Monday, June 14, 2010

Chris Arnt: Super Lawyer or Super Liar?

[Update II, June 14, 2010, 9:35 AM]: For many years, I have been an outspoken critic of how the government pursued criminal charges following the collapse of Enron. A new website, "Ungagged," has been created in which a number of critics, including me, speak out and tell another side of the story. Here is that page.

My point about Enron has been two-fold. First, the company was riding the crest of an easy credit regime that came from the Clinton administration and the Federal Reserve System, led by former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. Second, the market exposed the fact that Enron's business practices could only work in such a regime, and as soon as the tech bubble burst in late 2000, Enron was doomed.

However, I don't see what happened as being criminal, and if the government really wants to pursue criminal charges, then Greenspan needs to be in the dock. Yes, I know this thinking is counter to what the government and the media claim, but remember that the government and most of the media wanted us to believe that Tonya Craft was a child molester and Chris Arnt is a hero. (I realize this is a non sequitur, but my larger point is that we should not take what government prosecutors say at face value, period.)[End Update]

[Update I, June 14, 2010, 9:30 AM]: Dr. Demosthenes Lorandos and Tonya Craft are scheduled to appear on "Larry King Live" tonight. Tune in, as they tell of the destruction of justice in the LMJC.[End Update]

Watching Chris Arnt run from WRCB-TV's diminutive Callie Starns last month after the arrogant, scorched earth, slash-and-burn tactics that he and his partner, Len Gregor, unsuccessfully used in their attempt to have Tonya Craft imprisoned for life led to my asking a simple question: Is this the conduct one would expect from someone who was named a "Super Lawyer" a few years ago?

Not only was Arnt the recipient of an award from the Georgia Prosecutors two years ago, in which he was feted (cough, cough) as the epitome of the "ethical" prosecutor, but he also was named a "Super Lawyer" by Super Lawyers Magazine. (No, I am not making up this one.)

A couple of years ago, the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council of Georgia gave Arnt the J. Roger Thompson Award, and the council piled on the accolades. According to Pete Skandalakis, Basic Litigation Chairman and District Attorney for the Coweta Judicial Circuit, Arnt is a wonderful and "ethical" prosecutor:
“This year’s recipient of the J. Roger Thompson Award possesses the character traits of the type of prosecutor we want to have in this state,” said Skandalakis. “He is a prosecutor dedicated to fairness and has a strong adherence to professionalism, ethics, and moral obligations. This year’s recipient of the J. Roger Thompson Award possesses the character traits of the type of prosecutor we want to have in this state,” said Skandalakis. “He is a prosecutor dedicated to fairness and has a strong adherence to professionalism, ethics, and moral obligations. He is the type of prosecutor we should all try to emulate.” (Emphasis mine)
One does not know whether to laugh or cry when reading this kind of drivel, for if Christopher Arnt is the epitome of the "ethical" prosecutor in Georgia, then God save us from the unethical people. Here is a prosecutor who would stop at nothing to keep the truth from entering the courtroom, who lied to the jurors when he deliberately misrepresented Dr. Nancy Fajman's testimony during closing arguments, and he attacked Dr. Nancy Aldridge, calling her a "whore" and a "liar," despite the fact that Dr. Aldridge is recognized as one of the most respected expert witnesses in Georgia in the area of interviewing children suspected of being sexually abused.

(When cross-examining Dr. Aldridge, Arnt noted that he had taken part in the same conference at which Dr. Aldridge was making a presentation. I'm curious as to whether or not Arnt told conferees that Dr. Aldridge was a "whore" and a "liar" when making his own presentation, or if he held back on such labels. If he knew something about Dr. Aldridge that others did not know, it would seem that this paragon of ethics would have been duty-bound to alert others at the conference that Nancy Aldridge really was a fraud.)

Lest anyone think that I am being unfair to the sainted Christopher Arnt, I will lay out a number of Georgia rules for prosecutors that deal with ethical behavior, and then I will leave it to the reader to see whether this guy is an "ethical" "super lawyer," or just someone who has been allowed for years to play in his own sandbox that is the LMJC.

The first and most important standard for prosecutors in Georgia comes with the following:
RULE 3.8 SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

(b) refrain from making any effort to prevent the accused from exercising a reasonable effort to obtain counsel;

(c) Reserved.

(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or that mitigates the offense; (Emphasis mine)
Furthermore, the Rule states: A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. I don't think anyone can say that applied to Arnt during the Tonya Craft trial, and I doubt Arnt ever has taken that rule seriously. Why do it? He is protected with immunity and by the judges and everyone else in the Georgia "justice" system, so why be ethical and honest when crime really does pay?

But there is much, much more. Let us look at how Arnt performed under some other rules governing his performance. The first one is as follows:
RULE 3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;

(2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client;

(3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

(4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures.
This is the same Chris Arnt who lied to the jurors (and the jurors afterward noted that Arnt lied), and he participated with Len Gregor in pursuing the false "hand rape" testimony that began with Sandra Lamb's daughter and spread to a number of other witnesses whom Arnt was coaching. Furthermore, Arnt was aggressive in keeping out exculpatory evidence, teaming up with his good friend, "judge" Brian House.

Here are some more examples of "ethical" behavior by Chris "Super Lawyer" Arnt. First, the Georgia State Bar Rules:
RULE 3.4 FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL

A lawyer shall not:

(a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;

(b) (1) falsify evidence;

(2) counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely;


(h) present, participate in presenting or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.
As we saw with the "hand rape" incident, Arnt did all of the things above, all the way to assisting with Det. Tim Deal's sudden "discovery" of a "missing" document in his files that was not in existence at discovery before the trial began. Furthermore, Arnt had Tonya Craft's private investigator, Eric Echols arrested simply to ensure that Echol's testimony could not be used at Ms. Craft's trial. Interestingly, Arnt's fingerprints were all over the false reports filed against Mr. Echols both by Sandra Lamb and Jerry McDonald. However, Christopher Arnt is an ETHICAL prosecutor, a man that all prosecutors should want to emulate.

We go on. Here is the next rule:
RULE 3.5 IMPARTIALITY AND DECORUM OF THE TRIBUNAL

A lawyer shall not, without regard to whether the lawyer represents a client in the matter:

(a) seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other official by means prohibited by law;

(b) communicate ex parte with such a person except as permitted by law; or


(c) engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.
While I have no proof of ex parte meetings between Arnt and House, nonetheless people did contact me to tell me they believed that they saw these men together outside the courtroom talking. Furthermore, people who were in the courtroom have told me that House got nearly all of his cues from Arnt and Gregor.

We all know how Arnt and Gregor constantly engaged in the worst kind of courtroom behavior, objecting simply to be doing it, making catcalls, rolling their eyes, throwing books and other objects on the table while the defense was speaking to witnesses, making loud sighs, and generally acting like the spoiled brats that they are. Individuals who are familiar with courtroom decorum told me that what these men did was shocking, but Arnt is above all that, you see, because he is an ETHICAL prosecutor, a man that all prosecutors should want to emulate.

Here is the next one:
RULE 3.6 TRIAL PUBLICITY

(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a person would reasonably believe to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
Yes, this is the guy who gave us the Facebook comments disparaging both Ms. Craft and her attorneys, which breaks the rules. (Poor Arnt lied to Channel 9, claiming that his page was "hacked," which can only mean that someone else put up those comments. Given that prosecution witness Holly Kittle gave the post a "thumbs up," I suppose that someone fabricated that, too.)

Then there was the claim that by defending herself, Ms. Craft was "acting guilty," which also breaks Rule 3.6, which makes me wonder how Arnt ever was able to prepare for trial, given he was spending so much time actively spitting in the face of the rules that govern his ethical conduct as a prosecutor. However, Christopher Arnt is an ETHICAL prosecutor, a man that all prosecutors should want to emulate.

Then there were Arnt's pre-trial comments to Channel 9 in which he claimed that Ms. Craft was trying to "poison" the jury pool because she was outspoken in her claims for innocence. In Arnt's words:
When you don't have evidence on your side, when you don't have truth on your side, you have to go out and try to poison the jury pool and that's the kind of stuff they're pulling.
Yes, this came from a guy who presented perjured "evidence," and whose witnesses regularly lied on the stand in a manner so transparent that it was easy to demonstrate their lies. (Here is an example of a lie that Sandra Lamb told.) However, Christopher Arnt is an ETHICAL prosecutor, a man that all prosecutors should want to emulate.

As was declared when he received the Thompson Award: “He is a prosecutor dedicated to fairness and has a strong adherence to professionalism, ethics, and moral obligations. He is the type of prosecutor we should all try to emulate.” How did this guy get such a reputation for "fairness"?

The Christopher Arnt I saw on display during the entire Tonya Craft case was anything but a picture of ethics, professionalism, and morality. If anything, he was the antithesis of each of those things, and he seemed to be pretty darned proud of it. He not only lied and suborned perjury, but he used his authority to gain a false and dishonest indictment of Mr. Echols not because he actually believed Mr. Echols had committed any crimes, but because he wanted to get the guy and his evidence out of the picture.

Why? The less exculpatory evidence that Ms. Craft's attorneys could present at trial, the better the chance for this high-profile conviction. Yes, this is the act of an "ethical" prosecutor, a man whose actual legal skills seem to be lacking, as the only thing he really could do was to brutalize the opposition with the encouragement of an obviously-corrupt judge.

What I saw also opened my eyes to the reasons behind the LMJC's high (98 percent) conviction rate, and perhaps the reason that Arnt gained "Super Lawyer" status. The LMJC is very insular in its approach to "justice." It is OK to have Bobby Lee Cook as an attorney, because Cook is "one of the boys" and part of the local establishment, but it is NOT OK for someone to do like Ms. Craft: get attorneys from Atlanta and (Gasp!) Detroit.

Let's face it; the judges and prosecutors in the LMJC have the system so rigged that no member of the local bar would dare challenge anyone employed in that system. As all the players see it, the job of local attorneys is to appease the "gods" of Franklin by offering up their clients as a sacrifice in a plea deal, and should the client actually claim he or she is innocent and decide to go to trial, then for the lawyer is permitted only to put up token resistance so Arnt and Gregor can get their convictions and the counsel does not tick off prosecutors and judges.

The system "works" because judges and prosecutors run the system according to their rules and brutalize anyone who dares to think his or her client could be innocent of the charges. Let you think I am exaggerating, look at what happened during the Tonya Craft trial.

As observers tell me, long before the trial began, House pretty much was part of the prosecution team. His rulings always favored the prosecutors, and whatever they wanted -- from excluding exculpatory evidence to having a gag order that effectively only applied to the defense -- House gave it to them. Furthermore, House made no effort even to hide his disdain for those "out-of-town" attorneys and his solidarity with Arnt and Gregor.

(During Gregor's cross-examination of Dr. Ann Hazzard, he asked her if competent therapists could be found in North Georgia, and then wondered aloud why Ms. Craft had chosen Dr. Hazzard. Gregor obviously was trying to appeal to what he believed might be jury prejudices, but it seems that Gregor failed to point out to jurors that Judge Marie Williams in Tennessee had appointed Dr. Hazzard to interview Ms. Craft's children. Once again, we see this insularity and prejudice against "outsiders" that characterizes the LMJC system.)

To make matters worse, House teamed with Arnt and Gregor to have a "secret room" for the prosecution witnesses and their friends and supporters. While everyone else had their cellphones, water, food, and reading materials confiscated, and had to go through security procedures just to enter the courthouse, the "secret room" people had their phones and everything else they wanted, and entered the courthouse from a different entrance.

Obviously, this was worse than simple bad ethics. It was outright dishonesty, as the witnesses were permitted to get together before giving testimony, and even then they could not get their stories (or, more accurately, their lies) straight. Yes, this is the handiwork of an "ethical" prosecutor.

If Arnt's fellow Georgia prosecutors think he is the Standard Of Prosecutorial Greatness, then I only can imagine what the rest of the prosecutorial profession in that state is like. Unfortunately, these "ethical" people are protected by immunity, which means they can do what they want and not have to worry about being held accountable for their own lies and lawbreaking.

North Carolina prosecutors already had a bad reputation before Michael Nifong four years ago decided to up the ante, but even that group realized that they had to throw Nifong overboard before he took all of them down with him. One hopes that the fellow prosecutors of Arnt, Gregor, and Buzz Franklin will realize that if these people become the Poster Children for all prosecutors in the state, sooner or later Georgia prosecutors are going to their reputations plunk into the toilet.

10 Questions for Christopher Arnt

In the interest of "fairness" and "ethics," I have 10 questions to ask Mr. Arnt, and if he would like to respond (which I doubt he will), my email address is available through this blog.

1. Did you have any ex parte conversations with Brian House during and before the trial in which you discussed material in the trial, but did not report to the defense, as is required by your rules of conduct?

2. Did you get together socially either with House or any of the jurors during the trial?

3. Since you were the one who actively sought the indictment for Mr. Echols, why have you dumped off the case onto a less-experienced ADA instead of pursuing the case yourself?

4. Did you advise Jerry McDonald to make the statements that he made on the complaint, or did he make those obviously-false statements without any input at all from you?

5. Did you threaten Mr. McDonald with "obstruction of justice" if he refused to be part of the prosecution's "team" for the Tonya Craft case?

6. What discussions did you have with Len Gregor and others after Sandra Lamb's daughter claimed on the stand that she "disclosed" a vicious "hand rape" allegedly was done to her by Ms. Craft? If you discussed that situation with others, how did you decide to get around the fact that you never had that allegation in the discovery pages you gave to the prosecution?

7. When you had Suzi Thorne on direct (the "interviewer" who supposedly heard the "disclosure" of the alleged "hand rape"), why did not you not ask her about this development? Was it because in so asking, you openly would be suborning perjury, since you knew the entire alleged incident was false?

8. Why did you tell Channel 9 that your Facebook page was "hacked," when, in fact, all that was done was that someone had copied an image of the page with the comments that were on it? Are you claiming that you did NOT write those inflammatory comments, or are you claiming that those comments were "private," even though Facebook is a public page?

9. Since you accused all four expert witnesses for the defense, Dr. Aldridge, Dr. Fajman, Dr. Bernet, and Dr. Hazzard, of lying, are you planning on seeking indictments of them for perjury? If not, why not? Are you saying that people are permitted to commit felonies in your presence and you not report such felonies to the authorities? Does that not violate the ethics rules that govern your profession?

10. Did you go on a cruise within the past several years? How would you characterize your conduct on that cruise, and what might others who observed you say about your conduct?

67 comments:

Kaye said...

As far as all the awards, the phrase that comes to mind is:

"The bigger they are, the harder they fall."

And I suspect we're all gonna here a big thud when he hits the ground.

I still get a Mega LOL when he suggests that his Facebook account was hacked. Geesh, Louise. You can tell that he hasn't had to have much experience covering his tracks before since usually they all cover each others' backs. Probably why all the judges recused themselves together.

Lame said...

New entry to the Redneck Dictionary: Arnt (verb) : To not be - Usage: "Hey, Chris and Len, y'all arnt gonna be employed come election time."

Anonymous said...

Great as usual Mr Anderson.

I like Lame's Redneck Dictionary.
Everyone check Angie"s blog. She is back. I hope eveyone does not
forget. what these people have done.

Mary Jane said...

Thank you, Dr. Anderson, for another great post.

I would be very interested in knowing how Arnt behaved on the cruise!

Anonymous said...

Did anyone happen to get a screen capture of Arnt's entire page? If he posted AFTER the supposed hack, then he wasnt hacked. Also, a subpoena to Facebook can reveal whether he was hacked as the IP address of the hacker will be different than Arnt's IP.

Tonya's custody hearing should begin soon.

Kerwyn said...

We know he wasn't hacked as it was a "friend" who sent the page who had access by his permission.

He claimed he was hacked because well... he screwed the pooch otherwise!

KC Sprayberry said...

I agree with anon 9:03, and take it one step further. There's no need to have a full shot of the screen page. If memory serves, all you need the approximate date and his name as used. Probably the location, too. From what I understand, FB keeps all information posted to its pages and I believe emails traded between friends, in case of trouble down the line. At least, that's what another FB friend told me after my brother got quite verbally abusive in one of his emails.
Now, cruise. Hmmm? Arnt's a public service employee in a county where the median income is well below average. A lot of folks around here are still having trouble getting back to the post recession earnings. Property tax collection has been a bit of a joke the last few years. How in the dickens can he afford a cruise? I've said it to others and I'll say it here. Oversight is needed for this out of control prosecutor's office. I realize getting budgetary information from the county commissioner is difficult, especially when we're talking about an office that covers four counties, but someone, somewhere should supervise these people, including Franklin. And since they're using our tax money to do their dirty work, ultimately, they are answerable to the same people they keep trying to put into prison. Unfortunately, the only ones we actually know are in charge of watching the hen house are foxes. Wish I could figure this out but my research keeps hitting dead ends. Still looking.

grits said...

lol - in his (gasp!) defense... I actually know some nice people who 1) in a like situation, are ignorant enough to think their fb page was hacked, and
2) could not strand up to scrutany of their behavior on a cruise.
But Bill, I LOVED that you ASKED about the cruise. Gave me a great chuckle to picture it. I'm sure someone has dished up some steamy details.

Anonymous said...

Go to www.open.georgia.gov for Georgia employee salaries. It's the Transparency in Government webpage. Arnt is on it.

William L. Anderson said...

Steamy details? Oh, who knows? I'm just asking an innocent question about all the fun he had on his cruise. I mean, maybe he did nothing but sit in his cabin all day and pore over law books.

After all, he is a Super Lawyer, and he is Very Ethical, so I'm sure he used the cruise as a time when he could bone up on Georgia law and ethics rules.

Cinderella said...

Love the redneck dictionary addition "arnt". Reminds me of Bill Bennet's editorial cartoon ARNT GUILTY. Does anyone have a link to that?

William L. Anderson said...

Darn! Arnt has a slightly higher salary than I do (and I mean "slightly"), but unless he is permitted to earn extra income, I suspect I have a higher overall income. And that includes Len Gregor, too.

Q.A. said...

Bill, loved your "Friends, Romans, countrymen,......" ironic Shakespearean drumroll ! - "...for Brutus(Arnt) is an honorable man...."

As for your 10 (rhetorical) questions - the late, great, N.C. Judicial master - Sam Ervin - knew how to use them; he would start by posing them to the infrastructure witnesses - clerks, secretaries, and on up through the Jerry McDonalds - sealing Arnt's exits, one by one.

Then he would hit the now-naked Arnt with your questions.

volfan69 said...

Cinderella, that cartoon was by Wes Schultz. He also did a great one about the custody hearing. They appeared on The Chattanoogan. Maybe you could google him or go through the opinion archives. Hope this helps.

Mr. Anderson, these people are below cess pool level. Thanks for all of your hard work and research. Bobb

kbp said...

Can one be certain whether or not that "hand rape" tale was a surprise in which Arnt had to work on CYA for?

Should the testimony of the "hand rape" not have been anticipated by Arnt, the number of people involved in the cover up seems to be quite a few potential loose ends for such a quick reaction.

Had I been looking for an excuse if I were Arnt, I wonder if just blaming it on the child's perception that the pain experienced from the alleged event had left her under the impression that something huge was creating the pain for her.

Instead they have mom, mom's co-conspirator, the forensic interviewer, a detective's report and the lead detective in on the cover up. That's quite a few mouths to keep on the same side, though they were all in on the mess already.

Could it have been a chapter added to the tale by Saundra and Sherry before the trial, one in which ALL the team players went along with. I realize that all involved are candidates in either scenario, but it would have been easier to get all involved in such a tale before the trial, when they had more time to memorize the same story!

We did find out that Arnt was not sure what exactly Dr Fajman was going to testify to, as they claimed the defense never supplied them a summary of her opinion on the case. It's possible that the state's own source for SANE exam information left them believing that there was possible physical evidence, that maybe the defense witness would only be able to tell them that such injury could have been created other ways (like the often heard 'riding a bicycle' defense?).

Another thing here is the not asking Thorne about that "hand rape". Neither Arnt or Gregor struck me as the sharpest tools in the shed, so I have to wonder how much time would they need to consider the matter before they'd realize that asking her might trap them in "suborning perjury"?

I'm just not certain WHEN the Arnt became aware of the fabrication of the "hand rape" tale. If he was actually absent knowledge of Dr Fajman's opinion before she testified (had to question her before she could testify), he may have considered the "hand rape" icing on the cake for his tale.

...or maybe I've overlooked something that indicates it was a surprise to Arnt in the courtroom when he heard it.

Arnt, IMO, is guilty or guiltier either way, so I guess it does not really matter.

KC Sprayberry said...

Okay, found out for Arnt, Gregor, and Franklin. House is listed as employed by other state organization but haven't found him yet. All I can say about these men, including travel, they make annually about a quarter what the president of the United States does! Give me a break. No wonder they think they are above us. I thought I blew a cork when I found out what our superintendent of schools makes - far too much in my opinion. I'm still floating about 30,000 feet over my roof, I exploded so much.

I realize these people have to pay off school debts and maintain an image but the idea of paying them so much to mess up so badly makes me grit my teeth. That's a waste of money.

Cinderella said...

My bad, thanks Bobb! Custody hearing underway - say a prayer for Tonya and her children!

Mary Jane said...

Live blog link to Tonya's custody hearing.

http://www.wrcbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12644902

Anonymous said...

Noticed GAL Linda Hall cutting up with the perjurer's Joal Henke and his Nutcase wife the shaver before court. Someone needs to take a look at this lady. From what I understand, Ms. Craft was not happy with today's court ruling.

Anonymous said...

I'm confused then. I thought the GAL wasn't happy with Joal Henke.

kbp said...

It was an agreement, so if Tonya is disappointed I have to presume it may only be a temporary situation.

Maybe allowing more visits and requesting a report on the status later.

Anonymous said...

The real custody agreement is July 22. This one is only about increased visitation.

Alinusara10

Anonymous said...

Maybe she got admonished for her upcoming interview with Larry King and it upset her. The hearing did stress that they want to keep things out of the media. I read Tonya's mother said it was a step forward so she must be getting more visitations.

However, what is the point of sealing the agreement? People are going to see her with or without the kids and report their every move to someone in the press. I think it allows for speculation instead of the truth being out there.

Anonymous said...

I may be paranoid, but after the jobbing House attempted, I would not trust Judge Williams to save my life.

sandy said...

Anonymous 2:12pm,

i understand your desire for detailed information as detailed information was so readily available throughout tonya's trial... but i think most would agree that details of the custody hearing should be kept private as the children are front and center in this fight for custody and have already been through enough.

the final hearing is set for thursday, july 22. i very strongly believe that full custody of tonya's children will be returned to tonya on that day.

many are praying that joal, in turn, will then be granted only limited, supervised visitation with the children as he has proven himself to be unfit to parent these children.

i am quite certain the outcome of the custody hearing will be shared with the public once judge williams has made her decision known to the individuals involved.

Lame said...

Judge Williams said it best: "These children do not need details of their private lives made public."

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Mr. Anderson will give us more details on Tim Deal. It appears that Mr. Deal decided on his own that Tonya Craft no longer should have custody a couple years back.

Alinusara10

Anonymous said...

Lame I thought you would like the Wilson Wilson comparison.Don't tell me you have never watched the show.It was meant as a compliment,I apologize if it offened you,that was never my intent.

Lame said...

Anon 4:47, I'm not sure why you think I'm offended. Yes, I watched Tool Time, I never got the whole grunting thing, but loved the whole "more power!" bit. I appreciate the Wilson analogy. And, it's a good one. On the show they always made him seem like an old man, but in the final episode, when you finally see his face, he's rather young.

Anonymous said...

Way to go WRCB great job as usual.My skin crawled when you showed Joel &Sarah.God bless you Tonya.

John Washburn said...

The follow-up question of question 6 reads:

If you discussed that situation with others, how did you decide to get around the fact that you never had that allegation in the discovery pages you gave to the prosecution?

I believe should read:

If you discussed that situation with others, how did you decide to get around the fact that you never had that allegation in the discovery pages you gave to the defense?

volfan69 said...

Has he and the others answered the suit filed by Ms. Craft?

Did they answer as a group?

Who will represent him/them?

If he needs a lwayer does that mean he is guilty?

Does he feel gravity pulling his knees toward the floor? You know, in a position to pray?

So many questions with no answers.

I feel mean tonight and I apologize. Bobb

volfan69 said...

Oh My Gosh! I spelled "lawyer" wrong. My apologies to all. Bobb

Anonymous said...

volfan69,I understand some days it is hard to be kind.They are just so wicked & mean.

volfan69 said...

@Anon 6:49
Thank you, because I really try to have no ill feelings toward anyone. However, in this case and the case of Brad Wade it is really difficult.

I know that to hate is a useless waste of time, effort, and energy. I know that to hate means that you give your feelings over to the person/s that you hate. I really don't have hate in my heart. However, it is very difficult for me at this point to smash my feelings against these awful people. I do feel intense dislike for them and I fear I may allow myself to go beyond that. Again, thanks. Bobb

Anonymous said...

volfan69,I try so hard to be a good person.I want to be honest with you,when Tonya was found not guilty I had some ill feelings towards the families that was attending the school.I am not proud of feeling that way.My first reaction was to protect my children,I was affraid of the long term damage the 2 little girls had suffered.What if the had a break down during class,what if the other children could not learn as a result,what if they did what child #1 did during class?It is very normal to feel angry & hurt & not know what to do.I hope you do not feel angry with me,there are so many emotions throughout this case.

Lame said...

The lary king website had a part to submit questions to the show for Tonya Craft. I submitted one about the prosecution's use of homophobic and racist rhetoric during the trial. Hopefully they'll ask her my question.

Janet said...

Off topic, but Larry King needs to retire. It seems like it is exhausting for his interviewees to try to navigate his disjointed questions.

Anonymous said...

Larry King needs to retire!!

3JobJrry said...

Can you believe the state of Ga pays Gregor 91K and Arnt 89K. What a waste of money for two losers....

Lame said...

I've got to comment on how disappointed I am in the Larry King episode tonight. Janet is right in that he just rambles on and on with questions that have already been answered. The other two news stories they interrupted her visit with, one that took almost half of her time away, could have been cut down to about 10 minutes had Larry been more coherant.

What really upset me is that he left time for only one viewer question. I submitted a question that I've been wanting Ms Craft to answer for weeks, and yet the only question they asked was one that had actually already been answered.

Yes, Janet, time for Mr King to hang up his golden microphone and accept his gold watch.

grits said...

Janet, I agree!

Looks like there IS going to be a movie.

Bless David's heart he didn't help things at the beginning but DLo addressed that nicely.

I'd be frustrated with that much of the story. It was almost a trailer for a movie - enough to capture attention, nothing answered. Glad I have this blog!

Anonymous said...

Maybe one day we will get a real interview.

Anonymous said...

So confused! Does Tonya get to see her daughter now or not?

Anonymous said...

May I suggest Danny Abrams?

I think he did do a spot for Tonya some time back.

I knew Danny when he was just a lad growing up in NYC.

His father is Floyd Abrams, the reknowned 1st Amendment attorney.

Danny might do a better job than Larry King.

Reader from NYC

Anonymous said...

Getting her children back may prove to be a harder road than the road to acquital.

We're talking different laws here.

Ms. Craft is walking a tightrope and my heart goes out to her.

But, seeing how strong and sure and innocent she is, I think in the end she will prevail.

Reader from NYC

Anonymous said...

I was thinking the same thing about Larry King when I heard the intro to the show. It sounded like he slurred his words. The producers probably thought they could cut her time since the custody agreement was sealed and couldn't talk about it.

I thought Dr. Lorandos did a great job particularly at the end when Tonya was asked about custody. He got her out of a corner because she had said she would fight for custody, but he didn't want her saying anything else. He laid it on pretty thick about how Tennessee has better laws & Judges. Did anyone notice that she said she had to prove her innocence over and over again? I wonder if the GAL is now against her.

JaniceM said...

anon 8:00,don't feel bad many parents feel the same as you.We are all worried about our children.The poor children were brain washed by the parents & crazy therapist.Many are concered about the children.I feel sorry for the children but we worry about about our children.

Anonymous said...

She will prevail. Have you read her own daughter's interview? That was child abuse ORCHESTRATED by her father. NYC, make sure you read that, along with the testimony of the other child. I think Dr. Anderson wrote about these subjects on the 4th and 7th of June.

Disturbed in Tennessee

Kaye said...

Alright, so the interview wasn't perfect, however, I think for the short amount of time the show devoted for this case, the gist of it came through. The discussion covered false allegations, the LMJC, etc. This case is so complicated, that I knew it would be hard to get the whole story out there in such a short time-frame. I do think that it was beneficial that Larry King actually conducted interviews with some of the previous people in other notorious false molestation cases.

I did catch the comment at the end of the interview about the possibility of a made for TV movie about this case. As long as the story line mirrors what happened in real life, a 2 hour movie could really cover all the bases, I think.

By the way, I switched over to UCTV, a local tv station, to see if the talk would turn to the Larry King coverage. Yes, sure enough, Judy O'Neal rivaled the sheer stupidity of anything I've ever heard said by all other TV personalities. I think she has far surpassed NewsChannel Slime in her utter bias. Of course, she doesn't even pretend to be neutral...

Here are a small sampling of Judy O'Nealisms... (paraphrased):

1.When you hear one Tonya Craft story, you've heard them all. (Speaking of the LKL coverage.)

2. Why didn't her rich husband pay for the $500,000 defense bill since he is rich and he was so sure of her innocence? (When the discussion turns to the legal fees that Tonya has accrued.)

3. The one good thing that will come out of this trial is that Tonya Craft will now become rich since she has an agent. (When the subject comes up about possible positive outcomes, she came up with this zinger.) Yes, folks, she really said that! lol


This local yokel, Judy O'Neal, just made Larry King sound like he had the agile mind of a young rocket scientist! But then again, Judy O. has been very critical of anybody and everybody who dares criticize the local judicial system. Oh, and to give a better perspective of just where Judy O stands-- she thinks Franklin's after verdict press release was "very good." sigh. Well, alrighty then... I guess that clears up a few things right there. LOL

Anonymous said...

No one should have to spend $500,000.00 to prove their innocence. That is the point. Somehow, somewhere, some way, the tables have been turned in the courts.

The burden of proof was on the prosecution--as is the burden of proof on the social service entity in Georgia.

Somehow, the tables were turned and the burden of proof was placed on Tonya.

From a legal standpoint, that is what troubles me most.

But, Tonya's case is not unusual. This goes on all of the time.

Most people don't realize it but it does.

I have often been in the situation wherein I need to shift the burden of proof where it belongs.

Tonya, with all the trials and tribulations is lucky. Yes, she is. She stood her ground.

I hope she does continue on to law school. The Law needs someone like her to stand up for others.

Godspeed to her and all my best wishes for her to regain her children.

Reader from NYC

Anonymous said...

So many have said Tonyna has taken the higher road.What other road would she take.Her lawyers are in charge to help her.She cannot say how she really feels.Yes she feels bad for the children,but can you not honestly say she does not want to see hell fall down on her accusers she cannot say so but i bet you anything that is how she feels towards them.

Lame said...

Never heard of Judy, so I don't know how much of an audience she has, but from the sound of what you posted her to have said I would think that she and Nancy disGrace would be pals.

I will say some things in defense of Larry King. He did do a very good job in the past of having uncovered malicious prosecutions and improper interviews, and DLo was right in pointing out that the 9th circuit and virtually every other judicial entity has been completely useless in seeing justice done on those matters. Also, I can't blame Larry for the fact that he had a guy on there first half hour who was a total weeney who set his daughter out to almost certain doom on a quest for glory for hhimself and his family--can you say "Balloon Boy wannabe?" See, the part that disappointed me is that I was contacted by CNN after I submitted my question and they thanked me for my submission and said they'd use it on the air if they had enough time for questions. My question would have forced the media to finally deal with the fact that the judicial system in LMJC, through its prosecutorial agents and allowed into evidence by judges, is actively promoting an anti-gay and anti-black hate-inspired agenda. The media has completely left that subject untouched, but it really needs to be addressed, because what they did to Ms Crafts female witnesses and to Mr Echols is purely racist and homophobic. Heads need to roll over that, and people need to be put into office who aren't going to tolerate that kind of crap, which is entirely un-just and un-American.

Lame said...

Anon 10:59, I don't think she actually wants any thing bad to happen to the girls. I wouldn't blame her for wanting harm to come to their parents, but look at her body language when she talks about her accusers and that of Sandra Lamb during her interview when she discussed Tonya Craft and tell me who seems like they wish evil upon the other person.

Anonymous said...

Lame I never said she wanted anything to happen to the girls.Infact I said she felt bad for the two girls.Of course she hopes the two girls will get the help they need.

William L. Anderson said...

I am encouraged by all of the comments I read on the CNN site, as NONE were against Tonya. That is a good start.

You can be that I will be taking a hard look at this custody situation. Tomorrow's post, however, deals with the first interview with Sandra Lamb's daughter.

grits said...

totally off topic... but if you're a regular "anon" poster, can you please pick a screen name and use it (do you think my name is grits)? When you are ready to publish your comment, click "Name/URL" and type the screen name you made up for yourself. Sure would make things less complicated... and we can certainly use that!

Anonymous said...

This is my take. U Ithink Tonya stropped feeling a while ago, that is, she could have crumbled, she did not.

She connected the dots and used her smarts to make things right.

She is a patient woman. She seems to understand that one must take one step at a time to undo wrongs.

Does she care about the children? Of course she does, that is why she has stood her ground.

I think you'll in Georgia have something special in Tonya.

Reader from NYC

kbp said...

"movie"???????????????

Saundra is on the phome tonight!

reading said...

"I wonder if the GAL is now against her" What is GAL?

Dinah Menil said...

You know, you can find San Francisco criminal attorney here

GaBoy said...

It doesn't surprise me that Judy ended up on the money She is just a small time wanna-be who thinks she is the queen of Walker/Catoosa County. She is money driven and thinks everyone else must be, or should be as well.

One of the people that used to co-host at night with her made this remark.
"Judy not only thinks she is pretty, she thinks that you think she is pretty.
All in all, she is a decently shrude business person. She has made a 2 bit low budget local television station into a station that is and has been profitable for her. She works a lot of hours there. She is there at 6:00am and with the exception of a couple of hours of rest during the day, she stays on until the station signs off at night.

Anonymous said...

GAL-Guardian ad Litum .

An attorney appointed by the court to represent the interests of the children-not to be confused with an attorney representing the children.

Reader from NYC

Victoria said...

Does anyone know any info about the GAL and her reputation? I hope everything is honest in this case. It is disheartening to see this drag on but I am optimistic that Tonya will prevail soon and get full custody back. It just seems too evident what dirty work Joal has been up to be ignored. I suspect the court wants to make sure that everything is conducted in a very proper and conservative manner that would hold up to any scrutiny given the high profile of this case. However, after everything else that has happened nothing would surprise me now.

Anonymous said...

There are GALs and there are GALs.

My experience has been that most do not do their jobs.

I have, however, known two or three who really care and strive to get it right.

Reader from NYC

Dinah Bee Menil said...

You know, you can find San Francisco criminal attorney here

UGA Mom said...

Linda Hall has a good reputation & if she was joking or laughing with the Henke's, it was just to be nice. She knows how they are & has been the GAL for 2 years, so she is very aware. Don't be so quick to judge.

Also, I am very close to another GAL that covers the same area as Linda & she is also golden. All she cares about it what is best for the children no matter what. In fact, that is why she went into law, was to make a difference for the kids. The money sure as hell isn't good, and she usually has to spend her own money to help.

The GAL's in the LMJC are not so hot though. It is scary to know the huge difference simply by crossing the state line.

Dinah won't you blow, Dinah won't you blow, Dinah won't you blow your horn somewhere else. You are annoying & would be the last person any of us would call if we were even in San Francisco. Go away!