Sunday, May 16, 2010

"Buzzare" Franklin Attempts to Intimidate Future LMJD Juries

[Update, Sunday May 16, 1:20 PM]: The Times-Free Press has a good story today on Tonya Craft and the long legal road she faced. I still am waiting to see a story that addresses the many legal abuses committed by the prosecution, an analysis of "judge" Brian House's rulings, and the outright prosecutorial misconduct that occurred regularly during the trial.

[End Update]

Even though I addressed "Buzzare" Franklin's attack on some local newscasters and me in a previous post, nonetheless as I re-read this press release, I realize that there is much, much more than his crying crocodile tears because a jury saw through the state's non-existent case against Tonya Craft.

For all of the attacks on the media (except Channel 9) for not kissing the posteriors of Len Gregor and Chris Arnt, the real target of his rant was those who will serve on future juries in the LMJD. Getting past the silly language, what we find is a naked attempt at juror intimidation, and that is illegal. (Granted, prosecutors in the LMJD and much of Georgia don't see the need to follow the law when they get to be the law themselves.)

Let us re-examine some of what Franklin said in order to take a closer look at what I mean. He first declares:
I was disappointed with the verdict in the Tonya Craft case. The State presented a strong and compelling case to support a conviction, however, the jury chose to acquit her and we must accept this decision. Unlike a defendant, the State has no right of appeal. However, we need not agree with the verdict.
What is he doing? He is accusing the jury of not recognizing "strong and compelling" evidence, except that the "evidence" was not "strong and compelling" at all. Here is a supposedly seasoned prosecutor who cannot even recognize the difference between the truth and perjury, and that means he no longer is able to differentiate between truth and lies.

Let us look at his second attack on the jurors:
Child molesters rarely commit their crime in public. Child molesters rarely confess. Child molesters are rarely caught on tape. Child molesters rarely leave behind physical evidence. A jury must often make a choice between the testimony of an abused child and the alleged perpetrator. If a jury refuses to convict without videotapes, confession or physical evidence, it will be impossible to convict most child molesters.

It was particularly troubling in this case to hear statements attributed to some jurors that they looked at the defendant and decided she just didn't look like someone who would commit such a crime. We must necessarily base our cases on the evidence and not how a defendant looks. We do not simply prosecute those who fit the unsavory profile a juror might have.
First, note that the jurors did NOT say afterward that they failed to convict because they had no videotaped "evidence" of Tonya Craft molesting children, nor did anyone say that they BASED his or her decision upon her looks. What "Buzzare" has done is to twist the words of some jurors to make it look as though they believed they were judges of a beauty contest.

Indeed, the Catoosa County News has an excellent article in which one of the jurors speaks plainly about his belief that Arnt was lying:
“That fella that closed things for them (lead prosecutor Chris Arnt), he lied about testimony, trying to confuse us…. and every one of us caught it too.”
There was no talk of Ms. Craft's looks or anything that "Buzzare" claims in his press release. The jury looked at the evidence that was presented to them. Then he said this:
“That tall prosecutor (Len Gregor), he wanted it so bad, and he kept getting mad when something went different than the way he wanted it. The evidence just wasn’t there and they found it out the hard way.”
Second, for all of the "compelling" evidence, it was not hard for jurors to see that the behavior of the children while describing unspeakable acts did not reflect the concern that someone who really had been molested would be demonstrating. Third, Arnt and Gregor constantly bullied the defense counsel and their witnesses.

I received a number of emails from people who attended the court sessions and to a person they wrote of the outright bullying and outlandish behavior of the prosecutors. One person gave this account to me:
I went to court yesterday to see if what everyone was saying was true. Not only was the behavior of the prosecution dead on...the judge was acting like an absolute jerk. I was shocked every time Gregor and Arnt would throw up their arms in disgust, throw their head back and at other times, act as if they would surely fall asleep if their hands were not propping their heads up. Gregor is so condescending to the defense attorneys and the defense witnesses.

But, got better. When a witness was on the stand, Gregor blurted out this line of questioning.

Gregor: So, has Tonya ever "stroked your boobs"? She emphatically said "NO!"

Gregor: So, are you saying Tonya has never stroked your boobs while sitting on your lap? She emphatically said "NO!"

Gregor: Has Tonya ever made reference to your boobs. The witness said, "At Tonya's wedding, I had on a dress that showed some cleavage...Tonya said to me (jokingly), Wow, you have really big Boobs!!!

Gregor says: "Are you sure that Tonya was not sitting on your lap, stroked your boobs and said, "Wow, I
don't ever need to get a boob job when I have these to play with !!!" The witness said "Absolutely NOT"

Then a little later, Gregor asked her, "Do you know what sound is made when a finger touches a vagina"
The witness looked mortified and shook her head NO...he repeats the question...the witness continues to shake her head NO in total disbelief that he is asking this question. Gregor then closes with the statement that "it doesn't make a noise and if the child doesn't say anything, NO ONE WOULD EVER KNOW!!!"

There were so many objections by the defense during this questioning...but our "dishonorable" Judge House let the blood hound continue on.

He (Gregor) is so Crude and Inappropriate!!!
This kind of behavior went on day after day. Prosecution "expert" witnesses acted like spoiled children by rolling their eyes, giving smart-ass answers to legitimate questions, and then claiming to be proud that they never read any of the literature on their line of work. Furthermore, the "experts" for the prosecution either did not document their work at all, or did it poorly, and their "recovered memories" on the stand really crossed the line from shading the truth to outright lying.

Yet, why does "Buzzare" insist that these witnesses were paragons of truth and that Dr. Nancy Aldridge, a defense expert who generally testifies for the prosecution and is one of the most respected expert witnesses in Georgia, was a "whore of the court" and a person who "lies for money"? The reason is simple, and he is sending a very strong message to jurors that will hear further child molestation cases in the LMJD.

What is the message? Is is this: From now on, there will be NO verdicts of "not guilty," no matter how ridiculous the prosecution's case might be. Let me be frank: Buzz Franklin is engaging in an overt campaign of intimidating jurors.

Why would he call out jurors who did their job? According to the standards for prosecutions of the American Bar Association, what he did clearly violates ALL ethical guidelines. Let us look at the following standard:
Standard 3-5.10 Comments by Prosecutor After Verdict

The prosecutor should not make public comments critical of a verdict, whether rendered by judge or jury.
Because the Georgia standards are based upon the ABA guidelines, one can assume correctly that "Buzzare" also violated the state rules that govern his office. Prosecutors are NOT supposed to engage in any kind of juror intimidation, ever, yet that is exactly what Franklin is doing.

Friday's press release clearly steps well beyond the bounds of all ethical guidelines and demonstrates further just why I believe the LMJD is pretty much a lawless entity. Judges don't seem to care about the law, and the conduct of Brian House was as bad as any I have seen in a judge during a trial.

In many states, prosecutors would be disciplined at the very least and perhaps disbarred at worst for making the statements that "Buzzare" made in his post-verdict press release. It is frightening to me that a prosecution believes himself to be so far above the law that he can intimidate jurors and tell them the following: If MY office says someone is guilty, you sure as heck had better vote guilty, or I will call you out following the verdict.

There is no other message. You have seen a public display of juror intimidation by an elected DA, and if he is permitted to get away with it, things only will become worse in Northwest Georgia, as there will be no justice at all in the "justice" system.


Lookout Spy said...

Mr. Anderson, you have hit the nail on the head with this phrase.... " the LMJD is pretty much a lawless entity." Buzzard the turtle, furthermore, didn't participate in the trial, so he made a mistake in the sense he has lost all defenses for absolute and qualified immunity from prosecution. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and personal liability, the man is in a heckuva lot of trouble, and he's too dumb to know it.

Lookout Spy said...

This is a repost, and I will repost until Mr. Anderson requests I stop. In order to achieve justice, citizen action is needed, and the only way to do it is by writing the appropriate authorities regularly and consistently.

Mr. Stephen D. Kelley Chair,and Barry E. Morgan, Vice-Chair of Prosecuting Attorneys' Council of Georgia
104 Marietta Street NW, Suite 400
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2743

Sally Quillian Yates, United States Attorney
c/o Didi Nelson
LECC Manager
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Suite 600
Atlanta, GA 30303-3309

Thurbert Baker Esq.
Office of the Attorney General
40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, Ga 30334

Dear Mr Baker, Ms. Yates, Ms. Nelson, Mr. Kelley, and Mr. Morgan,

As a citizen residing within the Lookout Mountain judicial Circuit, I am writing to see about the possibility of the Georgia State Attorney General's Office, and the U.S. DOJ Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee coordinating with the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council of Georgia for investigating and prosecuting the official misconduct of the officers of the Court in the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit, as being a pattern and practice to deprive the citizens of the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit of their constitutional rights to fair trial. This pattern and practice extends not only within the criminal prosecutions conducted within the circuit, but civil actions as well, as all four Judges, Judge Wood, Judge Graham, Judge Van Pelt, and Judge House have destroyed so many families by their behaviors and practices. When is the law going to be FOR the people, and not the officers of the Court?
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
18 U.S.C. SECTION 242
The Government must prove four elements to establish the offenses performed by the Defendants.
First: The person upon whom the alleged acts were
committed must have been an inhabitant of a state, district or territory of the United States.
Second: The defendant must have been acting under color of law.
Third: The conduct of the defendant must have deprivedthe victim of some right secured or protected by the Constitution of the United States.
Fourth: The defendant must have acted willfully, that is, with a specific intent to violate the protected constitutional right.

I urge all of you to act promptly and diligently to see justice is served for the citizens of the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit.

Sincerely, ________________________

Include your name and address below your signature.

This can be used as a form letter. Feel free to copy, paste and mail 3 letters.

ImaNarcissist2 said...

No matter whether Buzz and the cronies are disbarred or not. No matter whether Da Judge is disciplined or not... We have the power to make them all unemployed... Once we take the bull by the horns, kick them out of office with our votes, they will then have to either get another job as a prosecutor in another circuit (doubtful, because there is no way that anyone in their right mind would hire them,) or they will have to go into private practice. At which time we the people can say "NO MORE!"
Attorneys work for their clients, not the other way around, and if no one hires them, they will soon be standing on the bread line, or drawing their pension... Either way, it doesn't matter, as long as they will never again be in our faces, or the faces of someone they have just trumped up charges on...

Oh, and by the way, I thought of offering some cheese to go with all the whine that facebook and the moron, i mean the man was doing on their pity party video, but then I thought about it, and looks like Bill, as well as all of the rest of us could use another glass of wine, so I guess we could just offer them some cheese. You know how rats like cheese.

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

The DA chose to FAX that letter, on a Friday, after 5pm, to local media instead of standing up in front of the press and delivering it verbally or even by hand.


The DA's office employed exactly the same delivery mechanism and tactic used with the gag order before trial.


One Friday tweet I read summed it up far better than I ever could.

"Why is the DA's office completely ignoring requests by Channel 3's Callie Starnes to interview them?

Her questions would require thought.

Lame said...

When asking questions of witnesses, when they gave evasive answers to the defense, if the DLo or another lawyer asked the question again, the judge ALWAYS sustained an objection from the Dynamic Screwo that the witness had already answered the question and told to move on. Himmler, I mean House, NEVER sustained an objection when Goering would ask the same question over and over again and the defense objected.

Has anyone ever seen Judgment at Nuremberg? The behavior of the Dynamic Screwo, especially Goering reminds me very much of the German defense lawyer in that one scene towards the end with Judy Garland on the stand when he kept screaming at her, "Did you kiss him!?!" However, unlike Maximilian Schell, neither of the Dynamic Screwo will be winning any Academy Awards, only Razzies for them

KC Sprayberry said...

Another insightful analysis of a case that as the juror identified as Butch said, should have never gone to trial. At the beginning, while discussing this trial with a group of Southern Writers, I made the following comment: "All it will take at this point is for busloads of people to unload three blocks from the courthouse and the folks aboard them to stream in a never ending river until they come to that tall brick building. The gathering on the lawn will divide into three different camps. That of those supporting the defendant, those supporting the prosecution, and the very nervous, obviously outnumbered cops in the the middle wondering when a riot will break out. Vendors will sell their goods. An almost circus air will prevail." Sound familiar to anyone, even though I paraphrased a very well known author? It's from the background scene from A Time to Kill by John Grisham. The overwhelmed defense attorney spent most of the trial trying to stop an overzealous prosecutor. One small difference existed between Grisham's fictional story of justice in the south. That judge didn't take any guff from either side and sustained or overruled objections for both sides with equality.
One other difference existed. When beaten, the district attorney walked away with his dignity intact without any snide comments designed to bully future jurors into obeying his mighty edict from on high. I'm sure Buzz and his cronies observe the comments on this list from on high, making notes of those they will strike from jury duty in the future for their thoughts. Well, boys, I have just one thing for you to add beside my name. I am a law and order person. I do believe in justice. But you never once in this trial had anything more than vengeful, spiteful fairy tales made up by a bunch of spoiled women and one evil man determined to 'destroy' a good woman's name. Too bad Tonya Craft didn't play your game. I won't either.

Bkrazyh said...

Lookout Spy, please don't insult turtles. LOL

Thank you for the addresses!

Anonymous said...

I want to know who Arnt is dating or has dated.
The foursome from the LMJD was totally unimpressive to me.
Surely someone in the group will speak out and distance themselves from the crowd. Are ALL the other employees involved?
I wonder if Larry King tried to get a statement from Buzz or Arnt?

Anonymous said...

Bill, has a story from one of the jurors... it is a MUST read


William L. Anderson said...


If you notice, I have the link to that story plus some quotes in my post. Thanks for letting me know, and while I already had used the article, nonetheless I prefer that people tell me stuff that I already know as opposed to not telling me important things that I DON'T know!

Anonymous said...

KC Sprayberry said...

Everyone has wondered about motivations since the trial began. They are so simple. One woman faced child abuse charges for whipping her child with a belt. Another family hated her for telling the truth about their child. Her ex wanted the kids as a way to hurt her after the divorce. And finally, she angered the leader of a so-called mafia, a woman still thinking she leads the cool group of high school brats. And then there are the cops, the men - or one of them - who said she only wanted an attorney if she was guilty. Hello! Everyone, guilty or innocent is allowed an attorney when the police question them. This case highlights how important that right is to all of us. The Times Free Press article brings all this home in a story remarkably free of bias. Too bad those who started this mess will always lie about what happened in Chickamauga four years ago. They see themselves as vindicated since they took Tonya's job, home, children, and financial security away from her. And I'm betting they're standing in church this morning surrounding themselves in glory from all their baseless lies and how they rid their community of someone they call evil. Look into your own souls, women of Chickamauga. The evil is far closer to home than you realize.

Anonymous said...

Concerning the Wilsons.
I have read how people have bashed Wilson Funeral homes over and over.

To the best of my knowledge Dewayne Wilson does not have a business interest in the Funeral Homes. All he has is a family connection.

Years ago LeRoy Wilson owned an ambulance service. He sold the service to Tri-County Hospital.

When LeRoy did this it infuriated Dewayne. He left home. Moved to the Atlanta area where he stayed for many years. As far as I know he also married while he was away.

LeRoy and Glenda were estranged from their son and was very disappointed in his actions.

When Dewayne returned to the area he started Angel ambulance service. He ran for Coroner. I am sure he had backing from his dad. Family after all is family.

LeRoy and Glenda are good people. Their other son David works at the funeral home. But when you state that Dewayne owns the funeral homes, to the best of my knowledge that is incorrect.

I have always liked LeRoy, Glenda and David but Dewayne always seemed to me not to possess any principles. He appeared as an opportunist. I have never liked him.

The best way to vent your frustration with Dewayne and his wife is to vote him out of office. Don't punish his parents and brother. Parents can not be responsible for the actions of adult children.

John Washburn said...

Buzz Franklin's comments are similar to the jury instructions to the Willima Penn Jury where the jury was instructed that they "shall not be dismissed until we have a verdict that the court will accept."

When the jury decided to acquit, the judge was not willing to accept it and sent them back and fined the jurors. Edward Bushel, one of the jurors, refused to pay the fine and so the judge threatened him that "[y]ou shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco. You shall not think thus to abuse the court; we will have a verdict, by the help of God, or you shall starve for it."

Buzz Franklin's message to LMJD jurors is the same tyranical message as that of the William Penn court.

You shall not be dismissed until the DA has a verdict that the office of the DA accepts.

Source: Bushel's Case

John Washburn said...

The ABA rules and the Georgia code of conduct do not come from a vacuum.

Tyranny is as Tyranny does.

In many trials before and after the William Penn case, the jury of peers was brow-beaten and coerced by the Crown Prosecutor and his willing ally, the Crown Judge.

It is because of this tyrannical history that juries and juror are independent and the verdict stands regardless of the Law or Facts.

It is because of this tyrannical history that District attorneys, Judges, and other officers of the Court are forbidden to comment on a jury verdict.

This is more than criminal. It is Tyrananical.

It is tyranical in the way we Americans have defined the Character of Tyrant for more than 200 years:

To [try us] for pretended offences

Lookout Spy said...

Welcome aboard, Mr. Washburn, you have joined a group of citizens who believe in honor, truth, and justice. Excellent input, and thanks for bringing food for thought. Maybe Buzz the turtle should have studied a little harder in Common Law.

Kathy R said...

Bill without and the media bringing this mess out in the "SUNSHINE" for everyone to see the citizens who could not be in the court room would have no idea what goes on in there. I am absolutely sick to my stomach that these are the people who prosecute criminals in my district! Tonya was not on trial for stroking a grown woman's breast and that's beside the point anyway since IT DID NOT HAPPEN! I have written my letters and I feel so helpless because in my heart of hearts I am afraid it won't matter because nothing is going to be done. I am begging Esquire Baker to look deep into this office. A 12 person jury caught our DA Lying in his closing arguments, unbelievable!!! As for Mr. Franklin..Actual child molesters will go free on the streets because no one is going to believe a prosecutor who will stoop as low as to lie to a jury just to get a conviction. That office has NO CREDIBILITY. I missed the picnic because I was out of town for a post-Mother's Day weekend but you can rest assured I have given to Tonya @ Cornerstone Bank. As a voter and Taxpayer I along with thousands of others have the actions of the Judge and Prosecutors BURNED into our memories and we are like Elephants we will not forget, that includes future juror's. If the judicial process is to be followed in the LMJD then these people..Brian House, Len Gregor, Christopher Arnt, Buzz Franklin, Tim Deal and all of those involved in the examination and interviewing of the children must be removed or it will not happen. We are talking about our children, our nieces, nephews, neighbors...the children are being victimized and we as citizens need to stand up and say ENOUGH!

Lookout Spy said...

Of course, I had forgotten these phrases in the Declaration of Independence.

"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury,

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences"

In this case, we were transported beyond the seas of common sense and credibility.

KC Sprayberry said...

It came to me this morning there was a mention early on in the trial how two of the fathers refused to accept these charges. The first, I believe J. McDonald, didn't believe them. The second, never named but I suspect is Greg Lamb, said it didn't happen. Neither of these men was thought much of until McDonald testified with his tearful ending of 'she stopped what she was doing and looked up and me and said Daddy, I believe 100% that it did happen.' or words to that effect.
Hmmm? Sounds a bit Hollywood to me. And why did Mr. Lamb, another father of a supposedly abused child, never testify. Why did he never take a chance to vent his spleen in the media. Instead, he sat at his wife's side during the trial, a wife he was in the process of divorcing and did not live with, and supported her through his inaction and silence. If what I suspect is true, and (this is putting together pieces from the actions and words of authority figures involved), Mr. Lamb kept his silence and is still keeping it under threats. What those threats are and who made them will probably always remain a mystery. But if he were to come forward and let God guide him in answering, we may know the real reasons for this travesty. It might do him good for us to pray hard for his conscience to push him to ignore those 'threats' (in quotes since it's only a theory of mine) and with the assistance of an attorney, contact the Attorney General for this region of the State Attorney General and start talking.

Just a thought. I really need to get back to plotting my fiction. It doesn't give me a splitting headache from all the twists and turns.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:10, That was an excellent article from the News Free Press about the timeline of this whole thing. It answered several questions I'd had and hadn't been able to find the answer to. Thank you for posting that.

Anonymous said...

So how soon before "Detective" Crooked Deal goes back to his demonstrated level of law enforcement competence? Based on his investigative expertise, he might make a somewhat competent school crossing guard.

Anonymous said...

The article was good; however, I'm not sure about the "4 year" comment. To my knowledge, this all started in the Spring of 2008 which was only 2 years ago.

Buzz said...

Is not the behavior alone of Emporer Arnt and Gregarious Gregor enough to embarrass HerbertBuzzFranklin??? They are an embarassment to the citizenry of LMJD.
The common plebian jurors saw through the Lies, Deceit, and Bullying.
And you HerbertBuzzFranklin, defending the "judge" Brian House. Uh HBF, a Judge isn't supposed to be "on your side". Your faxed response shows a vindictive intimidating Sore Loser.
Enjoy the rest of your term and have 2 Men And A Truck on speed dial. Your days are numbered HBF. The common folks, the ones you think you lord over, we won't forget this trial and the behavior of your lapdogs Arnt and Gregor. Mark That Down.

KC Sprayberry said...

Buzz, Buzz did what's called circling the wagons. The only person he's prepared to throw under the bus is Tonya Craft. By implication or outright fairy tales, he will now let the world know a 'child molester' got away with her actions and everyone should watch out for her. As if that's not already happening by those less than fully informed. But these things tend to come around. And as the settlers found out two centuries ago. Circling the wagons only meant the Indians didn't have to chase you down. Their targets were all in one place.

ihatecatoosa said...

COuldn't ol Buzz have just said "I believe the prosecution had a strong case & am disappointed in the verdict". I hear defense attorney's say similar things on the news all the time.

& no I'm not on the LMJC side.

kbp said...

After seeing what the jury has said, especially the quotes attributed to 'Butch' we saw in print from Adam Cook, I just keep thinking of what a teenager would say should that teen be aware of the interviews from the ADA's and the fax Buzz put out and how it compares to what the jury saw in the trial;

It sucks to be you!

A person could fill pages upon pages with information that displays the lies, spins, twists ...which those three put out in some weak effort to shift blame and cover their own azzez, but I believe most here are already aware of the majority of what would be on those pages and that those 5 words would just about summarize the opinions of any after they'd read all that refutes the claims made by Buzz, Gregor and Arnt.

John Washburn said...


I would be careful about reading such sedition documents as the Declaration of Independence.


It may force us to realize that an American citizen, Jose Padilla, was disappeared for 4 years without charge or trial and for that time denied "the benefit of Trial by Jury".

It may force us to realize that the men in Guantanamo Bay (even the guilt ones) have been transported "beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences".

Although the price for the enlightenment is staggeringly high, one of the good things to come from outrages such as:
1) The Craft trial,
2) The Gitmo kidnappings,
3) Jose Padilla,
4) illegal, warrantless wiretapping,
5) executive death sentences for American citizens
6) Proposing that US citizenship can be stripped unilaterally by an accusation by FBI.
Is that more and more Americans are awaking to the fact that:

Tyranny is as Tyranny does.

It is still Tyranny even if "our" side does it.

Isaiah 1:17
Isaiah 1:23
Isaiah 56:1
Proverbs 31:8-9

Lookout Spy said...

I've always had a love affair with the Declaration of Independence, acually, John Washburn!

I have a wall on my house perfect for a mural of the calligraphy. Yes, that is something I'd do.

Jerri Lynn Ward said...


Surely you realize that our society no longer believes that human rights come from God, don't you? Instead, it believes that rights are bestowed by government and subject to revocation at any time.

Anonymous said...

Buzzard would be more appropriate. He preys on the weak and defenseless.

Harmony said...

I believe one of the lines of the Declaration of Independence speakes volumes here "Free From Tyrany". wasn't that the whole point of becoming our own nation. Our government has become what we fought so hard to free ourselves from. HAG's actions in this trial were the equivelent to Marie Antionette's "Let them eat cake".

Anonymous said...

It is a FACT that other members of the Wilson family was present in the courtroom for several days.

kbp said...

Lookout or anyone,

It's a given that PR is not covered by absolute immunity, but which specific portions of the fax do you believe creates liability? and/or, if you care to add

The interviews given by Gregor and Arnt?

kbp said...


I have no doubt that should any of the 3 somehow be booted out of the DA's office there (short of losing their license), they could find employment in another DA's office within the state.

That is just how it works today.

Lookout Spy said...

Any behavior which deprives a plaintiff of their Due Process rights, immediately renders the offending order, legal proceedings, or otherwise on their surface legal actions void abinito, outside the jurisdictional function of the offending otherwise immune state actor. Actions out of jurisdictional function give liability by a plaintiff against an offending state actor.

Main thing looked at is whether or not all the jurisdictional questions are addressed properly. Federal questions have so many dependent tests, they even discuss whether an individual can sue every judge in a court, when not all of the judges made any rulings or presided over any proceedings that would actually disqualify them from hearing the case at bar. The concept of judicial and prosecutory immunity are closely intertwined; abuse of discretion is where the tort harm lies. There are criminal charges if the DOJ gets involved. Complex, fascinating stuff.

Anonymous said...

"Butch said. “That fella that closed things for them (lead prosecutor Chris Arnt), he lied about testimony, trying to confuse us…. and every one of us caught it too.”"

Anonymous said...

What does Sandra Lamb, Sherri Wilson and Kellie McDonald have in common?
1.they are all professional homeroom moms.
2.they cannot shut their mouths at first hint of a problem.
3. they do not have a job with the exception of example no 1.
4. they are always dressed up with nowhere to go
5. they are always in the middle of a good gossip session.

6. they will never miss a chance to kiss a teachers ass if it means the betterment of their children.

kbp said...

"...If a jury refuses to convict without videotapes, confession or >>>PHYSICAL EVIDENCE,<<< it will be impossible to convict most child molesters.

They did provide the physical evidence, but the jury saw that it was a fabricated conclusion presented by two witnesses not qualified to make it, one of which left all believing their must be an agenda driving her conclusions. Not a good point for Buzz to have brought up there.

Meanwhile, Bill does a good job here of showing us how Buzz certainly, at the minimum, implied that he has identified the jurors to have been stamped with his approval for a public lynching!

I think a problem he created will show up in the near future as they try to find anyone to serve on a jury there.

Jerri Lynn Ward said...

"I think a problem he created will show up in the near future as they try to find anyone to serve on a jury there."

Which is why Judge House and the other judge's in this district should be calling the D.A. on the carpet for threatening the decorum and legitimacy of their courts.

kbp said...


"...Actions out of jurisdictional function give liability by a plaintiff against an offending state actor."

I'd say they can be open to liability, not just "[a]ctions out of jurisdictional function give" or create it.

I'm still at a loss on specific conduct or acts the courts will say created liability for them if Tonya was to claim it. The courts have not been so easy to persuade, certainly not that I am aware of. The most recent case mentioned in the national media dealt with a prosecutor wanting immunity for anything they did if the case was ever tried by even someone else in their office.

There may be some liabilities for 1 or more of the 3 in the DA's office there, I even hope we'll see them listed in a claim, but I just saying I do not see them so clearly myself.

kbp said...


Were I a juror who had children in my home, I'd seek 24/7 protection for them, and possibly myself also.

It wasn't too smart for the all-mighty protector there to have shifted the blame on the jurors.

Luckily the overwhelming majority of the public there seems to be in agreement with the jury, judging from all polls out there, but if some nut is looking for someone to blame for a verdict they disagree with, Buzz just endangered the jurors and their families.

Jerri Lynn Ward said...

With regard to the cross-examination by the prosecutors, here are 2 sources which should be consulted:

Standard 3-5.7 Examination of Witnesses

(a) The interrogation of all witnesses should be conducted fairly, objectively, and with due regard for the dignity and legitimate privacy of the witness, and without seeking to intimidate or humiliate the witness unnecessarily.

(b) The prosecutor's belief that the witness is telling the truth does not preclude cross-examination, but may affect the method and scope of cross-examination. A prosecutor should not use the power of cross-examination to discredit or undermine a witness if the prosecutor knows the witness is testifying truthfully.

(c) A prosecutor should not call a witness in the presence of the jury who the prosecutor knows will claim a valid privilege not to testify.

(d) A prosecutor should not ask a question which implies the existence of a factual predicate for which a good faith belief is lacking.

"In short, a prosecutor is prohibited from discrediting through cross-examination a witness believed to be telling the truth, while a criminal defense lawyer is not. The Criminal Justice Standards on cross-examination of a truthful witness compel the prosecutor to step outside an adversarial role of pursuing a conviction and, instead, require a prosecutor to act in a way that helps maintain the integrity of the adversarial truth- finding process."

It appears to me that Judge "he's on cross" House needs some refresher courses in legal ethics.

kbp, I don't know what liability might exist. I'm hoping the Tonya's lawyers are all over that.

If I were a juror, I would be raising hell with Judge House over Franklin's slanderous remarks about the jury.

Anonymous said...

Tfp article lost all credibility when it mentioned Mariam Boyd

This lady and family refuse to shut their mouths and are embarrassing themselves and Oakwood.

Trish White said...

When my family was going through our four year nightmare, which is still not over, until my son regains visitation with his children, many people told us God has a plan. Well, He most certainly did and that plan is happening right now. This unjust judicial system is going to go down, thanks to their stupidy and arrogance in filing charges against Tonya. They finally picked on the wrong person, one who could fight back and had the good sense to get lawyers, not a part of the good ole boy system. She also had the financial resources to fight. What my family paid, over $50,000 seems like a small amount in comparison, but many people around here can't even come up with that and thus have to rely on an overworked,underpaid, and understaffed PD's office, who I feel does the best they can, but with a limited budget, they can't get the top notch experts. Also, the DA's game is to drag cases out for a long time (two years or more) and many people will eventually plead guilty to lessor charges just so they can get on with their life.

I was afraid with a not guilty verdict, everyone who was outraged, would just go quietly back to their every day lives, but at the moment it appears many are angry and want something done to change things here. From one family who has been a victim of this unjust, corrupt district, we thank you.

Anonymous said...

It sounds like the ultimate in stupidity; Insulting the intelligence of the jury and blaming of the media. I imagine in a couple days we are going to hear from both.

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


The prosecutor, in front of the jury, voiced an objection in which he mentioned the defendant having claimed the 5th in testimony regarding the deposition testimony of the child custody hearings that were handled by Judge Williams?

Did you happen to see anything in the ABA on this?

Jerri Lynn Ward said...


Standard 3-5.6 Presentation of Evidence

(b) A prosecutor should not knowingly and for the purpose of bringing inadmissible matter to the attention of the judge or jury offer inadmissible evidence, ask legally objectionable questions, or make other impermissible comments or arguments in the presence of the judge or jury.

The thing is, I don't know that the question is legally objectionable given that she testified in the criminal case.

kbp said...

The prosecutor did not know with certainty she would testify when he voiced that in his objection, and I see her testifying as a moot issue here.

Could he ask her in cross if she pleaded the 5th (imply she was not yet prepared, having not practiced with a professional to cover up guilt?).

Though it did not alter the verdict, obviously, the ethics related to the act of him voicing it is in question, how it could affect the jury and should NEVER be allowed, not whether or not it is reason for an appeal.

Jerri Lynn Ward said...

"Could he ask her in cross if she pleaded the 5th (imply she was not yet prepared, having not practiced with a professional to cover up guilt?)."

That's what I don't know.

I misread your post. I didn't realize he blurted it out in an objection before she even testified. My guess is that, had she not testified, that could be reversible error.

I wonder what the defense did in response.

ImANarcissist2 said...

OK, I watched Bevis and Butthead give their interview to News Channel Slime...and it occurred to me that was exactly what it seemed like. You have in casting order...

Bevis played by Len Gregor
"he, he... BOOBIES!!!!!, HE HE HE"

Butthead played by Chris Arnt.
"uh, huh, huh, huh,... You said Boobies, huh, huh huh. That is so cool!!!... Shut up DealHole, or I am going to lock you in a closet!"

Stewie played Detective Tim Deal(hole)
Bevis and Butthead are my heroes, "I wonder if they will let me hang with them because they are so cool."

Todd played by Brian House.
"Give me your money you two losers, or I will kick your ass!"

Coach Buzzcut played by none other than ole Buzzard Franklin himself.

Daria played by Tonya,
The only intelligent one of the bunch. "you guys are a bunch of juvenile egomaniacs.

Tom Anderson played by Bill Anderson.
"I better not catch you two boys whackin off in my too shed."

And finally Principal McVicker, played by none other than Dr. Lorandos.

The similarities are amazing, Now we know where the dynamic putzos get their story lines!!!

John Washburn said...

Re: Surely you realize that our society no longer believes that human rights come from God, don't you?

Many still do. Many don't, but still believe their right are inalienable because they are part of our simple humanity.
And yes many do believe in Madison's worst nightmare:
a) Rights are note secured by Government but instead come from Government.
b) If it ain't written in the B-o-R, you don't have that right

My point is that even in my congregation there are many who are just now beginning to be upset with Obama doing warrantless wiretapping and putting out the hit American citizens, but are completely oblivious to the fact that Obama is merely accelerating what Bush and Clinton began. The "It's not Tyranny if our side does it" attitude that what annoys me.

But if you begin to read, "actually read" the Declaration of Independence you get a sense of how far we have fallen and as the Jefferson makes clear it is the ACTS that mark the Character of a Tyrant, not the party affiliation.

that is what I was getting at with my previous post. Those who have be touched by Tyranny are those who transcend partisanship and go by the motto:

Tyranny is as Tyranny does. Near or far, my party or their party, no tyrant is fit to rule over a free people.

The only good thing that comes out of farces such as the Craft trial (and other injustices) is that more and more Americans are coming to that trans-partisan conclusion.

Tyranny is Tyranny and the true American character is to oppose Tyranny where we find it using the peaceful means that G-d has provided us for that oppostion. For the citizens fo LMJD there are many, many, peaceful ways (all of which will be employed) to humble and punish these men who had the gall to claim they were acting on behalf of Justice and the citizens of the District. This is true sleeping giant that this "trial" has roused.

P.S. Madison's opposition to a Bill of Rights was that any bill of rights, no matter how vast the enumeration, will be incomplete and that, over time, the enumeration will come to be seen as the totality of your G-d-given (Natural) rights. As a condition to his election to congress he had to provide a Bill to the people of Virginia (and the other states) for approval. The 9th amendment was his attempt to protect the un-enumerated, but un-disparaged rights such as:
a. Self-defense and the instrumentality thereof.
b. right to privacy.
c. the right to travel from here to there.
d. the right to peacefully own property
e. the right to enter into voluntary contracts
f. the right to control how and if I medicate myself.

Anonymous said...

The Chattanooga Times had a poll out a couple of days ago. It went something like this..."Do you think TC should regain full custody of her kids?" Well last night, I voted.....and this afternoon I noticed that the no votes have increased by 850 with not one addition yes vote. But what I discovered is, you can vote more... than once...So, some poor soul has been sitting at a computer all night voting "no".... Bet they're tired today :) They had to work hard to get that majority "NO"....


johnlichtenstein said...

Re kbp at 2:42, absent credible witnesses or clear physical evidence, it *should* be impossible to get a conviction.

Jerri Lynn Ward said...

"Tyranny is Tyranny and the true American character is to oppose Tyranny where we find it using the peaceful means that G-d has provided us for that oppostion."

John, I would amend that to say that it is the true Christian character to oppose the actions of Tyrants, as they are ungodly. On that point, I commend the book, Vindiciae Contras Tyrannous to you.

It was the most influential book in the colonies before the War of Independence, according to John Adams. It lays out the legal argument (under God's law, the only true law) for opposing a tyrant.

KC Sprayberry said...

Love this discussion about the rights. I've spent a good part of the day looking to see if it's against Georgia law for a jury to see video evidence or have part of the testimony read back to them. I haven't found any references to a law but have seen several cases where both happened for juries in recent years. Do any of the legal minds out there have a place where they can point me.
I've already read the short, and amazingly uninformative jury information available through the GA Bar Association.

kbp said...


My Error!

Day 19, Thursday, May 6, David Craft on the stand, Gregor conducting cross exam ASKED David about it.

Gregor asks about deposition against #TonyaCraft. Gregor asks about Craft & pleading the 5th. Things come to a stop and attorneys approach

While the judge won't allow David to say what #TonyaCraft said in deposition he can answer ?'s about what was asked of her.

Gregor now asking about attending deposition against #tonyacraft & her attys taking 5th on ?s about criminal case (divorce?)

The bell had been rung!

Anonymous said...

Instead of "Ace" and "Gary", the "A" and the "G" stand for "Arnt" and "Gregor". see pic-->>

Anonymous said...

I went ahead & watched the interview with Arnt & Gregor. I took many things away from it, but there were a couple of things that will not leave my mind.

For those of you who looked at it you might have heard them use the words "stupid" & "idiots". If you go back & look, they weren't referring to the defense, they were referring to everyone who supported Tonya or basically, supported the belief that she was being railroaded. Well, I would really, truly love to see them say that face to face to a great deal of the people who believed they railroaded this woman. Many are large business owners & very well-educated people. Well above their own education & those who work for them. I watched it a couple of times just to make sure I was getting that right. They are disgusting & the way they have portrayed the jury is despicable & they should file suit against them. No matter how you look at it, they called everyone who was not on the state's "side", stupid & idiots.

The second thing was their attempt to make it look like the defense "started it". Just like a couple of school boys, they said that they only brought up her bad behavior because the defense brought up her good behavior. Hmmmmmm. Although I am no expert in any field, I do believe the prosecution opened up this trial. If I remember correctly, they were the ones who asked the questions from their own witnesses first regarding attire, behavior, etc. In this little claim, they also said that the defense brought up dollar amounts first. Hmmmmmm, here I go thinking again, but from what I remember, the first mention was from "the children" when they asked how much they were getting paid to testify & who paid for their lunch.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe these idiots have dug themselves even deeper. The reason why the jury is afraid is because the prosecution & their "team" are the ones who have access to them. They claimed that if anyone from the state's "side" even said anything on the social sites or blogosphere, that they would be threatened. NOT TRUE!!! Everything I read & even posted in response, was for them to please show me the evidence. From what I recall, that is all anyone would ask. As for calling people's bosses because of opinion, NOT TRUE!!!! The only person who was told this was Julie Leonard Watson. She was not told that because of her opinion, she was told that because she was LYING! The first lie was that Melydia was related to Tonya, the 2nd lie was that the state was going to bring in a witness to prove that Tonya was a homosexual. The only reason why this woman was told that the FCA was going to be notified was for that reason. She is head of the FCA in the Chattanooga area & she was lying. The FCA is an organization which is based on Christian values & not only was she knowingly lying, but was breaking one of the 10 Commandments by bearing false witness. This is where people had a problem & will continue to have a problem.

These idiots still don't get it. Now they are under greater scrutiny by once again going against the code of ethics. I can not wait to see them go down.

Anonymous said...

cont from previous:

Also, regarding a post from the other thread about Buzz's brother Jim's "fundraisers". You are exactly right. Both the Wild in the Woods & Wild in the Winter are both drug soaked nights of debauchery. I know this for fact as I have attended both. The first was Wild in the Woods & I nearly crapped my pants at what was going on, so I left pretty early. Second was Wild in the Winter. I was invited by friends & I told them why I didn't want to go. I was assured that it was not like that at this event because it was held in public. Whoa! They were wrong & apologized to myself & my husband. Don't get me wrong, we love to have fun. We enjoy adult beverages & dancing & regular fun times. My first trip to the bathroom I encountered 4 women who were just finishing up their "coke fix". The rest of the night was pretty much in line with that. We had paid for a room, so we tried to go to bed. The all-nighters were definitely up & at it. Like I said, I'm no prude, I love to have fun, but knowing what these events are supposed to "benefit" & knowing the illegal activities going on, it just kind of leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

John said...

"Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it
violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to
Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819. "An equal application of law to every condition of man is
fundamental." --Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1807. "Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, the
people, if well informed, may be relied on to set them to rights."
--Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789. I think the last quote holds water in the case.

kbp said...

Anon 6:05
".. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe these idiots have dug themselves even deeper."

That is true anytime a prosecutor makes a public statement, more so here.

John said...

TO Buzzard "THE MAN","FACEBOOK" and "HOUSEY it would be wise of you to read some of what the fine "founding fathers" had to say. It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good disposition.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

Anonymous said...

As a member at Oakwood,I feel sick that Miriam Boyd feels no shame.

Anonymous said...

I need some help. I was sent an email earlier from a friend who said on one of channel slime's "stories" after the verdict, that it showed a shot of either my FB page or where I had commented on another page. I went to their site, even though it pains me, to find the video clips & can not find them. All I find is their written stories. Has anyone saved the links to their videos from after the verdict? I only posted on the TFT FB page twice & on WRCB's site about 4 times & they were actual comments, not "posts". If it was taken directly from my FB page, then I have a bone to pick with someone. The friendship is already on very shaky ground, but this will end it completely. Honestly, either way, now that I think about it, the friendship will end, because of all the people who have posted, the fact that mine was used, upsets me. Please don't think I have double standards because of Arnt & Gregor's postings as I am not a public figure, it is completely for lack of respect from someone who should know better knowing I live my life in fear anyways. That is why my FB is completely private. I know I can't be as upset if it was something taken off of one of the other 2 sites, but it goes a lot deeper & my husband needs to know & I need the proof to show him.

Sorry for rambling, but if anyone has the actual videos from their stories, anywhere from the 11th to the 15th, I would greatly appreciate it.

Anonymous said...

In case some folks are still thinking that parents would never let their own daughter go through this ordeal unless they are 100% sure that their daughter has been molested, this is my take on the issue.

About Kellie MacDonald, she really was in firm belief that sexual behaviors of a child must have been taught by an adult, and the Lamb lady succeeded in brainwashing her into believing that it was Tonya through hundreds of phone calls. If my assumption is right, she is not very intelligent but least evil as the parent of an accuser in my view.

As for Sandra Lamb, when Kellie alerted other mothers regarding the sexual behaviors of their little girls, she figured that "Molested by someone close when little" would be a great item to put on the bio of an actress. So, she had no trouble "believing" that her little actress was molested. Besides, she had some agenda with Tonya, so she was more than willing to deceive herself into "believing" that her little precious actress was molested by Tonya. She even managed to make her daughter believe the same thing by relentless questioning and putting words into the daughter's mouth. She is very evil, but she probably doesn't realize it herself. Based on her testimonies, interviews and comments, I suspect she suffers from Dramatic Personality Disorder. (There is actually such a disorder.)

As for Joel Henke, he is the most evil in my view. He MUST HAVE known that those women are crazy and Tonya wouldn't have molested their daughter, but he just went along with the crazy women, because he had his own selfish and venomous agenda with Tonya. He is most evil, because no parent should turn his/her child against the other parent no matter what. Because, it hurts the child so bad to think that his/her own mother or father is a bad person, and that the child has the bad blood in himself/herself.

Joel talking about "the best interest of children" in his most recent petition regarding child custody is laughable. He is the one who is least concerned about the best interest of his children.

Anonymous said...

Do the Wilsons go to Shiloh Baptist?

Anonymous said...

Mr Anderson, I found your blog late in the trial and have enjoyed reading it. I was curious do you know if Tonya Craft took a polygraph exam?

Lame said...

An earlier post had it correct. When society no-longer believes that the rights with which we have been endowed come not from God but from some nebulous auspice called "humanism," then we are doomed to begin and then perpetuate a downward spiral into a situation of mixed anarchy and tyrrany. Anarchy because some people will do vile things to themselves and others without fear or remourse, and tyrrany because those who do try to obey the law will find their lives increasingly controlled by those who seek individual power.

The human mind and body is an imperfect thing, spoiled by the sins of pride and selfishness. No communistic/utopian ideal can ever wash that out of humanity. No stalinistic purges of society can rid us of our base desires. One way and one way alone can build us up and that is our Creator. I am a Christian, but be someone else a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Mormon, a Zoroastrian, a Wiccain, so long as they hold themselves to a standard that is greater than their own selves, they are holding up society itself. Yes, even Baptists can help. Ha, ha (couldn't resist a dig at my Baptist friends & family). You see, when you reject the idea that there is a God who created you and wants the best for you, you are saying, "Oh, well, we're the best that there is." If mankind is the best there is, then I'm ashamed that we ever evolved into homo sapien, because humanity, in its present state, does not deserve its original charge of planetary stewardship.

Our media is so filled with false notions regarding this core of truth. Dr Phil, Oprah, and all the others tell us to build ourselves up by focusing on that part of us that is good. There is no part of us that is good other than that which God has instilled in us through our humble submission to His will! In the film Bruce Almighty, Morgan Freeman states, "You spend so much time looking up, but you need to start looking within." That is exactly opposite of the truth. When we look within we find only corruption and malevolance. No good act, no matter how much we try to fool ourselves, is done purely out of altruism. There is always an element of selfish motivation behind it. So, only a Creator, a being who is the source of all love and mercy, can endow us with the rights of life, liberty, and persuits of happiness. All of our human rights come not from our being a man of the world but rather from our being a child of God.

kbp said...

Anon 6:49,

If you're looking for a video at Nine,
there is a list to the right you may scroll through in that search.

I'm not clear on what you're looking for really, but good luck!

Renegade887 said...

Just getting off work a while ago, I came home to check the email and came across the article From the LMJD's D.A. Instantly became frustrated, almost livid yet again with the state's pathetic excuse in attempting to respect and honor the local judicial system they were elected to uphold.

I have refrained from commenting amidst the four week duration of trial, sat back and listened. But after reading the article, it set me off and beyond my capability to hold the frustration inside. How can a system with the intent of exploiting lies and supporting the just fall so immensly short by the very hands of the people elected to accomplish that task. What disgusting benefit prompts someone to act and say things so arrogantly ignorant.

Mr. Anderson, I have been following your blog as much as my schedule allows, and I believe your take is quite insightful and on point with every post. After seeing the travesty unfold before my eyes the past few weeks, I have been at times motivated to leave chem-engineering and take up a political-based major. But, after witnessing the arrogant, despicable people I would be involved in working with, I quickly reconsidered.

I hope and pray for an honest and just result (and consequenses!) for those that were involved in Ms. Craft's trial. Thank you for your intelligent posts and I will continue to follow.

Lame said...

I need to say this about the "crazy women" comments people have been making. I find this to be entirely sexist. Although many of you may not have been researching the topic of female sexual offenders as have I, this is how I came across the Craft case in the firs tplace, you must have seen some posts here and there, and reports in the media regarding women sex offenders. Recent research has shown that as high as 30% of sexual assaults that take place are perpetrated by women. Of that percentage, approximately 30% are women acting alone (not going along with husband/boyfriend). That means that 9% of all sex crimes are perpetrated by a woman acting alone. Not particularly high one might think, but consider this: studies have shown that 70-80% of male sex offenders were themselves the victim of a female who sexually abused them. Many studies have shown that being sexually abuse significantly increases the liklihood that, without treatment, a person will themselves offend agaisnt a child. That means that in addition to the 9% where they are themselves the perpetration, women are, by proxy, responsible for the overwhelming majority of sex crimes against children. And, these statistics don't show a truly accurate picture of the situation, because the overwhelming majority of sex crimes committed by women go un-reported, are not believed and thus not prosecuted, or are masked even to the abused child by being performed while engaging in a normal "motherly" act, such as bathing or applying medicine--if you're wondering this is where that whole bit came from in this trial (apparently, the counsilers at CAC read THESE articles, but not the other relevent literature pertenent to this case).

So, why do I bring up these statistics? Because, women have been shown to be just as capable of committing crimes against children as men. When we sluff off the kind of behavior in which the mothers in this case engaged as acts of "crazy women," we are doing a disservice to the equality of women.

Double standards in the judicial system (unequal punnishments for women who offend, automatic granting of custody to the mother, automatic granting of victim status to women in domestic voilence situations) do more harm than good in eliminating gender bias. Women are still, if not increasingly, relegated to secondary status, to being unequal to a man.

If a man were to beat his child with a belt then try to blame someone else on the whole situation, if a man were to threaten other families, he would be dealt with most harshly. After all, look at how we here have gone after the judge and district attorneys for their behavior in this case. Has the behavior of the women here been any more acceptable?

We shrug off much of these women's behavior as "typical" of a woman, gossip, back-stabbing, and engaging in clique behavior. Yet, their behavior is not only what started all of this, and perpetuated this, and escallated this, it has ceased to stop, and amounts, in my opinion to worse and more criminal behavior than even the men involved. Pissarnt, Goering, Buzz Lightfear, Wheel-n-Deal and Judge Hess all would not have done any of these things to Tonya had those women not beat their children, badgered them into lieing, engaged in conspiratorial conduct, lied to investigators, lied under oath, and continued lieing after the verdict.

The Flabtastic Five are not squeeky clean in all of this, but we need to not kid ourselves here, the women are the most demeritorious of any group involved.

ImANarcissist2 said...

Anon 7:19 PM

Tonya actually took two polygraph exams given by a nationally accredited polygraph examiner, She passed both with no deception on both exams. The prosecution blocked that from entering as evidence for the defense. Now if they had shown deception in the slightest way, they would have screamed for it to be admitted, and House probably would have allowed it, but since it crippled their case, they didn't want any part of it.

volfan69 said...

Hey, Mr.A., I guess that I am just a slow soul. I don't understand why Tonya Craft will have trouble getting her children back when the step-mom has showered and shaved with the daughter. What am I missing here? As always, thanks. Bobb

kbp said...


That was closed out before Tonya was charged. I believe the GA child services contacted the TN child services and they looked into, closed the case.

dmk said...

What a time to lose internet for almost two days! I've had a lot of catching up to do. I was working on this post when it went out so saved it to add to what I knew would be blood bath over Buzz Franklin's load of tripe. Here were my favorite parts.

In this case, a number of local reporters openly took sides and heavily slanted their coverage in favor of the defense.
So when the media showed video of Len Gregor making a fool of himself, then that was doctored tape? So when the media reported the so-called evidence, that was falsified information? So when the State's "experts" were on tape making fools of themselves with their ignorance, doctored tape again?

Combined with the dynamics of the internet blogosphere, it created an environment hostile to the State's ability to receive a fair trial and portrayed the victims and their families in a false and negative light.
Pardon me a minute while I puke. The STATE'S ability to receive a fair trial?? Care to explain exactly how this happened other than make the insinuation without anything to back it up (oops, what was I thinking, that is your office's typical modus operandi after all). If you think House should have sequestered the jury, then go whine to him about, but other than that, not seeing it. Too, if your two illustrious ADAs had a great case but then got punked by a few internet bloggers and local reporters, then I suggest you might want to find some new ones, these obviously aren't worth a crap.

This was an integral, purposeful and shameless part of the defense strategy.
Yeah, me and D-lo, we're tight. Matter of fact, he's sitting here having a raspberry vodka and looking over my shoulder telling me what to say as I type this. Get the previously obscure internet bloggers like Mr. Anderson involved, well known defense strategy, works every time. You, Face, and The Man should have been expecting it then, please see above about maybe time to make some staff changes.

My office has never tried cases in the media and we won't start now.
Hmmm, seems like I remember a tweet from Myledia when your boy Len took a cheap shot in open court, something along the lines of "they're the ones that invited us to this party to start with when called to let us know about her perp walk.”

It would be impossible to rebut every misstatement made but I want to address a few. Apparently several media outlets openly asserted that I was hiding or absenting myself from the proceedings for nefarious reasons. This was simply not true.
No, not nefarious reasons, COWARDLY reasons. You are an elected official, we pay your salary, we expect to hear from you to know what we are getting for our money, we expect you to be accountable for the actions of your subordinates.

The prosecution was in capable hands.
ROFLMAO Uh-huh, I bet that's exactly what you told your boys when you first talked to them after getting completely thrashed when the verdict came in, how COMPETENT and CAPABLE they are.


dmk said...

part 2

Mr. Arnt and Mr. Gregor are experienced and dedicated prosecutors who both have been publicly recognized for their commitment to protecting children by prosecuting those that harm them.
yeah, yeah, yeah, we got it. All about the kids, child molester behind every tree and under every rock in the LMJC, the end justifies the means, etc, etc, etc.

Child molesters rarely leave behind physical evidence. A jury must often make a choice between the testimony of an abused child and the alleged perpetrator. If a jury refuses to convict without videotapes, confession or physical evidence, it will be impossible to convict most child molesters.
This is a truly scary line of thought here. So, you stand accused of this crime, then the state doesn't really need to prove their case. You, sir, are a dangerous menace and need to be removed as soon as possible.

We must necessarily base our cases on the evidence and not how a defendant looks.
Exactly, that's why you got your ass handed to you on this one. You had no evidence and a prosecutor with a fixation on how the defendant maintained her personal appearance and a fetish about what panties she wears.

We did our jobs in this case.
If that's doing your jobs, I'd hate to see the train wreck it would be when you don't.

We have and will continue to seek justice for victims.
Actually, no YOU won't. 1) You have lost the support of the majority of the people that put you there, so you are toast with the voters come election time or maybe even before then; 2) You are now or soon will be under formal investigation by agencies who deal with major players on a regular basis. Being DA of the most backwater circuit in a backwater state isn't very likely to impress them or scare them off; 3) Based on this press release, you don't seem to be smart enough to save yourself. All you had to do was jettison Arnt and Gregor over the side and you might have survived. But, you didn't, making many of us wonder what they really have on you. We'll be finding out soon enough though, I'm guessing Arnt will be the first one to flip when the heat gets on and start telling all he knows, he has that look. 4) The media smells the blood in the water. Dissing them to start with wasn’t a good idea, you can thank Len The Man for that one, but trash-talking them further isn’t going to help matters.

John said...

Wow, I got it, there was a child Molested here,there was a Henke in the name. I'm amazed at you[ADA], over 2 years you tried to convince the public a Henke was involved. 22, long "Thong wearing","Boobs" "puking""lesbian accusation" no end. In your A&G interview you say you still believe it was the one to your left. While all the time she was right behind you. Amazing it only took me a week to unravel your nonsense. And to make matters worse for you, I didnt even finish the 12th grade. My writing sucks and I can't spell. But I'm a thinker.... HAHA I kill myself sometimes.

Anonymous said...

Hey Guys,

When ever I get frustrated about this trial I go back and read the testimony of Dr. Adridge and Dr. Bernet.

It really is fun to watch them hand the ADA's their asses.

I keep thinking at some point House is going to blurt out "hey you can't do that he's on cross"

Trish White said...

Bill, I was going through older posts to see if the person who called me out had ever responded as to who he/she was (he/she hasn't), but someone is posting today on all the previous blogs and making hateful remarks about Tonya. What a creep!!!

John said...

Child molesters rarely leave behind physical evidence. A jury must often make a choice between the testimony of an abused child and the alleged perpetrator. If a jury refuses to convict without videotapes, confession or physical evidence, it will be impossible to convict most child molesters.

Most ADAs an cops say " if a child says it your guilty as charged period". As in a case I'm close to. Cops called...picks child up...does interview... child says " papa touch my peepee"... cop was asked after interview whats going to happen to papa...WILL be arrested soon cause he's a "CHILD MOLESTER"...

John said...

After papa was arrested...cop ask why did you touch the childs peepee...papa says cause it was all over the floor... case closed papa gets 10 in the big house... cops says got another off the street... catching my drift

Anonymous said...

Buzz Franklin, what an embarrassment to our county!! DO NOT BLAME THE JURORS!!!! They made the correct decision based on the evidence, which was none!! DO NOT insult the good citizens of our county. We put you in your job and we will vote you out!!! If thats the best interview you could do, you should have stayed in your shell.
House, you are a coward that hides behind that robe, you are an embarrassment as well.
Arnt and Gregor, man up if you can, just admit, you suck at your job.

How dare all 4 of you use our (the citizens of Catoosa Cty) tax money for this circus. It is pretty amazing that you have a 98% conviction rate. How many innocent people are in jail because of you all. We are not mad, we are all furious and we will vote you out. You all have done nothing but put a bad name on our county, YOU ALL DO NOT REPRESENT US!!! We are much better than you all. We stand for honor and integrity.
This trial has opened the eyes of all ages, the young, middle age and the senior community, all have stated this should have never gone to trial.
One last thing Franklin, House, Arnt and Gregor, please ask Henke to help you all sell your houses, we don't want you in our town either.

Anonymous said...

Could you post the information again for any of the jurors that are feeling harassed or intimidated? Where they can report to please.

William L. Anderson said...

These will do for starters:

Mr. Stephen D. Kelley Chair,and Barry E. Morgan, Vice-Chair of Prosecuting Attorneys' Council of Georgia
104 Marietta Street NW, Suite 400
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2743

Sally Quillian Yates, United States Attorney
c/o Didi Nelson
LECC Manager
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Suite 600
Atlanta, GA 30303-3309

Thurbert Baker Esq.
Office of the Attorney General
40 Capitol Square, SW
Atlanta, Ga 30334

I also would urge people to talk either to WGOW, Channel 3, or even contact me. As Louis Brandeis once wrote, "Sunlight is a wonderful disinfectant." Indeed.

Lame said...

Has anyone noticed the story on Channel Slime about Councilman Andrae McGary? He's trying to help raise money for Ms Craft. Yet, channel slime is jumping all over him for a perceived "conflict of interest." They bring out some good-ol boy to bad-mouth him, and comments on the story use disturbing statements such as, "he doesn't know his place." Hmm, good-ol boys going after a vocal Black man who's supporting a White woman...and saying things like, "You need to be put back in your place, BOY!" It's almost like watching In the Heat of the Night. Maybe what we need is Detective Deal to drive up, and say, "No, I didn't falsify nothin. What we had here was a failure to communicate."

Richard said...

You all should read "The Innoncent Man", by John Grisham. It's non-fiction, not a novel. Prosecutors and cops have been playing these "games" for years.

Dan said...

Lame, I read that story and some of the comments which were just sad.

I am partially to blame for some of the heat he is taking.

When the site first appeared and I got wind of it. Since I am a skeptic, and involved in high-tech, my first reaction was this could be a scam site, for many reason, but mostly there was nothing visible on the site that could be used to verify its integrity. With some able help I traced the owner of the paypal account to the Councilman.

I called him to verify that it wasn't a scam and his first response to me was "What do I need to do to [the site] to avoid similar concerns?" I said to make it traceable to his office.

To his credit, 15 minutes later that change was made on the site.

My point is his intent is to help a citizen in his district, acquitted by a jury of her peers, from charges brought by the state. I see nothing wrong with that and no conflict of interest. I wish we had more politicians that would step up like he did. His job description is to help citizens find solutions to their problems.

Furthermore, originally the site said nothing about him, or his office. There was nothing visible there (until I warned him) to connect him, for others to think he did this for political points.

I don't know what political party he represents, I never even looked that up. My concern was that some criminal was taking advantage of people who, with their good intentions, wanted to donate something to help Tonya Craft.

But based on what he has done and how he has handled the controversy about his good intentions and actions, I would vote for him.

dmk said...


I'm not sure what you are getting at. If the State can't make it's case on anything other than vague or inconsistent testimony of a child without being able to back it up with evidence of exactly when and where the alleged event took place, the circumstances under which it took place, and depending on the nature of abuse that the child is alleging, medical evidence, then a jury should have serious doubts about convicting. I think it was the lack of exactly those things that caused the jury to find Tonya Craft innocent on all counts. The doubt was initially planted with inconsistent and/or tainted testimony of the children, and then with nothing to back it up, the whole case simply fell to pieces.

I absolutely don't buy the line of thinking that says when it comes to child abuse the State doesn't have to prove their case to the same degree as other crimes. Our system is based on protecting the rights of accused. The more heinous the crime should not mean the lower the bar is for charges to be brought or for juries to convict simply because it may reduce the percentage of the truly guilty who go free. Going down that path is a slippery slope indeed.

Anonymous said...

Well as for me and my relatives we will never do business with any wilson funeral home. As stated earlier family I s family and dewayne reap the benefits of his parents. What dishonesst folks. Also they have to know by now that nobody wants them or their children in ces. Go away.

Lame said...

I wish to never do business with ANY funeral home. But, unfortunately, people do die. As for myself, I have already stipulated something about it in my will--yes, I created a will and a living will (thank you Terri Scheivo) when I was 24. Rather than a funeral at a parlor or at a church, I put it in there that I am to be taken to a large empty field or place where no collateral damage could occur. There I am to be placed atop 500 lbs of high explosives. Several other fireworks are to be set up nearby. One hour after sundown they are to set off the fireworks, and as a finale the 500 lbs of TNT are to be detonated. Why do this, you may ask. Because I don't wanna be eaten by worms in a coffin, I don't wanna be burned and then ground up into powder. I want to end everything with a blaze of glory for the entertainment of my family and friends. I want people to say, "That Shane fella, he went out with a bang."

Anonymous said...

Lame, I do understand boycotting certain funeral homes. There are several in the area & they are all of higher quality than Wilson's. None of my family has used them in over 19 years because of a bad experience. So you can boycott that. It is in all of our wills & frankly, we all prefer cremation and no services at funeral homes. No caskets, no viewings (something I've never understood anyways), no services, just take us to Heritage to be cremated, then someone will pick us up. Simple "memorial" services which with all of my family & a great deal of friends like to refer to as parties or celebrations of life. All in all, you can boycott funeral homes.

The ambulance service is a different story, especially since Angel has the county contract here. I do know 4 people who have quit Angel because of their poor payments to employees (writing bad checks from several accounts) & not paying their part of the insurance premiums. All 4 had the same experience with them. It's sad to go to the dr., yourself or family member, then get a bill saying your insurance was denied due to failure of payment by your employer.

A previous poster who works for Angel made some very ugly remarks, which bothered myself & many other good, tax paying citizens of this county. This person said things to the nature of "not buying your meds, but buying your cigarettes", we will still be there. Well, if that is the attitude of any EMS worker, I personally would not want them to transport me to the hospital. Communities are filled with all types of people and we all know that, but to take an attitude like that is just uncalled for, especially when you work for a company who is paid through tax payer money.

IamAngel said...

TO Anon 8:07

I apologize if I struck a nerve with you and others with my comments. I meant nothing disrespectful from them, but obviously you have no understanding of my job. I do get very frustrated, and you would too if you worked on an ambulance, and someone calls for you to transport them to the ER for a problem that they have already been seen for but refused to comply with the Doctors orders for medication. I hear daily, I can't afford my medications, yet they are sitting in the chair with an ashtray full of cigarette butts beside it, and are puffing on one while I try to talk to them.
If that offends you, well I apologize again, but I find it hard to have sympathy for that kind of person. It is even worse when it is their child that needs the meds and doesn't have them, but the parent stands there smoking when we walk into the house. Then they take an Advanced Life Support Ambulance out of service to provide them a taxi ride to the hospital so they can bypass the waiting room. (It doesn't work by the way) And it seems it never fails that just about the time you get them loaded onto the stretcher, a REAL emergency will come in. It could be your mother, or your child that truly needs an ambulance, and the closest one is coming from out of district, when they need someone RIGHT NOW!!!! If that only happened once or twice in a month it would not be frustrating, however Ambulance Abuse happens daily. This blog is not designed to vent my frustrations about these issues, This blog is about the injustice that happened to Ms. Craft. so with that, I will say no more.

Anonymous said...

I completely agree & have many, many friends who are EMS, Firemen & women, police & doctors. I do understand that part. It was the lumping everyone into a category part. Believe me, I hate going to the doctor's office and seeing women who already have more than enough children, are not paying attention to them, but are sitting there with my tax dollars paying for another one, but I can not have much needed surgery, because I do not have insurance right now. So I do understand the frustration. I just felt that would be something that would be discussed with friends and family. Trust me, the people I listed above vent to me all the time. 911 is a very abused service. I actually keep the #'s for the local services programmed into my phone rather than use 911, unless it is a true emergency or I am out of town and see an accident or crime.
It just struck me as if you were saying all of us posting were the ones abusing the system. I can honestly tell by the writings of some, that they would do it. In fact, I had one tell me the other night that they were using improper spellings & grammer purposefully because they were trying to hide who they were. They claimed to be an ER doctor. Hmmmmm.

It's cool & I do understand where you are coming from.