The Witness

With the belief I might be able to shed some light on Travis’s case, I arrived 20 minutes early to the witness preparation interview.  I received a call from the FBI agent on my way there and somehow the schedule had been confused for meeting at 2 pm rather than 2:30 pm so they thought I was late.  This, too, was off to an incredible start.

I have testified in more cases than I can count over the course of my career and am confident in taking the stand without preparation.  There was very little, if any, preparation for violation of probation hearings.  In my opinion, this was an opportunity for the prosecution to seal up the loopholes in their case, ensure the transition of the work by the ex-lead FBI agent to the prosecution and other agents was seamless, and to gather additional information for their case.  I never believed this meeting was truly for my benefit.  

What I experienced during the interview reinforced this notion.

When I entered the room, I was met by the lead prosecutor who I had spoken with on the phone the week before, the local prosecutor, and an FBI agent.  This FBI agent was the second agent on the call when I had initially contacted the FBI agent whose cover I had blown in February.  I had been given a point of contact for a third agent who had said they would be at this interview but was not.  The third agent did however email me asking for Travis’s brother’s contact information.  Perhaps this was a test to see what information I had for his brother, but it left an impression of a very sloppy case.  Or a lazy agent.  The concerns I already had about the handling of this case continued to mount.  The FBI should be able to track down someone even if they regularly change their phone number, right?

I offered to reach out to other family members to see if anyone had the current phone number for his brother and advised doing so would be very odd behavior on my behalf.  At that point the agent chose to move forward with their own investigative efforts.  We later discovered the FBI was interviewing Travis’s old employer and his brother during this time.  His old employer mentioned a great deal of focus was placed on whether they tracked Travis’s whereabouts during his work hours.  This line of questioning is very bizarre for a tech crime when the internet can be accessed from nearly anywhere.

Back to my interview.  The first rhetoric used upon entering the interview room was the sugary politeness of ‘thank you so much for coming, we know you don’t want to be here’.  Actually, I did want to be there, or I would have exercised my right to not be.  Again, there was nothing legally binding me to this “preparation” interview.  I support justice and truth, and I will participate in that happening any time.  Protect my community, safeguard my country.  This was my professional virtue.  The prosecutor was taken by surprise when I explained my point of view.

I then addressed the elephant in the room…my concern with the potential lack of thoroughness on the case and the impact serving the no knock search warrant, my biggest professional error, had on me.  The similarities between the no knock search warrant case and Travis’s case where social media was the impetus for both cases is haunting.  I was politely saying you are statistically wrong with who you are prosecuting 20% of the time.  Don’t let that haunt you for a lifetime.  Instead of hearing the actual concern, the prosecutor began asking detailed questions about the evidence and procedures from that case 10 years prior totally missing or simply rejecting the point.  This was going to be a long day, and it ended up being even longer than I had anticipated.  The prosecutor also retorted ‘he thought’ the investigation had been thorough.  In my mind, I was livid, and my passion was stirred.  This is not a diagnosis where a second opinion can be sought.  I wanted more reassurance about an investigation that is going to dramatically change the trajectory of both my significant other and my life!  It was not to be had.

The prosecution did allow me to express the concerns I had with the case.  I went into detail about the profiles between Travis and his brother, which are night and day different.  I shared about how his brother had been investigated, broke into his landlord’s property after being evicted from his business, and how the amount of evidence of the event caught on camera was mind boggling to discover no charges had ever come from such nefarious behavior.  This was one of the few times the FBI agent chose to speak and asked “How do you know that?”  This was just the first time they would seem alarmed and question me knowing the truth.  My concerns continued to mount.  Instead of being focused on the information I was sharing, they wanted to know how I knew?  It certainly wasn’t from abusing the systems at my fingertips at work.  I had reliable sources. 

I shared about the threats Travis’s brother had made to Travis on more than one occasion which were startling enough for Travis to report it two separate times.  And then I started sharing the concerns I had about the discovery the prosecution had sent over, and how there were inconsistencies with the discovery that I felt clearly indicated Travis had not made those social media comments at the day and time indicated.  Before I could even finish my full thought, the lead prosecutor bladed his body toward me, leaned in, and said “Wait, you’ve seen my discovery?”  Discovery is the evidence the prosecution sent to Travis’s attorney.  (Read about it in detail here.) 

“Yes, sir.”

He then stammered and stuttered, “You have to understand how unique this situation is…  I don’t usually have witnesses who have reviewed what has been sent to the defense.”

Perhaps that is true.  I’m sure the FBI agent thought it was unique to have their cover blown in front of my house too.  I’m not going to get involved in a case, as a witness for anyone, without knowing the factual basis and any additional resources or evidence I can get my hands on.

What was alarming to me was the desire for secrecy and the impression they had something to hide.  Why wouldn’t the prosecutor respond that it was great I had looked at everything because that allowed for us to discuss it openly?  Also secretive in their nature was if I asked a question I would either be ignored, they would remain silent until I talked (the first person to talk always loses; sit in silence with them), or they would pose another question when I remained silent.

Once I was finished outlining the profiles and explaining all of the evidence I had reviewed, the contradictions within it, the screenshots on his phone, the fact they had taken a photo without providing a warrant, that Travis had also given them access to all of his account and password information yet there was nothing stored on his phone which would allow him to access the d_h_mazer account, and the fact when there is a government initiative such as a task force it is expected for the initiative to get results, the prosecutor looked at me and asked “Do you feel better now?”

I’m not saying I know what an appropriate response would be to a witness in this scenario when they have just punched a bunch of holes in your case, but pandering doesn’t seem like a solid strategy.

And then the questions began… about my social media use, Mike Lindell, alcohol, steroids (hormone therapy is not steroids), Travis’s family, his employment schedule during COVID, and on and on and on.

I was particularly appalled by the lack of social media knowledge the prosecutor had.  I realize this could have been a tactic…oh I didn’t know you had to have a personal account on Facebook to have a business page, I didn’t know you could look in Instagram to find your location…you’re being so helpful keep talking…  But if a prosecutor realistically knows this little about a platform which is the basis for felony charges being brought against someone, I adamantly believe they should receive training before touching the cases or they should be assigned to a different caseload.

I wish this had been the first impression of the FBI and prosecution not seeming to know what they were doing, but it seemed like every corner we turned and where ever I ended up being involved in the case I was one step ahead of them.

The interview style was eye opening, grueling, and manipulative at best.  For example (this is not real questioning from the interview):

Prosecutor: “Did Travis get coffee from The Mill on August 16^th?”

My response would initially be something to the effect of Travis drinks coffee every day, but I don’t know where he gets his coffee from once he leaves the house.  It’s not something I keep track of.

Prosecutor would then respond by pairing down the response “Travis has coffee every day, and he purchases it outside the home?”

Me:  “Yes.”

Prosecutor:  “So you believe it is possible Travis got coffee most days from the Mill.”

Me:  “The Mill is his favorite coffee shop.”

Prosecutor:  “You would say its most likely Travis got coffee from the Mill on the 16^th then?”

Me:  “Sure.”

Prosecutor:  Types on his computer notes of what appeared to be the last thing I said, but never once showed what he was actually entering into his computer.  Again, just like the FBI reports, anything could be documented in these notes and once in court the only thing that matters is what’s in the government officials’ notes.

One other moment which really stood out to me in the interview was a stern and sharp redirect I received from the prosecutor.  I do not remember what he had asked me, but my response was ‘Don’t you think it’s odd and should be looked into further that when Travis switched to a new iPhone in November, all of the comments stopped especially with the evidence of his phone having been compromised?’  The prosecutor’s response was firm and intolerable of my prompting ‘I did not ask you about that, we are talking about this…’.

In moving toward the end of the questioning the prosecutor directly asked me if I thought Travis had committed this crime.  Without flinching or thinking my response was “No.”  I’m even more confident about my answer today than I was back in June.

The week before when I spoke with the prosecutor on the phone, he indicated the meeting would probably last 1 ½ hours.  It was nearly 3 hours and just moments before my deadline of when I had to depart due to previously held work obligations when the meeting was finally wrapped up.  I’m sure the meeting would have lasted 1 1/2 hours if I hadn’t questioned evidence and had been more amenable to the case they were trying to put together.

This had been the most draining interview of my life solely due to the repetition and tactics for control used to get the answer they were seeking, and the defeat you feel when you just want to agree with them so it ends.  But if you do so you’ll betray yourself and your significant other.  I wasn’t even a suspect and I felt this drained! 

A few years into my career with the Department of Homeland Security, I interviewed with the DEA for the Diversion Investigator position.  I was offered the position on two different occasions but declined both times.  Even that hiring process was a fraction of the intensity I experienced in this “witness preparation” interview.  If their true desire was to prepare a witness, wouldn’t they want to ensure the witness left the meeting feeling prepared?  Aside from confirming I knew when and where to go for the Grand Jury hearing, there was no expressed concern about my confidence in feeling prepared for the hearing.  Perhaps the interview process spoke for itself… information gathering, building their case, and most certainly not witness prepping.

Aside from never in my life feeling the type of energy I felt in the room during the interview, another noteworthy observation is that the FBI agent chose to speak very rarely.  However, they did feel compelled to insert the supposed fact the ex-lead FBI agent truly had genuine concern when asking repeatedly if I had ever been threatened by Travis when we spoke on the phone in February.  I had mentioned the lack of rapport and the poor interview tactic of appearing to be seeking a specific answer that wasn’t being provided, and the FBI agent chose to continue to reinforce the narrative that my safety was of concern even though they were not doing anything proactively on their own accord to confirm I was safe.  It felt like they were really trying to convince me, force me to believe their point of view.

The very last thing I asked the prosecutor before departing was if it was truly due process to only allow someone three business days to find a defense attorney.  The response I was received was we have pushed these through faster than that before.  In the moment, my mind was perplexed as I questioned how it could get any faster than three business days.  But with a little time and space I realized they had just admitted their strategy to success:  push the case through.  If a case is well founded, evidence legally obtained, and processes are honorable there is nothing to rush to win a case.  Justice is not pushing cases through for the sake of a “successful” prosecution.

My eyes were now wide open.  I saw the process, I felt the process, I experienced the process, and it was very apparent the process was not the ethical mechanism I had built it up to be in my head during those two decades in the field.  I left the meeting drained, fried, exhausted, thirsty, my brain was hazy, and I just wanted to return to my previous life of normality.  Normal would never be restored, and in just 20 minutes I would find out why every ounce of energy spent in this interview had been nothing more than a waste.

Sign up below to access all the blogs of this story as they are posted so you don’t miss a thing.  Read the entire series in the story beginning with this blogpost.

Follow my journey, hear more about this story, and consider all things seen and unseen on my internet radio show, ‘Eyes Wide Open’ airing every Wednesday evening at 6 pm EST/5 pm CST/3 pm PST. 

Thank you for praying for us, supporting us, sharing our story:  givesendgo.com/travisford

GiveSendGo.com is a free Christian Crowdfunding site.  They are built on the fact as Christians they know money, as helpful as it is, is only part of the equation.  Their platform is designed not only to encourage Christians to raise money to make a difference in the world, but to also remind that sharing hope (through prayer submission) is even more important, as it is a lasting solution.

Peace & Love,

Janessa