Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Suzi Thorne and the "I Don't Remember" Disease

If there is any link in the various (and often conflicting) tales told by the prosecution witnesses, it is the statement: "I don't remember." Now, I can understand some small children saying it, but when it comes from the adults, well, I must admit that I become a bit suspicious.

What makes me even more suspicious as to the callous fraud the Tonya Craft trial has become is the performance of the "therapists" and other people associated with the two Children's Advocacy Centers that are taking a front-and-center role in pushing this hoax. Today, the jury heard from "Forensic Interviewer" Suzi Thorne, who was on staff at of The Green House, which is the CAC of Dalton, and let us just say that if Thorne did not commit outright perjury, then the term should be dropped altogether.

(According to the Chattanoogan, Thorne now is a Whitfield County deputy. No doubt, she will be on the stand time and again, lying as usual. One hopes that this performance today will lessen her credibility to testify, but don't count on it, as the courts have demonstrated they will swallow some pretty nasty stuff. According to the article, Thorne does not even have a college degree, and is taking on-line classes with that famous diploma factory, Kaplan University.)

That's right, perjury, and here is why. After answering (or failing to answer) a number of questions from the defense, the attention turned to the videotapes of Thorne interviewing one of the children. Try as she might during the interview, Thorne could not get the child to allege any sexual abuse, none, and it was not for lack of effort on Thorne's part.

But, as they say on late-night TV, Wait! There's more!

The attorney asked Thorne what happened after the videotape was turned off, and Thorne replied that the child walked to her desk and said that Ms. Craft "put her hand down my pants."

Well, asked the attorney, did she go back and videotape that "disclosure"? No, replied Thorne. Did she take any notes? No, she replied. Then, Thorne said that she thought one of the detectives that was there took notes. Which one? Thorne could not identify him, and the mystery "notes" still have not surfaced. Her answer about questions regarding the details of this "disclosure,"? "I don't remember."

The Chattanoogan further reports the exchange between the defense, led by Dr. Demosthenes Lorandos, and Thorne:
“Your testimony was that you attended a seminar at the National CAC in Huntsville, right?” “Yes.” “And they show good and bad examples of how to question a child, correct?” “Yes, they do. “The training you received helped you understand why there are good and bad ways to question a child, right?” “I don’t know if I would describe it that way,” she replied. “So, CAC interviews should be non-leading and non-suggestive, right?” asked Dr. Lorandos. “Yes.”

“So someone said something for the child to be there with a professional like you.” “No, the child said something to cause a report to be written.”

“When I’m with a child, I’m always looking for red flags to be thrown up,” she said. “Do you check what the child says to ensure it is true?” inquired the defense counsel. “Yes, I do.”

“How many times had (child witness #1) been talked to about being sexually abused?” “I know of one interview.” “Did she talk to her mom?” “I don’t know, I assume she did.”

Dr. Lorandos then went through a litany of major child abuse cases across the United States, asking Ms. Thorne if she was familiar with them or had received literature on them. To each case she responded, “No sir, I’m not familiar with that.”

“You do know that the American Psychology Association has written a textbook on this subject, don’t you?” “No sir, I don't."

She was asked if she is familiar with the studies on the effects of parental influences on children. She continued to deny any knowledge of any research material that was mentioned to her.

Dr. Lorandos asked the now detective if she was familiar with the fact that rumors play a factor in influencing children. Ms. Thorne replied that she thought that was possible.

“Tell the jury what suggestibility means.” “It means asking a question in such a way that it suggests an answer to someone.”

“Doesn’t it mean more?” asked the defense counsel. “That’s the only definition I have,” she answered.

“The people in Huntsville also told you that it was not a good thing to ask a question over and over because the child might think they got the answer wrong, correct?” “It depends on what the question is,” was the answer.
OK, people, let's cut the crap. There was no "disclosure," nor was there a detective taking notes. Thorne was lying, and lying under oath, which the ancients once called perjury.

Furthermore, I can guarantee you that neither Chris Arnt nor Len Gregor believe that there was any "disclosure" in the way that Thorne described it, but since neither prosecutor is interested in the truth, what is another lie, given the many lies already having been told?

As for the CAC, I heard from another friend today, someone whose integrity is not to be questioned, who told me of an experience in which the therapists helped to build a false case of molestation against someone. And I have talked to others as well who can tell horror stories about this outfit.

Think about it. Here is someone who testifies as an "expert witness" who cannot even tell a good lie on the stand. If a real judge were in the box instead of Brian House, someone would be pulling the plug on this sorry show.



                                                       Suzi Thorne

27 comments:

kbp said...

I'm stuck with that "clarify". She told them that is why she'd repeated one of the questions 3 times.

What makes that stick in my mind, besides the experience we saw with clarification in the Duke case, is this witness also asked another question around 13 times.

Somebody might wish to consider a new employee there, unless sticking with it until you get the answer you want is the objective.

Considering all the times she'd planted ideas into the minds of those innocent little girls, I may be on to something.

William L. Anderson said...

You are, kdp. This woman went into these interviews looking for a way to give the cops and prosecutors what they wanted. When the girl did not say what she wanted her to say, she put words in her mouth and lied on the stand.

So, we have seen at least two felonies committed in this trial, which is two more felonies than Tonya Craft committed.

Anonymous said...

So it is ok to question the children 16 times but when you question an adult on the stand more than once they frustrated and mad....gee, guess you know how the kids felt huh?? Maybe that could be a new bumper sticker:"I suffer from the I dont remember disease". Of course they would probably find some reason to make the supporters take those off too!

Dan said...

Suzie is no longer with the Green House. However... from today's chattanoogan.com coverage.

"While laying out her professional qualifications with Assistant District Attorney Chris Arnt, Ms. Thorne, now a deputy with the Whitfield County Sheriff’s Department, said she was not allowed to use questions that might lead the children. Mr. Arnt asked, “Have you ever purposely misled a child?” “Absolutely not. It doesn’t take much to mislead a child, the skill is getting the child to tell you what happened.”

The defense would later bring out that during the videos she was heard with both girls asking a direct question about a certain game the kids were supposed to have played. When asked about the games they played neither child mentioned the boyfriend/girlfriend game. Ms. Thorne then would ask, “So tell me about me this boyfriend/girlfriend game you played.

Kerwyn said...

So the gospel in all areas of medicine are easy. If it is NOT documented, it didn't happen.

NO interviewer would lead a client to say anything.. EVER. This is the hallmark sign of "recovered" memories and it is all on video tape..

Lord help us all if this is the justice system in this country.

tl said...

According to this court's standards regarding an "expert witness" all you need is a couple of on-line classes and a book. The term expert witness is nothing short of a joke in the catoosa county court system. Perhaps I could be an expert of some kind, I have books and have taken far more than a couple of on-line courses... In fact I taught "Law and Ethics for Medical Careers" at a technical college... What do you think am I qualified as an expert???

William L. Anderson said...

Hail, Kerwyn!! I am going to include your comments and the comments of another SANE friend of mine in an upcoming post.

tl, you are also correct. Believe me, in real courts, it takes some credentials and experience to be given "expert witness" status. However, I have seen prosecutors from across the country use charlatans and quacks as their "experts," and, unfortunately, juries sometimes are bamboozled by them.

Anonymous said...

There is a rumor going around that one of the mothers is dating either the DA or Asst DA --rumor is she is now going through a divorce? Is this true?

William L. Anderson said...

I have no idea regarding any romantic activities by some of the players, and I will not speculate. One thing I do on this blog is to make sure that when I post something, I have checked to make sure it is true or at least has been backed up by a reliable source.

I'm not claiming this blog is infallible, but I guarantee you I will make a better effort to get at the truth than the Catoosa County authorities!

Jerri Lynn Ward, J.D. said...

Bill,

I would delete that last comment at 10:24 PM. I think that an agent provocateur posted it to try to cause you problems.

Anonymous said...

And you anonymous 10:40, are desperate.

Anonymous said...

What do you mean "agent provocateur"? Why should it be deleted? It might be true. That would explain a lot, you know! Someone needs to call the Georgia Bar association right now and STOP THIS TRIAL!!

Anonymous said...

If Mr. Anderson will send my IP Addresses I will gladly track these minions of Arnt/House.

Jerri Lynn Ward, J.D. said...

Anon 10:40,

You are a coward. If you want to talk like a big man, identify yourself. Your posts are about as much "evidence" as you are a man with the courage of your convictions, Mr. ANONYMOUS!

William L. Anderson said...

Well, I have deleted two of the comments. As for getting IP addresses, I don't know how to do that (not being up on technology). If someone can email to me how to do it, I would like to find some of them.

And what is a blog without a troll or two?

Anonymous said...

Just shows you are making a difference...I guarantee you Arnt/Gregor/House are checking it.

bamboozled said...

I'm confused, who is anonymous 10:40?

Jerri Lynn Ward, J.D. said...

bamboozled,

He is a cowardly troll who put defamatory garbage in his comment, probably in an effort to torpedo Bill. Bill rightly deleted the slimebag's comment.

duaneh1 said...

It is amazing how much these witnesses "don't remember" key details of their children's "outcries". It would be traumatic for parents to hear their children tell them they were molested. They would have remembered every detail of their children's revelations.

William L. Anderson said...

I have no doubt that these people are checking it. Their witnesses are falling all over themselves and the defense has not even started.

Look for House to give some bizarre rulings that are aimed at further making things difficult for the defense. As I have said before, he is doing everything he can to rig this trial, and Arnt and Gregor are part of the team.

Anonymous said...

It sure is cute...

bamboozled said...

Thank you, Mr. Ward.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:25, both ADA's are happily married men as is the DA. All have been married for many many years. There is no truth to that rumor.

Anonymous said...

From the looks of Suzi Thorne in the posted picture, I would be afraid for my child to be alone in a room with her.

Anonymous said...

She made the comment that one of the children was the first she had ever seen balled up in the fetal position, which from the video she was not. She must have been mistaking the child for any man she was around.

Anonymous said...

I am a BSW and have worked with DFCS in child abuse for 5 years. I personally have seen Ms. Thorne in action and she is a JOKE. No interviewing skills, no integrity, nothing that warrents her ability to successfully and professionally conduct forensic interviews, let a lone testify in court, under oath, as an expert witness. If she testified like this in the county I work for, our Judge would through her out in a heartbeat for non credible testimony.

Jessica said...

I have watched this woman at work, she will push her idea on a child as quick as she will look at them. She even stated in one case that it is her "training" to lead children, and then said she didn't actually have the training, just read On-line (Yes, this is what she said in a court case just last sept.) She doesn't care about the adults involved, I honestly believe that she has had issues in her life with molestation, she is out to CONVICT!!!!