always been reported. So once again, going to the totality of the circumstances and all the evidence from all the various sources

that you reviewed, is that why you excluded self-defense as a potential issue in this sense? Yes, sir. Now, as it relates to getting records for individuals. The Facebook records and other records obtained in this case, many of those obtained by search warrant. Yes. And when we talk about a search warrant,

what has to go into a search warrant? The probable cause. Meaning, meanwhile. We have to have a reason, a probable cause reason, to look into that person's personal stuff, their Facebook records, their phone records, whatever. So there are probably, from law enforcement just getting records from anybody that they might want to get records from. Correct. Do you have to then, when you're talking about probable cause, does that have to go to a judge and be approved? Yes, it does. And all of that was done for the records, Facebook records, in this case.

Correct, yes. At the time of the investigation, did you have any probable cause to obtain records for any other evidence? We did not. It is simply Mr. Wiggs telling you, Hey, you need to look into Jeremy Townsend probable calls in order to get his Facebook records? No. Is Mr. Wiggs telling you, hey, you need to look into food flu probable cause immunity records from him?

No. And also, going back to common sense, if they now have a signal source as a potential person involved in this, why would he give you two days? In my honest opinion, a wild goose chase. when you are looking at evidence of someone actively covering up a crime, is that evidence that they were involved in the crime inside? Yes, sir. Nothing further. Hi, Mr. Wiggs?

Yes, briefly. And when the state just asking these questions here, talking about common sense and having to procure warrants and the need to get a judicial order, you told me you voted insufficiently to Jeremy. Correct? Yes, sir. I had advised the state attorney's office and law enforcement some information regarding him, correct? You gave us his name. Is that what you mean? Right.

Yes, sir. Right. And in the investigation that y'all were doing, you did come up with an unknown male contributor at the scene with regards to DNA, correct? In the house. Right. So did that trigger your mind? Hey, maybe what Mr. Wicks is saying, we need to look into this.

Jeremy Townsend? No, because we know Jeremy was in the house. Okay. So we get a DNA report indicating Lori's presence is on the ground and a track and there's another individual that's a male

that we can't account for. Don't take any effort relying on this common sense principle to see who that was? Well, first of all, I think the DNA wasn't able to be compared, if I remember, I'd have to look at a report. Second of all, if it turned out to be Jeremy's or anyone's, it would just show they were in the house,

which we know he was in the house. At the location, essentially of a conflict, correct? In the house? Correct. In the house. Okay. I don't know where any contact off the purse, correct? No, but it would show he was in the house.

Okay. But you don't know what's going on in the house, correct? Okay, well, you're telling me we have her DNA in the house, so that doesn't mean she did it. We have informed information to the state. Correct. Which I'm finding out months after I arrest her. Through the state, correct? Okay, yes, sir.

Did you ask Jeremy Townsend for a swale? We had nothing to compare it to. See if he'd send it off to FDLA and see if they could get a match? We had nothing to compare it to. Did you try? We had nothing to compare it to. Ma'am. Did you try?

We had nothing to compare it to, so no. Thank you, Judge. Thank you. State. Was there any DNA to compare to the TARP? No, sir. Strat? No, sir. Anything in the grave?

No, sir. The home, when that DNA fault would have done, that would have been at least two years since the fire pit that Smith's lap was installed. Yes, sir. And so we are talking about two, years worth of people going in and out of that sliding bus. That's correct.

And in that house, we know that she had a commitment ceremony to Travis Fillmer, so he's been in that house. Yes. We know her son, Aidan's been in that house. Excuse me. He'll just come across or read around, Judge. Excuse me. Over rule.

You may proceed. We know that she has her son Aidan that's been there. Yes. They're on Facebook. Their pictures of parties. and things like that going on that house. Yes, sir. Countless people go through that slide.

Yes, sir. So would there be any evidentiary benefit to comparing anything to that DNA? No, sir. Even if you've got DNA, which there was nothing to compare to on the TARP, would that tell you when that DNA got there? Yes, sir.

There's also been an assertion that the arrest was made based on proximity to the grave. Because Lori was the closest person to where the body was found. When was the body found? March 9th, 2018. When was she? September 17th, 2020.

So there was a lot of other stuff that went into it more than this process. Yes, sir. Nothing further charged. Mr. Wiggs. And just real briefly. You find the body in what time? Time of day or date? What year?

2018. When did you get the Facebook record? I think also 2018, I think. Okay. So you have the records. You have the body. Obviously, the records aren't very

bunch of the telltale sign. If you wait two foreign years, still has Lori Shane. Correct. Well, it wasn't just the records either. Yeah. Thank you. Anything further?

No, sir. I'm Jimmy. How are y'all doing? You know, Lori? Yes. Yes. How, when did you first meet Morrissey? It's in the summer, summer of 14. Where did you meet her?

Don Milly Chevrolet. Where were you working at the file? There, Don Meeley. What was your position there? Salesman. What was the context in the meeting that you had at the Chevrolet dealership with Florida Schubert. They were buying a truck. Can we say they were you first?

Her and her old man. Do you remember his name? It's Mr. Schaver. Michael Schaeber? Michael Schaeber, yeah. And what kind of truck was she looking at? I think it was Civerado. Did they end up purchasing a vehicle that first time that they went to the dealership?

No. Did there come a time that she returned to the dealership? Yes. And when she returned to the dealership, do you remember how she was dressed? Short shorts, cowboy boots on. Okay. And was her husband with her? No.

What was the purpose of her coming that second time? I really don't remember, be honest with you. It was something to do with we owed them something or something for the truck, I believe. They purchased the APA. Yeah, they did. They did, yeah. After that purchase had been completed, did you end up texting with Lori Schaver back and boy? Yeah, about the truck and on.

And at some points did those text messages move on to something other than just the truck? first. Yeah. Did you end up having a physical relationship with them? Yeah, me and my girlfriend split up. Sidebar, please. Thanks, person. You end up having a physical relationship with Morris Schaeber? Yes, after me and the other lady split up. Yeah, right something about split up. You were still married at that time. No, we were just, we wasn't married at that time. No. We've been together for, well, me and my wife has been together since 2001. Okay. So, yeah.

At the time you started the principal relationship with Lauren Schaefer was a relationship. It was girlfriend and boyfriend, I reckon. What was your relationship with your wife? It was girlfriend and boyfriend, I reckon, you'd say, before you get married, I mean. The relationship that you had with Ms. Schaever, how long did that last? Not long and old. Not long and old. Who went to it? I did.

Did she want more out of the relationship than you? you did. Yeah. Surve us. Good. What's the, excuse? Sidebar, please. Come on up. And she won't more out of this relationship. Yeah.

Where would the physical acts between you and Laura Schamer? At her house. And what time of day would Dave her? Oh, I don't know. It's just been years, ma'am. Do you remember if she was working in an office remotely at that time? She wasn't working in no office.

She's working at home. When was the last time that you had any contact with either Lori Schaeber or Michael Schaeer? It was before the summer was up, so it was only was probably a month and a half, probably. I'd say June, July, I guess July or August would have been in 2014, is the last contact. After the relationship between you and Lori Schaeber ended, it was a week. Was there a timeframe that Michael Schaber actually reached out to you to ask for help with something? Probably about a month later, if not right close to it. He called me and said, Lori's trying to kill herself or she's trying to do something like that.

And I said... All right. Sustained. Without getting into anything. Okay. He reached out and asked for help. Yeah, and I told him that's between y'all. And...

Do you have any contact with either of them after? Hello.