Erik Voss: Liar

Scott Davis states unequivocally, “Erik Voss is a liar!. I never made a threat against anyone. Ever concerning anything to do with Megan or this case. This was a disgusting grab for money or an attempt to help a friend who influenced him named Clayton Turner. “

There are numerous compelling reasons to view Erik Voss’s testimony—that Scott Davis allegedly said he “would kill anyone” who slept with his wife—as false, unreliable, and uncorroborated. When this testimony is examined in the broader context of the case, including the unprecedented $300,000 reward offered only upon conviction, its credibility is further undermined. Below is a comprehensive analysis of why Voss’s statement should be treated with extreme skepticism:

1. **Lack of Corroboration and Independent Support**

Voss’s claim is entirely uncorroborated. No other witness testified to hearing Davis make such a threat, and no physical or documentary evidence supports the assertion. The prosecution attempted to connect this alleged statement to a conversation Davis had with his wife Megan, but even that exchange merely involved Davis expressing emotional discomfort about her dating someone he knew—not a threat of violence [[4]](https://poe.com/citation?message_id=378354586944&citation=4). Without any corroboration, Voss’s claim stands alone and unverified.

2. **Inconsistent Behavior by Voss**

If Voss truly believed Davis had made a serious threat to kill someone, one would expect him to have distanced himself from Davis or expressed concern. Instead, Voss continued to maintain a friendly relationship with Davis. He never told his girlfriend or others about the alleged threat, and his communications with Davis remained cordial and casual, including plans to meet and holiday greetings [[6]](https://poe.com/citation?message_id=378354586944&citation=6). This behavior is inconsistent with someone who genuinely believed Davis was capable of murder.

3. **Timing and Motivation of the Testimony**

Voss’s statement emerged years after the original charges against Davis were dropped and during a period when the prosecution was actively trying to revive the case. The state had failed to preserve evidence, and the defense never had the opportunity to analyze key materials [[1]](https://poe.com/citation?message_id=378354586944&citation=1). In this context, the prosecution was seeking new testimony to fill gaps in its case, and Voss’s statement conveniently surfaced during this renewed effort.

4. **The $300,000 Reward as a Powerful Incentive to Fabricate**

Perhaps the most damaging factor to the credibility of Voss’s testimony is the existence of a $300,000 reward—offered only upon conviction. This reward was the largest in Georgia history at the time and created a powerful financial incentive for witnesses to come forward with incriminating information, regardless of its truthfulness [[1]](https://poe.com/citation?message_id=378354586944&citation=1)[[2]](https://poe.com/citation?message_id=378354586944&citation=2). As noted in the documents, witnesses’ stories began to change after the reward was announced, and some began fabricating new narratives. The reward was described as a “bounty” on Scott Davis’s head, and it created a “free for all” environment where individuals could potentially profit from perjury [[2]](https://poe.com/citation?message_id=378354586944&citation=2)[[6]](https://poe.com/citation?message_id=378354586944&citation=6).

Importantly, the reward was structured so that no one could claim it unless there was a conviction. This means that witnesses like Voss had a direct interest in ensuring that Davis was found guilty—not merely in providing truthful information. The fact that Voss’s testimony was not made until after the reward was publicized raises serious concerns about his motives and credibility.

5. **No Prior Disclosure of the Alleged Threat**

Voss never disclosed the alleged threat to anyone—not to his girlfriend, not to authorities, and not even in casual conversation—until years later, when the reward was in play. This delay in disclosure, combined with the financial incentive, makes it far more likely that the statement was fabricated or exaggerated to fit the prosecution’s narrative and potentially benefit from the reward [[6]](https://poe.com/citation?message_id=378354586944&citation=6).

6. **Prosecutorial Misconduct and Desperation**

The prosecution’s conduct in this case was marked by lost evidence, shifting witness statements, and a clear effort to “tickle the wire” by telling friends and associates of Davis that they were close to an indictment and that a large reward was available [[5]](https://poe.com/citation?message_id=378354586944&citation=5). This tactic was designed to generate incriminating statements or cooperation from those around Davis, and it further taints the reliability of any testimony that emerged during this period, including Voss’s.

7. **Circular Reasoning by the State**

The prosecution argued that Voss had no reason to lie because he was Davis’s friend. However, this assumes the truth of the statement without offering independent verification. It ignores the possibility that Voss was motivated by the reward or influenced by law enforcement pressure. Friendship does not preclude self-interest, especially when life-changing money is at stake [[2]](https://poe.com/citation?message_id=378354586944&citation=2).

**Conclusion:**

Erik Voss’s testimony is deeply unreliable. It is uncorroborated, inconsistent with his own behavior, and emerged only after the state offered a massive financial reward contingent on conviction. The $300,000 reward created a powerful incentive for witnesses to fabricate or embellish testimony, and Voss’s delayed disclosure and lack of supporting evidence make his statement highly suspect. In a case already marred by prosecutorial misconduct and missing evidence, this kind of testimony should be viewed with extreme caution and given little to no weight in assessing Scott Davis’s guilt. The totality of the circumstances strongly supports the conclusion that Voss’s testimony was influenced by external incentives and is not a credible reflection of truth.