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