Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Tonya Craft's Lawsuit, the Children's Advocacy Center, and the Greenhouse

As readers know, I have been especially hard on the Children's Advocacy Center of the LMJC, as well as the Greenhouse in Dalton. Going through the particulars of the lawsuit Tonya Craft filed in federal court in Rome yesterday, I believe that legal action against these organizations is long overdue. For many years, the CAC and its gaggle of agenda-driven, poorly-trained, and utterly arrogant staff has conspired with dirty cops and dishonest prosecutors to destroy the lives of innocent people.

I pull no punches when it comes to the CAC and the Greenhouse, none, and I firmly believe that justice really will not be served until a number of their staffers are marched into prison to serve the terms that were imposed on the innocent people that they framed. Furthermore, I will say that the agencies in question have no defense at all, and as more and more information come out about how the CAC and Greenhouse staffers were able to get their "disclosures," it will become apparent just how fraudulent their practices really were in their frenzy to "get" Ms. Craft.

The first and most important item is this: What should be the expectations that we have of "interviewers" whose testimony can put someone away in prison for life? Second, what kind of interviewing techniques should they use when questioning children? Third, what kinds of safeguards should be in place to help ensure that people are not wrongfully accused? These are serious questions that psychologists and others involved with children around the country have been asking; the exception seems to be in North Georgia, where SANE Sharon Anderson is using obsolete standards to come up with "highly suspicious" conclusions about sexual abuse exam results, and her contemporaries are even farther behind the curve than she is.

More than 20 years ago, dozens of people who worked with children were falsely accused of child molestation, and some cases were especially egregious in how they were prosecuted. Names like McMartin, Bakersfield, Fells Acre, Little Rascals, and Wenatchee became synonymous with wrongful convictions, prosecutorial abuse, and the perils of agenda-driven criminal law fueled by the Mondale Act of 1974.

Although the abuse claims occurred in different places and involved different people, there were common threads running through the cases. The way that children were interviewed when seen in hindsight was a train wreck waiting to happen. For example, when Janet Reno was pursuing these kinds of cases when she was a prosecutor in Miami, she used a "therapist" couple, Joseph and Laurie Braga, who claimed to be "experts."

The Bragas were the ultimate prosecutorial nightmare, for they would tell jurors that "if a child says 'no,' the child really means 'yes'." Of course, if a child said "yes," that also meant "yes." Therefore, according to Reno and the Bragas, once there was an accusation, the only satisfactory conclusion was that the person in the dock HAD to be a child molester, and they would badger children and repeat questions until the child gave Reno and the Bragas what they wanted to hear. Now, it never occurred to judges in South Florida then that the Bragas were full of nonsense and outright lies; oh, no, they were protecting children!

As many of the hysteria-fueled convictions were overturned, clinical psychologists and others involved in the interviewing of children took a hard look at how interviewers could get children to make what would prove to be outlandish claims about abuse, claims that defied logic, time, space, and simply did not have the accompanying physical evidence that such acts would have left behind.

(In fact, many jurors who heard such nonsense assumed that since the stories were so outlandish, it was "proof that something happened," which was what prosecutors wanted them to believe. If such tactics seem to be outrageous, it is because they were borrowed from the propaganda exercises used by Joseph Goebbels, Adolph Hitler's main propagandist.)

Over time, new standards were developed, and two of the most important people in developing standards of interviewing were Dr. William Bernet and Dr. Nancy Aldridge. If their names are familiar to readers, it is because both of them testified for Tonya Craft.

The fact that the trial saw the interviewing techniques carried out by staff from the Greenhouse and the LMJC CAC being contrasted (unfavorably) with the standards that professionals set in the aftermath of the earlier wave of hysteria should have set off alarms. As Ms. Craft's trial went on, testimony showed that the CAC and Greenhouse interviewers were acting as though they were in a time warp, and it was the 1980s and McMartin all over again.

To make matters even worse, not only did the North Georgia "interviewers" lack proper training and credentials, they seemed to revel in their ignorance. In most courts, a high-school graduate like Thorne trying to claim that she knew more about interviewing children for signs of sex abuse than Dr. Aldridge would be considered a joke that no prosecutor perpetrate on a judge and jury.

In "judge" Brian House's court, however, Thorne was the "expert" (despite the fact that she failed to document or record what supposedly was the most important "disclosure" of the whole investigation) and Dr. Aldridge not only was considered "suspect," but also was accused of committing perjury, and prosecutors labeled her a "liar" and a "whore of the court."

While on the stand, the CAC and Greenhouse interviewers demonstrated a total lack of any professional standards. They rolled their eyes, shrugged their shoulders, gave sarcastic answers, and bragged about their lack of knowledge of current academic and professional literature about their chosen line of work. Their "I don't remember," and "I don't recall" answers contrasted with the clear answers, professional demeanor, and outright knowledge that the defense "experts" demonstrated while on the stand. Certainly the jurors noticed as well.

The problems with the CAC are not limited to the interviewing techniques used by its staffers, as bad as they are. Another serious issue is the professionally incestuous nature of its board and local law enforcement. For example, Buzz Franklin sits on the board of the CAC and heads the organization's finance committee and his "victims' advocate," Vickie Scoggins, also sits on the board.

One of my good friends and researchers spoke to an ADA from another state as well as members of child advocacy groups elsewhere and to a person, they said that this interrelatedness of the prosecutorial players is a huge conflict of interest. Furthermore, the very nature of this interconnectedness casts doubt on other cases in which the testimony from CAC staffers helped put someone in prison.

(The Brad Wade situation comes to mind here, and in Thursday morning's post, I will write my first of what should be many pieces on what I believe is an egregious wrongful conviction. Stacy Long was the CAC "therapist" in that case, and one only can hope that someday this woman will meet the bar of justice, for it is an obscenity that Mr. Wade is incarcerated and Long is free.)

There is something else to consider: this will be the first time that an outside court really will scrutinize the CAC, its standards, its practices, and its incestuous board relationships. For the most part, CAC staffers testify in friendly situations, in which LMJC judges coddle them, prosecutors such as Chris Arnt and Len Gregor pretend as though these "witnesses" are telling the truth, and local defense attorneys either are too cowed from being bullied by the ADAs from Franklin's office or they simply are not familiar with how interviews with children are supposed to be done.

The Tonya Craft trial was the first one to my knowledge in which CAC staffers were forced to justify their interviewing techniques, and it was clear they had no idea on how to respond professionally to a real cross-examination. I can assure the readers that the atmosphere that the CAC and Greenhouse staffers will face in a federal courtroom will not be the lovefest that judges like Brian House, Kristina Cook Graham, and Ralph Van Pelt have provided for them.

Furthermore, no one in federal court is going to be able to get away with calling experts like Dr. Nancy Aldridge and Dr. William Bernet "whores, liars," and other epithets. In short, these CAC staff interviewers are about to enter a legal world that they had no idea even existed, a place where Laurie Evans' arrogance and utter foolishness are not going to be tolerated, and where eye-rolling, shoulder shrugging, sarcastic answers, and giggling will be sanctioned immediately by a judge.

To put it another way, the federal court is not going to accept Thorne's claim that while she might not have a college degree or any real credentials that allow her to do such work, nonetheless she IS qualified because she once spent the night in a Holiday Inn Express.

104 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why do people (you included) always trot out Goebbels and Hitler as examples of totalitarian governments imprisoning (and executing) the innocent? Why aren't Stalin and Vyshinsky, who made the Nazis look like amateurs in arranging judicial tyranny, models for this kind of operation?

In the purge trials of the 1930's, Stalin told the prosecutors what to say. He told the judges what to say, and he told the defendants what to say after having them tortured.

To top it off, the western press, led by the New York Times, believed that the old bolsheviks and the Red Army high command was made up of agents of Nazi Germany. They were, as the modern saying goes, "in the tank" for Stalin.

Despite this, Mr. Anderson and others always throw out the term "fascist." He calls Nancy Grace a fascist for example. Why not call them communists? It seems everybody has to be politically correct.

Lame said...

Dr Anderson, did you get the email I sent with the articles relating to CAC and how they conducted the physical examinations?

There are several important articles, some 20 years old, that established procedures not followed by CAC, most importantly that when sexual abuse is suspected, that prior to going to the authorities, they were supposed to get the opinion of a medical professional?

Anonymous said...

I think Anderson always says "fascist" because the Nazis were especially good at propaganda, much better than Stalin. He's not saying that the Communists were good, he's just making a common (if extreme, Nazism is sort of the point you don't want to take your argument unless you're arguing genocide). Also, while I've extensively studied Mao's crazy propaganda, we tend to have a western-world centered history teaching in the U.S. Don't read too much into it.

Thank you, Mr. Anderson, for doing a service. You have been a voice for reason in two cases, despite the political leanings of either perpetrators, you saw corruption where it was and spoke up. We need more people like you.

kbp said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kbp said...

Good post Bill. :)

...the agencies in question have no defense at all, and as more and more information comes out about how the CAC and Greenhouse staffers were able to get their "disclosures," it will become apparent just how fraudulent their practices really were in their frenzy to "get" Ms. Craft.

... SANE Sharon Anderson is using obsolete standards ...and her contemporaries are even farther behind the curve than she is.

... Names like McMartin, Bakersfield, Fells Acre, Little Rascals, and Wenatchee became synonymous with wrongful convictions, prosecutorial abuse

... many of the hysteria-fueled convictions were overturned

... the interviewing techniques carried out by staff ...should have set off alarms

... interviewers demonstrated a total lack of any professional standards

... Buzz Franklin sits on the board of the CAC and heads the organization's finance committee


Borrowing a couple of phrases you always see in lawsuits that fit well here with Bill's work to help describe why Arnt is guilty as he!!.

I copied what shows Arnt "knew or should have known" and proceeded acting with "reckless disregard" in order to convict the innocent.


Look at Arnt and tell me HOW anyone can be certain he is lying.


.

john lichtenstein said...

William Anderson please make an effort to cast the blame wider than Greenhouse. If a Greenhouse like situation can fester for years, it is because Georgia has no mechanism to ensure that CACs use best practices. Good grief a DA on the BOD. This obvious COI was not caught because Georgia does not look for COIs. And Georgia is probably no worse than any other state.

The suggestion by a couple of posters that Georgia is special in that it *always* investigates the custodial parent, even if it is the custodial parent that makes the complaint, suggests some stat 1 experiments. We should see state by state variations in the proportion of charged molesters to be custodial parents, with GA near the top.

KC Sprayberry said...

John, Georgia's not the only state that always examines custodial parents. I know for a fact, even if it's not written down, that no matter who makes the complaint, Colorado delves deeply into the custodial parent's life and tries to turn the accusation against them. It's more an attitude that a non-custodial parent doesn't have the time with the child to do anything wrong to them. And there's still one thing, one very important thing, everyone's still missing as to the cause of this situation. No matter where you live in this country, any complaint made to DFCS, or your state's equivalent, can be done anonymously and from the point you make the complaint, you don't have to involve yourself any longer. I once confronted a social worker employed by DFCS about this, telling her a person has the right to confront their accuser in this country. Her arrogant (to me) response was, 'once a complaint is made to us, we become the accuser. The system works this way to 'protect the child' because people might not come forward if they thought someone might retaliate against them.' Her arrogance and the attitude that all parents must accept DFCS's judgment have bled over into CAC/Greenhouse type places and their employees in this area. Continuing education is something done for the social aspect, of getting together with others to enjoy yourself after the seminar is done. Even some of the so called psychologists treating children seem to revel in their ignorance, as demonstrated by Nicky Ozbeck's website. http://www.utc.edu/Academic/PsychologyAdvisement/nicky_ozbek_phd.htm Her last presentation occurred in 1999 and her last publication in 1995 unless she has not updated her psychology advertisement. I couldn't find any other type of listing of her accomplishments on any of the other hits on my search both last night and this morning.
I agree with you that the prosecution, in the form of the district attorney, should never be in a position where he/she is on the board of any group that collects evidence and there needs to be oversight. But these places never advertise their board members around here and honestly, until this trial, I never had reason to question their existence. Now that I have, what I've found leads me to believe that a complete house cleaning is the only way to clean up the mess. Only by bringing extremely qualified people like Dr. Bernet or Dr. Aldrich who remain dedicated solely to the best interests of the child and not the prosecution can LMJC avoid any taint of impropriety in the future. Will that happen? Probably not for many, many years despite the outcome of TC's lawsuit. Pond scum has a way of hanging around no matter how hard you try to get rid of it.

Anonymous said...

To my knowledge, all Child Protection Services across the country (and indeed in other countries) assume guilt.

The standard of evidence is weak, citing only credible evidence, the lowest form of evidence. Credible evidence can be one's opinion only, often the case worker's.

There are little to no checks and balances in child protection services.

They pretty much govern themselves with little to absolutely no oversight.

Often, family courts agree to whatever a child protection services worker says.

Hearsay is inherent in these situations.

It is only in state appellate and/or federal venues when a parent might prevail.

Of course, that takes money so sadly, parents rarely prevail.

These organizations are rife with corruption and can be easily manipulated as I suspect was the case here and with Mr. Wade.

There are many attorneys, psychologists, and parent advocates across the country who are fighting these unjust and, yea, unconstitutional practices.

There is currently a body of case law which might support Ms. Craft's petition.

I apologize that I have not yet read same petition wherein such case law may have been cited.

I have no doubt that this fiasco was exacerbated by the child protection agencies of the locale.

From a reader from NYC

William L. Anderson said...

To the 12:37,

I use Goebbels because people are a lot more familiar with him than with Stalin's propagandist. Now, I have used the Show Trials as an example before, although, again, Roland Friesler is better-known, and because he was killed while trying to conduct yet another "show trial," he achieved some fame (or notoriety) that the chief "judge" for Stalin did not, at least when it comes to household words.

I'm not a "Nazis bad, commies not so bad" person. Keep in mind that I am a libertarian, not a leftist, and that I have no love at all for Marxism of any form, especially the virulent form that it has taken in academe and, frankly, in law.

Now that you have raised the point, we have to understand that one of the reasons we have these draconian "sex crimes" laws is that academic Marxism has made huge inroads in U.S. law schools in ways that most people cannot imagine. (The Progressive Movement that came from the late 19th Century and all of the "isms" from that line of thinking has joined up with straight academic Marxism to pretty much destroy what was left historically of the law.)

Indeed, intellectual movements that are not part of our everyday thinking nonetheless affect our lives when we see such movements reflected in the law. For example, people have commented about how a family making an inquiry about possible sexual abuse becomes automatically investigated by the authorities and more often than not, accusations are turned toward the innocent.

This is not an accident or an example of bad judgment. Instead, it is part of the "Progressive" view that the state always should take precedence over the family, and that ideology was seen both in communism and fascism. Remember that in Stalin's U.S.S.R., a statue was erected to the child who turned in his parents for having "anti-Soviet thinking."

Likewise, children at school today are constantly urged to turn in their parents for "abuse," and time and again we see children who are angry at their parents or a caregiver who has made them toe the line making false accusations of sexual abuse. From there, state workers turn that person's life into a living hell.

I have chosen to zero in on the LMJC and what has happened there, but I am fully aware of how philosophies of statism from the left to the right have been used as vehicles to accuse the innocent and protect the guilty.

And please do NOT put the tag of "politically correct" on me! I definitely do not fall into that category, and anyone at Frostburg State can tell you that!

William L. Anderson said...

To Lame at 12:52,

I am not sure. You very well might have sent them and I might have received them, but I can't remember. Please re-send them, as I also want to forward them to others who are helping me in researching these cases.

Trish White said...

Another great blog!!! I especially loved the last line!!

You might also want to research the team that investigates child deaths. Guess who is on that team, none other then good ole Tim Deal!!! Don't forget, they not only think all parents, caregivers, teachers are child molestors If accused, but that every child that is severely injured or dies in an accident was either murdered or there was severe neglect. In Georgia, there is no such thing as an accident!!!

No one wants a child to be molested, abused, or killed, but we can't just automatically assume when an accusation is made or a child is injured or dies, that they were molested or hurt.

To my knowledge, my granddaughters death was going to be ruled an accident, but Tim Deal, along with some prodding by the paternal family, took the case and ran with it. He is truly a dangerous person, in his book everyone is guilty.

Everyone also needs to remember that when the grand jury meets, no one but the DA is there to present a case. He can do and say what he wants, yes even lie (as we now all know these people do) and convince the grand jury to indict a person.

I used to be the same as most people, I thought if the grand jury indicted someone, there must lot of evidence. I also used to believe what I heard on the news. I used to rush to condemn someone when they were accused of a crime. I guess you have to live through a nightmare such as Tonya's to know that what you hear on the news and just because someone is accused, doesn't mean a crime was committed.

What I have seen from Tonya's case and from our friends, is that many people are not so quick now to form snap judgements. I hope it remains that way and I hope, at least in North Ga., that we will one day soon have a judicial system which is truly fair and unbiased. I hope we will have experts who know how to question children and truly get to the bottom of what may or may not have happened.

eagle1 said...

Did I undersatnd it right that Stacey Long is "no longer employed" by the CAC?
Also Nancy Thorn no longer works at the Greenhouse, but is back on patrol?
And is Buzz looking for a new assistant DA?
Maybe I am confused...

Lame said...

Email with list of articles sent under subject: Articles Relating to Tonya Craft and other CAC-involved Cases

Anonymous said...

http://daltondailycitizen.com/local/x1174309309/DA-says-GreenHouse-role-minimal-in-Craft-investigation
The DA in Dalton says their involvement was "minimal". And Nancy is gone.
Things are starting to improve already.

William L. Anderson said...

I hate to say it, but Suzi Thorne was not a "minimal" witness. We are seeing the usual lies from the CAC crowd, and we should not believe a word these people tell us us.

Their view is that they are hammers, and everyone else is a nail.

Anonymous said...

While every poll in the area indicates that 90-97 percent of people support Tonya Craft, Tonya's opponents discovered ONE poll that they could control by multiple voting. How do I know, because the first several days it was in favor of Tonya by 97%. In ONE NIGHT it swung to the numbers you see now: http://www.timesfreepress.com/polls/2010/may/Should_Tonya_Craft_regain_full_custody_of_her_chil/

ANYONE who can sit and click "NO" a thousand times must feel completely out of control and desperate...THAT is manic behavior! Shame on the Chatt. Times for not making their polls a reliable, one vote only poll....But it IS funny to see how desperate these people are... "Hey guys, you can't control the results of the civil suit!"

Luke said...

"Political correct" is a term I would never have associated with the writer of this blog.

....and that's good. Give 'em hell William.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:59

My daughter noticed that. It actually shifted in a matter of hours.

Lookout Spy said...

"spent a night at the Holiday Inn Express" was just too funny!

How about " ALL aboard the Lookout Mountain Railroad." It'd be totally appropriate. Justice is about as scarce in the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit as railroad stops used to be by the Continental Divide out west. The wild wild West is still alive , because the judges "hang 'em high" here in the LMJC.

grits said...

Today Show just reported on Tonya's lawsuit. Showed page 1 of the charges which listed the people being charged - Henke, Lamb et. al. Nice report by Kerry Sanders,

Anonymous said...

Yes the poll actually shifted by about 900 "no" votes with no additional "yes" vote in less than four hours. Can you spell d-e-s-p-er-a-t-e? What do they think they can achieve?

Anonymous said...

Just wondering, was there a bed in the Holiay Inn Express? If so, she must be a child molester...

Cinderella said...

Thorne spent the night at a Holiday Inn Express? Did you know that hotel rooms have BEDS? Do you think that she wore a THONG? Please tell me that she had an African American in the room with her!

Anonymous said...

I hope the lawsuit goes well for Tonya and I will continue to read this blog for updates in the fight against unlawful injustice. Thank goodness there are people like Mr. Anderson willing to speak out when something is wrong.

Cinderella said...

Anon 8:25 Great minds..

Anonymous said...

I love the "she once spent the night in a Holiday Inn Express." comment

William L. Anderson said...

I really need to give Kerwyn credit for the "Holiday Inn Express" line, as she has used it more than once in our conversations!

KC Sprayberry said...

I think children's services, like all 'police' type agencies should abide by the laws the rest of us must obey or face criminal charges.. (No, I don't believe they're in it for the good of children - their behavior indicates they're in it for all funds they receive from whatever federal programs currently give them rewards for breaking up families.) Someone once called in a complaint on my husband, calling him our son's stepdad. The woman showed up at the door and started asking questions, telling me I had to let her in. I told her no I didn't and had constitutional protection against such intrusions. Her rather condescending reply was that in this instance I had no choice, since they had an anonymous complaint. Well, I went along with her, but she left fast after I informed her the person complained against was actually the child's natural father and if she wanted the birth certificate to prove that (she did), she could go get a court order and pick it up, after paying the fee, at the Ringgold clerk's office. Was not a happy camper but I was not giving them my kid's birth certificate. No trouble from them since but we still have an open file of possible abuse because of an anonymous report. The first thing that has to change in that system is the ability to run around behind someone's back and make reports. Anyone willing to report abuse should also be ready to face the person they accused. I don't think those witnessing real abuse will have any problem with this. If anything, DFCS will probably find their workload decreasing, since those making false reports will be less willing to have to put their name to those reports.

Anonymous said...

In NY, there are safeguards in the Social Service statutes to protect families but CPS does not follow same.

I have found in the cases I have studied that CPS workers pretty much make it up as they go along.

It is always a fishing expedition to find guilt.

Sprayberry-Please check with your state CPS office on your file, I have worked on cases wherein parents are "indicated" for no reason other than that the social worker "felt" there was neglect and/or abuse (even without follow up) and these parents' names thus remain on the state child abuse reguster. In NY, that means that the parents remain on the register until the youngest child named in the report turns 28 years of age.

Having an "indicated" report precludes one from working in education, medicine, law enforement, and jobs that require a security clearance.

Heck, if state legislators have their way, it would also preclude one from working in bookstores as the legislators often confuse the state child abuse register with the actual CONVICTED child abuser list.

Currently, there are several state and federal cases challanging the Constitutionality of the state registers.

California has to have the register with the most severe implications as named parents are placed on the CA list for life.

It is indeed a very wicked system ripe for reform.

Reader from NYC

William L. Anderson said...

I believe we can recognize the pattern, no matter where we might live. These agencies are given vast powers over the lives of people, and they tend to be populated by little dictators. Likewise, we see prosecutors, who are given absolute immunity, deliberately trying to convict innocent people because they can do it.

Americans are taught that they have a "great government," and that we owe everything to the state. Thus, anyone who questions state power in any form is labeled an "enemy of the people." There is not much we can do except what we are doing: pointing out the abuses and getting our small victories here and there.

KC Sprayberry said...

Delightful, Anon 9:29. Just what I needed to hear. I write for children. However, the woman, when leaving, muttered something about a file until our child turned 18 and that all she was was he was a bit spoiled. Would really like to know her opinion of spoiled, 'cause our kid claims he never gets anything. Guess it's a point of view thing. But I do know she never said anything about indicated abuse and no one's ever come back. This happened about 8 years back. My only problem was how she thought she could invade our house based on an incorrect anonymous report. I did check for a GA child abuse registry. If there is one, it's deeply hidden behind all the non support payers. That's huge in this state, tracking down and making non-custodial parents keep up with their payments.
Yes, you're right. The whole system needs reform. The first premise must be for the caseworkers to not just keep the family together but to look for obvious signs of abuse. That takes more than 30 minutes in the house trying to make everyone uncomfortable and then coming to a decision. And people wonder why families tend to keep to themselves anymore. We're all afraid of false reports for incidents taken out of context.

William L. Anderson said...

I need to add that the people at the Greenhouse and CAC, like Len Gregor, are on power trips. They may not be well-paid, but they are the kinds of people who love to have the power to destroy other lives.

At the same time, because they are portrayed as "protecting children," the media regards them as heroic, so while they are abusing power, at the same time they are widely praised for their deeds. Thus, you can imagine the kind of person these jobs attract: people who love to have power over others, and who have an absolute hatred for regular people.

I don't buy the "they are helping children" line at all. These people despise children, as children are nothing but a vehicle for them to have power. If these agencies were closed today, society would be much better off, believe me.

Anonymous said...

Change at the CAC is yet another one Tonya's gifts to this community through her terrible ordeal. God is using this woman for the betterment of our children & our community & her listening to Him, says a great deal about her character. I do not care what she may or may have not done in the past & honestly I do not care if she drinks now (I know I would & do), she is doing a great service at great expense.

It was amazing during her trial to see people finally come forward about their run-ins with the CAC. Many of my friends & myself had bad experiences & none of us knew it!!!! As KC said in her post last night, it isn't something you want to talk about unless it's with the tightest group. She is right! This is another reason why I can never believe that Lamb is this confused woman who truly believes her child was abused. Many of us know the first reason.....because she lied from the beginning! The "keeping it to yourself" reason is because I do not know one person who would go around town saying, "my daughter was molested & that's why I know she's guilty!" The way most victims/ families handle it is with a statement such as, "I believe _______ is guilty because I have first hand knowledge & I will leave it at that". If people press on for answers, they walk away. Sexual assault & abuse is a private thing. Yes, if you know that something happened, you warn the public, but in a different manner. Our natural instincts are to protect ourselves & our children. It is innate & only 2 reasons (or excuses) for not doing so are: 1) you are one of the rare people born without that instinct or 2) you have chosen the "look at me" route in life & do not care about others (narcissistic). I truly believe Lamb is #2. Some may freak out by my next statement, but look at the reasoning. I believe Sherri Wilson had that innate feature to protect her child. Reason being, she chose not to put her daughter through hell & she had her little puppets, Lamb & McDonald, to exact her revenge on Tonya, all the while, she gets to sit on the sidelines. Sounds twisted, but most of us realize this as truth. I guarantee you the thought never crossed her mind that she would end up with her name on the top of a federal lawsuit.

Anyhoo, yes, there will be much needed change & oversight at the CAC's in this area. How long will it take? Who knows, but it is coming. Cases like Tonya's only come once in a blue moon, but these are the ones under which changes are made. Sometimes for good, sometimes bad, but needless to say, this case has people talking about experiences we never thought we would talk about. Dr. Aldridge saw what was happening & I believe she will have a huge voice in this. The only changes I can see coming are good.

God bless Tonya & her family as they continue the battle. She is doing this for all of us & we should thank her.

Anonymous said...

KC, you are spot on with your statement about your child saying he doesn't have anything. Oh the joy of children. Another thing I believe you're correct on is that families tend to keep to themselves more now than ever. I see it in my neighborhood everyday. I can look back on my childhood & can tell you when I saw the change begin. It was after the McMartin fiasco and after people started becoming fearful of state agencies such as DFACS. It is so interesting to see what Tonya's case has made us open our eyes to.

Bill, I have believed for a very long time the same about these agencies & a lot of the people involved. They are not there for the betterment of children or families, they are there for funds & that power they never seemed to have in their own lives. I have been angry at myself for thinking this way, but now, I see so many people with similar stories. Some may use the saying, "but even the guilty in prison say they're innocent". Well yes, but when you look at the big picture, you can see, even through written word, the truth. Many have said because of Obama that we have become a Socialist nation. Although I am not a fan of his, we really need to take our blinders off & see exactly how long this country has been slipping away. It started long before I came into this world & hopefully, with people like you, we can start changing. I know that's optimistic, but we need to get back closer to the foundation at some point. A little bit at a time is better than no time at all.

Glass Half Full Girl (lol)

Dan said...

There is a well-known management axiom "You are what you measure".

Changing the people in charge of these agencies is a good start but not enough. Additionally, there must be healthy doses of transparency and accountability built into how these agencies operate, measure themselves, report results and ultimately funded.

Unbelievably, funding is based solely on quantitative measures (e.g. how many abuse cases are "disclosed" in a given area) and ignores any qualitative measures.

That is a huge and contributing problem. And is one of several "root causes" in this specific case.

Kerwyn said...

Part 1
One of the primary issues in this case that has bothered me from the onset is the use of "professionals" who do not have any advanced education beyond high school.

I spent last night pouring over the coursework for the 5 day seminar all the interviewers in this case stated they took (I have no clue when they took it). It is called Finding Words and is a nationally recognized didactic course on interview techniques for children.

The coursework is outstanding. However, I say that from the perspective of a SANE/FNE who holds several degrees and certifications.

For instance, they refer to teaching the student to recognize and use age appropriate questions based on child growth and development. As anyone who has at least a basic degree in any of the the health science fields will tell you, human growth and development (general) as well as specific age group development are required classes for your degree. The will also tell you, this subject, in its own right, is an extremely complex field (growth and development.

Having a firm foundation and knowledge of a field is a prerequisite in any profession. When you are dealing (as I do) with situations that may put someone in prison for many years, will destroy not only the victim and their family but the family of the accused as well, I personally feel that there is NO EXCUSE possible for not having the firmest and broadest educational foundations for your fact finding and final analysis.

Ms. Holly Kittle has a Bachelor's in Anthropology. She was a crime scene technician although Gregor, Deal and others portray her as a "Forensic Pathologist". "Arnt told the jury " was formerly a forensic pathologist for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation - something akin to the CSI television programs, said ADA Arnt."

http://www.team.georgia.gov/portal/site/TGC/menuitem.7eec17fffd55a22bddc2ffe4d03036a0/?vgnextoid=0c21b6d0b6c72110VgnVCM100000bf01010aRCRD&vgnextchannel=609fb6d0b6c72110VgnVCM100000bf01010aRCRD

She had been employed for 2 months prior to her interviews with the children and I "assume" she at least had taken the 5 day seminar.

Suzie Thorne - High School diploma, Finding Words seminar.

Oh ya, that is the person I want when I am dealing with a wounded child. This person has been responsible for the arrest and conviction of several individuals based on her "interviews". Apparently the Georgia CAC has such high standards that they don't feel that their interviewers should have any education beyond high school. Apparently they feel that on the job training (with complete disregard for the lives that are destroyed in the process) is appropriate. Stunning..

Laurie Evans, Masters in Social Work. I assume she took the Finding Words seminar too.

The CAC feels that it is entirely appropriate to employ (and continue to employ) a health professional who has been diagnosed with a SEVERE (35 on the diagnostic scale) mental illness. OH YA please give my kid therapy... you bet! They also seem to feel it is fine to have no requirements as to documentation standards, procedures or guidelines. It is also just OK by the CAC if you also break the law in the course of your professional work. They will continue to employ you anyway.

Kerwyn said...

Part 2

Sharon Anderson, ASN Nursing, SANE-A certification. SANE-A .. that means certified for adults not children. That requires a SANE-P (I carry both). As a SANE nurse I can tell you right now, that Ms. Anderson probably did an ok job on these exams. The only problem is, she is not certified for children according to the Georgia State Board of Nursing. That in its own right is no big deal since we do a lot of on the job training (it is called the PRACTICE of medicine after all). However, it was outside of her legal scope of practice to come to a "conclusion". That is rendering a diagnosis which we as nurses cannot do. She also demonstrated a distressing lack of knowledge of the current examination techniques as well as knowledge of the latest studies on the examination and expected findings for sexually abused children. There is no such finding as "suspicious for abuse." That is a ludicrous thing for a medical professional to state. As nurses we DESCRIBE what we see then if we testify in court we justify what we described with current literature and studies that back it up. For instance, one of her findings was an "eroded edge" to a hymen. She felt that indicated sexual assault. It is sad, but she obviously had not read the most recent work which shows that over 58% of female children with no documentation of sexual assault (meaning normal kids) had the same finding in that age range. It was a NORMAL and expected finding.

I could go one, but won't. Needless to say, I want to know who has oversight on the CAC in Catoosa County. I want to know WHERE and with WHO the buck stops. I want that person to step forward and say, we have an issue, we need to address it and here is how we are going to do it.

These people hold, as I do, other's lives in their hands. When ego and arrogance take the place of solid educational foundation, when it takes the place of professional dispassion and compassion, when it takes the place of common sense, when it takes the place of justice then it needs to be addressed vigorously by not only theses peoples peers but by the community as a whole.

It is YOUR lives that are in those hands. Is that what you really want?

KC Sprayberry said...

Kerwyn, sadly I don't think there's any kind of oversight for CAC. I've tried looking at the state level and nothing on the DCCS website indicates they do much more than track down delinquent support parents. At least, that's where the bulk of their links go. Absolutely nothing about overseeing those charged with examining children for abuse. But they do have a link where you can report said abuse online! Oh, goodness, and bless their little black hearts, they're giving the anonymous reporters another way to hide. (for those out of the know, when a southerner blesses your heart, they're pretty much damning you.)

Kerwyn said...

I think that oversight might come from the State CAC level. I have no clue.

Here, in my county, we have a "citizen" review panel that oversee's their activity. Now this panel is comprised of professionals in the various fields BUT they can in no way be connected with the CAC or any of it's sister organizations. We have Lawyers, cops, nurses and physicians on that board. Our CAC is required to follow the same JCAHO guidelines that the hospitals follow.

I have no clue what the State of Georgia requires, other than "not much"

Anonymous said...

Kerwyn, thank you for the explanation of the SANE-A. The classification was actually something I was curious about. For some of those who may not understand the difference by your account, I will make it easier. (doing this because some may not understand the medical perspective you have) This means that she is trained to perform rape kits & such for adults who have been sexually assaulted. To me, the difference in the specific training is huge because the bodies of adults (even those children just past puberty) and the bodies of children (such as the ages of the children in the Craft case) are so different. Even though it is "practicing medicine", the reason why there are specialties in medicine are for this exact reasoning. Wow! I didn't know that she wasn't even "qualified" to do the exams.

I also have a huge problem with her being the executioner of "findings". Although a doctor signed off months later, she never saw the children. I do respect nurses opinions on a lot of things, but if that was the beat all end all, we wouldn't have doctors, and with people's lives hanging in the balance, the proper steps HAVE to be taken.

Many who have had experiences at our local CAC's will tell you the same tale & it is a scary one. I don't know if anyone shared this with you (Kerwyn), but, they do the child's exams right there at the CAC. No doctor present & a majority of the time, do not allow the parents in with the children. Also, if you saw this facility from the inside, your jaw would drop! It is an old, beat up building which IMO is not sterile. Not because it's old, because it's nasty in there.

I do have a question, what is "35" on the scale of? I do not have enough knowledge of psychiatry to know, so I'm hoping you can elaborate.

Seriously people, do we all see what is going on & what is happening there???? It is ridiculous and we have to push for change. I had an experience there (not my children, but my best friend's), and it was a nut house. The "professionals" have no clue. It's almost like saying because I have raised a child, that I am an "expert". Wow, Wow, Wow!!!

Just a little FYI....I have been around Kittle through mutual friends & didn't like her. She was very arrogant. I feel like she went to work at the CAC to promote her photography business. It's just my opinion, but because of her arrogance, I could not see her "protecting the children". Most people I know who work with children, have more sincerity & more compassion. To me, she seemed like the typical "me generation" type person.

Thank you for adding this information Kerwyn. Hopefully people will see the CAC for what it is now & always has been in this community, an abuse factory.

Victoria said...

More on the case this morning on the Today Show:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/37353490#37353490

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the link Victoria. The story was handled quite well.

volfan69 said...

I, too, have been learning a great deal from Mr. Anderson, KC, Lame, Kerwyn, and many others. What I can't understand is the "herd mentality" that those folks have. The corruption didn't start overnight or with the Craft case. This apparently has been going on for a long time...festered and spread, if you will. How can there not be one person that possesses honesty and integrity that would go against the group? I have never felt the need to join or belong to a group that tries to think for me. I am way too independant for that. I just don't understand how adults want to be in a circle or group or whatever so badly that they will follow along with ideas and actions that they know are wrong. I guess I just need someone to help me see what I am missing. Right now they remind me of a herd of cattle. They are gathering in a circle under a large oak tree during a thunderstorm and will all die by lightening strike! Sad... Bobb

Victoria said...

@ volfan69
You asked about how people can go along without refusing or exposing immoral acts (that have become institutionalized):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. ...

The experiments began in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the question: "Was it that Eichmann and his accomplices in the Holocaust had mutual intent, in at least with regard to the goals of the Holocaust?" In other words, "Was there a mutual sense of morality among those involved?" Milgram's testing suggested that it could have been that the millions of accomplices were merely following orders, despite violating their deepest moral beliefs.

...Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.

volfan69 said...

@Victoria
Thank you! That makes perfect sense. Still, it is sad.

Something my family and I are having a difficult time with is helping my 7 year old granddaughter to understand it is okay to report unacceptable actions to her teachers. Teachers don't like kids that tell on others constantly (I know, I taught 32 years), kids put peer pressure on each other even at this age, and it is difficult for children her age to know what is acceptable and what isn't.

Anyway, I understand from what you wrote the idea of being a follower. I will search the link you provided and read more. Again, thank you. Bobb

Kerwyn said...

To explain the "level" of impairment of Laurie Evans.

The scale goes from 1 to 100. 100 being scary normal lol. I would guess most of us fall between 70 and 95.

When you get below the 50 level, there is impairment. The further down the scale you go, the worse the impairment.

The GAF (Global Assessment of Functioning) that Evans referred to is as follows:
40-31 Some impairment in reality testing or communication (e.g., speech is at times illogical, obscure, or irrelevant) OR major impairment in several areas, such as work or school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood (e.g., depressed man avoids friends, neglects family, and is unable to work; child frequently beats up younger children, is defiant at home, and is failing at school).

William L. Anderson said...

Kerwyn forgot to add that all of the courses that CAC staffers take are held at the Holiday Inn Express! Thus, they always leave as experts! (Dr. Nancy Aldridge does not stay there, which is why Len Gregor apparently was justified in saying she was unqualified.)

Anonymous said...

Mr Anderson, can you please delete my response on the Times Free Press...Anon 12:40

Anonymous said...

Wow again Kerwyn! Thanks for the info. I was thinking the scale to be 1 - 100 in the opposite direction. Even in that perspective, 35 seemed like a loo-loo head. Now knowing it slides down, holy crap, she is even crazier than I thought.

Bill, "thong guy's" logic must be that. If we tied in all of his logic, we may find the mind of an infant. Nah, infants are more intelligent! At least they have the excuse of being tiny beings, "thong" just has the excuse of being a moron.

Anonymous said...

You guys need to get the full Eric Echols video up on YouTube.

Anonymous said...

As a reminder, here is a link re the testimony of Dr. Aldridge on 5/3/10 re the questioning of the children and what was done incorrectly. IMO very interesting.

Dr. Aldridge

volfan69 said...

Have any of you read this today on CATWALKCHATT.com...
Catoosa County says most of Craft investigation trial costs were allotted in budget

"The county didn't bear a lot of expense," Summers said. "We didn't have a lengthy investigation. We moved on with things very quickly."

Can this be used against him in Craft's lawsuit? The man appears to be ignorant! Bobb

volfan69 said...

Callie Starnes says House has removed his phone number from the LMJC website. Wonder why?

Anonymous said...

When I was in Jr. High School I was accused by the principal of doing something I did not do. I was a "A" student and never had been in any trouble at all in school. When I got home I told my parents what had happened and they believed me and met with the principal and asked him to apologize for the way he had treated me. He refused to apologize and said I was lying BUT "this time I will let you slide" even though I had done nothing wrong in the first place. Now in NO way does this compare to Tonya's ordeal or the countless injustices being committed in this area. But it has been almost 40 years since this happened and I still have nightmares about it.
The point I am making is a person on a power trip is a very dangerous person. Add a badge to mix and it gets worse. House,Arnt,Gregor, Deal et.al are all so consumed with thier percieved power they should be on "The Most Dangerous List"
An attorney friend of mine (no, not Arnt) gave me some free advice once, fortunately I have never had to use it. If any of "those" people want to question you for anything do not talk to them without an attorney present. Now they will say if you have nothing to hide you don't need an attorney present but don't believe them. For all of the training these detectives lack, the one thing they are highly trained in is interrogation and they will lie and twist the truth to no end to try to get you to say something they can use against you. REMEMBER YOUR MIRANDA RIGHTS!!!

liberranter said...

Thorne spent the night at a Holiday Inn Express? Did you know that hotel rooms have BEDS? Do you think that she wore a THONG?

Oh Gawd, was THAT statement really necessary? After turning my stomach inside out and suffering two straight hours of dry heaves, I can't get that image out of my mind! If I wind up needing therapy, I'm sending YOU the bill!

Throckmorton P. Gildersleeve said...

Anonymous @ 1:55.

As was stated in the "Rant" column of Sunday's Times-Free Press;

"Demanding a lawyer when being questioned by the police isn’t a sign of guilt. It’s a sign of an intelligent citizen asserting his constitutional rights."

I trained my children this way and I have always advised others to follow this dictum. To Crooked Deal and others of his ilk, you are making their jobs harder by demanding an attorney so you must be guilty. Proof of your guilt is in the color your face turns when being questioned.

It's not true that exercising your constitutional rights is an indication of guilt but then the truth is a flexible commodity in the LMJC.

Anonymous said...

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/10/05/091945P.pdf

Who says this doesn't happen all the time?

Cinderella said...

Anon 3:43pm Wow, good stuff! Gives me hope for Tonya- it
SHOULD be an open and shut case.

Anonymous said...

3:43, Holy Cow, what a similar case in it intent. Thankfully the initial jury verdict was not the same for Tonya Craft. Looks like there is some precident to add fuel to her suit. I hope she bankrupts the lot of them. There are a few legal minds who are saying that there is only a slim chance the CAC will have to change the way they do business, but I hope that is not true. That, in my opinion, is the true nature of this suit for Tonya. The money certainly won't make her whole, but will help with what she and her family endured financially. She wants to effect change in the system. I sure hope that Arnt and Gregor end up in the Rome Federal Court at some point and have to listen to a judge say, "and for these transgressions, this Court deems the penalty to be disbarrment."

Lookout Spy said...

This one is even better, it was just from last year also. Can't get any more thorough than the Harvard Law Review. The second link shows Judges can be found liable, however they are not required to pay attorneys fees if they act outside of the jurisdiction of their office. So, apparently, judges do have some liability for violating due process rights. Again, big difference between qualified and absolute immunity.

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/media/pdf/thompson_v_connick.pdf

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/21/I/1988

Anonymous said...

DISBARRMENT, Is what I am Praying for. The whole bunch, who could trust any of them now. Couldn't Trust them before sure can't now..

Anonymous said...

There is absolute immunity and qualified immunity.

Absolute immunity is a tough nut to crack.

Even if she is awarded damages, the defendants will appeal.

It's a long road.

But, honestly, I don't see the receipt of actual damages as her true intent (though it would be nice if she could recoup something).

There are many reasons to file suit.

I'd rather not go into all of the reasons on a public forum but in my humble opinion, she is doing the right thing here.


As to seeking competent counsel, I can not stress this enough, should CPS ever come knocking at your door, hire a competent attorney from the get go. It certainly levels the playing field.

Additionally, in my experience, CPS hates attorneys as they would prefer not to have a level playing field. Mr. Anderson is correct, they are the hammer or as I like to call them, the steamroller.

Reader from NYC

KC Sprayberry said...

Just caught a top of the hour news story on Channel 3 by Callie Starnes about a man exonerated of, I believe, the same charges TC faced 14 years ago. But he can't get his teaching license b/c of his criminal record. He had his arrest record deleted and was found not guilty but it turns out in GA your criminal record never goes away, even if you're innocent. This happened in Whitfield County. Both Kermit McManus and McCracken Poston said that's GA law and the guy can sue to have the record expunged but this man and his family just lost their house and have no income. Really stinks.
Wish I could post a link but I saw a blurb about the story about 2 seconds before it aired. And there's no link up yet on Channel 3's website. Really heartbreaking story. The The anchors ended that story with a comment that Tonya faces the same problem if she stays in GA. So, acquittal or not, her accusers win. How sad.

Anonymous said...

Look at the picture and comment below the picture at the following link. It goes to show you how the mentality is for all those at LMJC.

http://www.lmjc.net/chief_court_administrator.htm

KC Sprayberry said...

Anon 6:14 - commented on that back during the trial. What's even more juvenile is how they have/had The Stormtroopers March as musical background on the District Attorney's link, but only if you opened the page in Internet Explorer. There was also an advertisement about the chief clerk selling hdmi cables on the homepage, until I posted it to this blog and then it disappeared. Don't tell me they aren't keeping up with us. Honestly, the LMJC's website is one of the least professional I've ever run into. The colors are jarring. Personal contact information is included, although I understand Brian House took off his personal phone number. And there is really no information. Also, if you scroll to the bottom of the homepage, it still says Over (counter number) disgruntled customers but still banned in China for some reason. Gee, do you think the Chinese know something we don't?

Anonymous said...

Plus it has a ton of pictures of Judge Van Pelt and his hiking adventures.......who gives a sh*t?

Anonymous said...

There is a Facebook account by the name of "Peerless Review" that keeps soliciting comments about this blog and the Tonya Craft case. It was touted as a new place for local discussions. I joined but this last question left me puzzled. The admin wants somebody to post updates about the content of this blog. My question is why? Why would you want to do that when you could come here and read it yourself. Most people use their real names for their Facebook accounts so there isn't any anonymity there. Does anybody know if this site is legit?

Anonymous said...

It may be related to this site. There is something here about Peerless Review:

http://www.beechwoodnet.com/about.html

Anonymous said...

Yes, I saw that, but my question is whether somebody knows whether this is a legitimate site for discussion. I just find some of the questions posted a little strange.

Anonymous said...

The following is from the Conasuaga Judicial DA from today's Dalton newpaper.

Our participation in this was very minimal. We were requested to conduct some interviews of the victims, which our interviewer did, and that’s pretty much our involvement.”


CYA = Suzi Thorne had nearly nothing to do with prosecution huh?

Kerwyn said...

Peerless Review is Falcon Frost Publishing in Rossville.

I assume he is simply interested in the doings in Rossville as per his business website.

Feel free to comment there about this blog *grins*

Anonymous said...

Volfan, wow! I think he doesn't know when to shut up. The attorney sends a statement to all the media outlets, then he opens his mouth again. LOL. Keep talkin' Phil. Pretty soon, you will be telling all the ways you railroaded Tonya.

Kaye said...

Phil's attorney will probably have to duct tape his mouth shut!

PLEASE, if anybody knows of any qualified and honest candidates that would like to run for Sheriff next election, beg them to run against this tool.

Anonymous said...

By the way, anybody else following FakeJudgeHouse on twitter? Hilarious!

Anonymous said...

I truly think that duct tape won't work Kaye! What's the little FB thing, "you can't fix stupid, not even with duct tape"? Maybe they should put a pic of Phil on that!

Love FakeJudgeHouse!!!! Cracks me up!

William L. Anderson said...

I'm following FJH as well!

Anonymous said...

It has been brought up several times about the Grand jury indictment against Ms. Craft...

I have served on the Grand Jury in Walker County on two separate occasions. I was the Foreman on the last one I served.

As we were being given our instructions we were told that hearsay was allowed during the Grand Jury process, also, The charges were read by an ADA, and then the case was presented by the prosecution chief witness, (usually a detective) You only hear one side of the story, no defense witnesses are allowed.
A funny (read sad) thing happened the first time I was on the GJ. There was a mentally ill subject that was brough up on some trumped up charges. We initially voted not to send a true bill up. The DA and the detective came back in, and re issued this case citing some statute that allowed them to re-open the proceedings, and then explained to all of us that this man needed psychological help that he would never get if we didn't send a true bill to the Superior Court Judge. Then they assured us that he would never stand in court, that the charges would be dropped, but they would be able to get him the psych help he needed before hand. They all but insisted that we send it as a true bill, and they buffalo'd the GJ into sending it up. When they came to get the docket and left, we all just kinda sat there stunned, and several people including me said,"What the hell just happened her?" Ironically the jury foreman then was a respected attorney, and he said he had never heard of such being done.
That has bothered me for 15 years, that we were pretty much pushed into sending this bill forward when it was obvious that this guy did not do what was charged.

Point being, Anyone who thinks just because a GJ sends a docket to true bill that the person is automatically guilty, think again. That left a really bad taste in my mouth for the LMJC, and the next time as the grand jury foreman, I was determined to never let that happen again on my watch.
Just goes to show you when the foxes are in charge of the henhouse, There just may not be any chickens left to lay eggs.

Anonymous said...

I just watched the Today clip... That was true journalism at it's best. I bet ole Miriam Boyd was chomping at the bit that NBC didnt contact her. As the mouthpiece of the accusers, I am sure she would have had loads to say!!

Anonymous said...

Just about everywhere I've lived, it has been said that the grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. Nothing new about that. Sad.

Anonymous said...

Just finished watching The Today Show clip and it brought tears to my eyes. Such a compelling story with a very sympathetic, intelligent, honorable leading lady. What a book/film this will make! And, from other evidence presented here today, the story should be told again and again until it is understood how to correctly question and treat possible child victims so that another innocent person does not have to go through what Tonya has experienced.

Anonymous said...

Lucy 2007 says: "Peerless Review is Falcon Frost Publishing in Rossville." The guy who runs this is real involved in helping Rossville to grow. It updates things going on in Rossville, GA. I do know his plate is full and maybe he is just trying to get a blog going. This is a very popular site for the people who live in Walker County. I know it's a big deal to them, how many hits his site gets. He graduated from Rossville in the early 80's. The site is okay but then again, who knows anymore.

Summers is digging his own grave. What a stupid comment to make especially admitting that this case was not very costly since it was not a very lengthy investigation. I know he said it differently but is this not incriminating himself? They had their eye on one person and one person only; is what it says to me. I am not a very proud citizen of Catoosa Co. at this very moment. Summers will never get my vote again.

Anonymous said...

Mr.Anderson ,when you lived in this area did you teach at Rossville high?I attented there many years ago, 25 to tell the truth .I keep trying to think back of all the teachers I had.I was just wondering if you did I may have been in your class.Thanks.

john lichtenstein said...

The grand jury process worked for a long time in Britain because the Brits are the conquered subjects of foreign kings. That makes people skeptical. Legitimate government breaks grand juries. The DA's office should have a red team and internal audits instead.

Anonymous said...

Saddest thing is the lack of oversight in these public offices that deal with families and children. Seems Education isn't the only autocracy in the state of GA. When will we have the stones to demand that the MICE NOT BE ALLOWED TO MANAGE THE CHEESE? And by stones I mean, when will become so frustrated with the entire state and federal government systems of freedom and liberty reduction that we revolt?

Sincerely,

Polished Turd

Anonymous said...

Just a little question,would you want your child to go to school with House,Arnt,Gregor or Summers kids?You might have to see them on a field trip,class party or at the PTO meeting.How would that make you feel?

Anonymous said...

From the Dalton Daily Citizen, posted this afternoon/evening:

"District Attorney Kermit McManus said the GreenHouse Children’s Advocacy Center in Dalton, and a former employee of the center, played a “minimal” role in the investigation of a former Chickamauga Elementary School kindergarten teacher who was acquitted of child sexual abuse charges earlier this month."

http://daltondailycitizen.com/local/x1174309309/DA-says-GreenHouse-role-minimal-in-Craft-investigation

Lookout Spy said...

http://www.lmjc.net/kelseys_senior_pictures.htm

I looked at the bottom of a page, and there was a little blue dot, so I clicked on it. Some body is into teenagers. The Grand Jury needs to indict on this matter, definitely a secret perv in this network.

gossip girl said...

i heard through a very reliable source that after being interviewed by callie starnes, sandra lamb told callie she wanted her daughter to be interviewed on the today show... telling callie that she better "make it happen!!" (no doubt in a snotty, disrespectful way...)

personally, i would love to see raegan lamb being interviewed on the today show! but only if the first question is, "how often do you visit your mommy in prison?"

come on, people... MAKE IT HAPPEN!

William L. Anderson said...

To 9:44

I taught at RJHS in the second semester, 1982, and then in the 1982-83 school year. I left to go to grad school at Clemson, where I got a master's degree in economics. (I later got my doctorate at Auburn.)

I remember that right after I finished my master's studies, I came home and the school was torched.

Yes, I have a lot of fond memories from there, and I have been able to make contact with some of my former students. That is one of the pluses about being a teacher!

Anonymous said...

Sandra is crazy.

Anonymous said...

Mr.Anderson,thanks I did have you as a teacher.Yes the Jr.high was torched by one of the Crawford boys.It seems like Rossviile never recovered from that.I remember everything after that night seemed like it went down hill for Rossville.I have always thought it was so sad & the town still has not recovered.

Anonymous said...

@gossip girl

If that is true, it confirms my suspicion that SL thought it was good on RL's bio to have been molested by her teacher. SL wanted her daughter to be the heroine of a tragedy. If RL appeared on Today Show, she will even be the courageous girl!

Anonymous said...

Why is everyone so afraid of a little question?

Anonymous said...

I hope Sandra Lamb burns in hell.She is the worst mother in the world.

PROTECT.MICHAEL.AND.GABRIEL said...

http://www.ex-parte-abuse-in-custody-cases.com/2010/01/open-letter-to-judge-ralph-van-pelt.html
We are in desperate need of prayer. If you read this site you can see a small part of our nightmare inside LMJC. This week these same little boys have experienced another trauma and DFACS will do nothing because they said that it is not enough to remove children.

The only thing that keeps these 2 brothers sane is each other and God. To separate them is trauma. This week the "father" and his 5th wife did just that by making one of them sleep in a hot garage to punish them.

We are at the end of our legal rope. Van Pelt and Stagg have it so tied up in Georgia no one will save these children. In Tonya's case the children were not harmed by her yet she was swooped down on immediately. In this case the boys have told police, school officials (where Stagg's kids go to school and he is friends with the administration), DFACS (where Stagg is the attorney on retainer for even employees) and because he is a member of the board of directors of the Family Crisis Center of the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit.

And, a young boy is very shaken because he was in the room the woman called his name, knew he was there and walked in naked anyway.

Anonymous said...

Even after all reports of misconduct by the LMJC, the sound effect of crickets chirping remains when one clicks on the public defender link on lmjc.net. They are laughing. People they are laughing at you, at me, at anyone who is disgusted by their corruption.

KC Sprayberry said...

http://www.wrcbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12549044
Channel 3 posted the story about the man who was acquitted of child molestation 14 years ago but still pays the price. Very compelling story. Unfortunately, in GA, once arrested and tried, your record sticks with you forever no matter the verdict. Guess it's time to slam the legislators with lots and lots of letters.

Lame said...

Anon 10:58, I highly doubt that ANY of what Sandra Lamb put her daughter through was done in the interest of furthering her career. I have received the impression from her actions and temperment that nothing Sandra Lamb does is for the benefit of anyone other than Sandra Lamb.

Anonymous said...

There must be some protections for those living under the hammer in the LMJC. The corruption is right in our faces now. Look at Judge Graham. Is there no end to this madness?

I am hopeful.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 11:06, you said, ‘Just a little FYI....I have been around Kittle through mutual friends & didn't like her. She was very arrogant. I feel like she went to work at the CAC to promote her photography business. It's just my opinion, but because of her arrogance, I could not see her "protecting the children". Most people I know who work with children, have more sincerity & more compassion. To me, she seemed like the typical "me generation" type person.’
As a matter of fact, I am a very good friend of Holly's and she DID NOT go to work at the CAC to promote her photography business. What an idiotic thing to say. Who would she be promoting it to? Abused children and their parents? "Oh, and after this interview, can I set up a photography session for you?" That statement makes absolutely no sense. She went to work there because she wanted to help people. She WANTS to help people by obtaining the facts in cases like these, which is exactly what she did in the Tonya Craft case. She did her job and people are talking about her like she is trash. That is just wrong. Oh, and thanks for sharing your “little FYI” that you don’t like her. I’m sure she is losing a lot of sleep over it.
-JD

Kellie G said...

I'm wondering why M. Boyd became only became vocal at the very last minute of the Craft frackus. Oh, that's right, it was the cameras :)

Anonymous said...

Regarding Michael and Gabriel, have you gone to the Media? I would think channel 3 would be willing to tell your story!!!

gossip girl said...

dear anonymous 10:04am,

it's good to know that kittle has a little friend. she's gonna need one when they're finished with her.

oh, and about that photography business... she wouldn't by any chance be the one who took those photos for court, was she?

anywho, hope that photography business pays well... like 25 million dollars well.

have a nice evening. :)

Anonymous said...

I am glad Tonya Craft is fighting back. The sexual abuse accusers have an easy business as mothers can pay to have counselors and psychologists to give their "expert" opinions that the father abused their child. Then these "experts" make a 2nd buck by selling books about the abuse epidemic. Meanwhile, the father is hauled to jail and has to fight for his freedom. Forget about getting custody of the child again. This happened to me, and even though I consented to immediate and unconditional polygraphs, and passed, charges remained for an additional 6 months and the prosecutor withheld video interviews of my son in which he repeatedly said I didn't abuse him. The "expert" psychologist never recorded any sessions with my son, had secret discussions with my ex-wife and others and testified that the "truth didn't actually matter". I had the criminal charges dropped but have no custody OR visitation with my son - 3 years since I've seen him. Disgraceful and this industry of phonies needs to be brought down.