For all of the recipes in the episode and others. Check and join our SubStack If the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon! In this episode of We Are Not Afraid Presents: For The Record With David McClam, David examines the correspondence and court filings behind the Anthony Christopher case, focusing on what the attorneys actually wrote, when they wrote it, and how those documents compare with the version listeners have heard elsewhere. At the center of the episode are several specific questions: When was the theft of LaDonna Humphrey’s phone disclosed? Was there actually a November 8 deadline to surrender the phone? Did LaDonna refuse electronic examination altogether? And what did her attorney argue about the disputed evidence? The first key document is a November 13, 2018 email from LaDonna’s attorney, Tom Stockland, notifying opposing counsel that LaDonna’s car had been broken into and that her purse and phone had been stolen. Christopher’s attorney, Glenn Ritter, responded that same day and discussed the reported theft while requesting emergency court attention. David argues that this contemporaneous exchange is important because it establishes when the theft was disclosed and when opposing counsel acknowledged it. The episode then turns to the claim that the phone was stolen on the very evening LaDonna was supposedly required to turn it over to a third-party expert. David asks for the order, agreement, or appointment establishing that specific November 8 deadline. The records discussed in the episode instead show attorneys still negotiating expedited discovery afterward, with the judge’s office later stating that discovery would proceed “in due course.” Another major document comes from Christopher’s own attorney. On November 16, Ritter wrote that the parties had “agreed on the terms of Humphrey’s Gmail account search by Pivot.” The agreement set out search terms, dates, original email headers, IP information, account-registration data, and procedures for reviewing potentially private or privileged material. David argues that any blanket description of LaDonna refusing all electronic examination must account for this written agreement. The episode also examines LaDonna’s October 30 affidavit. David emphasizes the chronology: the affidavit describes deletion of employment emails tied to her September departure from the business, while the later preservation proceedings occurred afterward. His argument is that an earlier admission cannot automatically be treated as proof of a later violation without evidence establishing that later act. A restored page from Stockland’s trial brief adds another layer to the defense. The brief disputes attribution of spoofed messages, argues that receiving or forwarding a communication is not the same as originating it, and explains LaDonna’s reports to authorities regarding alleged business misconduct. David stresses that the brief is advocacy, not an independent finding, but argues that it remains an important contemporaneous record of what the defense was actually contesting. The phone and SIM evidence also receives closer scrutiny. David discusses the Benton County detective’s finding that there was no evidence of a false theft report after correcting a time-zone issue, while also acknowledging the later adverse civil findings. He reviews Stockland’s arguments about the replacement phone, SIM information, disputed interpretations of phone records, shared-password access, and the need to distinguish an expert conclusion from a full explanation of how competing evidence was evaluated. The episode does not ignore the outcome of the civil case. David acknowledges that the state court made serious findings against LaDonna, including contempt and spoliation, struck her pleadings, established liability, and later entered a damages judgment of approximately $3.57 million. His argument is narrower: those outcomes do not erase the underlying emails, agreements, and disputed chronology that preceded them. At the heart of this episode is a simple demand for precision. If there was a November 8 phone-handover deadline, produce the document. If LaDonna refused all electronic examination, explain the November 16 Gmail agreement. If the defense raised substantive objections at the time, address those objections directly rather than pretending they never existed. David’s position is that people can disagree about the case while still expecting dates, agreements, court records, and source documents to be presented accurately. Because a judgment answers some legal questions. It does not rewrite the paper trail. Anthony, your own lawyer put the agreement in writing. Javier, your audience deserves to hear what it says.
