This interview seems to have been just a formality. It had little to no investigative value for the commonwealth aside from providing some simple information about the dog such as breed name, age and who had the vet records. No real evidence was given as to how exactly the dog was allegedly stolen. The search and arrest seem to have been predetermined.

The most important element exposed in this video was likely the time line in which the Cummings claim the dog went missing after 9:30 am. This is allegedly the time that Angela called Norman to say she was leaving for Louisiana. This contradicts their and Deputy Williams later statements that had them leaving the house together.

Ana Marshall found the dog at approximately 7:20 am and the dog was already suffering from prolonged exposures to the cold temperatures by then. Ana Marshall was already at her workplace by 9:30 am. The Cummings timeline does not corelate with the facts in any way.

Norman Cummings did attempt to establish a narrative to explain the alleged larceny of the dog. This included magical listening devices, camera disablers and burglary methods. He also related a litany of negative representations of Mr. Marshall’s character in support of his story.

Also established was the involvement of the Cummings landlord, Sheriff’s Deputy Brian Hubbard in directing the investigation as well as handling evidence in this case. This is significant as it shows a pattern when taken together with the attempt to criminalize Mr. Marshall a year prior to the dog incident. In that occurrence Deputy Steve Austin who is Deputy Hubbard’s “best” Friend attempted to establish charges. Deputy Hubbard has a very clear financial stake in this case. His only ethical choice to remedy the almost two years of Marshall family complaints would be eviction. This assuming that he can not convince his tenant to leave the Marshalls to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. In doing so he would put himself in financial jeopardy. Mr. Hubbard took a substantial loan on the house far in excess of its actual value and needs Mr. Cummings rent checks to pay that note.

Reference to Deputy Hubbard’s Involvement (video #1) (video #2)
Reference to Deputy Austin’s Involvement (video Here) (description of Austin reference here).

I believe the video should be played in its entirety for the jury as it will establish Mr. Cumming state of mind. The individually curated clips should be shown to support questioning on the elements.

The interview brings the question, should deputies Hubbard and Austin be subpoenaed and questioned as to their respective roles.