No Way Jose Ep 6: PRETEND, Read the Report

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.