Trial transcript 302 and 303 and Toxicology Report Exhibit #28
Explanation: Once a person becomes deceased, typically samples of blood are tested by a toxicologist, and the results are sent to the prosecutor. Mr. J. Kuhlman was the toxicologist and did not test for two drugs; mushrooms and marijuana. Page 302 and 303 transcribes the cross-examination by Hockman’s court-appointed attorney Bruce Albertson. Mr. Kuhlman stated on page 302 that had the chest blood been tested for mushrooms and marijuana that may have shown positive results. On page 303 Mr. Kuhlman states that he had no information on testing for these drugs.
Theory/Fact of Document: Marsha Garst had knowledge that Dustin Stanley’s blood would show “shrooms and pot” based on statements her investigators obtained from several witnesses who participated in this illegal drug use hours before his death with him. Furthermore, a call made from jail to a friend recorded Hockman stating that she had a suspicion that Stanley would have those two drugs in his system. Marsha Garst hindered facts being presented to the jury that these drugs being in his system could have made him very aggressive and agitated to the point of his attack on Hockman and attempted murder of her son, explaining why Hockman acted to prevent her son’s possible death.
April Smith – January 8, 2009
Explanation: Inmate April Smith who conspired with 5 other inmates to lie on the witness stand at Hockman’s trial and was released from jail and faced no prosecution of her offenses, thanks to Marsha Garst. (See Criminal Record)
Melissa Loker – August 8, 2008
Explanation: Inmate ringleader who conspired with 5 other inmates to lie on the witness stand at Hockman’s trial and was released from jail and faced no prosecution of her offenses, thanks to Marsha Garst. (See Criminal Record)
Jamie Lam – January 12, 2009 (Days before Hockman’s trial)
Explanation: Inmate who conspired with 5 other inmates to lie on the witness stand at Hockman’s trial and was released from jail and faced no prosecution of her offenses, thanks to Marsha Garst. Also, note that the statement made to Investigator Spitler (Marsha Garst’s right-hand man) denotes comments Hockman denies were ever made. Hockman believes Marsha Garst needed as many offenders as possible to win a conviction, showing the lengths Marsha Garst was willing to go to circumvent justice. (See Criminal Record)
Christian Harris – December 30, 2008
Explanation: Inmate who conspired with 5 other inmates to lie on the witness stand at Hockman’s trial and was released from jail and faced no prosecution of her offenses, thanks to Marsha Garst. (See Criminal Record)
Theory/Fact of Document: An agreement was made by Marsha Garst with Harris on January 8, 2009 (days before Hockman’s trial) that Harris’ “cooperation” would determine her outcome with her own criminal charges.
Capt. Wittig Trial Transcript (page 188)
Explanation: Wittig testifies that ‘casings’ were found on the garage floor of Hockman’s home where she testified that the shooting took place (in the garage) as Stanley entered her home. This testimony flies in the face of Marsha Garst’s repeated attempts of convincing the jury Hockman shot Stanley in her bedroom.
Theory/Fact of Document: Did the jury miss this crucial testimony or had Marsha Garst succeeded in steering them in her direction?
J. Irby Trial Transcript (pages 192-194)
Explanation: Irby testifies that Hockman dropped her daughter off for a play date on June 6, 2008, after attending her oldest son’s graduation. Irby states that as a registered nurse she observed bruising consistent with some type of force placing it there.
Theory/Fact of Document: As you read the transcript of Hockman’s attorney questioning Irby you can see how badly Marsha Garst wants to prevent the jury from hearing any testimony in Hockman’s favor.
E. Tyrell Trial Transcript (page 312)
Explanation: Marsha Garst questions employee of Sprint to read aloud for Hockman’s jury the cell number that frequently calls Stanley’s cell phone number (540) 975-1123 to which Tyrell answers, “correct.”
Theory/Fact of Document: This number DOES NOT belong to Hockman, but is the cell phone number belonging to Megan Wittington (Dustin Stanley’s ex and mother to his 2 sons). Hockman’s cell phone number was (540) 975-1223 (one number off from Wittington’s.)
Exhibit 94 (labeled Exhibit 93 by Marsha Garst)
Explanation: This was given to each juror to show that Hockman called Stanley repeatedly between July 19, 2008, and July 20, 2008 (days before Stanley’s demise). Based on the false pretense that Garst provided to the jury it is possible they believed Hockman lied on the stand when she denied calling Stanley’s cell that many times.
Theory/Fact of Document: Lines to the left indicate each time Megan Whittington called Stanley’s cell phone between July 19, 2009, and July 20, 2009 (total of 17 times). Stars to the right indicate each time Stanley called Whittington (a total of 7 times). To the left one circle depicts Hockman calling Stanley. Boxes to the right depict that Stanley called Hockman twice. This exhibit proves Hockman didn’t call Stanley as often as Garst led the jury to believe.
Deputy Danner Trial Transcript (pages 124-125)
Explanation: Danner was the on-scene officer to arrive at Hockman’s home on June 21, 2008, after Hockman escaped captivity from Stanley. Danner testifies in response to questioning by Garst. Danner under oath states he saw no injuries on Hockman but says Hockman claims Stanley grabbed her in the chest area and exposed her breasts to Danner. Notice on being questioned by Hockman’s defense he admits Hockman stated to him that Stanley “tore her clothing, her bra or something, I don’t remember the exact wording that she said.” He further states he “had no conversation about injuries on Hockman’s neck.”
Theory/Fact of Document: No incident report was given to Hockman’s defense which would have shown Danner lies under oath on the advisement of Garst. Hockman had shown Danner her ripped blouse and bra, (that Hockman’s defense had in its possession, but failed to present it to the jury), bruises all over her arms, a 5” red abrasion from the phone cord that Stanley wrapped around Hockman’s neck. (Which Danner saw in Hockman’s bedroom lying on the floor during his walk-through.) He also observed damage inside Hockman’s home and vehicle and signs of a struggle, yet still made no arrest. Hockman met 3 friends at the police station to meet the magistrate in hopes of seeing Stanley arrested. Those 3 friends observed the same injuries shown to Deputy Danner, but only one was called to testify to what he observed. Garst prevented this witness from divulging details of his observation.
K. Flint Trial Transcript (pages 244-248)
Explanation: Flint is from forensics and at #1 answers Hockman’s attorney that, “there are times when obviously when a person will touch another person and NOT transfer DNA.” He further states that no DNA was found on the fun (indicating no blowback existed on the gun as well, meaning that it is not possible for the shooter to have been 2’-5’ away from the victim.) On page 247, Flint testifies that he can’t say for certain that DNA didn’t exist under Dustin Stanley’s fingernails from another person. He further testifies that “high temperatures can degrade DNA extensively. Again on page 248 Flint expresses no “blowback” found on the fun and that distance of shooter to the victim could determine whether blowback would exist.
Theory/Fact of Document: Garst repeatedly tried to convince the jury that Hockman’s allegations on the morning of the shooting that Stanley grabbed her by the neck dragging her were untrue based on the fact that forensics found no DNA of Hockman’s under Stanley’s fingernail clippings, despite testimony that several factors could interfere with DNA being found. Hockman has asked numerous times to be given a polygraph to prove the events occurring on the day of the shooting to no avail.
B. Harter Trial Transcript (page 61-67)
Explanation: Harter is blocked by Garst when he tried to explain why his contact had been severed with Hockman. Garst didn’t want the jury to hear about a text message sent to Harter from Stanley. Garst argued that it was hearsay for Harter to tell the jury what the content of the text was.
Theory/Fact of Document: Yet it wasn’t hearsay for Garst to question Hockman about texts sent to her by Stanley. Harter tells the jury about the bruises, blood in Hockman’s BMW, and the damage he saw to Hockman’s home and vehicle. Once again on page 66, Garst tries to convey that Hockman called Harter 11 times on the day of the shooting which Harter denies. (Similar to how she wanted the jury to believe she called Stanley often.) Harter’s statement to Investigator Garber (female) dated August 7, 2008, is concise in detailing his relationship with Hockman and that the text sent to him by Dustin Stanley (not told to the jury) was, “I know where you sleep mother fucker!” Hockman’s jury had the right to know this when assessing Hockman’s credibility.
Shane Farren – Preliminary and Trial Transcripts (Exhibit 81, pages 25-32 and pages 7-26)
Explanation: On August 6, 2008, Investigator Garber (female) interviewed Farren about his interaction with Hockman on the day before the shooting. Farren stated that Hockman spoke of a history of abuse. He stated Hockman purchased pepper spray and provided 2 forms of ID to purchase a firearm. Farren stated that “I asked if she wanted target or hollow point ammunition.”
Theory/Fact of Document: In September of 2008 at the Grand Jury proceedings (not open to the public or on public record) which Hockman was able to peruse all transcripts, it shows Farren testifying that he recommended hollow point ammunition to Hockman. At the preliminary hearing in October, Farren changed his testimony (on page 27) that Hockman specifically asked for hollow point ammunition. Even on the cross by Hockman’s attorney, he states that he told Investigator Garber, Hockman specifically asked for a hollow point, when in fact his statement does NOT reflect that. At trial in January 2009, Farren testifies on pages 12 and 18 that Hockman specifically asked for hollow point. Farren on the cross (page 23) states it is not uncommon for him to discuss hollow point ammunition as it is a common round for “home protection”. Isn’t it ironic that after meeting Garst before preliminary that his statement contradicts his testimony?
K. Shifflett – Trial Transcript (pages 75-76)
Explanation: Investigator K. Shifflett shows he testified that item #16, a pink and blue tank top (worn by Hockman on the day of the shooting) was located and turned over to Mr. Brown as evidence, as well as item #18, capri pants.
M. Brown – Trial Transcript (page 115)
Explanation: Brown testified that item #63, blue capris jeans were submitted to DOFS for testing by him.
Exhibit 25 – DOFS Certificate of Analysis
Explanation: Shows item #18, pants were submitted and received for testing by DOFS, but NOT item #16.
Exhibit 24 – DOFS Request for Lab Exam
Explanation: Shows item #18, pants were submitted by M. Brown to DOFS.
Exhibit 27 – DOFS Certificate of Analysis
Explanation: The certificate of Analysis shows that item #18 had no testing done and that item #16 had not been submitted for testing.
Theory/Fact of Document: Isn’t it a bit strange that the pants and shirt wore by Hockman at the time of the shooting either weren’t submitted or even tested for gunshot residue (Hockman already admitted to firing the weapon) or most importantly to see if blowback was present on the clothing which would show up only if she was 2’-5’ away as Garst argued to the jury numerous times. Hockman believes the evidence Garst had before the forensic testing proved that the shooter was not 2’-5’ away and requested that the clothes not be tested to bolster her case and keep the truth from surfacing. All of this could have led a jury to a finding of not guilty of murder, but Marsha Garst prevented that.
Josh Stanley Bond Hearing – August 2008
Page 39 (Bond Hearing): This shows Hockman’s attorney questioning Josh where he stated Hockman called him saying, “Dustin pisses me off.” He further states Hockman mentioned a gun on June 27th (one month before Dustin’s demise)
Page 50 (Preliminary): Josh states Hockman told him, “I found myself in a store yesterday (June 26th) looking at guns trying to pick out the one I’m going to shoot your brother with.”
Page 36 (Trial): Josh states similar to the same above.
Theory/Fact of Document: A jury would have to believe that Hockman looked at guns one month before the shooting and that Hockman would tell Josh Stanley, Dustin Stanley’s brother, what she was allegedly planning. Hockman along with others believes Garst orchestrated that farfetched inconceivable notion. Would YOU really tell anyone, let alone the brother you didn’t get along with (because you knew he was an abuser too) that you were looking at guns to kill his brother with? Hockman had NO preconceived plan to end Dustin Stanley’s life. (See Criminal Record.)
E. Stanley Trial Transcript (pages 79-82)
Explanation: Stanley’s testimony shows no argument took place between his brother (Dustin) and Hockman the night before Dustin’s death. It also shows Stanley is lying about no drugs being bought or used that night.
Theory/Fact of Document: See Brian Heister’s transcript and news articles stating he was the largest grower of “mushrooms” in the country. Garst made sure to coach him on testifying that no drug use took place by him or Dustin. (Don’t forget that Dustin was a paid confidential informant for the ATF and drug use and busts were common for Dustin) Do you believe drug use didn’t happen?
Statement of Steve Valentine – August 11, 2008
Explanation: Valentine’s statement is clear, he knew about bruises on Hockman and had seen the damage to Hockman’s BMW. Valentine disclosed Hockman knew Stanley was a ‘narc’ and was being protected.
Statements of Don Landes and Sherrine Swan
Explanation: Both witnesses had firsthand knowledge of abuse to Hockman but were never called to testify. This testimony would have corroborated Hockman’s statements and added to her credibility.
Statements of Keith Langhorne, Ricardo Rodriguez, Raymond Keller, Dorothy Phillips, Adrianne Kirkland, Martha Rosen, and Carol Rosen
Explanation: Langhorne and Rodriguez’s statements show they were Dustin’s supervisors and that he couldn’t stay employed due to his temper, refusal to do what he was told, and was stubborn. Neither was called to testify at trial.
Kirkland states that Dustin told her that he “had just taken his mother, grandmother, and girlfriend to brunch.”
Note: Hockman NEVER attended a meal with Dustin’s mother or grandmother. Kirkland was not called to testify. Had she been called and the mother and grandmother testified they never had a meal with Hockman, it would have shown Dustin to be a liar.