What Should Have Happened
- All communications referenced in reports should be preserved in original form
- Consistent preservation criteria should be applied to all evidence
- Litigation hold should have been implemented once legal action was possible
- Complete evidence chain should be maintained for independent review
What Actually Happened
- Some messages screenshotted while original messages were later deleted
- No clear criteria for what was preserved vs. deleted
- Internal reports reference communications that no longer exist
- Evidence integrity undermined by selective preservation
People Involved
Event Details
Event Summary
On November 7, 2022—one day after Marc King ’s OWI arrest—internal discussions took place regarding text message communications related to the incident. These discussions led to the creation of documentation that would later be referenced in the internal investigation.
Text Messages Documented
Cronkright-Goodrich Communications
Matthew Pohl testified that text message screenshots were included in investigation files:
Facebook posts and then there’s two, like, text message screenshot pages.
Between Chad Cronkright and Josh Goodrich, those are in there. There is a written statement from Chad Cronkright is in there.
Documentation Created
The internal report referenced various text communications:
I went over the internal report. Some policies that were referenced in the internal report, some text [messages].
The Paradox of Documentation
Messages Referenced but Not Preserved
A critical issue emerged: while text messages were referenced in official reports, the messages themselves were later deleted:
Whatever text messages or phone calls that I’d referenced in my internal report, I no longer have those on my phone.
This creates a situation where:
- Internal reports reference specific communications
- Screenshots of some messages were preserved
- The original messages were deleted
- Complete verification is now impossible
Social Media Documentation
In addition to text messages, social media communications were also documented:
There’s copies of Facebook and Facebook messages are in there.
Why This Matters
1. Selective Preservation
The documentation process appears to have been selective:
- Some messages were screenshot and preserved
- Other messages were deleted
- The criteria for what was kept vs. deleted is unclear
2. Evidence Chain Issues
For a proper investigation, evidence should be:
- Preserved in original form
- Protected from deletion
- Available for independent review
The pattern here raises questions about evidence integrity.
3. Internal Report Limitations
Internal reports that reference deleted communications cannot be fully verified. This undermines:
- The credibility of the investigation
- The ability to conduct independent review
- Public confidence in the process
Connection to Other Events
- Information Sharing to Goodrich: The communications being discussed
- Text Retention Issues: The broader retention problem
- Evidence Deleted: Pattern of evidence destruction
- Social Media Posts: Public disclosure of the arrest
Key Questions
- What criteria determined which messages were screenshotted vs. deleted?
- Who decided what to include in the internal report?
- Were any messages excluded from documentation that should have been included?
- Is there a way to recover the deleted communications?
- Were litigation hold procedures followed once it was clear legal action was possible?