Comparing the Expert Witnesses: The CAC Versus Honest People

[Update, Thursday May 6 6:15 PM]: The proceedings today, if anything, cemented my views that (1) Brian House totally is in the tank with the prosecution and he considers it to be his duty to engineer a conviction of Tonya Craft, (2) by keeping medical records out that constitute CLEAR EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE just because Arnt and Gregor don't want anything to contradict their dishonest narrative and get in their way of a conviction, and (3) he permitted Len Gregor to tell David Craft that he (Gregor) "is not paid per child molester."

(Dennis Norwood of The Chattanoogan has an excellent account of the day's events.)

First, when the attorney asked Ms. Craft if there were things that she could not tell the jury, the prosecutors objected. (Since when have they not objected to everything, since their goal is to "disrupt the tribunal," which breaks the rules Georgia sets for prosecutors.) House also threw up his arms and hollered at the defense, essentially telling the jury that he was on the side of the prosecutors.

A real judge is not supposed to engage in this kind of one-sided behavior. People who are quite familiar with courts and their appropriate decorum tell me that what House did was inexcusable and (again) another prejudicial action that will make it almost a given that a guilty verdict would be overturned.

Second, let us look at the issue of the medical records. After Kelly McDonald caught her daughter and so-called child #3 (this is Tonya's Child, the third one interviewed in court) engaging in inappropriate behavior, McDonald whipped her daughter with the belt (which is on the record). Because she was concerned, Tonya Craft took her daughter to her pediatrician TO HAVE AN EXAM OF THE CHILD'S PRIVATES TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY SIGNS OF ABUSE. The exam results, according to the child's doctor, were NORMAL.

This is important, for if Ms. Craft were molesting children (as the prosecution claims she was doing at the time), then why in the world would she take her own child -- whom prosecutors said she was sexually abusing -- and have a doctor check for abuse? It makes no sense.

Yet, THOSE were the medical records that Brian House -- acting on orders from the Dishonest Duo, -- REFUSED to be allowed into evidence. Yes, clear exculpatory evidence is not permitted to be shown in House's courtroom. Furthermore, the medical records would contradict the testimony given by Sharon Anderson, and there is no way that House is going to permit medical evidence that demonstrate that Arnt, Gregor and Anderson are lying.

(Notice that the results also agree with what Dr. Nancy Fajman said after examining the photos of the children's private parts. Of course, the prosecution tried to have Dr. Fajman disqualified as a defense witness. Hmm. Does anyone notice a pattern of lies and misconduct?)

Interested readers might want to see Rule 3.3 for prosecutors in Georgia. Notice that the rule makes clear that prosecutors are not supposed to be hiding exculpatory evidence, yet here we have a tag-team effort to do just that in order to have a better chance for a conviction that all of them know would be wrongful.

The third grievous act was Len Gregor's remark that he "is not paid by the child molester." In a real court of law, he immediately would have been sanctioned for saying that and told sternly by the judge that he should not do it again. Instead, we see that House did nothing and permitted this prejudicial comment to be given to the jury.

What does that tell us? It tells us that House does not care about fairness in his courtroom. He wants a conviction, period, and he will do whatever it takes to help his good friends.

I would like to ask the good people of Northwest Georgia if they want people like this charging other people with crimes, if they want prosecutors that hide evidence or engage in illegal schemes with a judge to try to "win at all costs" without ANY care at all to whether or not the accused even is guilty. If you are satisfied with this kind of conduct, I only can hope that you will not find yourself in a courtroom with these three people having control over how you will spend the rest of your life.

Prosecutors are not supposed to be "playing lawyer" as though there were a game going on in the courtroom. They are expressly told to "seek justice," not engage in tricks in order to deceive the jury into thinking that the defendant is guilty when, in fact, they either know or strongly suspect otherwise. People like that should never be allowed to be prosecutors.

This trial is a disgrace, and the only satisfactory remedy will be the disbarment of Brian House, Len Gregor, and Chris Arnt. Nothing less will suffice.

[End Update]

If anything, we have received quite an education in this trial. We have learned that when men like Brian House, Chris Arnt, and Len Gregor run court proceedings, the result is a stain upon every decent jurist who has lived.

We also have learned that when it comes to "expert" witnesses, the prosecutors and courts of the Lookout Mountain Judicial District will accept prosecution witnesses that are unqualified and, frankly, dishonest. We also have found that there is a symbiotic relationship between the prosecutors and the "witnesses" who give the damning testimony.

On the other side, we found that the defense actually produce witnesses who have made their mark in these forensic fields. Thus, I believe it is worthwhile to compare both sets of witnesses so that readers can determine who is more credible. However, the way I will do it is simple and to the point, and I think will demonstrate what is happening in this "battle of the experts."

The blogger Kerwyn lays out the following scenario:

What is this situation were reversed. What if Dr. Hazzard, Dr. Aldridge, Dr. Bernet, and Dr. Fajman had been witnesses for the prosecution? Assume that each person had examined the children, engaged in examinations and conversations with the children and others, and each concluded that they believed Tonya Craft had sexually assaulted them.

To further lay out this scenario, assume that the "experts" for the defense consisted of Sharon Anderson, Stacy Long, Laurie Evans, and, of course, Suzi Thorne. Furthermore, let us assume that the witnesses for the prosecution all testified with great dignity, were attentive and respectful to all of the attorneys, both for the prosecution and the defense.

On the other hand, the "experts" for Tonya shrugged their shoulders, giggled, rolled their eyes, gave sarcastic replies, declared "I don't remember" or "I don't recall" or suddenly declared things that had not been entered into evidence or were in anyone's notes.

Which set of witnesses would be more convincing to the court? In fact, if this were the situation, how long would a jury take to convict Ms. Craft? Five minutes? Fifteen minutes, allowing for a bathroom break? It would be no contest at all.

Yet, what we have is a situation in which the hypothetical defense witnesses ARE what the prosecution has offered up, and some of them have committed perjury, and all of them have acted in a way that most judges would not permit in their courtroom. On the other hand, the four main expert witnesses for Tonya Craft are well-known in their fields, and the testimony of one, Dr. Aldridge, was cited in a Georgia Supreme Court decision as being so authoritative (she was testifying for the prosecution in that case) that the court denied the appeal motion for the person convicted because of her testimony.

However, even with people of this kind of stature presenting testimony in the courtroom of Brian House, the prosecution STILL insists that Drs. Aldridge, Bernet, Fajman, and Hazzard are not telling the truth, are not credible witnesses, and that the CREDIBLE witnesses are people who have exhibited the following:

• Not one of them knows anything about the current literature on interviewing children and dealing with cases like this;
• All of them were sarcastic to the defense, rolling their eyes, making noises, laughing, and shrugging their shoulders;
• They offered "new evidence" from the stand, despite the fact that what they were claiming was not in any of their notes and much of it, even if "true," fell into the hearsay category;
• None of them demonstrated any familiarity with the kinds of interviewing techniques that now are standard in cases like this.

We are not just seeing bad or poorly-trained witnesses. No, what we are seeing is fraud, pure and simple. We are dealing with lies, and lots of them.

What is even more tragic is that these very same people have been testifying in other cases in the LMJD in which people who most likely are innocent have been convicted and sent to prison by juries that had no idea that these witnesses are criminally incompetent and are willing to commit perjury on the witness stand.

If any good comes out of this sham trial, I hope that the outright dishonesty and crookedness of the "investigators" from the Children's Advocacy Centers in Fort Oglethorpe and Dalton will be exposed. What these people have done is so wicked, and so dishonest, that no punishment is draconian enough for them and anyone associated with the CAC in those places. They have ruined countless lives through their lying and false testimony, and one hopes there will be a Day of Reckoning that they will face.