On Wednesday night, in response to my Wednesday post, an anonymous poster left the following comment:
I work in a jurisdiction close to the LMJC and have had an opportunity to testify in court there. I've also talked with Det. Deal about this allegation: "yet he was willing to fabricate a document". This is an outright lie. It's easy to throw this allegation out there without corroboration. It's as proposterous (sic) as the allegation that there was an audio feed for the state's witnesses. This has never happened in any case I've been involved with.Obviously, when someone accuses me of lying, I need to take the accusation seriously. I certainly don't claim perfection in my writing of my posts, although I would like to believe that my errors are unintentional. However, this person (who did not wish to identify himself or herself) has accused me of fabricating a story that is about, well, an alleged fabrication.
All of this has come about because the attorneys for Tonya Craft claim that Tim Deal illegally manufactured the "hand rape" document that suddenly appeared in the case files during Tonya's trial. Specifically, it dealt with the claim made first by Sandra Lamb's "child actress" daughter during her testimony on April 14, which I have discussed at length in this post.
The importance of this testimony and this claim is not, I repeat, NOT in the claim made by the child that Ms. Craft performed what would be called a "hand rape" with all of her fingers and her thumb. The girl actually made that claim during an April 1, 2009, interview with Holly "Thumbs Up" Kittle. (I do think that it was appropriate that she made this claim on "April Fools Day," given that had Tonya done what she was accused of doing, there would have been substantial medical harm done to the child, none of which was found in any medical exams.)
However, during her testimony, the girl claimed that she had told Suzi Thorne during her June 4, 2008, interview at the Greenhouse, that Tonya had performed the "hand rape," a claim which set a number of other things in motion, including testimony from Sherri Wilson and Sandra Lamb that had not been in police documents or other interviews.
Thorne herself claimed that Lamb's daughter told her of the "hand rape," but she never documented it, which would seem strange, given that up until then, the girl had not "disclosed" anything even close to such an act. In other words, in a real forensic interview, this would have been equivalent to striking the Mother Lode, and we are supposed to believe that no one would document such a moment. Right.
To cover herself, Thorne claimed that a detective was present, but she couldn't remember who it was, which also was strange given that she told the court she had conducted more than 1,000 interviews, many in the company of Catoosa County detectives. For her to claim she could not remember who was in the room definitely makes me a bit suspicious. Tim Deal was not at the Greenhouse that day, and, instead, the detective who was present was Steven Keith, but the "hand rape disclosure" was not in any of his notes, either.
Obviously, the prosecution was in a pickle, but, not to worry, as a few days later, the documented "notes" that were allegedly written on July 7, 2008, and allegedly typed on July 27, 2008, were "discovered" in the case files. Deus ex machina!
It is important to note some things. First, the defense, in a May 17, 2010, letter to U.S. Attorney Sally Yates, signed by Dr. Demosthenes Lorandos, claims the following about the document I have mentioned:
My specific concern is that Exhibit C and supporting testimony appear to have been fabrications and fraud upon the citizens of north Georgia, in an effort by the Detectives, a Children's Advocacy Center Interviewer, two witnesses and the State Prosecutors to obtain a conviction and subvert justice in this matter. If I am incorrect in this concern, I owe several apologies. If I am correct in this concern, serious crimes have been committed. (Emphasis his)The letter goes on to say that this particular document was not in any of the case files, reports, interview DVDs, and the like. They say it simply was not in any of those things, but that it suddenly appeared.
There is another point I believe needs to be made here, something I hold supports the defense theory. When Tim Deal suddenly came up with the document (that he claimed to have had in the files all along), the attorneys and prosecutors had a meeting in the chambers of "judge" Brian Outhouse. During that meeting, Dr. Lorandos made the following specific requests to test the authenticity of Deal's document:
- That they would be able to have their own and state "experts" examine Deal's computer and the computer from which the document came in order to see if, indeed, this material was printed on the day that Deal and the prosecutors, "Alberto-Facebook" Arnt and "The Man" Gregor were claiming;
- That the judge would allow the defense to have experts test the ink on the original document to see if it was recent or had been printed when Deal and the others claimed it was printed.
Readers will be shocked, SHOCKED to know that Outhouse refused all defense requests. In fact, according to one observer, Outhouse asked Dr. Lorandos is a demanding voice a question along the lines of, "Are you claiming that we in the LMJC use fabricated documents?" to which Dr. Lorandos allegedly replied, "I did not know that you were part of the prosecution's team."
Indeed, as any observer of the trial will tell you, "judge" Outhouse was no judge at all, but simply part of the prosecution, doing the bidding of Arnt and Gregor, watching their eye and hand signals, engaging in unreported ex parte meetings with them, and trying to rig the proceedings. I believe that the ashen expression on his face when he saw the jury's verdict tells us everything we need to know about his attitude and his behavior during the trial.
It seems to me that had Tim Deal been telling the truth, he and the prosecutors would not have objected at all to have an expert check the ink dating and the computer from which the document came in order to verify that it had been produced in 2008, and not during the trial. That they strenuously (and successfully) objected tells me that these men had something to hide, especially, since NO OTHER NOTES AND DOCUMENTS of that time -- and I have them in my possession -- mention anything about this so-called hand rape and its alleged "disclosure."
Yes, I have made a serious allegation against Tim Deal, and if I am mistaken, then I have done him a grievous wrong. It is not my intention to do wrong to him; however, when I see the facts laid out in front of me, and when I apply simple logic to the situation, Deal's story, and the prosecutors' stories, simply don't add up. They don't make sense, and when I see people in that situation not making sense, knowing that they lied elsewhere and that they suborned perjury, I tend to think that they are lying about this document, too.
I would welcome Deal or anyone else associated with this case to prove me wrong. However, I don't think anyone in the LMJC is up to the challenge at the present time, and that does not surprise me.