WANA Presents: For The Record With David McClam

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!If the information you are looking for is not there, check back as it will be coming soon!

In this episode of No Way, José, we examine PRETEND’s treatment of the stolen-phone allegation involving LaDonna Humphrey and compare that presentation with the actual findings documented by the Benton County Sheriff’s Office.

At the center of the episode is a statement from Detective Paul W. Carter after reviewing the phone records supplied by the people accusing LaDonna of filing a false theft report:

“I found no evidence in the phone records to indicate Ladonna Humphrey had falsified her police report.”

That conclusion matters.

This episode follows the evidence through the original theft report, the detective’s analysis of the phone records, PRETEND’s later discussion of the SIM card, and the court proceedings that ultimately affected LaDonna’s ability to defend herself and challenge the judgment against her.

LaDonna maintains that her phone was stolen. Her husband and daughter have supported that account.

The original sheriff’s report documents that on November 8, 2018, LaDonna and her husband, Danny, reported hearing the alarm on their Suburban while inside their home. Danny reported seeing the vehicle’s interior light illuminated, the exterior lights flashing, and a white SUV nearby.

When Deputy Joshua Pierson accompanied them to the vehicle, LaDonna identified several missing items, including her purse, iPhone, identification, payment cards, approximately $280 in cash, and a Garmin GPS.

The investigation later became intertwined with civil litigation because the missing phone had been the subject of expedited discovery.

In February 2019, Anthony Christopher and his attorney brought phone records to Detective Carter and alleged that those records proved LaDonna had continued using the phone after reporting it stolen.

Carter reviewed the material.

His findings did not support that interpretation.

The detective documented three significant issues.

First, he found no outgoing phone usage after the police report was filed.

Second, he identified records indicating that the account had been updated to a different IMEI-numbered device.

Third, he found that the accusation failed to account for the six-hour difference between UTC and Central Time, a discrepancy capable of changing the timeline being presented as evidence.

Those findings formed the basis for Carter’s conclusion that the phone records did not establish that LaDonna had falsified her theft report.

This episode compares that analysis with PRETEND’s Part 3 discussion of the allegation.

Although PRETEND acknowledged that a detective had reached a conclusion favorable to LaDonna, its presentation focused instead on a courtroom claim involving the original SIM card, followed by sarcastic commentary suggesting that the theft account was implausible.

The episode asks whether that presentation gave listeners enough information to evaluate the actual evidence.

An IMEI identifies a device. A SIM card has its own separate identifying information. Carter’s report discussed a change in IMEI, but the material examined in this episode does not contain a corresponding ICCID comparison establishing that the same physical SIM card moved from the allegedly stolen phone into another handset.

That distinction matters.

A joke about a “magical SIM card” does not answer the detective’s findings concerning the time conversion, outgoing usage, or change in device identity.

If PRETEND believes those findings are wrong, the episode argues that the underlying records and technical reasoning should be shown and explained directly.

We also examine LaDonna’s claim that neither she nor her legal team knew Carter’s supplemental report existed until almost a year after contempt sanctions had been imposed and that the report was not introduced during those proceedings.

The civil case did not proceed through an ordinary trial on liability.

The state court imposed sanctions, struck LaDonna’s answer and counterclaim, made adverse findings that included rejecting her stolen-phone account, and imposed liability. A later bench trial addressed damages.

That procedural history is important because a judgment can carry enormous authority with the public while revealing little about how the underlying factual disputes were actually litigated.

The episode then turns to what happened when LaDonna attempted to challenge that judgment.

During bankruptcy proceedings, rights that included her ability to continue challenging the judgment were sold for $12,500 to Absolute.

LaDonna objected.

The practical consequence of the transaction was that the opposing party could acquire control of her appeal and seek to dismiss it.

U.S. District Judge P. K. Holmes III later reversed approval of that sale and strongly criticized the transaction. He contrasted the $12,500 purchase price with the possibility of challenging a judgment exceeding $3.57 million and wrote that the arrangement could not possibly have been in the best interest of the bankruptcy estate.

He also described allowing the sale to stand as a potential “plain miscarriage of justice.”

In July 2025, the Eighth Circuit later vacated that ruling and dismissed the bankruptcy appeal because the sale had not been stayed as required for the relief being sought.

That appellate decision concerned the bankruptcy transaction and its finality. It did not determine whether the stolen-phone allegation was true or false.

The distinction is essential.

This episode does not argue that the inability to identify a thief proves the theft occurred.

It argues that the inability to identify a thief also does not prove that LaDonna fabricated the report.

Detective Carter investigated the accusation placed before him. He reviewed the records supplied by LaDonna’s accusers and documented why he believed those records failed to establish falsification.

That evidence deserves to be addressed directly.

The episode challenges PRETEND to explain Carter’s time-zone correction, his finding concerning outgoing usage, the change in IMEI, and the records supporting the SIM-card claim.

Listeners should be given enough information to evaluate those competing interpretations for themselves.

A compelling podcast can ask difficult questions.

But difficult evidence deserves answers too.

When someone’s honesty and reputation are being publicly challenged, sarcasm cannot substitute for explaining the record.

The detective’s analysis exists.

The findings are documented.

And LaDonna Humphrey deserves to have that evidence included in the conversation.

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!

Other Receipts from this Episode:

Receipt: PRETEND’s November 2023 update.

Receipt: PRETEND’s December 2023 correction.

Receipt: the published transcript of Is This the End?

Receipt: The Stalker Correction.

Receipt: Maricopa County Attorney’s diversion information.

Receipt: the correction’s published explanation.

Receipt: PRETEND’s correction.

Receipt: Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-911.

Receipt: the publisher’s current Part 20 page.

Receipts: the current Apple series listing and PRETEND’s Part 7 notes.

Receipt: PRETEND’s June 2025 Part 21 transcript.

Receipt: Part 21’s courtroom discussion.

Receipt: PRETEND’s Part 23 transcript.

Receipts: Arizona Revised Statutes § 14-5307 and § 14-5312.

Receipt: the opening and email discussion in Part 20.

Receipt: Part 23’s closing discussion.

Receipt: PRETEND’s September 2025 guilty-plea update.

Receipt: PRETEND’s Part 22 update.

In this episode of No Way, José, we examine Javier Leiva’s reporting on PRETEND’s The Stalker series and ask a basic question: does the reporting hold up when somebody checks it?

Using PRETEND’s own published episodes, transcripts, corrections, and statements, this episode looks at a series of factual, legal, and editorial issues surrounding the coverage of Tanya and Rick Fernandez, their criminal cases, later proceedings, and the reporting surrounding their family.

At the center of the episode is a November 2023 update in which PRETEND suggested that Tanya and Rick Fernandez had accepted a plea deal and that their criminal case might be ending. Weeks later, PRETEND acknowledged that the conclusion had been based on speculation after a vacated trial date was interpreted as evidence of a plea. A new trial date later appeared.

The episode examines why announcing the apparent end of a criminal prosecution before confirming the disposition raises serious reporting concerns, particularly when the host had also suggested that an actual trial might have been repetitive or boring for listeners.

We then examine PRETEND’s later correction acknowledging another significant error: describing the Fernandez arrangement as a plea agreement when it was actually felony diversion.

Those are not interchangeable legal outcomes.

The episode explains the distinction between diversion, dismissal, a guilty plea, dismissal with prejudice, and sealed records, while examining whether PRETEND’s corrected explanation accurately described what those legal terms mean.

We also look at whether the correction actually reached the places where the original error continued to appear. Even after PRETEND acknowledged the plea-deal mistake, descriptions connected to earlier episodes continued to characterize the case that way.

Other issues examined include:

• Outdated descriptions of the original allegations remaining in PRETEND’s series materials even after later reporting indicated that investigators did not consider certain people suspects.

• Courtroom reporting that described reinstatement of felony charges as “highly probable” despite acknowledging that updated court information had not yet been obtained.

• The use of observations about defendants’ appearance and demeanor in place of confirmed information about what the court had actually decided.

• A statement that Shelbey Fernandez had “no rights” because of guardianship, and why Arizona guardianship law presents a much more complicated legal reality.

• PRETEND’s decision to publish information from an email in which the sender asked that her communication remain anonymous and stay out of the podcast.

• The use of comparisons to the Gypsy Rose case while PRETEND simultaneously acknowledged significant gaps in the available evidence concerning allegations of medical abuse.

The episode also makes important distinctions where the record requires them.

Rick Fernandez later pleaded guilty to a separate harassment matter connected to the book. PRETEND itself distinguished that guilty plea from the earlier felony allegations and acknowledged that the later plea did not establish who was responsible for the original messages.

Likewise, later reporting concerning Shelbey Fernandez involved allegations and an ongoing criminal case. Those developments do not automatically prove that every earlier accusation involving the family was false, nor do they establish the guilt or innocence of everyone previously accused.

The purpose of this episode is not to replace one sweeping narrative with another.

It is to examine specific reporting decisions.

When journalists and podcasters build their reputations by scrutinizing the statements of others, their own reporting should withstand the same examination.

That means verifying a criminal disposition before announcing it, understanding legal terminology before explaining it to an audience, correcting inaccurate material where the original error remains published, distinguishing allegations from established facts, and exercising particular care when reporting on vulnerable people.

PRETEND regularly encourages its audience to examine what the evidence actually supports.

In this episode, No Way, José applies that same standard to PRETEND.

The receipts are already public.

The question is what they show when someone takes the time to read them carefully.

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!

I tell you how we get our information and how we are presenting the information to you.

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!

Core Points:

• David McClam examines public tax records to defend a former church secretary against unproven financial accusations.
• Always check official dates and documentation before accepting blame claims against former employees.
• Institutional records like meeting agendas and bank letters prove that financial decisions involved multiple leaders, not just one staff member.
• Investigative reporting requires vetting sources and aligning timelines to ensure accurate storytelling.
• Unfounded allegations can damage reputations unless countered with verified, chronological evidence.

Tax Notice Chronology

David McClam analyzes a federal tax notice to challenge claims made against LaDonna Humphrey. The official document lists eleven separate tax periods starting from December 31, 2003, and running through 2007. Because LaDonna resigned in May or June of 2003, these dates fall entirely after her departure. David McClam points out that holding a former employee responsible for tax liabilities incurred years after she left ignores basic chronological facts. The narrative presented by other podcasts connects unpaid taxes to LaDonna without showing payroll records or dated transactions linking her to the missing money.

Church Financial Oversight

David McClam introduces church documents showing that financial management involved an oversight committee rather than a single individual. An April 2003 elders meeting agenda lists a financial oversight team, proving that multiple leaders shared responsibility for church funds. Furthermore, financing proposals and bank letters from First Federal demonstrate that co-trustees and guarantors handled the institution’s loans. David McClam argues that assuming a secretary controlled all financial operations is incorrect when official records point to a broader leadership structure managing debts and answering to lenders long after LaDonna left the church.

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!

OTHER RECEIPTS FROM THE EPISODE

The public docket records that the parties reached an agreement at a May fifth, twenty twenty-six conference Public docket

SPJ Code of Ethics

Core Points:

• David McClam analyzes court filings from the Meghan Walsh versus Javier Jose Leiva lawsuit to scrutinize podcast production practices.
• Producers must prioritize fair reporting and context over dramatic storytelling techniques that distort a subject’s credibility.
• Written communications and dates often conflict with the final narrative presented in true crime series.
• Journalistic standards require verifying information, minimizing harm, and correcting errors rather than dismissing complaints as boring.
• Evaluating editorial choices helps audiences hold podcasters accountable for the trust placed in their reporting.

The Walsh Filings and Production Ethics

David McClam examines the legal filings from the lawsuit involving Meghan Walsh and David McClam's evaluation of the podcast Pretend, hosted by Javier Jose Leiva. The central issue revolves around a message where Javier admits he has not caught Walsh in a lie and thinks she is honest, yet notes that this honesty did not translate into the final production. This discrepancy highlights a major ethical concern in investigative journalism regarding how producers manipulate edits for dramatic effect. Instead of ensuring a fair and accurate portrayal, the production sequence delayed key admissions, such as false welfare calls, to maintain suspense. David McClam argues that sacrificing fairness for entertainment value undermines the core integrity of true crime reporting.

Editing Choices and Accountability

The response from the production when confronted about editorial spin was that honesty would make the series short and boring. David McClam strongly criticizes this justification, noting that prioritizing entertainment over a person’s reputation damages trust. The filings reveal various contested elements, including disputed screenshots, characterizations of Walsh as a failed actor, and the dismissal of her requests to delay the episode. Javier offered a reaction episode, but this placed the burden back on Walsh without fixing the original misleading presentation. Ultimately, David McClam concludes that the podcast falls short of proper journalistic standards, emphasizing that a good reputation in reporting requires transparent answers rather than defensive dismissals.

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!

OTHER RECEIPTS IN THIS EPISODE

PRETEND Part 1 publication date, June 4, 2024

Steven Booth on Conversations with Rich Bennett, 2:42–4:25 Conversations with Rich Bennett.



Core Points:

• David McClam questions the reliability of Alicia Lockhart’s accusations against LaDonna Humphrey and the lack of journalistic scrutiny by Javier Leiva at PRETEND
• Financial records, including emails and spreadsheets provided by publisher Steven Booth, directly contradict Alicia’s claims of missing royalty payments.
• Comparisons between Alicia’s published book, Strangled, and her subsequent interview statements reveal significant contradictions regarding account control and investigations.
• Listeners must critically evaluate sources and verify documentation rather than accepting dramatic true-crime narratives at face value.
• Investigative platforms must rigorously test witness testimony and account for pre-publication warnings or contradictory financial evidence.

Financial Discrepancies and Publisher Evidence

David McClam examines the financial dispute raised by Alicia Lockhart regarding unpaid royalties, contrasting her claims with documentation provided by publisher Steven Booth. David McClam highlights an email sent by Booth to Javier Leiva prior to the podcast release, which contained financial records, payment documentation, and correspondence challenging Alicia’s narrative. Detailed transaction schedules and bank records show that payments were indeed made, reducing a complex allegation of months without compensation to minor accounting discrepancies. David McClam criticizes Javier Leiva for failing to evaluate these records before presenting Alicia’s accusations to the audience.

Contradictions in Published Works and Interviews

David McClam analyzes content from Alicia’s book, Strangled, and compares it with statements made during interviews regarding account security, investigations, and potential crimes. The book documents Alicia’s own experiences with unauthorized forum access and altered online personas, which undermines her later certainty when attributing similar digital activities to others. Furthermore, David McClam points out how initial investigative leads, such as a Mickey Mouse watch, were dismissed by Alicia and LaDonna themselves, yet later presented as sinister evidence. Through these comparisons, David McClam demonstrates how unsupported speculation and arithmetic errors inflated the perceived danger of the investigated subjects without adequate factual backing.

I discuss the upcoming changes to WANA and what to expect

David McClam evaluate's the professional standards expected of investigative podcasters, using an examination of Javier Leiva's reporting on the Fernandez case to highlight the critical importance of maintaining objectivity. The discussion argues that Leiva's reporting serves as a model of how journalistic neutrality can be compromised, demonstrating how an unsubstantiated narrative regarding the Fernandez family was presented as a public indictment despite a lack of forensic evidence. By prioritizing a theory that framed Tanya Fernandez as the perpetrator, the investigation effectively functioned as the manufacture of a guilty verdict rather than a pursuit of truth. This approach encouraged audiences to adopt the role of amateur investigators, leading to the misinterpretation of benign family dynamics as evidence of wrongdoing. McClam assert that journalists have a duty to counteract confirmation bias by actively pursuing information that challenges their existing hypotheses.

The Perils of Serialized True Crime

This analysis highlights how the serialized format of podcasts creates commercial incentives for dramatic arcs that often contradict the complex, non-linear realities of the legal system. Because open-ended mysteries are vital for listener retention, there is an inherent pressure to characterize legal developments as dramatic pivots. This frequently leads to the use of inflammatory rhetoric—such as claims of “evading justice”—to manipulate listener sentiment toward a desired conclusion. McClam emphasize that when a primary theory, such as the one promoted by Javier Leiva, is debunked by events like the arrest of a different suspect, the journalist has an ethical mandate to perform a retrospective review of their work rather than simply shifting the focus to a new narrative hook.

The Human Cost of Speculative Reporting

A recurring theme is the tangible damage inflicted upon the subjects of true crime media due to irresponsible framing. David McClam compares the treatment of the Fernandez family to the experiences of Ladonna Humphrey, arguing that both cases resemble “witch hunts” where hosts prioritized entertainment value over the reputations and well-being of the individuals involved. By demonstrating how a similarly incriminating narrative could be constructed against Javier Leiva himself using his own public records, McClam underscores the ethical peril of weaponizing isolated facts to create a damaging, distorted portrait of an individual. McClam advocates for more discerning audience standards, encouraging a shift toward media consumption that values verifiable facts, upholds due process, and rejects content dependent on speculation or the moral degradation of its subjects.

The podcast episode delineates the culmination of an extensive exploration into the contentious narrative surrounding LaDonna Humphrey, emphasizing the host's assertion that all things must ultimately reach a conclusion. David McClam, the host, articulates that the journey undertaken throughout the series has been one of profound significance, aimed at unveiling the truth amidst a plethora of fabrications and misrepresentations. He posits that listeners are now presented with a binary perspective regarding Humphrey's innocence, thereby inviting them to draw their own conclusions based on the presented evidence. Furthermore, he reflects on the evolution of the discourse, noting that what was initially a private matter has been thrust into the public arena largely due to the engagement of Javier's listeners. The episode serves as a poignant farewell to the series, while simultaneously introducing an unprecedented musical element that embodies the overarching theme of resilience and truth.

Presave the single How it all began HERE

Presave the Album The Witch Hunt Of Lanny Hughes HERE

Time Line

00:00 A Reflective Farewell

04:54 The Genesis of the Witch Hunt

11:13 Javier Leiva’s Deception

13:46 Vandalism of the Melissa Witt Page

17:50 Why Not Attack Javier’s Job?

22:00 Javier’s Disregard for Truth

26:22 Dispelling Lies and the ‘Eminem Effect’

33:04 Javier’s Failed Attempts and Parting Advice

38:09 New Music Album Announcement

46:05 First Song Release: Caught in a Lie

53:05 Second Song Release: Lanny’s Back

58:44 Album Release Details and Farewell

Takeaways:

• In this concluding episode, the host articulates a profound sentiment about the inevitability of endings, asserting that all things must ultimately culminate, thereby inviting listeners to reflect on the transient nature of experiences.
• The host unequivocally declares that he has accomplished all goals he set out to achieve, which encapsulates a sense of closure and fulfillment regarding the podcast's overarching narrative.
• The discourse reveals that the public conflict surrounding LaDonna Humphrey was inadvertently escalated by listeners, thus underscoring the complex dynamics between public perception and personal narratives in media.
• Listeners are urged to arrive at their own conclusions regarding LaDonna Humphrey's innocence, as the host emphasizes the importance of personal discernment in evaluating presented evidence and testimonies.
• The host indicates that the podcast serves as a platform to unveil truths amidst a plethora of misinformation, reinforcing the critical role of integrity and authenticity in media production.
• An introspective moment is provided wherein the host reflects on the humility and sincerity exhibited by LaDonna Humphrey during her interview, which influenced his decision to conclude the series with grace rather than animosity.

Summary

In this episode, David McClam interviews LaDonna Humphrey, addressing the controversies surrounding the Pretend Podcast and the impact it has had on her life. LaDonna clarifies her role in the podcast, her relationship with Alicia Lockhart, and the influence of Javier Leiva. The conversation delves into the complexities of friendship, betrayal, and the darker aspects of true crime podcasting, particularly focusing on the death fetish community and its implications. In this conversation, LaDonna Humphrey addresses various allegations made against her, particularly those propagated by Javier Leyva. She discusses her past experiences with John Allen, the arson incident, and the impact of family dynamics on her credibility. The conversation also delves into the Maura Murray case, professional rivalries in the true crime community, and the challenges faced by her organization, Oasis, amidst allegations of misconduct. LaDonna emphasizes the importance of truth in journalism and her commitment to advocacy work, while reflecting on her personal growth and future projects.

Takeaways:

• LaDonna discusses the absurdity of Javier's claims.
• She shares her experiences with John Allen and the church.
• LaDonna clarifies her relationship with her sister and the accusations made.
• The Maura Murray case and the rescinded reward are addressed.
• Jealousy and rivalry in the true crime community are explored.
• LaDonna reflects on the impact of the allegations on Oasis.
• She emphasizes the importance of truth in journalism.
• LaDonna expresses her commitment to advocacy work.
• The conversation touches on the effects of cyberbullying.
• LaDonna shares her plans for future projects.