A PRESENTATION OF COMPELLING EVIDENCE PROVING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, WALMART, INC., VIA ITS ATTORNEYS AND STORE PERSONNEL, DID KNOWINGLY COMMIT UP TO FIVE FELONIES WHILE WAGING ITS RUTHLESS VENDETTA AGAINST CLAUDIA MARIA SOBARZO IN THEIR EFFORT TO FRAME HER FOR FELONY SHOPLIFTING.
To follow is our best effort at proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that a Walmart witness committed perjury under material circumstances at Claudia’s shoplifting trial in Phoenix City Court.
We make our case: focus: Jewelry Counter Pay Point Layout. We call the jury’s attention first to the shopping cart parked in foreground. This cart is within a foot or so of where defendant’s cart was actually parked when paying for the beer. Now, please direct your attention to the upper left and find two security cameras. Both of these cameras were operational at the time or at least there is no visible reason they would not have been. These cameras are capable of easily recording events at the jewelry counter (their published range is more than 50 ft.)
Now the point to all this is this: one of these 3 cameras would have most likely been the camera that last recorded defendant’s location at 3:43:49 [1] BECAUSE THESE AND ONE OTHER ARE THE ONLY CAMERAS THAT COULD HAVE RECORDED THE EVENT. Note: Walmart acknowledges the fact defendants were in jewelry counter area during subject time frame. From 3:43:49 to 3:44:23 (34 seconds) defendants are supposedly lost from sight until ActionAlley picks them up exiting Men’s clothing into main action aisle at 26 seconds into tape. Ladies and Gentlemen, can you imagine the likelihood that none of these 3 or four cameras captured the defendant’s activity for subject time period? (better shot)→jewelry counter and that all 4 cameras simultaneously suffered mechanical malfunctions at the very 
instance defendants arrived at pay point and all were down for exactly 34 seconds!? For good measure we include two better shots of the distant cameras seen in counter layout Link: Image 1. and Image 2. And as icing on this cake, don’t we all know that IF footage actually existed showing defendants bypassing the jewelry counter point of sale; not paying for the beer, it would have been retrieved and would have been given evidentiary top billing?
Obviously, the phony “lost footage” was to make sure that if a surprise witness came forward such as the floor clerk who actually took defendant’s money for the beer (possibly Fannie Mae) or a bootleg copy of overhead security camera footage or other exculpatory evidence surfaced proving defendants paid for the beer, everyone was protected. No perjury or withholding exculpatory evidence charges for this crew because we proved we just didn’t see them paying (sort of)!
Is the preceding account of what took place at the Walmart jewelry counter during subject time frame, the smoking gun evidence everyone talks about? What say you jurymen? If compelling circumstantial evidence suggests Walmart did indeed knowingly withhold exculpatory evidence and did indeed falsify evidence and knowingly allowed its witnesses to perjure themselves, then this, in turn, begs the question: is Walmart Legal guilty of subordination of perjury? We are talking about two Class 6 (counting the UPC audit fraud) and three Class 4 felonies (perjury under these material circumstances, possible subordination of perjury and withholding exculpatory evidence) in The State of Arizona. Note we say IF Walmart, Inc. is guilty. The corporation’s guilt or innocence will be based on the strength of the evidence and fairly decided by millions of jurists. Reminder: Claudia didn’t enjoy fact-based evidence, adequate legal representation and fair treatment by the prosecution on her day in court; no indeed, just the total opposite.
We insert again this useful analytical tool invented by a famous English detective.
How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? — Sherlock Holmes
Now, we switch from what Liar No. 1. and prosecutor had to say and focus on Liar No. 2., the loss prevention supervisor who shadowed John and Claudia almost from the time they entered the store on subject day. Read the following please.
- From trial transcript: Prosecutor is making his closing statement.
“We know the times they were in the store, and they all overlap. You can see the Defendants for all but 34 seconds in those videos. And 34 seconds, would that have been enough time for them loop around the infant clothing, go to the jeweler counter, pay for two cases of beer with cash, get your change, go get some socks — or go look at socks and shirts, and then loop back around?
The above ↑ bolded text draws our attention. Here’s why: the prosecutor, by his own words, tells us one of two things. 1.) He is totally ignorant about defendant’s location and movements at the beginning of the 34 seconds or 2.) is totally dishonest and is in fact deliberately misleading the jury in order to get that conviction he and his handlers back at the ranch so fervently seek. Prosecutor spins that yarn about “looping around infant’s clothing, go to jewelry counter…. The Truth: Without stopping, defendants cut through infant clothing main walkway which led directly to the cross aisle leading to pay point aisle. Their transit time from liquor aisle to pay point didn’t change, it was still 50 seconds (we manually timed this 50 seconds number ourselves) as first calculated. After paying for the beer, defendants did a quick zigzag through the Men’s Dept. before appearing in Action Alley Front End video. Walmart’s tapes tell the tale. Times given for when defendants arrived at the pay point, roughly how long they were there, when they left and when they reappeared in Action Alley Front End Video are a settled matter, no grounds exist for further debate.
Prosecutor continues….
No. You saw the video, and it’s clear. You heard testimony from Liar No. 2., who followed them step-by-step, the guy who’s got 20 years experience watching people, watching step-by-step, said they never bought that beer. That’s why they never had a receipt. That’s why no transaction exists.”
The above statement by prosecutor tells us Liar No. 2. had defendants in view “step-by-step” at least until they “never bought that beer”, left the pay point and then made a zigzag turn thru men’s clothing and into Action Alley and proceed West toward main checkout lanes. But wait! IF, as stated in above testimony, Liar No. 2. “defendants never bought that beer”, then why the 34 second missing footage rigmarole? What was the point in ginning up this purposeless dodge? And for the record, Liar No. 2. didn’t say he actually witnessed defendants not paying for the beer. Dead ahead, we will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt he did not actually see defendants pay for or not pay for the beer but substituted that weasel word phrase: “defendants never bought that beer”. What does this mean we ask members of the jury? Sounds like another rehearsed strategy to avoid a possible perjury charge doesn’t it?
Using diagrams and cross-referenced times and actor’s known locations, defendants can prove in court if necessary, the following statement. Liar No. 2. could not have actually witnessed any segment of defendant’s 34 seconds “off-camera” while they were in the jewelry counter pay point area. When you the jury see defendants appear in Action Alley Front End @ 3:44;23 Stalker does not appear until 20 seconds later! This 20 seconds plus 34 seconds =54 seconds the number of seconds defendants had been gone from the jewelry counter pay point area before the Walmart stalker arrived on the scene! Reminding jury members again: the aisle our stalker zoomed out of runs right in front of the jewelry counter cash register. NOTE: To Walmart Legal. Walmart Security Cam footage: Action_Alley_Back_Left_to_Right 6.7.2018 15:44 verifies Liar No. 2’s next to last location with respect to subject matter.
For you puzzle workers: First, here’s your link to crucial Walmart security camera footage:ACTION_ALLEY_FRONT_END_6.7.2018.15.44.0_6.7.2018.15.45.0 . Now, advance footage to app. 36 seconds and pause. You can see John, Claudia and the little one atop the beer making the turn into the main checkout lane. Now, resume the action and take note the defendants disappear off camera at 42 seconds. Now, turn your attention to the right of the aisle where defendants turned. Note that the Walmart stalker bursts into the main aisle at app. 42 seconds; the defendants dead ahead. Now this part requires your undivided attention. At this juncture defendants had been gone from jewelry counter pay point (where they actually did pay for the beer) for a total of 54 seconds (according to Walmart). Now this part is also equally important to understand: we know from Walmart’s own tapes it took the “stalker” 50 seconds to get from his next to last known position @ (3:43:53) to his location @ (3:44:43). Also, finder of fact needs to be reminded again that the aisle you saw him zoom out of runs right by the jewelry counter cash register. So, backing him up 3 seconds to where he can see jewelry counter area, he is then 47 seconds into his 50 second trip. Now, we must, according to the rules of mathematics, balance the equation. Backing the defendants up 3 seconds places them at the 51 second mark. This means defendants had been gone from the pay point area 51 seconds before the stalker arrived on the scene.[2] How in hell did he manage to see or not see them pay for the beer? He was physically absent from the scene by a margin of at least 50 seconds. The issue is finally resolved.
It is reasonable to suspect Walmart Legal authored some or all of the witness testimony thus making them just as guilty of perjury as the stalker or Liar No. 1.. This man was risking nearly four years in state prison under these circumstances: ARS 13-2702. True to form, Walmart didn’t give a damn about the welfare of this employee did they? Of course, if confronted with these accusations, finder of fact would hear a line of B.S. denials from Walmart as long as the Missouri Pacific Railroad and every word would be either a blatant lie or a gross distortion of the facts.
Memorandum: though covered elsewhere in this presentation, in detail, let the finder of fact be reminded The City of Phoenix Prosecutor’s Office is as guilty of criminal misconduct, if not more so, than Walmart, Inc. in this matter. The proof is found in trial transcript and in voluminous other documents. Re: Prosecutor of Record. His handlers selected their lapdog, programmed him and sent him off toward the court room. In the ruthless pursuit of injustice, he blatantly ignored the other half of his duty as an officer of the court that being to exonerate the innocent. After careful study of The City of Phoenix Prosecutor’s Office’s role in this matter it becomes clear beyond a shadow of a doubt this office had a hostile agenda, completely ignored the facts and fully intended to see to it Claudia Maria Sobarzo and spouse were found guilty knowing they were completely innocent.
This following scenario clears up at least two mysteries. If the shopping-cart-grabbing Walmart employee knew for a fact Claudia had paid for the beer would he have made a complete fool out of himself, via his actions on camera, knowing Walmart upper management would see it?? We don’t believe he did witness the beer sale for yet another reason. This actor was working in this particular store by chance on the day of the incident. His regular workstation, his office, was located in another store. He probably forgot about there being a cash register at jewelry counter and when he saw defendants exit past main check out registers, made an honest mistake if you can call it that. The fact defendants actually showed him a receipt also answers all those other endlessly repeated questions regarding no immediate police involvement, no stolen merchandise report to Phx Pd, etc.. Of course, this inconvenient truth about the defendants having a receipt torpedoed the frameup—temporarily. Then evolved the 34 second disappearing act lie and the jury knows the rest of the story. As brought out in other parts of this discussion, this 34 second forged evidence ruse was nothing but a hatched-up alibi just in case evidence might surface later that would jump up and bite them in the ass. Nothing more complicated than that.
Were you, members of the jury not informed, early on, this was the most complicated shoplifting case in U.S history and has more twists and turns than a 4 x 4 Rubik’s Cube? Did we tell you the truth or what?
About all else that can be said or done is to again point out the elephant in the room. Where is the missing security camera tape! The tape shot by the security camera mounted over jewelry counter cash register at time of the incident would have, beyond doubt, captured John and Claudia @ 3:43:49+ paying for or not paying for the beer! Here’s a picture of it SecurityCam. Surely we are not expected to swallow those cock and bull stories about 
camera footage not retrieved?! And in addition, we recall there are three other cameras that had a clean, line-of-sight view of defendants so where is the footage from these cameras? Walmart cameras can see very well up to 50 ft. and in some cases, much further.
We repeat: four, count them, four security cameras all less than 50 ft. away had a clean, line of sight view of this area actionaisleinked and yet inexplicably, none of them recorded defendant’s activities while parked at or passing that very spot! And just as remarkable none of these four cameras or any other recorded the stalker when he was in or near the pay point area. Here’s a link RouteDiagram showing locations of four security cameras (triangles). We rest our case.
Now, for the sake of clarity, we turn again to the matter of whether defendant’s had a receipt for the beer while exiting the store. Please view this STILL a clear shot of a Starbucks cup and this enhanced VIDEO (notice how the white piece of paper projects below bottom of the cup and wraps back around cup? This cannot be a “sticker” as posited by prosecution and then this VIDEO [3] ,which is a continuation of the second, and decide if John had something in his hand RedCircle[4] that looked an awful lot like a receipt. Note how Liar No. 2., standing at end of cart, VIDEO , stared at something and how WM employee, actor on the left did a doubletake. He looked at something in John’s hand —twice. On the stand Liar No. 2. stated they weren’t allowed to leave the sidewalk. Really? Maybe he should read an account where Walmart store personnel followed a shoplifting suspect out to their car and got the license number? The story is on the internet. BTW, maybe the jury would like to hear again Great Grandson’s version of what happened with the shopping cart incident? He was there; sitting atop the beer. Grandson’s Testimony
And this again: if no receipt then why were the police not called in immediately instead of waiting seven full weeks? On the stand Liar No. 2.stated this was a routine stop and that he knew nothing about a lawsuit and Claudia’s Walmart employee status. Defendant’s license number could have been obtained by just laying back and following them to their pickup. Several sick, feeble and feckless excuses for this counterintuitive behavior were made by Walmart actors on the stand but none of them made any sense, as usual.
We insert here again the sage words of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? — Sherlock Holmes
Donate Button Found Last Page Old Gringo File.
- This is the EXACT time defendants arrived at jewelry counter cash register. It’s an established fact Walmart failed to present any security cam footage showing the jewelry counter cash register during missing 34 seconds. Know why? Because that footage would have clearly shown the cash register was manned and that John and Claudia paid for the beer, that why. return
- In fact defendants were at the jewelry counter pay point for about 20 seconds paying for beer. But even then subtracting another 20 seconds from the 50 seconds still leaves a 30 second deficit. return
- Viewing can be greatly improved by first stopping action and then shrinking image, horizontally, to about ¼ size. return
- At trial, Claudia’s attorney presented this professionally enhanced still shot of the big, red arrow scene in shopping cart video (Trial Day Two, Pg. 171). This enhanced still clarified the area around John’s hand and clearly visible was a white piece of paper or so said Walmart witness. It’s hard to see this paper in video, quality is too poor. return