The Pre-trial Conference was held on January 30, 2012.

Before the hearing began, Tony Geddes relayed the first and only plea bargain offered by the State. The offer was 10 years fixed, and he wasn't sure how many years indeterminate, for pleading guilty to Manslaughter and not reporting a body. The State was offering to drop Arson and Grand Theft. I told Tony that I would be committing perjury, if I said that I committed either of those crimes. Tony said, "You're gonna have to figure out what you're willing to say. This is Idaho. Life is on the table."
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? That sounds an awful lot like my attorney was attempting to intimidate me into lying to the court and forfeiting my right to trial. Obviously, I declined. Ironically, I would've been out of prison last month, if I would've just folded to the system.

During this hearing, my attorneys effectively objected to the use of Judge Bail's suggestion that the scene be described to jurors, as "a scene of an Arson, where a woman was found between a mattress and box spring". The prosecution claimed that Natalie's fictional assailant must've been me, and the recording of her encounter, with police, should be admitted. Judge Bail ruled that the majority of the recording was inadmissible. My attorneys argued that the State was attempting to make this look like a domestic violence case, and shockingly, at the time, The Honorable Unbiased Seeker of Justice, Judge Deborah A. Bail, venomously spewed, "I think this is a case of domestic violence."

REMEMBER, If you form a theory of a case to early, you're subconsciously trying to prove yourself right, the entire time. Confirmation bias.

I didn't have a shot! Every "officer of the court", including my Public Pretenders, had me convicted as soon as I was accused. The trial was just a formality, and I was a chump getting played.
Tony and Danica said they would meet with me before trial, but I only spoke to Tony once on February 2, 2012.

​

Jury Selection was on February 15, 2012.

 

My first clue that my team had arrived unprepared was when Danica Comstock handed me a notepad and pen. She told me that I needed to take notes and help disqualify jurors. I was completely ignorant in the art of jury selection, yet I was 1/3 of the resources used by my attorneys. The whole process lacked considerable effort from either side. The jury was selected before lunch, then, the judge gave the jury instructions that afternoon. There were precise instructions for the jury to avoid talking to anyone, including each other, about the case, until all of the evidence was presented. The jury members were banned from engaging in any research about the case or reading any media accounts of the case.

After the instructions, George Gunn gave his opening statement. It was a typical dogmatic speech about the State being the pursuers of justice, and the defendant being a bad man that committed all of the crimes for which he was accused, otherwise, we wouldn't have been in a trial.

Danica followed with her opening statement. It was short, but accurately predicted that the State wouldn't prove the charges. She reminded the jury that there was still no cause of death, and the first responders jumped to conclusions and disturbed the scene. She also promised the jury that they would hear from our fire expert, Dennis Jones, and he would refute the State's theories.

February 16, 2012, the State began calling witnesses.

I'm not going to quote the entire transcript, but I will focus on false testimony and unused exculpatory evidence. I understand that some of the witnesses were distraught, but nothing excuses anyone from lying in a murder trial.

Ken Davis, Natalie's dad was first. While being questioned, he distorted the circumstances in which he and I had shared each others' company. There was only one occasion that we didn't partake in the use of cannabis and have drinks. That one time was when Natalie and Jen Davis had arranged a dinner to discuss a finder's fee, for Natalie referring Jen's business to her acquaintance, Heather Halldorson, whom referred Jen to her employer, Mary Owens Shanahan, for an interior design contract. Natalie told me that Jen had agreed to pay her 10% of the $20k deposit. When we got to dinner Jen revealed that there had been no such agreement.

When Gunn asked Ken about the encounter, Ken said, "There seemed to be a demand on his part that we pay Natalie money that 'they' felt she was owed. It got to be a heated discussion. We asked them to please leave our house, as we felt in danger due to the attitude that 'they' were taking toward us." He did admit that he gave her money the next day.  If my attorneys had listened to me, investigated, and been prepared, they would've known that they had audio and video evidence to impeach that testimony. I recorded that entire conversation with my Palm Treo, to which they had access.

Jen made flank steak and asparagus. After dinner, the children were directed to go outside, and at their request, I let them take Zenli. The tone between Natalie and Jen did become somewhat catty and spiteful. At that time, Ken removed himself from the discussion and began clearing the table, so I excused myself and went out back with the kids, where I took video with my phone. The conversation seemed to have ended amicably, the kids and I were called inside, hugs were given all around and Natalie and I went to Ken and Jen's other house, in Sherman Oaks. The next night we met everyone at Bob's Big Boy, and Ken gave Natalie $500.

My attorneys' failure to investigate was horrific. The audio of the conversation and the video of me outside with Zenli and the kids would've shown the jury that the prosecutors were willing to suborn perjury to secure a conviction.

Ken also testified that Natalie texted him to call 911 to her house at 3:45pm pacific time. He even produced a "screen shot" that read, "call police to my house" time stamped 3:46.  If my attorneys would've just looked at the phone records that the State provided, they would've known that Natalie was calling my phone from 3:28pm mountain time (2:28pt) until 9:10pm.  Why would she be calling me, if I was there?

My attorneys would've also seen that the phone records were incomplete, the State only submitted 3 of 49 texts. Of course, there was no text to Ken Davis.  If she could type all those letters in a text, why couldn't she call 911. Furthermore, my attorneys didn't inquire as to why Natalie's Dad didn't call the police. If he thought that his daughter was actually in danger, he would've called 911.  Right?

​

Morrissey Gage, Natalie's estranged mother, was next. Her testimony focused on her claim to the ring that Natalie had used as a payment toward her debt. She claimed that Natalie was just holding the ring for her. She testified that she had spoken to Natalie in February of 2012, later stating that the last time that they had spoken was right after Thanksgiving 2011. When confronted about the inconsistency, she said she couldn't remember. She also testified that she had spoken to me, on the phone, in August of 2011, and my demeanor was "rude".  Not true.

If my attorneys had properly prepared, they would've known that Morrissey Gage, did text me regarding the whereabouts of Natalie, and I would agree that my response was curt. I told her to check the bars, jails, and hospitals, and please don't contact me again. Again, it was through text, I had never heard that retched woman's voice until my trial.  She admitted that she and Natalie hadn't been close since 2007, but failed to explain that the separation was the result of a violent assault, toward Natalie, that left Morrissey hospitalized for criminal insanity.  Danica's cross examination was elementary, at best.

Kristine Larsen, a Montana detective, was next. She was followed by Kathleen Coles, a crime victim advocate from Montana. They were there as a backdoor to admit evidence of the unadjudicated incident in Bozeman. They showed pictures of Natalie's random bruises, and read off the charges.
This was clever of the prosecution to sneak in a potential history of violence, but it was easy to rebut. My attorneys had the audio of Natalie with my Montana investigator. If they had returned the calls of my friend's and family, they would've also had witnesses to back Natalie's admission that she was the violent party in our relationship. They would've also known that I was offered a misdemeanor, and refused to take it. Instead, my attorneys allowed the prosecutors to paint a picture of me killing Natalie to prevent her from testifying.

​

 February 18, 2012, 1:15p.m.

James "Jim" Rabbitt was the star of this show. He doubled down on his lie that had snowballed into a murder trial. He testified that after John Suter came out and asked him to assist with the removal of the the mattress, "I walked in, and I picked the mattress up on the side closest to the door. John was already in the room.  I lifted the mattress up and felt no weight other than just the weight of the mattress itself. It was somehow stuck in the corner, and we jerked it free, and we carried the mattress out back."

Also, notable during redirect examination from Whitney Faulkner, Rabbitt indicated that "they had been given notice in route that", then a clearing of George guns throat stopped him mid-sentence.
Then Rabbitt claimed that he checked Natalie's pulse while wearing his fire gloves.
After his testimony, the seemingly nervous Jim Rabbitt began pacing the courthouse halls, awaiting the testimony of John Suter. Danica made me aware of Rabbitt's shady demeanor.

John Suter is called to the stand next. Keep in mind that, before his testimony, Whitney Faulkner and the prosecution did not give my defense team notice that Firefighter Suter has a different story than Rabbitt. We were deprived of the opportunity to effectively investigate and prepare to cross examine the witness.

Suter testified that Jim Rabbitt had ordered him to back out of the room with the hose, after the small fire was extinguished, and Rabbitt stayed in the room to clear it.  Suter said, "I stayed out in the hallway for approximately a minute or two while Jim stayed inside the fire room...So after a couple of minutes or so, he came out and said 'Hey, John, get that mattress out of there.'...
Sometimes mattresses melt together....and are awkward, so  I thought, you know, with people right outside the room, I need some help. And Captain Rabbit was the first person I told, and I said, 'Hey, Captain Rabbitt, I need some help with this mattress. I think it's melted together.'
And he walked right by me...I heard a grunt, and by the time I got there, the mattress was lifted."
Whitney Faulkner asked: "And you say you heard a grunt. If you could describe that for us. Was it something you heard before?"  Suter replied, "Well, no. It sounded like Captain Rabbitt lifting the mattress by himself."  Faulkner asked, "Can you describe for us where that mattress was located, once you saw it again?"  He said, "When I walked up to it....it was upright perpendicular".

During cross examination, Tony Geddes asked, "So, is it your testimony today, you didn't help him (Rabbitt) remove the mattress at all?"  Suter reiterated, "He had the mattress lifted up, and when I got there, I just helped extract the mattress to the outside."

To summarize -

• Rabbitt heard from dispatch, in route, that there had been a domestic call, the night before.

• Rabbitt was responsible for clearing the room, before the mattress was removed, and missed the body.

• Rabbitt committed perjury regarding the removal of the mattress.

• Rabbitt attempted to manipulate the testimony of John Suter, prior to trial.

• Jim Rabbitt should be labeled and prosecuted as a disgrace to the first responder's community. Anyone that is blindly loyal, to Jim Rabbitt, and altered their testimony or investigatory path, is equally culpable.

​

​

​

​

As you heard in the recorded interview, Suter tried to do the right thing. He was scared to share his recollection of the events of March 5th, because the depositions were being held in a substandard group meeting, and he feared repercussions for publicly disagreeing with his Captain. You also heard his attempt to set the record straight was met with shameful ridicule from Whitney Faulkner. Suter contacted Faulkner and told her that he didn't appreciate the group depositions. He felt it was unfair, because he didn't feel like he had an opportunity to say what happened. He told her that he didn't think that the body was under the mattress. Whitney apologized, then jabbed, "I really thought firemen were together and stuff".

Whitney Faulkner should have immediately disclosed that information to my defense team, but it would've put a gigantic hole in their only prosecutable theory. Whitney Faulkner made a conscious decision to withhold evidence. The lie had already been spread by the media, someone had to pay for this fabricated crime. She weighed the risk of embarrassing a decorated community "hero" against prosecuting a man using false evidence, and she decided that my Life wasn't as important as Jim Rabbitt's reputation.

​

If my Defense Team had had the decency to honor their promise of "a battle of the experts", this report shows the findings of our Arson Expert.
 

​

There's a plethora of fabricated propaganda that was designed to manipulate the jury, and I will publish more testimony at a later date, but I want to move along, because the perjury and withheld evidence doesn't really factor, until I prevail in my Petition for Habeas Corpus.

 

I do want to touch on the end of the trial and my sentencing hearing.

The State rested on Friday, February 24, 2012. Tony and Danica had informed me that they were going to motion for acquittal on all counts and present the court with an abundance of reasons why my case should be set free, after the State rested. They called it a "halftime play".  Surprise, surprise, that's not what happened. All day, Tony couldn't stop talking about wanting to get to the slopes with his kids that evening. When the State rested, Tony simply said, "Judge, I would move for judgement of acquittal at this time on Counts I and II pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 29(b)." There was no effort, at all, of course, the motion was denied.  Then, Tony told me that we were going to call our Arson Expert, Dennis Jones, on Tuesday. He said that he wasn't sure if we'd call our pathologist (they never hired one), because there was no cause of death. He said that we would discuss, in detail, the pros and cons of me testifying.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012. Tony had decided to trade my Life for a promotion. He called off Dennis Jones, without any explanation, and there was nothing I could do about it. Our detailed discussion, about my potential testimony, was Tony stating, "I think it could potentially hurt, but I don't see how it could help us." My mind went into shock. What happened, between Friday afternoon and Monday afternoon, that prompted my attorneys to abandon the "battle of the experts" strategy that they had promised me and the jury?

The closing arguments were elementary, on both sides. Tony didn't even argue Grand Theft, prompting George Gunn to say, "I guess they concede the Grand Theft." (FYI, that was prosecutorial misconduct, but ruled "harmless error" by the Idaho Appellate Court).

The jury deliberated for three days, and came back with an acquittal for murder, and convictions for manslaughter, arson, and grand theft. The judge thanked them for their service and said that a lot of information needed to be gathered before I was sentenced, then she set a date for sentencing. A few minutes later her clerk came out with a presentencing packet, and Tony told her that we didn't want it. A minute later, she came back and said that Judge Bail really wanted me to have the packet, so Tony grabbed it and threw it in his briefcase. I was taken back to the holding cell, and Deputy Ferguson brought me a packet, and said, "Judge Bail wants to make sure you have this."

I called Tony the next day and told him that she had sent the packet down with the deputy, and I felt intimidated. He directed me not to fill out the packet nor talk to any presentence investigators.  On March 14, 2012, an investigator, Patti Jacobs shows up, and I inform her that I've been instructed not to speak to her. She rolled her eyes and left. I called Tony, and he said he would tell them to leave me alone.  On March 19, 2012, Tony and Danica came to see me. Tony said that I needed to give Ms. Jacobs some background info, but he would be there to make sure she didn't ask any inappropriate questions.  On April 3, 2012, Patti Jacobs arrived at 9:29am, but Tony was a no-show. I had a minimally informative casual conversation with her, but refused to sign anything, as Tony had originally instructed me.  On April 13, 2012, John Anzioni brought me a 500+ page presentence report, prepared by Patti Jacobs. It was obnoxiously out of context and clearly incorrect in part. I had from 4pm on Friday until 7am on Monday to review the report.

When, I met with Tony before the sentencing hearing, I had a detailed list of the errors in the report. He took the report and the list, and he said that it didn't matter because the Judge already knows what she's going to give me. He told me to be prepared for five to ten years fixed, but not to freak out because I had plenty of issues to appeal. "Just don't piss off the Judge", was the final bit of wisdom he shared.

A lot of the sentencing hearing is a blur, but something Tony said was very confusing, and Judge Bail's reasoning was peculiar, considering her "unbiased" position.  Tony attempted to introduce hearsay evidence. He revealed that Dr. Garrison, the Coroner, had divulged that a bruise, on Natalie's chest was possibly an attempt at resuscitation. Why would my attorney bury that information until the sentencing hearing?

Judge Bail began her final rant by pointing out the fact that I didn't participate in the presentence process.  Bail says, "...we know what happened after the death of Natalie Davis,.....her body was staged."  Then professes, "of course, we know in July 2010, before the victim's death, she was the victim of a domestic violence incident. The injuries she suffered are clear and were inflicted by the defendant."  She acknowledged,  "The defendant doesn't come before the court with an extensive record....."  Then she admitted, "I find it very difficult to assess, with the incomplete information submitted to me, what rehabilitation potential there is. That's very hard to say. Generally, the lack of an extensive prior record would indicate that there should be some potential for that. It's hard to say."

Finally, the unbiased seeker of truth, Honorable Judge Deborah A. Bail, sentenced me to 54 years in prison, stating, ".....because I think the maximum amount of time for the defendant to be observed so that the reality of his thought patterns can be perceived and the threat, if any, or the rehabilitation potential, if any, could be more accurately assessed at some later date."

She snarled at Tony Geddes, with a half smile, "I do not have enough information".  Tony shrugged, Danica cried, and I went to prison for fabricated and completely implausible crimes.

 

Quick recap-

•  Judge Bail used intimidation tactics in an attempt to get me to go against the advice of my attorney.

• I was forced to speak to the presentence officer, Patti Jacobs, without an attorney present.

• My attorneys didn't prepare for the hearing, nor did my attorneys prepare me for the hearing.

•  It's clear that Judge Bail had convicted me, in her mind, of the unadjudicated charges in Montana.

• Judge Bail 100% bought into Jim Rabbitt's lie that the body was staged.

​

She also abused her power by ignoring my absence of any criminal record and giving me an excessive maximum sentence, specifically because I exercised my rights and didn't cooperate with Patti Jacobs, as instructed by counsel.

​

FYI... Judge Bail's statement that the sentence could "be more accurately assessed at some later date", is 100% BOVINE EXCREMENT! There's no later assessment. I've been fighting teams of overly paid and unaccountable attorneys on both sides of the ball for a reassessment, but the game is rigged folks. Yea, there goes that whiney convict talk, again.  Here, Let me show you.

​

​