Mary Voss 'used' by Keith and Marisa Hobbs in extortion scheme: OPP investigator

Former Thunder Bay mayor Keith Hobbs and his wife Marisa Hobbs "used" Mary Voss in their scheme to extort another person to buy Voss a house, the OPP investigator in charge of the case said.

Voss, along with former Thunder Bay mayor Keith Hobbs and his wife Marisa Hobbs, are each facing a charge of extortion over their alleged attempts to force another person to purchase a house for Voss.

The trial, which is now in its third week, continued Tuesday with court seeing the remainder of a lengthy interview OPP Det. Inspt. Martin Graham conducted with Voss in April2017. The interview was the second one Voss did with Graham, who was heading up the extortion investigation.

Previously, Graham hadsuggested that Keith and Marisa Hobbs were having financial difficulties at the time, and wanted the victim to buy Voss a house so money could be obtained by borrowing against the house, which would be obtained by the Hobbs'.

During the interview, Voss was questioned why she didn't just leave the alleged victim, whose name is subject to a publication ban. Voss, who both worked for and was romantically involved with the victim at different points, said the victim was ill, and she couldn't "just leave [them] there to drink [their] head off" after the victim was discharged from the hospital.

Voss also said she didn't have anywhere to go, as she had earlier sold her house when she moved in with the alleged victim. When Graham asked Voss if she knew what she was entitled to after leaving a common-law relationship, Voss said no, nobody had told her anything about that.

However, Voss continued to assert that she was being pushed by Marisa Hobbs to allow the victim to buy her a house. Marisa Hobbs told Voss, for example, a house was owed to her because of the ending of the relationship between Voss and the victim, and that Marisa Hobbs did the negotiation with the victim in terms of which house to buy.

Marisa Hobbs and Vosswere looking at the house with a value in the range of $450,000 at this point. They viewed a home on Gemstone Drive, but it was turned down(earlier in the trial, court heard that Voss also expressed disappointment because the house didn't have granite countertops).

Voss also told Graham she wanted to go see the house the victim wanted to purchase, but Marisa Hobbs suggested they look at others.

Voss was looking at other homes, as well, online; they were described to Graham as "cheaper."

The deal was repeatedly on, then off again, as expressed by a number of texts between the parties which Graham read to Voss in the interview.

"If [the victim] buys me a house, it's fine," Voss told Graham. "If not, it's fine. I just wanted peace."

Voss said she had nowhere else to go. However, she did tell Graham she thought about just packing a bag, going to Toronto, and hiding somewhere the victim couldn't find her.

"I should have stuck to my plan," Voss told Graham.

She also admitted her "trouble" was that she believed what Keith and Marisa Hobbs told her.

For example, Keith and Marisa Hobbs told Voss they would go to the police with criminal allegations against the victim if the housing deal fell through; there has been much talk during the trial that a contract between the parties was intended to sweep those allegations under the rugif the victim bought a house for Voss. The Hobbs' said to the OPP they would go to the police with criminal allegations if a house was purchased, or not.

Voss, in fact, would tell Graham that she was confused as to why Keith Hobbs would draw that contract up, as he would know what extortion is given his long career as a police officer (he was with the Thunder Bay Police Service for more than 30 years).

But Vossalso told Graham she thought extortion would only apply if she asked for money.

"Is there anything I can say to you, anything, that will persuade you to tell me everything?" Graham asks at one point in the video.

Voss tells him she believes she was set up by the alleged victim: "When you step on [their] toes, [they'll] do everything to knock you down."

A series of videos showing the alleged victim acting erratically are brought up again (they've been the focus of much discussion in the trial so far). Keith Hobbs would give the videos, contained on USB sticks, to Craig Loverin, a friend of the victim, so the victim would know how much trouble they're in, court heard earlier.

In the video interview, Graham suggests to Voss that Keith and Marisa Hobbs used those videos to extort the victim.

"As soon as he and Marisa saw those videos, they saw an opportunity to extort [the victim]and get a better deal for you," Graham said. "I think they told you [of the plan]."

Voss deniedknowing of any plan to extort the victim.

Graham retorted that the house price went up when they saw the videos.

"That is no coincidence," Graham said. "I want you to tell me what the plan was."

Voss tells Graham she eventually bought her own house at a price of about $175,000.

"My life is so messed up," she said. "Just because I trust people."

"I haven't done anything wrong in my whole entire life," Voss said, breaking out into tears.

The interview wrapped up with Voss asking Graham if she's in trouble, and Graham re-iterating that Marisa Hobbs isn't a friend to her.

"I don't want to go to jail," Voss said.

"Let's not get ahead of ourselves," Graham replied."This is not a good situation."

"What's going to happen?" Voss said. "I'm so scared."

"They used you," Graham said.

"Maybe they did," Voss said, fighting back more tears.

After the video ended, Graham was questioned by the Crown. He told court it took four searches of the BlackBerry phone owned by Keith Hobbs to get all the data the OPP needed.

During cross-examination, Voss's lawyer George Joseph asked Graham about the alleged victim's status in the community.

Graham agreed that the victim had wealth and privilege. In the relatioship between Voss and the victim, the victim held the balance of power, Graham said.

Graham also said in his decades of policing, he had never been involved in an extortion case, nor had laid an extortion charge.

Some scheduling matters were also discussed Tuesday, with the Crown telling the court it will close its case on Wednesday, when the defence will then be able to present its case.

The case itself will proceed for the remainder of the week, and closing arguments will take place Feb. 5 and 7, 2020. A decision may take two months after that due to scheduling issues with the judge.

Court will resume Wednesday morning at 9:30 a.m.