Ben Schachtman: So, Nikolai, we’re on day two of Elizabeth Craver’s removal hearing. Bring us up to speed.
Nikolai Mather: So, this is not your typical hearing. Craver still has yet to face the criminal charges she was indicted on earlier this year. But after her indictment, Judge Kent Harrell suspended her from her duties as clerk of court. This trial we’re discussing now is to see whether she should remain clerk or be fired.
BS: Right. So the hearings taking place this week are separate from any criminal proceedings against Craver. But they will decide whether or not she can stay on as clerk. You spent all day Wednesday in the judicial annex covering this, and you've got an article on that online. You also spent Thursday morning covering this. What has happened so far?
NM: Well, the petitioner — who’s kind of like the prosecutor in this case — just finished calling all his witnesses. There were 13 total, and the list included SBI agents, computer forensic experts, county employees and Craver herself. The petitioner is trying to build a case showing that Craver purchased various items using county money, but only used them for personal use. He’s also trying to show that Craver made employees campaign for her on the clock, and that she pressured – and outright fired – employees who cooperated with the SBI investigation into her activities.
BS: That sounds like a serious, hefty case.
NM: We haven’t even touched on everything. You know my article on day one is already past 1,000 words.
BS: It absolutely is. Can you try to give us the highlights from the petitioner’s case against Craver?
NM: Sure. One, uh, unique moment was when the SBI brought out a $200 AC unit Craver had purchased with county money about a month before being officially informed of the investigation. Craver says the AC unit didn’t work, so she got a refund and sent it to the county. But today in court, a SBI special agent plugged it in and let it run for eight minutes.
BS: I have to ask, did it work?
NM: It did.
BS: Okay. I guess the obvious question is why would Craver return a functioning, usable air conditioning unit?
NM: It seems like they’re trying to imply that she heard about the investigation early on, then tried to return the unit so she wouldn’t get in trouble.
BS: Got it. I have to say that is the first time I have heard of an air conditioning unit being put on the stand. But tell me: what were some of the other highlights so far?
NM: The other highlight, I think, was when the petitioner brought out Kristal Moore. This was an employee of Craver’s who she fired shortly after cooperating with SBI investigators. Moore told the judge that — and I’m paraphrasing, they don’t allow audio recording in court — she felt like she couldn’t say no to her boss’s demands.
BS: Right, and as you reported earlier this week, some of the allegations include that Craver had Kristal Moore do things like help her shop for a dress while she was on the clock — obviously, that's an inappropriate use of work time. So what did Craver say about these allegations?
NM: She said Moore’s dismissal came after several transfers and various complaints from judges. She also said that the SBI did not say outright that she couldn’t make any personnel changes during the investigation.
Now we’re moving onto the respondent’s — i.e., Craver’s — side of things. I’m not sure how many witnesses they’ll call, but Craver is up first.
BS: Alright, Nikolai. Thanks for checking in. We’ll let you get back to Burgaw.
NM: Thanks Ben!
