Saturday, November 13, 2010

Joal and Sarah Henke: Perjury in Their Own Words, Part I: Sarah's "Memories"

The supposed case against Tonya Craft was built on lies from Day One. However, those involved were not satisfied just with creating a foundation of lies; no, they kept trying to outdo themselves all the way past the trial, continuing to throw lies and half-truths into the mix in order to create what has been an ugly edifice.

Orchestrating the entire Symphony of Lies was Chris "Facebook-Cruisemaster" Arnt, with Sandra Lamb and her parents providing the background support, along with the Wilsons, the McDonalds, the CAC (which always is game for false accusations), Tim "Dirty" Deal, and one very pious woman whose brother and father send me nasty emails if I mention her name. These are people who knew from the start what they were doing, but they did not care. They wanted to win, destroy Tonya Craft's life, and claim victory.

Two other important people in that toxic mix have been Tonya's ex-husband, Joal "Homewrecker" Henke, who provided both lies and "I just remembered" comic relief, along with his wife, Sarah "Clean Shaven" Henke. Both of them lied under oath, and at the custody hearing scheduled for next week, I guarantee that both of them will continue to lie under oath, this time in Judge Marie Williams' court. Whether or not Judge Williams puts up with their deceit is another matter, but we do know that in Catoosa County, "judge" Brian Outhouse was a not-so-silent partner in enabling the Henkes and the rest of the prosecution team to turn the courtroom into the House of Lies.

I have been fortunate enough to gain possession of both the pre-trial depositions and the trial testimony of the Stinky Henkes and the smell has wafted all the way to Kerwyn's residence, and she has been giving these documents the flyspeck that only she can do, given her uncanny ability to sniff out details that even experienced attorneys might miss. While the length of the material could give even War and Peace a run, one thing has become abundantly clear: what the Henkes said at their depositions versus what they said under oath at trial are not even similar, except that the same people allegedly were occupying the Stinky Henke bodies.

In today's post, I deal with Sarah Henke's deposition and trial testimony, and later, I look at the conflicting words that Joal said under oath. I think it will be clear to the readers that there is a huge conflict between what was said under oath in February 17, 2009, and what was spoken under oath during the trial on April 23, 2010.

Sarah is not on Joal's witness list for the upcoming custody hearing, and I believe that readers will understand why after reading this post. However, I also think it is important for readers to remember that Sarah Henke is a nurse at Parkridge Hospital, and if someone will commit perjury in a court of law, it does not take much of an imagination to think that perhaps she might also make false statements on the legal documents with which she deals every day on the job.

Claims of "Vaginal Tearing"

Even though Sarah Henke is a nurse, she showed a lot of ignorance not only about the SANE exam of Tonya’s daughter, but also about the alleged injuries that were claimed. First, let us look at an exchange during the deposition:

Q Has Child #3 -- has anybody submitted Child #3 to a physical medical examination to confirm or deny whether or not there's any physical evidence of any sexual misconduct?
A yes
Q ok. And where was that conducted?
Q At the advocacy center
Q Advocacy center. And do you know the results of that examination
A yes
Q what were they
A Evidence of penetration
Q ok. And you say at the Advocacy Center. Was it by a doctor?
A I believe it was two nurses. However I do not know their (inaudible)
Q Two nurses.
A I do not know their credentials positively. I know there was one nurse.
Q What was the evidence, as you understand it, of penetration
A that there was some type of tearing
Q Some type of tearing of the vaginal area?
A Yes
Q Ok. Ok. And who is it that told you that there was a medical examination that showed there was tearing in the vagina?
A Joal
Q Joal. Ok. And who did he say told him
A. The advocacy center.
Q ok Has joal taken her to any private pediatrician or other physician to verify the results that these nurses allege occur?
A No


Here is her trial testimony under Chris Arnt’s questioning:

Q Now, Later on when Child #3 goes for a medical exam at the CAC in Ft. Oglethorpe did she request someone to go into that medical examination with her?
A Yes. She asked me to go in there with her.
Q And were you physically in the room while the medical exam was done?
A Yes
Q and at whose request was that?
A Child #3s

Notice that there are no “vaginal tearing” claims now. This whole thing is interesting because either Joal was lying to Sarah, or Sharon Anderson, the SANE, made a medical diagnosis, which she is not supposed to do.

However, if a child actually has a “vaginal tearing” injury, then it would be imperative for the parents to seek a medical exam for the girl. In fact, I cannot imagine Sharon Anderson not calling in a doctor if she had seen this kind of injury. Furthermore, Sarah Henke is a nurse and a nurse would have had an idea that she was dealing with something that required more medical help. I simply cannot imagine a nurse not doing something.

There also is another possibility. Someone is lying. Notice that Sarah claims that Joal told her about the alleged vaginal tearing, but even if Joal had said it, Sarah’s lack of curiosity is, to use Sharon Anderson’s own words, “highly suspicious.”

Showering and Bathing with Tonya’s Daughter

The “perfect storm” against Tonya Craft came with two situations. The first situation involved Sandra Lamb and her friends trying to find a way to have Tonya charged. (In other words, they had to plan their lies, with Steven Keith, Tim Deal, and Chris Arnt serving as the facilitators.)

The other side of the storm came when Tonya registered a complaint against Sarah Henke not only for showering with Tonya’s daughter (on a regular basis), but also for allegedly having the child help Sarah shave her own private parts. After Tonya filed with the authorities, Joal decided to turn around the situation, and that is when a flurry of phone calls went between him, Lamb, and others. (Yes, we have the phone records, and they made lots and lots and lots of calls to each other.)

Sarah’s deposition and trial testimony about this particular situation fall into the “mutually-exclusive” category. In other words, if one set of answers is true, then the other set must be false.

This is from the deposition:

Q. All right, you've indicated to me that there were too many times, too many numerous times to count how many there were. How many times would you say that you have bathed with her since may 30th, 2008?
A. You're saying a bath?
Q. A bath
A Twenty times
A Ok
A thats a guess
Q and how many times would you say you've showered with her since May 2008
A I said I couldn't count
Q. more than ten?
A yes
Q More than 20?
A Yes

Compare what she said under oath at the deposition with her trial testimony (also made under oath):

Q Ok. Now, let's talk about the showering stuff. Child #3 was how hold when she came to stay with you and Joal?
A A far as --
Q In may of 2008
A She was six
Q Ok. She was able to bathe herself at that point, correct?
A At that point she still -- I think she still needed assistance in the shower.
Q That's what you thought?
A uh-huh
Q Did you ask her?
A No
Q Ok. And what assistance did you give her while you were in the shower with her?
A I made sure the shampoo was out of her hair. I didn't bathe her. I made sure she was bathing herself, that's it
Q You started bathing with her about a month or so after you married Mr. Henke, correct
A It was about six months
Q So if Mr. Henke told us it was a month or two, that wouldn't be correct?
A It was during the Summer --
Q Ok
A -- After we got married
Q Did you talk to her about it before and say I want to bath with you, is that okay?
A We, we -- and I going to explain my answer. We--
Q If you can give me a yes or no first and then you're welcome to explain
A Ok. Say the question again
Q Did you talk to her first --
A yes
Q -- about whether she wanted you to bath with her?
A yes
Q ok
A And I am going to explain why we did decide to do that. Child #3 had been coming to our house. Her hair was matted. She was dirty. She was -- I could -- when she was sitting there I could smell her. Joal and I both could.


Joal said will you please teach her how to bathe. And we had done, you know, I let her take a bath by herself and she would do it and it was -- it just took a long time. So I just -- we talked, joal and I just talked and we asked, you know, Child #3 if she cared if we just took a shower and she didn't. I mean, have a problem.

Keep in mind that Sarah made no such claims during the deposition. Furthermore, no one had made any such claims until this testimony. (One of Tonya’s defense witnesses later testified that she never saw Tonya’s daughter in that condition. Is this something one can prove as a lie under oath? Clearly not, but let us just say that statements like this do not help establish Sarah Henke as a credible witness.

In fact, as Kerwyn noted the following in the document she sent to me:

There are 41 instances where she is questioned about taking a shower or bath with Child #3. SHE NEVER even hints it is because the child is dirty and smelled. There are 4 instances where they ask her if Child #3 was capable of bathing herself to which she says yes. (Emphasis mine)

Sarah’s Sudden Remembering of Injuries to Tonya’s Daughter

As Kerwyn and I have gone through Sarah Henke’s deposition, other than the claim of “vaginal tearing” which she admits not to have seen, she does not say at any time during the deposition that she observed vaginal injuries, redness, or anything else like that. From the deposition:

Q Ok. Now, when -- during visitiation, when Child #3 spent the night, were there ever occasions where you had to clean her up after she went to the restroom?
A. No
Q Help her wipe herself or anything like that
A. I have wiped her, her bottom.
Q. Ok. Has she ever had a rash or anything where you had to apply any medicine?
A. No
Q. Ok. When you help her wipe her bottom, do you use those wet wipes or do you use toilet tissue.
A I use toilet paper.
Q Ok. Has she asked you to help with that
A She -- she did. this has been a while ago, not recently
Q Have you ever noted whether she's had a rash in any area around in --
A I haven't looked
Q -- around her private area? Ok.

Compare that with her trial testimony:

Q You -- how often did you shower with Child #3?
A A few times a week.
Q a few times a week?
A uh-huh
Q saw her naked, I guess, at that point, correct
A yes
Q right. Never saw anything that concerned you in what you saw naked in terms of --
A Yes. One time or, actually two to three times she had come to our house and I remember one occasion she was getting into the shower and her outer -- her labia, the outer part of her private area was red and then she had complained. She said it hurts. And I thought, well, she's not showering correctly. And then probably two more times. I remember one time specifically she woke up in the middle of the night and she was crying and she was grabbing her privates saying it hurts, it hurts. And, you know, you don't suspect abuse. I mean, you just don't. I remember that night all I knew what to do is I let her take a bath. I didn't take it with her. I let her take a bath and that's the only think I knew to do.
Q Well, now, ma'am, we took a deposition of you --
A yes.
Q -- back last year, correct?
A Correct
Q Hours, correct?
A uh-huh
Q never mentioned that in there, did you?
A That's a good thing about depositions, you remember things afterwards.
Q oh, you remembered after the fact
A uh-huh
Q Was that after you spoke with the district Attorney's office?
A No. I've never spoke to them
Q Is that after you spoke to the detectives in the case?
A I didn't talk to any detectives about that.
Q Ok Have the detectives interviewed you?
A no
Q ok Did you mention it to Brandon Boggess (of Child Protective Services)?
A I had not remembered it at that time
Q oh, ok. You only remembered --
A it's something that you just think back in hindsight that you think, oh, my gosh, I remember this because at the time you didn't think it's important
Q Ok. And you were so concerned you took her to the doctor right away, right?
A Well, No, because I asked her if she -- if it hurt when she urinated. She said no. Usually by the time she left she was feeling better.
Q Well, you at least called Tonya and told her that you saw something that was bothering you right?
A no
Q well, who did you talk to about it?
A I just told Joal
Q Oh, you told Mr. Henke
A uh-huh
Q ok. He then, or course, talked to Tonya, right?
A no
Q He took her to the doctor, right?
A no
Q He must have then told Brandon Boggess when Brandon Boggess came there, right?
A like I said, this was --
Q is that a yes or a no, Ma'am
A Let me explain my answer
Q As soon as you give me a yes or a no you're welcome to
Q He did not talk to Brandon Boggess and the reason is Brandon Boggess came to our house in 2008, the summer of. Well, I guess it had happened before that, but I had not remembered that until actually just recently.
Q ok Mr. Henke spoke to the detectives in this case, correct?
A I assume, yes
Q Do you know if he told them this face?
A no
Q Ok, No, he didn't or no you don't know
A I don't know

Deposition NOTE: She never mentions, not in all the pages of her deposition any occasion where Child #3 woke up or had any redness. Also note, she again admits to having talked to Boggess a fact she denied repeatedly during the deposition. (Emphasis mine)

And there is more, this from questioning by Scott King:

Q You said that Child #3 told you that her vagina hurt during that --
A she said it hurts
Q Ok. So if she told us in her interview that she never told anybody that it hurt, that wouldn't have been true?
A She probably didn't remember that
Q Like you didn't remember, right?
A Yes
Q Got you. Now, when you thought of this incident you, of course, called the other side who had deposed you and said I thought of something else?
A. It was almost a year later that I remembered
Q Whenever it was
A The only thing I did was write it and give it to the DA
Q Oh, you did?
A And that as actually this week.
Q this week?
A uh-huh
Q did you send a copy to us?
A Was I suppose to?
Q I don't know. The question is did you
A I didn't.

(This information never was turned over to the defense. So, either the prosecution was trying to hide something, in violation of the law, or Sarah never gave them anything, and she was lying. Furthermore, the prosecution tried to run with it, which means that if Henke was lying, prosecutors suborned perjury, which not only is an ethical violation – not that anyone at the Georgia State Bar cares – but also a felony.)

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is what is know as perjury. When asked how it was that her memory had improved so much at trial, she told attorney Cary King that the deposition itself had jogged her mind. My guess is that some meetings with her husband and others might have contributed to her “suddenly-clear” memory at the trial.

What makes this worse in my view is that Sarah Henke is in a profession in which she deals with legal documents all the time. It is imperative that nurses tell the truth, and if Henke will lie under oath, one should not be surprised if she lies when she does her charting or fills out other documents. If her supervisors at Parkridge Medical Center are not interested in Henke's lack of truthfulness, then it is apparent that they have no respect for their patients or the medical system.

Sarah Henke fully understood the stakes at hand. She had to have known that Tonya Craft was innocent, yet facing a lifetime in prison. Furthermore, all during the trial, Sarah had a picture on her Facebook page of her holding Tonya's daughter and basically claiming the child was her own. Why am I not surprised that this woman would lie under oath in order to destroy another person and to steal her children?

Monday's post will deal with Joal Henke's trial testimony and his testimony during the deposition.

11 comments:

Janet Roberson said...

There's nothing better than the facts, written in black & white. I don't think it's uncomnon for evidence to be withheld from defense attorneys, just to make a case.

I know of a case where the defendant's mug shot was used for identification purposes by the alleged victim, a 3 year old boy. The DA's office cut other persons out of a magazine, couldn't remember which one, could have been People Magazine. Then asked the child to id the perpetrator. He remembered it had numbers on it. But the detective had given all the pictures to the chld counselor, and therefore they were not available for court purposes, even though they were supposed to be preserved.

The detective did not acquire the pictures back from the counselor at any time during the entire trial. But no one questioned the legality by not having them in court.

The child merely said the man with the numbers, and then pointed to one of the defense attorneys as his perpetrator because there is where the Assistant DA said he would be sitting. But the seating arrangement had changed.

But golly gee whiz, wonder who the people from the magazine was, Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, heck, for all we know, could have been Dolly Parton.

Anonymous said...

I know Joal and he is anything but honest. I think he should think twice before letting all his dirty launder air during a custody battle. This is not Catoosa County with a special room - a lair for liars. And I have to believe the judge in TN will not have the lack of morals that Brian House has. I hope all of Joal's blinded supporters show up to hear the facts. That would basically be individuals from Eastwood Church. Come one come all and hear for yourself.

Anonymous said...

I have read and seen so much about this case and I must say I knew the minute I heard it something did not sound right. I, however, watched and listened to see if maybe I was wrong. I couldn't pre-judge this woman innocent because of her appearance. Yet as I have seen the facts unfold I have NO doubt in my mind this woman is innocent 100%!! She should have already had her children back and this system has failed not only this woman but also her children. Her case has opened the eyes of so many, me included. I pray she gets her children back so they can begin to heal and be away from the real abusers they are currently living with.

Anonymous said...

Just look at the things going on in the father's household. Joal and Sarah had every motivation to try to put an innocent mother in prison - for self-preservation. Someone should do something to the father and step-mother. That whole situation is disgusting and just not right. Who thinks it's ok to shower and bathe with a child old enough to do so on their own that is NOT YOUR CHILD? Is this step-mother sick enough to have convinced herself she is these childrens mother? That is a whole issue in itself!

Kerwyn said...

Another fascinating thing in Sarah's deposition. She is asked over and over and over if she had ever spoken to anyone, law enforcement, DFCS, anyone and in fact they ask her if she had ever spoken to Boggess and Ms. Bishop to which she replies, she has no clue who they are.

She denies repeatedly that she ever spoke to any of these folks, but then, in her testimony not only admits to speaking to them, she names them......

William L. Anderson said...

Gosh, Kerwyn. You know, she "just remembered." Yeah, that's it. SHE JUST REMEMBERED!!

To think that Channel 9 really did believe that the state had a great case and that the Henkes were telling the truth. Unbelievable.

And thanks to Kerwyn for some Really Good Research! Liars don't have a chance when Kerwyn is on the job!!

Cyril said...

From my brief experience with Judge Williams and a friend's experience with her in divorce court, the Henkes are going to have a more difficult time than they are used to. It still boggles my mind that people with such known ill-will towards Tonya were able to lodge complaints against her which were take so credulously. Frightening.

MikeZPurdue said...

Wow, that is obvious perjury on the part of Sarah Henke, patently obvious.

I am sure it was obvious to every juror that Sarah Henke was lying through her teeth. Tonya's lawyers made her look like a fool.

Gregor, Arnt, and House knew she was lying too. There is a 0% chance that they did not know she was lying.

Victoria said...

When the hearing is held next week, is it open to the public and the media? I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants to hear what happens with Joal but it seems that in Family court the proceedings are closed. If so is there a transcript or ?

below said...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2031034,00.html?hpt=T2

Doc Ellis said...

Thank you for writing this. tweeted to FaceBook, MySpace, and LinkedIn.