Did the Bar Probable Cause Committee issue a Probable Cause Order based on “new” or additional information obtained after they re-opened the Complaint in March 2018?
At the time of dismissing the original Bar Complaint, Bar Counsel Henley to Karen Clark about the “evidence” she offered in that complaint:
Henley:
None of the Rose-Wood text messages are admissible as evidence: the texts are hearsay. In fact, much of the testimony and evidence you’ve offered is hearsay, and inadmissible. The Bar requires direct evidence.
You indicate you will be able to provide such direct evidence upon receipt of the (2 sets) of materials you’ve requested from MCAO. First, any material produced by MCAO relating to JM’s writing of a book would be irrelevant to this inquiry. Second, about the info and docs in support of your allegations regarding Ms. Wood and Ms. Wick (cellphone records, emails, records of any visits they made to MCAO, etc.): my investigation has largely resolved those issues to the State Bar’s current satisfaction.
Last, Jennifer Wood denies your allegations, she lives out of state, and the Bar would have difficulty issuing her a subpoena; she would therefore not be available for trial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COULD NEW or DAMNING or DIRECT and/or ACTUALLY ADMISSABLE EVIDENCE COME FROM…..
Info/materials KC provided the Bar’s Probable Cause Committee in her appeal (therefore, info Bar Counsel Henley didn’t have when investigating the original bar complaint:
1. THIS? KC’s Interview with Melissa Garcia (PP2 juror 3).
2. THIS? KC/Ralph’s interview with Clark Wood, Jennifer Wood’s ex-husband.
3. THIS? KC’s (second ) interview of Sharee Ruiz (focused on “proving” that Wood had affair JM, and that JM had “used” Ruiz, Katie Wick, and Wood to bias media coverage against and to increase his own fame, and that he had leaked confidential/sealed info to them towards this end, and as a reward to them for their assistance).
4. THIS?
A Declaration (of facts) by Jennifer Willmot, including the “facts” listed below:
* JM often “insinuated” MLDR was involved with Michael Kiefer, and these rumors” seem to have affected how the Court viewed her credibility.”
* “MDLR never had an intimate relationship with any member of the media.”
*” I heard from multiple sources that JM was having an affair with Woods. (spells her name wrong).”
* I further heard JM met with Wood at MCAO on Sundays.
* 17’s name was leaked immediately after mistrial.
* The Court conducted an investigation into the leak.
* The DT and JM were questioned regarding any info about leak.
* During the questioning, rumors surrounding the trial were discussed. I mentioned several, including the JM-Wood affair.
* I heard from several sources that JM spoke at a court reporter conference
* During his presentation, JM denied “bedding” Wood.
* I have learned of numerous text messages between trial bloggers indicating that JM had an affair with Wood, and that this relationship existed while the trial was ongoing (referring to the truly bizarre and nasty episode played out on SM by Ruiz and her husband about her phone supposedly being stolen, and the stranger-thief posting IM’s between Wood and Ruiz about Wood’s “affair” with JM).
* Had I known about the affair while trial was ongoing, I would have filed Motions: to dismiss; to dismiss DP; to dismiss MCAO from representing the State; to dismiss JM from representing State; to terminate live media coverage (umm-there wasn’t any live coverage of PP2); for Discovery of JM’s file; and for Discovery of any communication between Wood and JM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. THIS?
Letter from Tom Ryan, 17’s attorney, to KC (responding to her request that he supply answers to 2 questions: whether there was sufficient evidence for 17 to have brought a civil action against JM for leaking her name, and, what he observed when Bar Counsel interviewed 17 during the bar investigation).
From Ryan’s letter: Tammy Rose contacted him, told him Wood & JM were having an affair, and that JM had leaked confidential trial info to Wood during the trial. He took her phone (offered to him by Rose), did forensic report (a printout) of texts, IM’s and emails, and read them. He also hired a PI to do “witness interviews in the matter.”
Says under Rule 11 of Civil Procedure, a reasonable inquiry must be done, and there must be a “good faith belief” that the facts available are sufficient to file a complaint. “This standard doesn’t require absolute proof of the charge before filing” (a civil lawsuit). Ryan says that “ based on this standard, a jury could conclude JM provided 17’s Facebook page in retribution for her being the (jury’s) lone holdout.”
Ryan: I met with 17 about her filing charges against JM, but she didn’t want to go through the ugliness again unless I could guarantee her anonymity. I couldn’t. So she declined to file charges.
(About his observations of Henley interviewing 17): Henley interviewed 17 for an hour (in November 2017). “I discussed my concern (with Henley) that JM, a seasoned prosecutor, didn’t stop the judge from making the error of interviewing 17 in front of family and counsel.
6. THIS?
Additional witness interviews undertaken between March-October 2018, when the Bar Probable Cause Committee took up the Bar Complaint?
KC’s witness list, given to Henley in May, 2017 (in original order):
Tammy Rose; Sharee Ruiz; Sandra Weber; Christine Beswick; Michael Kiefer; Beth Karas; Jean Casarez; Jane Valez Mitchell; Clark Wood; (JM’s actual girlfriend); Willmott; Nurmi; MDLR; Judge Stephens; Maricopa County DA Bill Montgomery (JM’s boss’s boss); Melissa Garcia; Tom Ryan (juror 17’s atty); juror 17.
(Note---what? Jennifer Wood isn't on the list?
)
During the original Bar investigation Henley interviewed: Melissa Garcia, Sharee Ruiz, Juror 17, and Tammy Rose. Henley also had to have communicated in some way with Jennifer Wood and with Katie Wick, because he indicated to KC that each had denied all the allegations.
------------------------------------
Short answer to all the above possibilities of new evidence being the reason for the Probable Cause Order: IMO: NO. AND, NO, NONE OF THE ABOVE.
UNLESS the Committee didn't agree with Henley about the utility of obtaining JM's cellphone records, AND the records were obtained, AND the records proved JM had contact with Wood that was unequivocally unethical, OR provided evidence that JM had lied to the Bar during the investigation. IMO: HIGHLY UNLIKELY.
