Crimeatorium - The State of Florida vs. Laurie Shaver | The Murder of Michael Shaver | Part 8 | Final

Episode Date: October 11, 2026

On 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.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]

to true crime stories with crime atroarian. Mr. Wicks? Yes, sir. May it please the court? Yes, sir. It's been a long week, hasn't it, everybody? I appreciate you all being here. I appreciate your attention. I know it was an arduous event. All of us sitting here listening through that, all of the breaks at the bench, all of those interruptions, it can be very annoying. It can take a lot of time. It's very distracting, but those things have to happen. In the Ford dire, you'll remember.

I stressed you all extensively about the Constitution. This is something we don't take for granted in a criminal case. Some people may want to downplay it. Some people may want to compromise our rights, the responsibilities and the privileges that we have. They can't be. They cannot be compromised in the slightest event. This is a privilege we have.

It's a constitution that is endured. It was created by hardship for men and women like us to live under the system we have. This system goes, we'll never have it back. We will never get it back. And it is at jeopardy at this stage. I told you that the founding fathers in this constitution, they recognize that liberty comes with an extreme price. To deprive somebody of liberty comes with a lot of responsibility.

Not coming in here, throwing a bunch of mud on the wall and saying, yeah, there you go, there you go. Oh, she lied about this, or here's another misstatement, or here's another misstatement. Lori Shaver is not on trial for life. Lori Shaver is not on trial for bank fraud. Think about that. That the state has the audacity to come in here and state, money's moved, thus she committed a murder. Guns were sold, thus she committed a murder.

There's a car in the yard and a misrepresentation. and somebody went somewhere, thus causation. That's a huge leap, an extreme leap. Remember we spoke about in Vordiard, and I kind of used an example, and I said, I had seen on TV about, and I believe it was Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson talking about, you know, I think it was Rogan talking about, and he said, you know, I see photos and stuff and talk about UFOs. And he's saying, and I hear this, and I hear this, and I hear this, because I really would like to believe in UFOs.

And he says, but, you know, there's just not enough to put it all together for me. And Jordan Peterson said, yeah, that's a conspiracy theory. What does the state put together here this week? A conspiracy theory. She lied about this. Here's a misstatement. Here's a misstatement here. Here's a misstatement there.

She must have murdered the guy. Think about that. Think about the draw and the stretch that the state has put out. Well, she had a motive. All right. That's a big stretch. Okay? I want to talk about the law foremost.

And then we'll go over to some facts. And I'm going to show you undisputably, irrefutably, how more than one reasonable doubt exists in this case. and we know what your responsibility is. And I just ask that everybody abide by it. In the instructions, it talks about, yes, what are the elements of a homicide? When the killing, okay, excusable homicide now we're talking about. When the killings committed by accident or misfortune.

Okay, was Michael part of his own misfortune? Obviously. Two, when a killing occurs by accident misfortune or in the heat of people, passion. Okay, Michael brings on his own death. Michael comes to the house when the state never established his right to be there. We know there were injunctions in place periodically. Three, when the killing is committed by accident or misfortune resulting from a sudden combat.

All right. The state wants you to believe, Lori lied about this, or there's a misstatement here, or she's sleeping around. Why did we have to hear that testimony to disparage my client? To think they're going to get emotional impact out of you? Is that relevant to this cause? Is it probative to a material fact that you have to decide? No. It's disparagement for the attempt to pull an emotional result out of you to fill in a verdict form.

I told you at the beginning in my board eye. The state has a responsibility to seek justice. And I said, what is the state that you can hear? They're seeking a verdict. That's what it is. So most of what you heard, if not all of what you heard, is an emotional ploy for you to go back there and out of anger for Lori Shaver, fill in a verdict form for the state. That's what's going on. That's what you've heard this week.

Secondary murder. Mr. Comochio went over the element, so I'll briefly touch you on again. The defendant's dead. Yeah, we know he's dead. Okay. The death was caused to by the criminal act of Lori Lee Shaver. Okay. Has any single witness taken the stand and shown you one piece of evidence that established

Lori Lee Shaver killed Michael Schaver? Zero. Zero. Case over. Period. What they've done is brought in a bunch of digital data after the fact, after the event, and said, well, she tried to cover it out. Or she didn't want to talk to this person.

Or she didn't want to talk to that person. Well, there's a good reason. She probably didn't want to talk to numerous of these people. But a lot of it probably didn't have a darn thing to deal with the death of Michael Shaver. Three, there was an unlawful killing, an act eminently dangerous to another, demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. Okay. Has anybody established a depraved mind? No. Without regard for human life, no. Glory Shaver was in her house when she was attacked. That's what happened.

Did the state offer any evidence on causation where this event occurred, how it occurred, any different than what the defendant and her daughter testified to? No. No. In fact, you may remember Tamer Dale. We got, she gets up there and I talked to her about it. And I said, you don't have any DNA, do you? No. You don't have any prints?

Do you? No. You have nothing in the scene in the house to suggest any activity, do you? No. You don't have anything in a gravesite, do you? No. You don't have any prints in there? No.

You don't have any DNA in there, do you? No. You don't have any DNA in there, do you? No. have any gun that links Lori Shaver to the crime, do you? No. You don't have any confession, do you? No. You don't have any witness, do you? No. She admitted all that. And then her response was, well, how could we solve a murder any other way if we had to have all that stuff? because you normally have that stuff if a murder has occurred and it's attributable to one person.

The state tried to compromise that obligation. Do you remember? Do you remember how? They said, hey, Mr. Camuchio said, you're not going to hold us to that standard like CIS that you see on TV, right? trying to lower what you could expect to see in this case. You're right, he said that, because he knew he didn't have any evidence. So we wanted to mentally prepare you to get you ready to not see evidence. That's what that was all about.

You remember his statement earlier as well? We talked about the burden of proof. You'll remember that. And I talked about it, Vordire, and I talked about it, it's kind of like a forefront of, football field. I said in a criminal case, this is an analogy for closing. Let's have a sidebar, please. Thank you. Football field. And I said, look, if it was a civil case and the standard is

beyond reason, is by a preponderance of the evidence in the civil case. That's just tilting the scale, getting past kind of the center of the field. But in a criminal case where our founding fathers put the premium on liberty, and the obligation on the state, I said it's the highest standard required under the law. You've got to be on the end of the field down here. There's a high difference between this, which can't be downplayed in this case by the state throwing some mud on the wall and saying, oh, there was a lie here or there was a lie there, you see? The state can't compromise that.

Let's go on. When we talk about depraved mind and you hear that word, and you'll have a complete set of these instructions, you go through them at your leisure, need be. Okay. It says an issue in the case is whether Lori Lee Shaver did not have a depraved fine with that mind without regard for human life because she acted in the heat of passion, okay, on adequate provocation. in order to find that the defendant did not have a depraved mind, and then it gives you some factors to consider.

There must have been a sudden event that would suspend the judgment. Be a reasonable person would have lost normal control. Driven by blind or unreasonable fury, there was not a reasonable amount of time for a reasonable person to cool off, and a reasonable person would not have cooled off before committing the act. You all saw these photos. Oh, no. There were repeated acts of violence in that house. This was not a blind event that Lori Shaver just stepped up,

wore her child, and said, up after that. They knew what was coming. And this is evidence. They knew what was coming. We had multiple injunctions. that were filed with the court, Michael Schaeber had been prosecuted in the past, and the state wants to sit here and say, hey, this was some blind event, and she just murdered her husband. I'd like to hear of explanation for that.

Move on. Let's talk, because the state's going to have the last word in this case. They always do. We don't have the privilege to respond to their last word, okay? Let's think about this. She's charged with accessory after the fact as well as a crime. What are the elements of this offense, and let's think about it. They state that a murder in the second degree was committed by another.

State has a real courage to announce who that another person is in the elements or in the information. They don't have the backbone to tell you here who the actor is, who the principal is. who the principal is. And yet they'll come into court and say Lori did it. Then it says after the murder, Lori Lee Schaver maintained, assisted, aided, or attempted to aid another person.

Stop. Right there. We see and hear talk about money going into the bank or going there. Okay. Is there any showing, been any showing in this trial how any money was moved

to assist aid or attempt to aid somebody in escaping detection of a crime? No. Lori's using money to live a life, feed her kids that the state can't not deny his marital money, equitable money, that she didn't have a right to touch it, anything like that. But it's all a pull for you. And then it says, and at that time, Lori Lately Shaver, knew that the other person had converted murder. Okay. Let's think about that.

That's an important element as well. And I'll tell you why. If you have a right to self-defense, no crime has been committed if somebody dies. No crime occurred. So you'll have to assess, was there a right of self-defense? self-defense. If so, no crime has occurred. Two, where was money being spent to aid detection for somebody who had not committed a crime? You see? Does that make sense to you? Under the justifiable use of self-defense, it represents, and I'll just highlight some of this for you, because I want to

talk about facts. It says Lori Lee Schaver was justified in using or threatened and to use deadly force, or Isabel was justified in using or threatening to use it, if she reasonably believed that we know the history in this family. That's undisputable. That's physical. That's not to be questioned. Was necessary to prevent imminent death or grave bodily harm to herself. Okay?

And then it goes on and tells you, well, what's the type of harm that they suspected would happen? Michael's trying to kill her, or he's trying to commit an aggravated battery. And then the instructions tell you what that is, what the elements of first-degree murder are that Michael's trying to do, or how he's trying to create another hard battery on her. Okay, and that's spelled out in these instructions. Then the instruction will tell you as well that justifiable use of force is justified, if Lori or is spelled reasonably believe that the force was necessary to pull. prevent imminent death, meaning that a murder, attempted murder on her or great bodily harm.

Has the state eliminated this defense? No. Not at all. They want to throw mud on the wall and say, well, she lied here. She spent some money here. But they can't say first and foremost, she didn't have a right to defend herself to establish that a crime even occurred. is actually listening to this case, I got to tell you, I'm spun around listening to it. The judge is going to give you an instruction because they've made an issue in this case out of this. And it's an important instruction because it kind of strikes a nerve in all of us. And it says this, you must understand no individual has any duty to report the commissioner, of a crime simply because they observed a crime having been committed.

Lori Shaver could watch Jay Townsend shoot somebody and had no duty to call the police. Isabel would have no duty to call the police if she hadn't shot him or done anything. Okay? That's a fact. That's a law. The state will act otherwise. Like, no, they could have called 911. Why didn't you call 911?

We spoke about this in Vordi. The judge will tell you that a reasonable doubt, they're in your instructions. I briefly spoke about it because this is very important. If there's any, if there's one, reasonable doubt is the requirement, the responsibility, the necessity of any and every jury to return a verdict of not guilty. Not guilty. How does it arise from the evidence? it can arise from the evidence itself.

It can arise because of what they're up in the evidence. It can arise by that car's linked in the evidence. Those instructions tell you. And they further say that if your feeling is not stable, but one that waivers and vacillates, you've got a reasonable doubt. You see? Bella Schiff over to the facts.

talk about some of those facts. One we spoke about, and I want to remind you, burden of proof is entirely on the state. Ms. Schaber was not required to take the state. Expose herself to criticism, ridicule, or the misstatement here or there.

That burden stays on the state. We know, in this case, it became evidently clear and should be to everybody here that Ms. Schaever wasn't a marriage that had gone bad. It was a case that were children lived in an environment that, as Isabel said, it just became commonplace to see these things happening. My dad striking, forcefully, acting out on my mom, and she said, I soon developed an attitude

feeling a need to protect my mom. I soon just responded with a attitude of response trying to protect my mom. That's how bad it got. So she said on the day that this happened, she goes, she was kind of in shock, went to school and just kind of tried to put it out of her mind. And that's what happened.

And yet the state, despite all this, wants to criticize that girl who's a victim in this case. Shame on them. This little girl is a victim of a house with continual domestic violence and the state says, well, why didn't she get counseling? Why didn't she get counseling more? The state chose to ignore this girl. She was brought to their attention as well as Mr. Ballou. Mr. Ballou had prior tensions with Mr. Shaver. That's why his name was mentioned. Mr. Townsend's name was given to the state. The state took no aggressive action to look into this force, this case.

I asked Tamara Dale, state talked to you about this. Do you make any efforts to go see her? Not ask Kelly Johnson, hey, you know, if she wants to come by, why don't you just bring her over? I mean, is that investigation? That's not investigation. just saying, bring us some evidence. You know, we'll maybe look at it. State was

aware of the domestic violence in the house. They had evidence. They had prosecuted Mr. Shaver for a battery. They knew about it. Wilma Nichols gets up there on the stand and says, yeah, well,

Michael's story at an earlier date in time was that his wife attacked him. I said, are you talking about the same incident where he was prosecuted and the state went after him? Well, yeah, yeah. That had a lot of merit, didn't it? There was nothing contrived by Lori Shaver and this minor child.

Now listen to me, the judge is going to tell you, you had the privilege of believing all, some, or none of the witness's testimony. So if you find that there was misrepresentations by Lori Shaver here or there or one way or another, okay, you can disregard those. You can say, I don't believe that truth. But again, whereas the state led you to believe that Lori Shaver killed Michael Shaver. They haven't. There's no evidence in that regard.

We know there was times when Michael was not residing at the residence. That wasn't contradicted. This former girlfriend gets on the stand and says, he was living at the hangar here and there. Lori said, I let him in the house. There were injunctions he was coming and going. Did the state offer evidence that there was not an injunction or he was not restrained from the house,

not permitted into the house, on a date specific when any homicide occur? No. No. Now, let's shift over for a moment to the digital data. That was interesting to me. Kind of interesting. Okay. You got some guy at the sheriff's office, corporal, he had to advise me, that does some tech work out of there.

We never heard his qualifications. Any experience, really, he had. Okay. I heard a lot of arguments from him. But we heard Connor take the bench, a man that had been involved in, I don't know how many trials, federal trials, trials everywhere. And he had testified in court with his special skills. And he spoke to us real clear and simple. And he said, now think about, he said that the IP records from Facebook, CenturyLink, etc.

At a point in time, they expire and don't tell you the physical address it's coming from. They may have IP logs, records, you see, but you don't know where it's coming from. It could be Starbucks, it could be overseas, it could be here or there. So the state, trying to throw some mud on the wall, says, look at these IP logs, look at this, look at this. But you know what? it doesn't tell you where it's coming from, any device, or any user. You see? That's a significant fact. So the state says, well, somebody sent this and somebody sent this and this went here and that went there. That would create a lack of evidence,

a conflict in the evidence as well. And it certainly would not create stability in the way in which you think about it. If Jeremy Townsend is sending some of these, he could be at Starbucks, he could be at his house, he could be anywhere, he could be in a driveway, and he certainly had a motive that can't be excluded. Now, this child wants to be disparate, the state disparages this child because she doesn't know it's state specific. She said sometime in the spring. She didn't say summertime. Mr. Camuchio went on and he said now today, well, she said the spring and then and the summer, and that's not true. Mr. Camuchio is not not presenting evidence here today, but some of his statements were not accurate as to the content of the witnesses themselves.

You'll have to rely on your memory, the notes you've taken here. Now, there's a discrepancy exactly, precisely, and what Lori said and what Isabel said. Isabelle, I believe, says, and you have to rely on your memory, she made some statement to the extent, Jay threatened to kill us or something of that nature. Lori said he implied it or something to the children. There was a little discrepancy. But they got the message loud and clear, okay? Don't tell anybody, or you guys are going to get in trouble and you're going to be harmed.

So, one, she doesn't have a duty to report anything. and somebody's threatened her, she's been the victim we know of repeated violence, it kind of makes sense this woman doesn't want to come forward with that kind of threat against her. It kind of makes sense that Isabel is not going to school and wanting to tell everybody all about it as well. Now, let's talk about a little bit about this shooting. The state's made issue of this, and I want to bring something to your, attention. And I hope you picked up on it in trial. We heard from Dr. Shaw, the medical examiner. We heard several things I did, and it was brought out through his testimony. One, he said there was a

gunshot here to the rear of his skull. We know that. Okay. And I elicited testimony from when I said, there was no soft tissue on this body, correct? Yes. And I said, could it be that somebody shot through some soft tissue and that may account for the presence of the shrapnel? He says, yeah. And so you may have a bullet that goes in, exits the night and there's some shrapnel in that school. I asked him, did anybody do any meteorological testing on the fragment together with the shell to see if they were linked together? No? Now, who's in charge and directing them to do these things? The state. Does that create a lack of evidence? Correct. Does it create a conflict in the evidence? Yes. Does it create civility in your mind? It shouldn't.

Okay. Whose obligation is that and the burden rests with to come in here and prove these facts? The state and only the state. Now, one thing further I brought out through Dr. Sean, and I know you all probably heard it. I don't know if you picked up on the significance of it at that time. But I asked him about injuries and the nature of the injuries that existed on this body. And I said, were there post-mortem injuries to the body? And he said, yes, there were. And he noted several ribs. And he said, those were post-mortem injuries. And I said, when we talk about post-mortem injuries, how do you identify them? And he described about buckle fractures in the ribs and the way to identify it. And he said, this is where the body is broken after the death. And there's a discoloration in the ribs here and there.

And I said, could that be accounted for? and he said that can be accounted for by moving the body. Is it? Correct. So Jeremy Townsend, logically, tells Lori Shaver, I'll take care of this. She understands they got property elsewhere, logically. That body disappears at that time. Now, when did the body logically and arguably show up?

After that shooting, when Lori said, it's over. It's over. Okay? She even took the stand, and I thought this was kind of sad, listening to this. And after all the violence, she incurred, she started crying and saying, I still loved Michael. So we know any relationship between these two was logically over. Now, maybe, and I don't know, we talk about flowers being sent, cards being sent. Was that said by Lori maybe to make sure Jeremy's not coming back?

Maybe to get him in trouble with his wife? Possibly. You may interpret it that way. Now, we also heard from Mr. Seas, remember? And the state called him. It was their witness. And he said, I asked him this, didn't you call Lori? Advise her, somebody was trespassing on your property.

Yeah, she was gone, and I saw somebody trespassing. Who had any motive to come back to that property, deliver something back to that property, if it had been removed? Jeremy. You see? that fits together a little tighter. Now, talking about that grave site, did the police think about the depth of the site,

the height of Mr. Townsend versus Lori Shaver? No. Never even analyze that mentally. It's not that difficult to think about that. Okay. Also, there's a blue tarp in the grave. Right? heard all about that. And I said this. And I don't know why this wasn't done. We had told the state

about Jeremy Townsend. I said, did anybody do a financial audit of anybody's accounts to see who may have purchased a blue tarp? No. They should have. I'm telling you, if they had one of my client, they'd be in here waving it up in the air. It's her tarp. Lack of evidence. Conflict in the evidence. I asked the officer as well. I said, did you guys? I said, you didn't find any prints on that tarp, did you? Now, I like the way the state tries to cover some of these lack of evidence up.

Okay, I really kind of got entertained by it at a point. They'd say this. Well, you weren't surprised, officer, that the evidence was degraded that you couldn't find that, could you? No. And I'd say this. Hey, what do you mean degraded? The evidence may have never been there the first place. It could have been degraded when it went into the ground.

And evidence was put on it prior. How do you know the condition of the item before it went in the ground? But they had to acknowledge that, yeah? So the state would repeatedly to try to cover up the lack of evidence, well, you're not surprised at this. It was all degraded. You wouldn't expect it to be there, would you? No.

No. No. So that's how they try to defend themselves against lack of evidence. We saw that repeatedly in this trial. Now, we heard with regards to the TARP, the state never investigated it. One, party with the burden of proof. Two, we heard Lori and Isabel both take the stand. We didn't have one.

We didn't have one. Now, that logically goes with the theory that that body had been off the ground, off that site, because it comes back to the property and it ends up in the grave site. Can we assume that Mr. Townsend put that in there with the straps, wrapped it up, took it off site, damage the body, brings it back and puts it in the grave? That's a logical conclusion. I asked the investigator, I asked the tech people, were there any telltale signs on that tarp? That that tarp had been dragged across the yard.

Huh? What do you mean? I said, did you ask for any kind of chlorophyll testing underneath it to see if it had been dragged by somebody? No. You see? Do you know if Lori took it out there? I don't know. Do you know the distance from the house?

No, somebody else can tell you that. So what does the state do? They offer some evidence showing she's working out, and you're just to jump to this conspiracy theory and say she could have dragged it out there. She could have done this. She might have done this for you to fill in the gaps that the state failed to investigate.

And that's what we see in this evidence, thrown in your face. Without a real connection, you look at the forensics. I brought out, state didn't do it, the defense brought it out, there's no DNA in the house, no evidence of how the crime occurred in the house, no prints, no hair analysis, yet there were hairs, okay, no match of any flooring that was found in the gravesite to implicate Lori Shaver. those all create a reasonable doubt. The state can't ignore it. Instead, they just want to say she lied about this or she lied about that and she's sleeping around.

That's their case. That's the state's case. Now, think about the gun we heard about. We have a gun in evidence. Again, kind of a comical display to me. You get this lady up there. and she goes through this litany as to her experience and everything. And she talks about, well, it has the signs of other guns,

meaning this manufacturer that make Colt or Smith & Weston that may manufacture a 38, they got a machine, it's going to have ridges in it, they all have that common characteristic. Millions of them, okay? But she can't identify any specific. the sick features of the gun, she can't narrow it down from millions to say it's this gun. Wow. Wow.

So the state says it can't be excluded? Oh, no, it can't be excluded. Right. That's reliable evidence for you to hang your head on and to fill out a verdict for the state? No. The state's position is, well, we don't have to prove this case by 100%. No, they don't. Okay.

That's not the requirement. We know what the requirement is. When the state was informed to Jeremy Townsend, why ask yourself, didn't they look into his financial records, lack of evidence? Two, why didn't they look into his Facebook, aside from his banking? Do you remember what the testimony was on that by Tamara Day? Here's what she said. Well, those records were too old.

What do you mean they're too old? You're going to stand in here in town that Lori Shavers are reliable at the same period of time and not look into Jeremy Townsend? He's been advised, shot the guy and not even look? Not even look anywhere into his matters? No. She was closer to the body. Okay. Now, let's talk about the patio.

State thinks that's a big deal. I don't. Because they cleaned it out to make a pond. We all know that. They get tired of building this pond, and it sits for a while. Concrete is bought. Now, let's think about that. Nobody goes and tries to conceal themselves when they're buying any concrete.

They don't go paying cash. They don't go in there with the hat on or anything like that trying to disguise themselves. It's open and clear. They're not trying to conceal themselves. They go rent a mixer, not trying to conceal themselves, not trying to make it private, you know, or a hidden event. They even posted on Facebook. Like, this is a big secret? No.

No. Who would do that if they're trying to hide a fact against the public and knowledge? You wouldn't do it that way. That's just common sense. You take the evidence and then you rely on your common sense or the lack of evidence thereof. That's the point. Who would write their name and concrete on top of a grave of somebody that they would. allegedly murdered. Not any person in the face of this earth would do such a thing.

You got to admit that. So you see, there's another reasonable doubt the state can't account for. We had Holcomb, Officer, take the stand, and said, oh, it was right in the middle. Okay? Like, it was obviously trying to be concealed. It wasn't. When I pressed her, he's on the video. She said, well, you know, it wasn't on the middle, actually. Then the next officer said, well, it was a darkened spot. And you look on the photos. Well, there's about three or four darkened spots all over the place. Okay?

Doesn't mean, you know, we know there's a body on there. There's clear evidence of guilt or anything like that. I want you to think about all those things that create a reasonable doubt. There's multiple. And the state can't excuse that. They cannot excuse those factors. There's a question, who kill actually, Mr. Schaever? We know there's shrapnel.

We know there's one fragment, but the shrapnel could have been a second shell. We know that from Shaw himself. Has the state eliminated self-defense? No. No, they haven't. Who has that burden exclusively and only? the state. We know this is a violent man who most likely didn't have a right to even be in the house. Is there evidence that the body was moved? Yes, there is. Has the state refuted that?

No. Why no forensic audits? None. Now again, the state is looking for a verdict on something. Give me something. So they got lessers, a primary, and an accessory. You have to understand. Lori Shaver is not guilty. She's not guilty. Don't be pulled into an emotional game trying to compromise thinking you're doing justice one way or another. You have to understand that. Lori Shaver is not guilty of any crime.

She has not committed a crime. The state has not refuted it through an investigation and presentation of evidence in this case. Again, I'll remind you with regard to the crime of excitement. It must first be established that a crime was committed if there was a right to self-defense. No crime has been committed, you see? And there is anything that Lori Shaver did was lawful. The state can't link up any transaction unjustified or evidence of a cover-up if there is no crime that is committed. Likewise, the crime of accessory must establish a firm timeline as to when the crime occurred.

You're not at liberty to say, well, the state says this and Lori says this, let's just pick a number. Could have happened between this date. The court will instruct you that you have to, that accessory requires the completion of one event before the start of an accessory offense. Okay? Has the state firmly established that? No. What they do is they say, well, there is, you know, he didn't show up at work, so you got to admit, you got to assume that she murdered her.

And then let's take the next step and say all this stuff was to aid or assess and concealing an offense versus living expenses and money that she had a right to touch and use. An accessory, when you see accessory, normally what you would say, you would. see is somebody buying somebody a flight ticket to leave town, putting them in private housing, doing things to conceal them in that manner. Not living like this. It kind of reminds me this case when I listen to it. It's all speculative, what you call circumstantial evidence.

I'm sitting here listening and sitting in my table between approaching the bench, I guess, and listening to this and I'm going, it's like playing a game of Jinko. Sooner or later, this thing's got to topple. You can't just keep putting little boards on top of each other without a firm

foundation, you see? It's not going to stick. So the state just piles up some evidence and says, there you go. Come back here, reach us a verdict, okay? Give us what we want. Now again, I remind you,

I'll sit down, leave it to you. The people that may have been misrepresented, the people that any lies or misstatements were given to really are not relevant in this case. Lord is not on trial for lying. She's on trial for murder. Any misstatement must have been to make and conceal a crime which never has occurred.

You say, if she lied about Michael where he was or what happened or where his tools were or where he'd been is not relevant in this matter. So don't be distracted in that regard. Going back to the digital data, I'll leave on this.

Remember, I asked these witnesses, did you find anything in the digital data that announced or indicated somebody had shot anybody? No. Did you see any evidence in the digital data of any effort to conceal a crime? No. Could you tell me where this was coming from physically? No.

Could you tell me who was using the device? No. So what did we have? I found it. I don't want to say it, but we get memes thrown in front of us and some emails from this place to that place. And you're supposed to say, let me hang my hat on this meme. Sometimes you've got to burn a bridge and move on. That means Lori Shaver killed somebody?

And that's what the state is asking you to hang your head on and just pile up a bunch of memes like a jinkgo game? No. That's not how you prove a criminal case with suspicion. Bair in you windows without physical evidence, but guilt. Now you have likewise, and I mentioned it, to these people on cross, I said, you got a certificate over there, a business record certificate from Facebook, right? So sidebar, please. Business record certificates from Facebook. Really interesting. I brought it out on cross-examination. I mean, kind of floored by it. But here's what they say.

In essence, read them yourselves. Well, we once had this data. We gave it to you earlier. We're sure we gave you something that was accurate, but we don't have the information anymore. So we got to just assume it was accurate. Okay? That's what the state's going to hang their head on

and say this digital data is even reliable for your consideration. That's not even digital data. And we know what Connor said. You can't even link it up from this place to this place because IP addresses have expired the physical location. And the state's hanging their hat on it to throw all this out there. It's unbelievable. Further, the state doesn't even have a computer.

There's no computer in this case. Not a computer for them to try to connect it to. I want you to think about these factors. This is where, ladies and gentlemen, my power ends. This is where yours begins under our Constitution. I can only ask, I can only beg you, to do your duty, don't compromise your duty. I've listed to you multiple reasonable doubts in this case.

They should never be compromised by any single one of you. I asked each and every one of you as well to please hold your verdict. And if it disagrees with other ones on this jury, that you please hold your ground. I've shown you everything, every way the state has failed in this cause. Don't be misled. I ask you. The state will have the last word in this case. They always do.

Wasn't like that always when I practiced long, but it is. Yeah. But as Coluccio speaks, I ask you to listen. Give him the due concern that you've given me. But I ask you to ask yourself as he speaks. What would Mr. Wiggs point to to refute that? Have you answered Mr. Wiggs's questions? What about this question?

What about the grave? What about the lack of evidence? What about the gun? Let's hear an answer to all these things. He can't give you an answer. So I ask that when you go back there, I know. I know the answer, which should be given by you, but I can't do it. But I ask you do the right thing and come back.

on all counts, all issues, and do justice. Not seek a verdict for the state. Seek justice. Every day when you log in to chumbacasino.com, the ultimate online social casino, you get a free daily bonus. Imagine if you got daily bonuses in other parts of your life. I chose French fries, overloaded French fries.

I asked Stewart from accounting about his weekend, even though I don't care. I updated my operating system without having to call tech support. Collect your free day. Daily bonus at chumbacasino.com now. And live the chumba life. BGW Group, no purchase necessary. Voidware prohibited by law.

See terms and conditions, 18 plus. As I've asked, and return a verdict on all counts of not guilty. Thank you. Thank you, Judge. Thank you, you may proceed. Mr. Wiggs asked, who would write their name in concrete

over the grave of their dead husband? A woman who killed her husband with ill will, evil intent, hatred, and spite. And then over a period of years, covered that up with lies and manipulation against all the people that knew him. That is who writes their initials

on top of that grave. And that is what happened in this case. Mr. Wiggs brought up numerous things. I'll try to address as many as possible, as quickly as possible. But some of the things he said, I ask that you go back and think about what's your memory of the evidence of the testimony

and realize that that's just not the way it happened. One of the things he brought up was talking about how the state didn't bring you any things about how there was no DNA evidence in this case. I did. Edgar regrets from the Florida Department of Law enforcement testified about the DNA analysis in this case. Who called it? Mr. Wicks?

What state? We presented that to you. We presented you the fact that what the DNA evidence was and the fact that it's not that it was someone else's DNA and we can't match it up. There's just not enough genetic material in anything that was in that grave site to compare it to anyone. But that came from the state. And Mr. Wiggs got up here and talked to you. and said that he was the one that brought that out. And that's not true.

It just goes back to the, can't trust the little things, how can you trust the big thing? He talks about what he refers to as shrapnel in the skull and how that's evidence of potential two bullets. That's what Dr. Shaw told. That's not what Dr. Shaw or Dr. Coverly told. They said that trap roll is not evidence of a second bullet, but when there is gunshots like that, typically there will be small metal fragments from the bullet.

There's only one entry wound. There's no exit wounds, and there is one projectop. There's no second bullet. There's no second shot. He talks about how the state has presented no evidence. to refute self-defense. The state has presented undeniable evidence that Michael Schaber has been dead since November of 2015.

And if he is dead in 2015, he can't possibly be on the Shaver porch sometime in May in 2016 and have the events that were relayed to you happen. That's how we've proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt that this wasn't self-defense, because we've proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt that he has been dead since November of 2015. If he's been dead since before November 2015, Jeremy Townsend had nothing to do with it.

Because that relationship had just started at that point, continued up until, April of 2016 when the affair was exposed and that it was over. Lori Shaver can tell you what day she kicked her husband out of the home in November of 2015, but cannot tell you the day he died. Think about that. Isabel can't even tell you what month or what year. She'll wait since she's a kid, you know, that's not a big deal. Lori Shaver cannot tell you the day her husband was killed on her front porch. That is completely unreasonable.

And the only reason for that is because she's afraid I'm going to find something in some of these records to completely refute it. So if she tries to keep it vague, that's harder to do. But Michael Schaver has been dead since November, and if he's dead in November, the way Isabel and Lori described these events to you could not have happened, and therefore it's not self-defense or defense of others. Once again, talking about Isabel and her inability to even remotely tell you when this happened, Mr. Wiggs says that I just completely made up this. summer time frame, I asked you to go back.

Think about her testimony. Look at your notes when I went through and I asked her, can you tell me what grade you were in? No. Can you tell me what year it was? No. Can you tell me if it was around a holiday? No.

The best she could do is say that we went to the beach, so it was sometime between spring and summer. And then I asked her, what spring is to you and what summer is to you might be different to me. So what is spring to you? And she said, hey, well, I said, what is summer and the summer? And she said that would be before school August. That was her test. But to rely on your own memory of those issues.

briefly talking about accessory after the fact. And the reason why I say briefly is because the state has presented to you evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she is in fact the murderer in this case because her husband was killed in November of 2015. The evidence, the story with all of its holes, that the defense has been presented to you if you were to believe that and ignore all the evidence and just ignore the facts that Mike was completely disappeared off the face of the earth for six months without a car, without a job, without a bank, without a phone,

without any contact from friends, family, co-workers for six months and showed up without a vehicle dressed in shorts and socks. And this event happened in May. The events as described to you by the defense, offense show that she's guilty of accessory after the fact. Even if the initial shot by Isabel was in defense of others, according to them, when Jeremy Townsend comes up and shoots again,

Cuddy Craw, puts him out, kills him for sure, that's not self-defense or defense of others anymore, folks. That's murder. And when Lori lies, manipulates, and covers up the fact that her husband has been dead for years, that's maintaining, assisting, and another person to conceal evidence of this crime. The defense's story is that she's guilty of accessory after the fact. The evidence in this case is that she's guilty of second-degree murder. and as I told you, the law says you can't be an accessory to your own crime.

One of the things that I think is very important, one of the details that also undermines their whole disappearing body story is Lori's actions when law enforcement comes and excavates the grave site. first and foremost, their story is somehow in that short drive back and forth to High and Roos School, Jeremy somehow got the body out, cleaned it up. They speculate maybe he drove a couple hours to Crystal River to hide the body up in his Farrant's house for a while, only to return at some other point to bury the body unbeknownst to Lori Shaver in the the backyard. She never notices any, like, oh my gosh, why is there upturned dirt here? And then returns the body, fairies it without her knowledge. And of the entire five-acre plot, she just so happens to choose that to put a cement slap down. That's completely

unreasonable. But she needs to say that in order to convince you that she didn't know the body was clear. But you have evidence that absolutely refused that. Because Jessica Wade testified that they were doing this search and this excavation. And Lori sat in her truck

and was sitting there the whole day, the whole time watching. When did she leave? When law enforcement started to pull up that concrete over the body of her dead husband that she murdered. Law enforcement, when they were done, the process when they were done.

Search took a couple of days. Detective Strickland called her. He said Lori Shaver, we are done all our work. You are allowed to come back to your property. Would you like to know what we took from the property? And she said yes. And he went through and proceeded to tell her

everything that they took. We took some swaps. We found some projectiles. We took some other items from inside the house. We took skeletal remains from your backyard. And this woman who is sitting here trying to convince you, she had absolutely no idea that her dead husband would vary under the cement slab that she poured or helped pour had no reason.

reaction whatsoever. That's why we played that call. That's why we had that for you to listen to. So you could see just how she reacted when told there was a dead body in her backyard. Nothing. Because she knew it was there. She absolutely knew that. The defense has talked about how law enforcement, how there,

investigation and, you know, they didn't look into self-defense. They didn't look into this story. And despite the fact that Kelly Johnson sat up there and told you, yes, the state was asking me repeatedly if I was going to produce my client, yet I did not do so until they issued a subpoena too hard for deposition thereby giving her immunity. I wasn't going to allow her to talk to that. But he wants to put the blame for not looking into her on me. When the witness he called said I was the one preventing it because I was doing my job as an attorney and he sits up here and tells you that's me not looking into it, that's just not true. And it's not true based on the evidence he presented. He also talks about in this past the state, eliminated self-defense,

and it always is going to come back to the evidence shows you that Mike Schaever was dead since November of 2015 and that is overall how the state is proven to you it's not self-defense defense of others because that story in May can't happen if he's dead in November but also think about whether or not their story is even reasonable in this situation the scenario as outlined by Isabel and Lori happens, what reasonable person is not calling 911 to let them know? I'm not saying to it in front of Jeremy under this scenario that they've outlined, but go some other place, call 911, explain what happens.

The idea that Jeremy comes in, sees, Mike Shaver shot and then in that scenario decides he's going to shoot him again and move this body to different parts of the state and come back. That makes no sense whatsoever and there's no evidence of it at all. He points to the neighbor Robert Sejah saying, well, I saw a trespasser one night. Well, fine. Did that person have anything? Were they doing anything? I mean, I didn't really see.

Do you really even know if they were a trespasser? Not really. But most importantly, he says that happened in 2018. The cement slab is poured in 2016. The body is already there under. That trespasser has nothing to do with this. The timeline doesn't work. Also, Rebecca was living at the happening.

at the time frame this happened. She says I moved in there in May. While I was there, Jeremy came over to visit. When? At lunchtime. When lawyers on her break, exactly the way Jeremy described when he would come. Not three to four overnight visits,

which would obviously put his wife on notice that something was going on, which makes absolutely no sense. But Rebecca said that she had moved in. Jeremy would come over during lunch, as Jeremy said that. But Rebecca was living there during this time frame. This didn't happen the way Lori and Isabel said. In talking about the 2014 incident, Mr. Wiggs talks about how he went after Wilman Nicholas.

And he pointed out that, well, the state prosecuted her. or him and you know you only got one side of the story but that completely ignores the fact that he Tina Vesca's Lori's friend came in and said you know what Lori told me she fabricated that that's not the way it happened

she was the aggressor she threw that flower base and broke the slice last door she had her husband over the head and when Mike was saying that he was trying to basically grab her to control her to stop her from doing these things, that was true. That's her friend saying that. The timeline. Once again, go back to those phone records that establish that Mike Shaver's phone, the phone number that he originally had changed two times, ultimately ending with a phone number.

number that Laurie Schaber admits is hers, puts in a court filing is hers, showing you that she had that device the whole time. They want to insinuate maybe Jeremy Townsend said some of these messages from Facebook, but we know he's not sending the 500 pages to his wife to expose the affair. That's not him. Who had motive to do that? We know. We know. We know. He's not sending this message in September 20th, 2016, months after the relationship between him and Lori is over and he's back with his wife saying, Hi, Vanessa, how are you? Moving on looks good on you. Looking on your son are doing well after we know Michael Shaver is underneath the cement slab. We know Jeremy Townsend has no reason to send his wife that message.

All of this connects back to Lori. And all of it connects back to her in her attempts to cover up the crime that she committed the murder. Mr. Wiggs, as he was going through, kind of picked and choose some things here about the heat of passion defense and just kind of throughout some buzzwords like digital data. He's been doing all week. but when he's picking and choosing through the excusable homicide heat of passion, you can't just pick some choice phrases out. You have to read it as a whole. And as you see, none of this, even under the May 2016 story that has no facts, factual support whatsoever,

would apply to this situation. The defense under the May 2016 version of events, which is completely refuted by the evidence, would be defense of others. Your Wiggs talks about how there's been no investigation into whether or not there was drag marks or chlorophyll testing. That's fake CSI TV stuff, folks. There's been no testimony whether or not that test even exists. Quite frankly, I've never even heard of that. He talks about Richard Connor and the long credentials of Mr. Connor. And Corporal Strickland, he just, I mean, he's just a corporal.

He's just law enforcement. He doesn't even know what he's talking about. What did Corporal Strickland and Richard Connor say that, conflicted each other. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. They both told you an IP address is something that is given to you by an internet service provider and find the location. It's basically like a physical address. That is what people will use in order to hook up their devices to the internet. They both said that. Richard Connor acknowledges that the Facebook records and the IP logs within them are the types of things that he as an expert relies on all the time.

Richard Potter told you that those Facebook records that Mr. Wiggs wants to say are unreliable or reliable. He says that the fact that two different accounts are accessing the same IP address in close in time is consistent with them being in the same location. knowing what that physical address is would be nice, but it is not at all necessary. When you look at two years' worth of IP addresses showing multiple, multiple times these two devices are accessing the same IP address. Where she was using both of these devices doesn't matter. the fact she was utilizing the same IP address shows that it's someone in the close proximity in the same person. That's what Richard Connor said, and that's what Corporal Strickland said. I've got a few more messages to demonstrate how this had nothing to do with Jeremy,

and quite frankly nothing to do with Michael Shave who's been dead since November. Mike Shaver has absolutely no reason for Vanessa and Jeremy to get a divorce. Lori Shaver posing as Michael Schaver on April 18th says, I'm sorry, Vanessa, if he must be running scared. I heard JJ Gull is a good divorce at her. Who stands to benefit? She does. Mike Schaeber has been dead now for about five months since nothing.

to gain from the divorce between Vanessa and Jeremy Loredans. We've already discussed the September 20th after the slab has been poured. It makes no sense for Jeremy to have sent that message. But that is the hi, Vanessa, how are you? We all look good on you. This last message, I ask you, is this a. message sent by a man trying to inform another woman that his husband is cheating on him, or is this the message of a woman try to drive a wedge and get a divorce so she can get

the man she wants? This is April 20, 2016. Below, Vanessa, how are you doing? I know me who asks for no more information. right there. Vanessa said, I don't need, I know there's this affair. You don't need to give me anything more. I got it.

But I feel you should be aware of this. There are emails from October through November. I have been reading. There is one from November 3rd where she asked him if you changed the sheets. You replied, know that he had not. Well, being able to smell her and that you would inform you the spot was from him if you notice. It appears she has been at the house and they have. have had sex in your bet. Thought you should know that. It also appears the invited her to stop

by you at your Halloween party, but she declined not feeling comfortable with you being there. Pictures of that night were sent as well. There's a ton more information about how they back what transpired. If you would like a copy of email logs, let you know. Vanessa tells them, I got it, I understand they're having this affair. You don't need to give me any of poor information. but Lori says you know I had sex

with your husband and your bed right don't do that Mike Schamer Jeremy Townson Chinese hacker Lori Schaber Mr. Wiggs

got up here and said State just wants to be mad and Chekoff guilty of second-degree murder because the state's proving to you that she had some affairs.

And he said, specifically, why do we have to hear that evidence? We had to hear that evidence because these are the two individuals that he provided to law for her. When Lori was first arrested, he said, you need to look into Jeremy Townsend and James Balloon. And how are they connected to Lori Schaeber in this case? They were having affairs with her. This all came in.

This all came to light. because Mr. Wiggs told law enforcement investigate these people. And they did. They did. Jeremy Townsend said talked to law enforcement three separate times. Came in for his deposition.

Came in, told you what was going on. And his testimony is consistent with the testimony of other people that he has no relationship with, that he has no connection to. Rebecca Urbanowski who was friends with Lori

states that Jeremy would come over during the day when she was on lunch break and wouldn't spend the night. That's what Jeremy said. Isabel and Lori said he would spend the night three to four times a week.

That's not consistent. Because it's not true. Oh, minor point, but this is just another example of how I think it's very important for you to rely on your own memory of the testimony.

Mr. Wiggs talked about Jessica Holcomb and how he says, she said this body was found in the middle of the fire pit. He was very insistent about that. He said, remember that video that was played. Please remember that video that was played. Because he confronted her on cross-examination. Didn't you say it was in the middle of the fire pit?

No. Well, where was it then? And she sat there without missing a beat. That fire, it looks like, from top down, looks like the continent of Africa. And if you were to go into the bottom section of it and the point facing that the house, and you were to go right under there, under where the depression was, that is where the body was found. That's what she said, not what Mr. Wiggs said.

The state has proven second-degree murder beyond all reasonable doubt because of all the evidence. points that Michael Schaber, as Lori said, is not a missing person. He's no longer walking the face of the earth. And he has been that way. It's November, before November 10th of 2015, when all indications of him and his life are gone. No bank activity, no phone activity, no contact with family,

no contact with friends, no contact with work. wasn't at the hangar where she said wasn't in Georgia where she said he's dead because she killed him and then she made up this May 2016 story to distract

that's pure and simple what we have if there is absolutely no evidence consistent with that May 2016 story ask yourself why it is because she killed him in November

and because of that she's guilty of second-degree murder with a firearm. I ask that you return the only verdict consistent with the law, the evidence, and justice, and that is guilty of second-degree murder with a firearm. She possessed that firearm, she discharged that firearm, and she caused great bodily harm or death. Thank you. Okay. Has the jury reached a verdict? Yes.

Is it unanimous? Yes. Please hand the verdict forms to Madam Bill. All right, after having reviewed both verdict forms, the court finds that there are no errors or omissions in the filling out of the verdict forms. In the circuit court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit of the state of Florida and in Fort Lake County, the state of Florida versus Lawrence Shamed. Case number 2020 CF 2361. Verdict as to count one. We, the jury find as follows as to count one of the charge, the defendant is guilty of second degree murder.

Was the defendant an action possession of a firearm? Yes. Did the defendant discharge a firearm? Yes. Did the discharge cause great bodily harm? Yes. Verdict as to count two. Weaver jury find as follows as to count two of the charge. The defendant is not guilty. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. We're president in case number 2020 CF-2361. State of Florida versus Lori Shaver with the party's president. please identify themselves for the record. Nick Camuchio on behalf of the state, Rich Bucksman for the state. Jeffrey Wiggs on behalf of Lori Shaver. Lori.

Lerner previously known as Lori Shaver. Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that any testimony you give today shall be the truth, hold truth and nothing but the truth, so I'll help you God. Thank you.

All right, and we are here for sentencing today? All right. Please proceed. Here I do have a copy of the score sheet. I've read the unit. Any objections to the score sheet, Mr. Wiggs? No, Your Honor. And Your Honor, there are a couple of victim impact statements,

and one of the victim's family members would like to give a statement. Certainly. Please come up to the podium. Please state your name for the record. Brian Douglas Schaver. All right. Please proceed, sir. All right, dear judge, the senseless and tragic murder of Michael Douglas Schaver

has left in repairable void in all of our lives. The devastating loss is not only taken away a beloved family member, but also deeply impacted his two innocent children. Michael Schaever was a son, a brother, a father, an uncle, and a friend. He was a kind, loving, and humorous soul. He cherished his family and friends more than anything. Despite the challenges he faced, he always found a way to connect with those he loved. However, his life was tragically cut short at the young age of 33. Lori Shaver's manipulative and narcissistic behavior isolated Michael from his family and friends,

depriving us of a chance to be part of his life. Her actions not only led to his tragic death, but also perpetuated a harmful narrative that tarnished his memory and caused further pain to his loved ones, especially as children. Her actions did not stop the day she took his life and buried him within sight in her backyard. She continued to make choices that would impact both Michael's memory and the people around him for years, to come from stealing his identity, impersoning his likelihoodness, marrying a new husband over his body, and putting the weight of a terrible tragedy on the shoulders of his daughter, having her to maintain that lie for years. Lori Shaver's actions not only ended Michael's life, but also

stole his future. She deprived him of the chance to live life to its fullest, raise his children, spend time with his family, experience personal growth. For the past nine years, she has walked free, while we have endured the pain of his absence and relive the events through the investigation. She has witnessed the growth of his children, all while shaping their perspective of him with lies and distortions. These stolen years can never be returned, and the void left in our lives is immeasurable. The impact of Lori Shaver's actions will forever scar our family. We mourn the loss of Michael and grieve for his children, who has been robbed over their father's love and guidance. The loss of Michael is a wound that will never fully heal.

While justice may offer some solace, it cannot restore the life of stolen or mend the broken hearts left behind. Judge, we thank you for your time and consideration as you make this sentencing judgment regarding the heinous crime against Michael Douglas Schaver. From the Shaver family. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, sir. I do have two other statements from friends of Mr. Shaver, first being Randolph Bean. to whom it may concern and all... To hearsay statement during

sentencing hearing. Here's a dismissal and sentencing, Judge. Overruled. Please proceed. To whom it may concern and all who may have need to view it. This document is an impact statement against Lori Shaver whom murdered her husband, Mike Schaever. Forgive me if it's too blunt or angry as I cut through my own anger

to most clearly express my points. I beg your tolerance in this not being the typical statement going on at length about how much I miss my friend. I'm that annoying OCD guy that can't turn his mind off. Notices everything and annoys everyone over details without trying to. I'm also the guy that's almost impossible to impress. So my feeling of Mike's merit is a rare thing for me to award anyone or thing. First, the victim, Mike Shaver.

I knew and worked with him as a member of a very elite unlimited class air racing team for the most highly modified P-51 Mustang in history. Through that, I came to know that Mike had been a working commercial pilot at the start of a career, flying local commuter flights in a turboprop aircraft. This requires the rating, the hours, and also know of both piston and gas turbine engines to qualify for the job. He obtained his rating initially with financial help from his parents at Lori's insistence and to separate from friends and family so as to control him she demanded they moved to Florida. He did so and was unable to find regional work as a pilot and thus took a job maintaining monorails at Disney.

There he was noted as a great and reliable worker. Maintaining his interest in aviation, he volunteered for the PM race team. While not a certified AP, he is allowed under FAA rules to work on experimental class of aircraft. I saw worked with him on things as diverse as a complete rewired aircraft, rebuilding landing gear, custom construction. a carbon fiber canopy to reduce drag and of course internal work on the Rolls-Royce Griffin engine. This Mustang is only the third one so modified and the other two were destroyed while racing. As a machine, he worked on literally the most advanced unlimited class racer ever built. He was not some ignorant flunky stuck with a dead-end job as a mechanic just out from under the shade tree of skill.

I say this to illustrate that he was an incredibly intelligent. At our last races, Mike, myself and one other discussed forming a team for the IF1 class known as the entry level to air racing. Mike, given his small stature, would have been also been the pilot. He had agreed to pursue the idea. Friendship and shared tasks impressed me that he was an incredibly intelligent and funny person. You couldn't mean a nicer guy. I enjoyed getting to know him and looked forward to the future friendship and plans we shared, all now shattered and gone. As to him being a person and parent, I can say that I've

never met a man so worried about the welfare of his children, endured all, including being murdered in hopes of protecting them. As a result, he was a badly battered husband, always bearing the brunt of Lori's outbursts and physical attacks. The court had only one instance to work with, and a bad one at that. Just after the event, I asked Mike why he went to jail when she attacked and overwhelmed him. The photos clearly showed him with bleeding head trauma, corn clothing and disoriented look. His statement to me was the police showed up and I told them that she had threatened all of us with her gun. I was scared she would hurt the kids. So I tried to take it away from her. She hit me repeatedly in the head with the gun, ripped off my pocket trying

to get the truck keys and broke a bunch of other stuff too. The police listened to her and seemed to think I was abusing her and told us that they had to arrest somebody as it was a domestic violence case. I thought it would be best to protect the kids by not having their mother go to jail. So I agreed to be arrested. It was noted. in the trial, he had moved into a room at the hangar without explanation. He did so to remain close to the children as possible. Literally, everyone on our team urged him to leave her ASAP, but he realized that domestic violence arrest would easily put the kids back in her care. Based on that, he tried to create a peace with her and moved back in. When I asked why, which nobody else did,

he told me, I want to be there to protect my kids. If he had any failing, it was in self-preservation. You can't survive for yourself. You can't be there for anyone else. That's why. why I say I have never seen a man more dedicated to his children than Mike. If spirits exist after this life, I'm sure his is gutted at the lies and brainwashing used on his daughter. Those of us who know them all 100% know that things stated she claimed to have done so were impossible, simply based on her tiny size at the time. He was a smart, funny, caring, and wonderful man. The world is truly a worse place without him in it.

I think of him often and the pain and frustration of his murder leaves, me angry every time. Time is not lessened to the pain. Since Mike's murder, an openly diverse group of his friends have reached out and found each other. For example, his long-term middle and high school girlfriend described how hurt she was that Lori stole him away from her. She wasn't angry at him, in fact, maintaining that he was an awesome guy and she wished she had never lost him. Even then, she feared for his safety and she was proven right. So many of you, so many, you will never hear from miss him. Mike himself was very guarded, but the small amount of of information he admitted proved yet again Lori cares for nobody and will do whatever it takes

including murder to please herself. I implore and demand you impose the harshest sentence that can be constructed. Punish her for the murder and the roundabout chaos and pain she caused all around her. It isn't about my personal feelings of loss. Those compound compose only a tiny part of the reason for the harsh sentence. It's about repeating the mistakes of so many legal system failures I have scene. Mike, a good man, was done so very wrong and all the other abused husbands with no place to turn for help. You were their only chance. Randolph Bean. Also, I have a statement from a Scott Skrhusky. That's just for the record, same objection as to the hearsay and the opinion testimony at this. I've ruled. Your Honor, Lori Schever has demonstrated multiple times her lack of remorse or

resentment pertaining to the crimes she has committed. Lori is willingly and without one single ounce of guilt, damage her children mentally by influencing them through instruction, uttering false statements she murdered, since she murdered Michael in a feeble attempt to mask her crimes. Lori assumed Michael's online identity posing as Michael to myself, his other friends and family to gain additional privilege of prolonged freedom, lengthening the time before she was able to be held accountable for her crimes. We will never get Michael back and our family will never get his children's innocence back. Lori's inhuman, ruthless, and savage actions, and especially your lack of any repentance, indicate that she will never change.

If the time and place ever come where Lori will be returned to society, she will, that she deliberately and knowingly tried to deceive an attempt to falsify her innocence, I fully expect she will again incite bedlam and turmoil with whomever she associates with. She expects life to be a one-way street for her and in her favor. She has proven that when things do not go her way, there is no limit to the actions she is willing to take. I humbly and respectfully ask the court to impose the harshest sentence that is possible. Thank you, Scott Skrhusky. I do want to say that there have been various references within these victim impact statements and also in the pre-sentence investigation that

talk about the fact that Ms. Shaver, now Ms. Filmer, has shown a total lack of remorse for her actions. I want to be clear that as far as any statements about that lack of remorse, especially from the PSI and the statements that I made, have nothing whatsoever to do with her expressing her innocence, maintaining her innocence, asking for a trial, asking for the jury to determine what the facts of this case are. That would be completely inappropriate and not appropriate thing for the court to take in consideration for sentencing. When I talk about her lack of remorse, I refer to the actions that she took after her killing of her husband and all the actions that she took to help cover that up. That includes lying to friends and family members acting as if Michael Schaver was still alive, knowing full well what she had done. And those lies and manipulation extended not only to friends and family members of Michael Schaver, but his own children. When I discuss her lack of remorse, that is what I am discussing. that is something permissible for the court to consider her actions leading up to her arrest. Ms. Shaver is quite possibly the most manipulative defendant I have ever had charged with murder,

and the extent that she went to cover her tracks deserved the harshest penalty, and I asked for her life in prison on this case. All right. Thank you, sir. Mr. Wiggs. Yes, Judge. I'll just briefly summarize some of the evidence asked the court to consider such evidence that the court heard before it throughout trial. I'd point out to the court that Ms. Schaefer was not convicted of an accessory, as the state may allude to, but we heard evidence in this manner. There was digital evidence that was presented by the state. In advance of trial, I'd move to exclude the digital data, and as much as Facebook did not have any connective links as to the

evidence could not be linked to an IP address, a user, a location, or a device. Likewise, there was no business records certificate offered by the state to authenticate the records. Instead, they just simply declared the records did not exist at this time. Despite that, the court allowed such evidence. Likewise, there was, aside from a lack of a connective link between Lori Shaver and any physical evidence what seemed to be the body of the state's case. There was a card that was a couple cards that were testified to. Defense counsel moved to exclude that, claiming that there was no handwriting analysis that had been conducted, and I think that's a proctor that was in my motion,

and nobody that could testify as to the authentication of the handwriting. That was read into evidence by a witness, wasn't simply ushered in evidence, but was read into. to evidence. And that had no connective link offered during the trial to Lori Shaver. Likewise, there was reference to a sale of guns. Not one single gun that the state elicited testimony about had any actual involvement in the crime itself. I'd filed a pretrial motion on that to exclude it. And I think the relevant case was a case, I believe it was Agathus, that that that should be excluded. Case was appealed and reversed on that same basis itself.

There was a gun that was actually entered into evidence by the state. The expert declaimant that it had no connective link, it was just the type of gun. It had characteristics of the gun. No different than taking a feature of a white man or a black person leaving the scene of a crime and say he was this color. That was the connective length that the state relied upon. It had no probative value in this.

matter simply offered as prejudicial impact. Court will remember there was no connective link between the grave site and Lori Shaver. There was no DNA. There was no hand, uh, any, uh, clothing, anything that had a connective link to Lori Shaver in the form of DNA, hair samples or anything and that matter. The state, you may recall tried to downplay this. Uh, I think it was Mr.

Buxman question in the witness saying, well, you're not. surprise that there's no link between that given the degraded condition of the straps that were found in the grave, ignoring the fact that possibly there was no connective link being there was never at any time, any DNA or evidence on those straps. The same way with the tarp. There was a blue tarp. Reminded the court that I brought out on cross-examination. The state did not take it upon themselves to do any kind of forensic analysis to see who, if anybody had purchased that tarp, nor did they do any DNA analysis on that tarp to see if it'd been drug across the ground and how it got to the grave site, I would bring that to the attention

of the court. There was also testimony unrefuted from the medical examiner that there were buckle swabs connected to Michael Shaver, which indicated that there had been some force or trauma at a point post-death or after the death of Michael Schaever. Shaver. It was testifying the court heard testimony that the boyfriend at that time, Mr. Townsend,

had, they believe, removed the body only to return it later. There was no evidence that Lori Shaver had moved the body and that could not be accounted for. That was brought out on evidence. It was likewise objected

to throughout the trial continuously as to the form of the introduction by the state. I brought to the attention of the court, but the state entirely relied on circumstantial claims of evidence. And that would be, you know, it was always everything the state declared was going to be a timeline link, anything that came into evidence. Whether it was the gun, whether it was the sale of guns, whatever it was, that would be their claim. I presented to the court a case Smith v. Carlyle, which went back through the history of circumstantial evidence. evidence and reinstated a case called Volker.

And there the Supreme Court had declared, if the state's going to rely on circumstantial evidence, there must be a foundation for that evidence that's not subject to any other reasonable interpretation except that of guilt. At no time did the state throughout this trial, not one single time, did they establish any foundation upon which these circumstantial claims were based. And that instead they argued to the jury. in their closing. It was just a totality of these circumstances

that they could hang their verdict upon. We understand there's a minimum mandatory of 25 years in this case, Judge, and the court can impose a life sentence in this case. Based on the evidence, the undisputed facts says, I've just brought

to the attention of the court, we'd ask for the minimum mandatory of 25 years be imposed against Lori Shaver. That would be our recommendation. to the court at this stage. And Ms. Shaver, I know in the PSI, she had sent the court a letter as to her feelings, impressions, and her sentiment about the matter.

I presume it's made a part of the record for purposes of the sentencing, and I presume that the court has reviewed that as well. I have reviewed the letter, Mr. Wigg. Thank you, Judge. Is there anything further? And I sympathize with the family that's here. I know they have heartfelt feelings about it and emotions. It's not testimony in the sense that it's offered anything to establish the state's case.

And I am sympathetic as to the scenario that they found themselves. The court would be reminded, though, that there was evidence of physical abuse by Mr. Schaver. And there was nothing that really contradicted that in this trial. I'd bring that to the attention of the court as well. and I think all these facts would justify at least the minimum mandatory deposition. All right. Does your client wish to address the court? No, she doesn't judge that.

Is there anything further? Nothing further from the defense. Anything further from the state? No, sir. Please present your client for sentencing. Lori Shaver-filmer in case number 2020 CF-2361, having been found guilty by a jury of your peers of the offense of murder in the second degree with a firearm and having been adjudicated guilty, the offense of murder in the second degree with a firearm, the court hereby sentences you to a term of life in the Florida Department of Corrections.