However, when cross-examined by defense attorney Demosthenes Lorandos, we see two things: first, Long has less-than-sterling credentials to be doing this kind of work, and, second, she is arrogant about it. Take one "tweet" from Callie Starnes of WRBC:
Witness beginning to get agitated as defense asks more ?'s about code of ethics she had to follow when she was a social worker.My sense is that the "expert" witnesses provided by the CAC never have been challenged in court before, at least not in North Georgia. The CAC has been a great one-stop-shopping opportunity for prosecutors, as the place provides everything -- including false or at least misleading testimony -- needed for a conviction. Don't forget that one of their "star" witnesses, Suzi "I Don't Remember" Thorne, does not even have a college degree, and yet is considered by Judge Brian House to be an "expert" witness who should be permitted to give "expert" testimony that could land an innocent person in prison for many years.
Objections continue over defense's questioning tactics. Witness rolling eyes
Witness continues to smirk and laugh.
I have no doubt that Long is shocked and angry that anyone ever would question her abilities and ethics. She, the CAC, and Arnt and Gregor have had the run of the courtroom for many years with their various "molestations" scams. I'm glad that Ms. Craft has an attorney who is able to point out their utter deceit and lack of truthfulness.
[Update]: One of the people commenting on this post just took a "Nosie Rosie" post from Twitter:
Witness (Stacy Long) says children are no more suggestible than adults.It gets even better. This is from Callie Starnes again:
Def asks witness to cite a study that shows children are no more suggestible than adults. She can't.There exists an extensive amount of literature in top-flight journals that says the exact opposite of Long's statement, and for her to utter that in what is supposed (emphasis on "supposed") to be a court of law is astounding. No "expert" in the interviewing of children would say such a thing, and for the prosecution -- and the court -- to declare her to be an "expert" witness is beyond the pale.
From what I have seen from the CAC, and from what real experts have told me, not one of their witnesses has been shown to be credible. They see their job as to give the prosecution what it wants, as opposed to telling the truth. However, given the lack of education, the lack of accreditation, the lack of credentials, and the lack of research by the CAC "witnesses," I safely can say that their testimony, as far as TRUTH is concerned, is worse than worthless. It is outright dishonest.