WAS DR. CALVIN DAY TARGETED BY THE PERSONAL TRAINER?

WAS DR. CALVIN DAY TARGETED BY THE PERSONAL TRAINER?

SEVENTEEN (17) “OTHER” FINANCIAL GAIN CLAIMS BY DR. CALVIN DAY’S ACCUSER?

WRONGFUL ARREST? PROSECUTION MISCONDUCT? 

http://www.drcalvindayisinnocent.com

https://storify.com/DrCalvinDay/special-prosecutor-michael-mccrum-dr-calvin-day-ca 

New evidence in the Dr. Calvin Day case appears to show that Dr. Day’s primary accuser (i.e., “the personal trainer”) made at least 17 (seventeen) attempts to obtain financial gain via allegations of bodily injury (or property loss/damage). Apparently, her allegation against Dr. Day was just another one of many such attempts.

Recently acquired documents indicate that the most recent of the personal trainer’s attempts occurred earlier this year when the personal trainer apparently claimed pain and tooth damage for a "rock in the food" at a local restaurant. And apparently this was not the first time that she had made such a claim; she had within the last 10 years, previously made a similar allegation against another local restaurant. In addition to these two restaurant "rock in the food” claims, she had also made at least two "slip, trip, or fall" Worker Compensation claims.

Still another bodily injury "allegation" involved a minor auto accident. In this particular instance, the dollar amount for lost wages and medical expenses that she submitted in writing to the insurance company (and for which she received compensation) appear to exceed the medical expenses and wage losses that she actually incurred. In other words, she appears to have committed insurance fraud. 

Other new evidence appears to implicate the personal trainer in having committed perjury in three separate instances with three different governmental agencies.

Additional new evidence showing the personal trainer’s movements on the day before and the day of the allegations (i.e., 08/21/2010 and 08/22/2010) are inconsistent with relevant portions of the personal trainer’s testimony on this subject. In some instances she appears to have been truthful about her whereabouts, but in other instances that have a significant bearing on the case, she apparently was not where she said she was.

As a result of the recent acquisition of documents that appear to contain these new findings, as well as new revelations uncovered by private investigators, the personal trainer in the Dr. Calvin Day case was recently served a subpoena by Dr. Day’s defense team to appear in her own case, thereby affording the personal trainer an opportunity to either to publicly recant portions of her prior testimony or instead to publicly offer an alternate explanation for these and other disconcerting findings.

Even the new District Attorney has seen first hand at least one instance of the apparent disconcerting behavior of this personal trainer, his prior law partner having been accused of witness tampering as a result of his interaction with her. Testimony given at a 379^th District Court hearing on 08/26/2013 specifies the following sequence of events:

• In the spring of 2013, the personal trainer apparently went to Susan Reed’s Assistant DA and told her that she wished to recant and withdraw her complaint against Dr. Day because apparently the personal trainer was concerned that she had apparently given false testimony at Dr. Day’s Medical Board hearing in 2011. But Susan Reed’s Assistant DA refused to acquiesce to her request.
• Having met on two separate occasions with representatives from the Susan Reed District Attorneys office and being unsatisfied with their responses, the personal trainer then sought and obtained legal counsel from a criminal defense attorney (i.e., the new district attorney’s prior law partner), apparently to protect her from prosecution for perjury by Susan Reed’s Assistant DA. Why else would a complaining witness who was not under investigation for a crime and who had not been charged with a crime, obtain counsel from a criminal defense attorney unless he/she had committed a crime (such as perjury) and feared prosecution for same?
• In concert with securing counsel from a criminal defense attorney, the personal trainer apparently demanded a legal document from Dr. Day that contained a pledge that he would not to sue her for her apparent prior false testimony.
• A mutual release agreement was drawn up but never signed; the architect of this agreement was apparently someone other than the new district attorney’s prior law partner.
• Failing to obtain the legal document that she sought, the personal trainer then apparently turned the tables on the new district attorney’s prior law partner; when the personal trainer took the stand in June 2013, instead of testifying that she sought legal counsel from a criminal defense attorney to protect her against prosecution by the Susan Reed DA’s office (for perjury), she testified instead that she initially petitioned the Susan Reed DA’s office to recant and withdraw because she feared “Day’s People”.
• In an apparent slight of hand, the Assistant DA's in Susan Reed's office, without the judge’s consent, barred the new district attorney’s prior law partner from the courtroom while his client apparently testified to something other than what she had told him.
• The new district attorney’s prior law partner was then accused of witness tampering and was incorrectly blamed for playing a role in the drafting of the aforementioned agreement.  
• And guess who gave the district attorney’s office a copy of the unsigned document that prosecutors subsequently used to accuse the new district attorney’s prior law partner of witness tampering – yes, apparently, it was the personal trainer.

Having been served by Dr. Day’s defense team with a subpoena to appear, the personal trainer now has the opportunity to opportunity to either to publicly recant portions of her prior testimony or instead to publicly offer an alternate explanation for the testimony heard in court on 08/26/2013.

A new District Attorney took office on January 1, 2014. The new Assistant DA assigned to the case will find in the case file (assuming that it has been retained in its entirety) the new evidence and new revelations showing that Dr. Day’s accuser

• appears to have been untruthful under oath on multiple occasions to three separate governmental agencies,
• appears to have multiple other instances of making allegations for the apparent purpose financial gain,  
• appears not to have been where she said she was at times that have a significant bearing on the case, and
• appears to have multiple substantive inconsistencies between her multiple testimonies and statements.
• Moreover, this is only a partial list of the new evidence. In particular, relevant new private investigator findings are being saved for trial.

The backdrop for this new evidence and these new revelations is

• a she-said-he-said case,
• with no DNA evidence, and
• with no third party eye witnesses, wherein
• Dr. Day voluntarily took and easily passed a polygraph. The licensed polygraph examiner certified that Dr. Day was “TRUTHFUL” when he stated that the alleged assault did not occur.

Dr. Day’s family, his friends, his loyal former employees, his loyal colleagues, and his loyal former patients (i.e., Friends of Dr. Calvin Day) hope and pray for a speedy trial so that this new evidence and these new revelations can be made public.

To the apparent detriment of the personal trainer, attorney Michael McCrum is continuing his ongoing investigation of her. With each additional new piece of apparent incriminating evidence, come more questions, and naturally the issuance of more subpoenas in an attempt to answer these questions.

To the detriment of the taxpayers, the apparent pursuit of an innocent doctor by the Assistant DA's in Susan Reed's office came at an astronomical cost relative to the questionable charges. First there was the nine month police investigation, with countless hours of detective and uniformed police officer time and a 597 page police report. Then there was Dr. Day’s apparent wrongful arrest based on an absurd arrest warrant affidavit filed by a female police detective wherein the detective claimed to find a substantive resemblance between police photos of Dr. Day’s member in the soft (flaccid) state and the personal trainer’s sketch and description depicting a man’s genitalia in the hard (erect) state.) This orange (soft) to apples (hard) comparison is of course ridiculous on its face. Then there was the apparent disproportionate amount of time and personnel dedicated to the case by the previous DA’s office which apparently included at least three senior attorneys, at least three advocates, and at least three investigators. Then there was the month long trial with all three senior Assistant DA’s in attendance at the prosecution table, and the special appearance of the first Assistant DA who apparently believed that the case was winnable only through apparent prosecution misconduct. Then there was the hearing that overturned the results of the trial apparently on the basis of apparent prosecution misconduct. Then there were subsequent motions that delayed the trial for some additional 17 months.  The pages of legal documents relative to the case now number in the thousands. It is apparent from the foregoing that taxpayers and non-taxpayers alike should be outraged at the money that has already spent, that is apparently continuing to be spent, and that apparently will be spent as a result of the prior district attorney “passing the buck” to the new district attorney.  It is mind boggling indeed that Susan Reed’s Assistant DA’s banked so much time and money on a case in which their star witness was the personal trainer referenced above, in an attempt to convict an innocent doctor who practiced for 27 years, from June 13, 1983 until August 30, 2010, without one single official complaint to authorities despite having 40,000 patients (of which 20,000 were women), and who employed 450 women during that same time period. “It smells”.

The day after Susan Reed lost her bid to be re-elected as Bexar County District Attorney, she posted on her Facebook page “life goes on”. But for Zac Day life does not go on. Zac’s death was caused by a combination of contributing factors that included, among other things, the apparent misjudgment and apparent misconduct by Susan Reed's Assistant DA’s.  Zac will be missed not only by his family for the rest of their lives, but also by the potential generations of Zac’s children that will now never be born.

Dr. Day and his family appear to have been held hostage and effectively “jailed” for nothing more than the apparent fabricated allegations of the personal trainer, the apparent false arrest affidavit filed by the detective involved in his case, and the apparent prosecution misconduct by the Assistant DA’s in Susan Reed’s office. Dr. Day has been without a means to support his family for three and a half years, his medical license having been suspended pending the outcome of the criminal charges. He and his family are fearful for their uncertain future, extremely worried about their finances, and most importantly, broken-hearted by the absence of Zac.

Friends of Dr. Calvin Day pray that 2015 will bring justice for Dr. Calvin Day and his family in light of the new evidence and new revelations proving Dr. Day’s innocence. 

More details about the Dr. Calvin Day case are posted at www.drcalvindayisinnocent.com and at

https://storify.com/DrCalvinDay/special-prosecutor-michael-mccrum-dr-calvin-day-ca

 _________________________________________________________________________

The following text contains a partial list of revelations and evidence showing Dr. Day’s innocence (with more to be presented at trial).

REVELATIONS AND EVIDENCE AGAINST PERSONAL TRAINER (partial list)

• Recently acquired documents show that the personal trainer in the Dr. Calvin Day case appears to have made at least 17 (seventeen) other apparent attempts to obtain financial gain via allegations of bodily injury (or property loss/damage). Apparently, her allegation against Dr. Day was just another one of many such attempts. It appears that she made 16 of these 17 "allegations" within the last 10 years. The most recent "allegation" occurred earlier this year when she apparently claimed pain and tooth damage for a "rock in the food" at a local restaurant. And apparently, this was not the first time that she has made such a claim; records indicate that she previously made a similar allegation against another local restaurant. In addition to these two restaurant "rock in the food” claims, she has also apparently made two "slip, trip, or fall" Worker Compensation claims.

• Additional documents show that an apparent fifth known bodily injury "allegation" involved a minor auto accident. In this particular instance, the dollar amount for lost wages and medical expenses that she submitted in writing to the insurance company (and for which she received compensation) appear to exceed the medical expenses and wage losses that she actually incurred. In other words, she appears to have committed insurance fraud.

• Consistent with the above behavior, the personal trainer's telephone records appear to suggest a financial gain motive in her allegation against Dr. Day. Early on in her complaint process, before Dr. Day declared bankruptcy, telephone records show that Dr. Day's personal trainer was communicating with at least two different civil attorneys and that the timing of these telephone calls and texts closely paralleled the events in the complaint process and police investigation.  

• Also consistent with a financial gain motive is the self admission by the personal trainer that she was having financial difficulties during this time resulting from the loss of child support payments.

• Prior statements and testimony indicate that her financial difficulties caused the personal trainer to proposition Dr. Day to become a client of hers. Dr. Day's nurse was an eye witness to the personal trainer’s propositioning of Dr. Day on 07/30/2010 to exchange her personal training services for his Botox treatments.

• The telephone records show that the personal trainer initiated contact with Dr. Day by telephone three weeks later wherein she arranged to meet him at 8 AM on Sunday morning 08/22/2010, for a personal trainer – prospective client meeting. Dr. Day agreed to the meeting time and place that she requested because he routinely worked in his office on Sundays with his secretary, he already had a 9 AM appointment, and on Sundays he routinely went from his office to play golf at the club across the street later in the morning. Furthermore it was scheduled to be a personal trainer – prospective client meeting, and NOT a doctor patient visit. Apparently, the personal trainer was merely setting a trap.

• Pursuant to the time and place requested by the personal trainer, Dr. Day met with the personal trainer at his office shortly after 8 AM so that she could perform an assessment of his exercise fitness and go over pricing. Although Dr. Day’s secretary was in the office that morning she was not called in to chaperone the meeting because it was scheduled to be (and indeed was) a personal trainer – prospective client meeting, and NOT a doctor patient visit.

• Prior to this meeting there were three telecommunications between Dr. Day and the personal trainer; telephone records show that all three of these telecommunications were initiated by the personal trainer and not by Dr. Day.

• During their personal trainer-prospective client meeting, the personal trainer proposed a payment arrangement stating she wanted to have sex with him in exchange for Botox treatments. Dr. Day declined her offer. Ten days later the personal trainer filed charges against Dr. Day alleging that he had sexually assaulted her with his finger(s).

• By not going to the police immediately on the day of the allegation, the personal trainer in essence, performed a de facto destruction of DNA evidence that would have exonerated Dr. Day (by showing the absence of his DNA on/in her and conversely the absence of her DNA on his finger(s) or under his fingernail(s)).

• Moreover, her waiting 10 days to file charges was most inconsistent with her prior behavior because she had contacted the police for lesser concerns at least 14 times in the five years prior to her meeting with Dr. Day thereby indicating that she apparently had no reluctance to communicate with police.
• Besides the fact that  she had an apparent proclivity to call police for lesser concerns (i.e., 14 calls to police in the five years preceding her meeting with Dr. Day),
• She was an experienced mature 46 year old twice divorced mother of two (i.e., not a naive young woman), and
• She had no obstacles to her going directly to the police from Dr. Day’s office.

• She could have easily driven directly to the Prue police substation which was a 5 minute drive from Dr. Day’s office, and an even shorter distance from USAA where she made a stop to take care of some banking business after she left Dr. Day’s office.

• Surely, someone who had just been assaulted would not immediately stop off to do routine banking as her first action. And surely someone who did stop off to do banking under such circumstances would have also had the presence of mind to go directly to the police. The fact that such a person with the above apparent behavioral patterns under the apparent circumstances cited above, did not go immediately to the police is consistent with a false allegation.

• The personal trainer appears to have had least four (or more) apparent motives for fabricating a sexual assault allegation against Dr. Day. These motives include the following four factors:
• revenge stemming from anger directed towards Dr. Day, for
  • his rebuffing her sex for Botox offer,
  • the words Dr. Day used for his rebuff (perceived insult), and
  • her apparent perception of his treating her as "insignificant" by forgetting to call her later that same day as she had requested.
  • potential financial gain via a payoff from Dr. Day not to go forward with the false allegations (i.e., extortion),
  • potential financial gain from others via the anticipated attention from her self portrayal of "a damsel in distress", and
  • re-establishment of a relationship via the anticipated attention from her self portrayal of "a damsel in distress".

• This she-said-he-said case, with no DNA evidence, and with no third party eye witnesses wherein Dr. Day voluntarily took and easily passed a polygraph. The licensed polygraph examiner certified that Dr. Day was “TRUTHFUL” when he stated that the alleged assault did not occur.

• Recently acquired documents show that the personal trainer appears to have a number of relevant behavioral patterns that appear to be consistent with a sexual assault allegation fabricator. These relevant behavioral patterns of concern include the following:
• The personal trainer appears to have a relevant behavioral pattern of making multiple attempts to obtain financial gain via allegations of property loss/damage or bodily injury.
• The personal trainer appears to have a relevant behavioral pattern of being untruthful under oath. Evidence indicates that she appears to have been untruthful under oath in her statements and/or testimonies to three different governmental agencies on three separate occasions.
• The personal trainer, according to private investigators, appears to have a relevant behavioral pattern of dating successful married men, including physicians.
• To be revealed at trial are other, as yet undisclosed, relevant behavioral patterns of concern that have been uncovered by private investigators.

• Two and a half weeks after the alleged assault, the personal trainer gave police a description and sketch of a man’s genitalia in the hard (erect) state that she alleged was an accurate depiction of Dr. Day’s member. Yet her description and sketch do not even come close to resembling the actual appearance of Dr. Day’s erect member; the inaccuracies and extreme discordance have been photographically documented. Moreover, the personal trainer left out of her description, an important distinguishing feature, something that she would not have done if she had actually visualized the area. It should be noted that Dr. Day’s initial arrest was based on an absurd arrest warrant affidavit filed by a female police detective wherein the detective claimed to find a substantive resemblance between police photos of Dr. Day’s member in the soft (flaccid) state and the personal trainer’s sketch and description depicting a man’s genitalia in the hard (erect) state.) This orange (soft) to apples (hard) comparison is of course ridiculous on its face.

• New evidence showing the personal trainer’s movements on the day before and the day of the allegations (i.e., 08/21/2010 and 08/22/2010) are inconsistent with relevant portions of the personal trainer’s testimony on this subject. Although portions of her testimony concerning her whereabouts were accurate, in other portions of her testimony, which have a significant bearing on this case, she was apparently not where she said she was.

• At a 08/26/2013 hearing, eye witnesses testified that the personal trainer sought an agreement from Dr. Day not to file a civil suit against her for her prior testimony, and this is indeed excellent proof that her allegation is false.

• At a 08/26/2013 hearing, eye witnesses testified that the personal trainer obtained counsel from a criminal defense attorney in the spring of 2013 because she was concerned that she had given untruthful statements to the Texas Medical board in 2011 at Dr. Day’s hearing. Her seeking counsel from a criminal defense attorney, even though she was neither under investigation for a crime and had not been charged with a crime, is an act that corroborates that testimony.

• The multiple substantive disparities in the personal trainer’s statements and testimonies are consistent with a finding that she fabricated portions of her testimony including those portions concerning her allegations of criminal acts.

• The personal trainer is a part time amateur actor and has won at least one acting award. The circle of local actors in San Antonio is relatively small. Coincidentally, Susan Reed’s lead prosecutor in the Dr. Calvin Day case also was (and is) a local actor.

 More details about the Dr. Calvin Day case are posted at www.drcalvindayisinnocent.com and at

https://storify.com/DrCalvinDay/special-prosecutor-michael-mccrum-dr-calvin-day-ca