It’s a case of deja vu for those who have followed local court proceedings related to Keith, Marisa Hobbs and Mary Voss and their extortion trial. A family friend of the alleged victim, Craig Loverin continued to rehash testimony reporters heard in a previous related 2017 court case.
Loverin told the court he received a call in the fall of 2016 from the Hobbses to discuss the alleged victim purchasing a house for Mary Voss. He also detailed arguments between Marisa and Keith Hobbs and the alleged victim over the price of the home. The arguments escalated over the price going from the $200,000 to $400,000 range. Loverin told the court the former mayor suggested on that phone call, that the alleged victim would end up in trouble and that they would end up making national news.
In another conversation, Loverin alleges Keith Hobbs angrily threatened him to not get involved in the dispute over the house and that if he continued he would have Loverin up on obstruction charges.
Other testimony covered this morning included the now infamous meet up involving Hobbs and Loverin at the north side Metro grocery store parking lot where it is said Hobbs gave a memory stick full of videos involving the alleged victim to Loverin. Loverin told the court he didn’t want to get involved but thought he would be helping his friend if he went to meet Hobbs. The videos on the memory stick came allegedly from a friend Hobbs had on the local police force. He told Loverin the videos would help the alleged victim understand the “s**t” they are in.
Loverin told the court that he followed through and provided the victim with the stick. The alleged victim then told him it was done and showed Loverin with what appeared to be a contract with signatures on it. Loverin explained to the courtroom that the victim appeared to be embarrassed by the videos and that shortly after the victim began drinking again.
The examination by the crown ended with Loverin telling court he was in disbelief when he received erratic late night text messages from his friend the alleged victim.
Cross-examination has now begun of the first witness Craig Loverin, a family friend to the victim. Defence lawyer Brian Greenspan reviewed text messages between Loverin and the alleged victim. Greenspan suggested to the witness that the alleged victim called him from jail to tell Loverin, “the stories he wanted him to tell.” Loverin replied no.
Greenspan pushed on and questioned Loverin as to why he didn’t visit his family friend in prison. Greenspan suggested that the victim felt it wouldn’t look good if Loverin visited them. The defence lawyer asked why Loverin didn’t visit him and Loverin replied, “I just didn’t think he needed me to visit, he could have just called me.” Loverin told the court that his comments with the alleged victim that their conversations revolved around how they were doing. Greenspan suggested the victim didn’t want a record of Loverin visiting him. Loverin replied they were under the assumption that all of their communications were being recorded when the victim was incarcerated.
The defence lawyer also pulled out through questioning Loverin that he is in the alleged victim’s will although he doesn’t know what he will be inheriting. The witness also received $20,000 from the alleged victim for his children’s education funds.
Loverin denied Greenspan’s suggestion that people and the accused Mary Voss would see his relationship with the alleged victim as a family one. Text message’s revealed that Voss alluded to Loverin having a familiar relationship with the alleged victim. Loverin told the court that he was surprised when he received that text message and that Voss didn’t even know him very well.
Testimony also surrounded Loverin becoming the Power of Attorney with two other people for the alleged victim. It also focused on the alleged victim becoming more paranoid thinking his electronic devices were being monitored and requesting armed guards and protection from Loverin.
Greenspan also asked Loverin why he wanted the victim to sell his houses and move next door to him. Loverin told Greenspan that “it was because of their close relationship and that he wanted to help take care of the alleged victim.” Greenspan shot back maybe you wanted the alleged victim to look after you. Loverin notes he can take care of himself.
The final testimony from the morning session involved a suggestion from Greenspan that Loverin knew that the alleged victim would pay to keep people silent when accusations were levelled against the victim. Loverin replied to Greenspan that he didn’t know about those allegations. A text message exchange between the victim and Loverin reads “cash for silence” in connection to people who had videos of the alleged victim.
The afternoon session of court began with Defence Lawyer Brian Greenspan continuing his cross-examination of Loverin. Greenspan is taking issue with some of Loverin’s claims in courts. He suggests that his client Keith Hobbs didn’t tell Loverin about where he got the USB stick full of videos involving the victim, but instead it was the alleged extortion victim who told Loverin about it. Greenspan also takes issue with some of the dates Loverin suggests key moments happened on suggesting that there are too many events that allegedly happened all in one day.
Loverin later testified that he never spoke to the alleged victim about whether he felt he was extorted or not in relation to the purchase of a house for accused Mary Voss. The family friend testified that the victim never expressed their regret over signing an agreement.
As the second day of the trial draws to a close, Mary Voss’ lawyer George Joseph is cross-examining Loverin and is asking questions about the relationship Loverin had with the alleged victim. Josef’s cross-examination is expected to continue for most of the day tomorrow.
