Sunday, May 9, 2010

The LMJD and CAC Give Everyone Else the Middle Finger

[Update, Sunday May 9, 4:30 PM]: Lest anyone think that the "showgirls" at the CAC-LMJD fundraiser Friday are NOT wearing thongs, here is the picture that is shown for the promotion of the "fundraiser" on the Willow Tree Farms website. The photo is of "Elvis" and the "Showgirls," and look at their outfits:

What if a picture of Tonya Craft that was anywhere CLOSE to that had been in the prosecutors' hands? Does anyone think they would not have waved it in front of the jury? The stench of hypocrisy of the CAC and the LMJD can be smelled all the way up to my mountain home in Maryland.

[End Update]

I originally had limited this story to my previous post, but the more I think about the "Viva Las Vegas Casino Night fundraiser" for the Children's Advocacy Center (and co-sponsored by the Lookout Mountain Judicial District) is so reprehensible that it deserves a special look. If anyone needs more proof that the principals in both the CAC and the LMJD believe that they are hammers and everyone else is a nail, this "party," timed to coincide with the Tonya Craft trial, is proof.

For those just becoming familiar with this outrage, let me first remind you of some of the reasons that prosecutors Len Gregor and Chris Arnt (and, face it, Judge Brian House) are using to try to convince the jury that Tonya Craft molests children:
  • She has gone to Las Vegas;
  •  She allegedly has worn a thong (although the prosecutor only could allege it and never proved in court);
  •  She drank alcohol at her wedding.
So, if these things are as evil as Gregor and Arnt have been insisting, we find that the LMJD and the CAC are hosting a big party which is described as following:
Lookout Mountain Judical Circuit and Children's Advocacy Center will host Casino Night, Viva Las Vegas on Friday (May 14) at 7 p.m. at Willow Tree Farm located on Post Oak Road in Ringgold.

There will be professional dealers, showgirls and Elvis. Games will include poker, roulette, craps, blackjack and Texas holdem tables.

Music will be provided by the Collins Brother Band.

Admission is $25 and includes food, fun money and entertainment. Drinks will be sold separately.

Casino Night is for adults 21 and up. (Emphasis mine)
Yes, showgirls wear thongs. There will be drinking of alcohol (and most likely the bartenders will create the very kind of vodka drink that prosecutors pointed out is "proof" that Ms. Craft sexually molests children). Furthermore, two things that are highly correlated with child abuse and neglect are alcoholism and habitual gambling, both of which are intertwined with the "Las Vegas experience."

So, here we have it. After weeks of being told that Tonya Craft is "immoral" (and, by association, a child molester) because of the things listed above, the very people who have made those claims are hosting a party which will celebrate all of the same things for which they condemn Ms. Craft. This is not an accident, people, nor an embarrassing coincidence. This party was planned at the same time that the prosecution -- working hand-in-hand with Brian House and the CAC -- was planning to smear Ms. Craft.

No, they are sending all of you a message: They will do what they darn well please, and the rest of you had better watch out. If anything, this demonstrates the utter contempt in which men like House, Arnt, Gregor, and every judge and prosecutor in the LMJD hold for regular, decent people who live in that district.

By the way, does anyone doubt that had Tonya Craft attended a party like this, that Len Gregor would not have thrown it into her face during his faux cross-examination? Yet, no one at the LMJD sees the irony here? Why am I not surprised?

It is not enough that the players of the CAC and the LMJD worked together to destroy a family financially and literally to steal a woman's children from her, and then tell those children over and over again that their mother abused them when all of them know they are lying. No, they have to engage in behavior that is geared to let everyone else know that they play by no rules, no laws but their own.

Furthermore, as Dr. Nancy Aldridge, Dr. Ann Hazzard, Dr. Nancy Fajman, and Dr. William Bernet told the jury, the methods with which the CAC "interviewers" examined the three children in this case were "sloppy," "misleading," and utterly devoid of the techniques that are supposed to be used in cases like this. What was the response of the representatives of the LMJD? That these experts were "lying," and that they lied for money.

So, not only do the CAC and the LMJD engage in hypocritical conduct in order to raise money, they also insist that people contribute to an organization which has incompetent, dishonest, and poorly-trained associates so that these people can go forth and engage in more false accusations against innocent people. So, if you believe that there are not enough innocent people in prison, if you believe that the rules don't apply to you, then by all means go to the party. You can meet the "heroic" Len Gregor, Brian House, and Chris Arnt. Wear a thong. Drink vodka. Do the excess to your heart's content because you can bet that these people won't be targeting you.

As we move into the fifth week of this sham of a trial, perhaps it is fitting that the end of these sorry events be celebrated with a fundraiser to honor the very people who have made this sorry spectacle possible. People who have their hearts set on doing evil might as well go all the way.


KC Sprayberry said...

Banging my head against my desk in frustration. These people are so evil, so full of themselves, that they would make delightful bad guys in a romantic suspense I'm developing right now. But, even though the country is watching clips of this trial, I can't even begin to use their worst qualities. Some editor or agent somewhere will tell me no one is that bad. Oh, the frustration. But I'll still make little notes here and there. Maybe I can instill those qualities into a whole gang of say about fifty. Maybe then I'll have believable baddies. Yeah. Right. Who am I kidding. Fiction is so much nicer than real life.

Truth for Tonya, and I'll keep saying that until the monitor is off her ankle and her kids are in her arms again.

ihatecatoosa said...

Anyone up there willing to go? I too think it was scheduled to coincide with what they hope will be a conviction in Tonya's case.

Buzz F. has an interest in the CAC because he is a founding member of the board & the financial committee. Seems like a conflict of interest to me. Victoria Scoggins also works/worked there.

Denise C. said...

Can anyone go or is it by invitation?
I am interested to see how the showgirls are actually dressed. Kinda like going in as spies.

stephanie said...

Seriously!!! Do they think that we are that ignorant? I'm so over these people.

Victoria said...

Make sure to bring your cameras and get plenty of pics of the players for the prosecution and their various activities at that shin dig. I'm sure Gregor will live out his fantasies in a photo op with one of the showgirls in her thong.

Anonymous said...

If Tonya chooses to sue the CAC in civil court, I hope she gets every single dime from this stinkin' fundraiser and then some.

kbp said...

Repeat from last blog post
(Hoping somebody there will ask!)


Thanks Anon 2:11,

For that Article.

"...Your motion is denied,” the judge said. However, he ruled that defense attorneys must be given access to the evidence they previously subpoenaed from the sheriff’s department and other potential witnesses."

I have never seen a case in which just a gag order by itself restricted access to all court filings (motions, subpeonas...) and do not recall the gag order in this case being used to 'seal' those filings.

I have seen ONLY 2 filings released, one being the grand jury confiramtion and the other, I believe, that gag order.

Does anyone near Ringold know if the public documents have been sealed, they won't allow you to get copies?

Why doesn't somebody just go ask the court clerk for copies to all these filings?

kbp said...

I'd contribute for 3 couples to attend, on the following conditions;

first couple had camcorder to catch the show;

second couple with another camcorder to video them taking away the first camcorder; and

third couple an audio recorder in case the second camcorder was also taken!

liberranter said...

I'd contribute for 3 couples to attend, on the following conditions;

first couple had camcorder to catch the show;

second couple with another camcorder to video them taking away the first camcorder; and

third couple an audio recorder in case the second camcorder was also taken!

kbp, I have no doubt that anyone attending this perverse event will be strip-searched and/or patted down on arrival to preclude them from filming, recording, or photographing it.

William L. Anderson said...

I'm wondering if Gregor and Arnt will have the "showgirls" arrested for child molestation?

Anonymous said...

correct me if I'm wrong, but were Tonya supporters not trying to organize a fundraiser/event for Tonya on May 15.

If so is that not a striking coincidence.

Anonymous said...

amazing.... Gambling, show girls, drinking.... guess everyone that attends better watch out or they will be next on the child molester witch hunt!

Denise C. said...

The date for the Tonya fundraiser was just a coincidence. The original discussed date was the same weekend as Down Home days. It was discussed further and was decided to bump it up to May 15. We didn't even know about the Casino Night until just a few days ago. I can show you the email where we discussed the dates. Unlike the Casino night, the Tonya fundraiser involves nothing immoral or threatening to the health and well being of anyone. I wonder if when the little casino night get together is over, how many people are going to be driving home drunk. I know where this event is being held. The road out of there is dark and curvy. Unlike the casino night event, children are welcomed to our event. Seeing as how their event is supposed to be for the kids, but kids cannot attend, kind of seems hypocritical to me.

kbp said...

Anon 3:21,

What would be so "striking" about anyone trying to raise defense funds for a victim of the system here?

I'm not aware of that effort you've mentioned, but when the falsely accused suffer a deprivation of rights brought under the color of law, I have to admire any that help that person afford a defense.

You way you worded you comment - "a striking coincidence" - could lead one to believe you do not approve of her receiving any help to cover the expense of her defense, maybe even passing judgment just because she ahs an attorney.

Anonymous said...

I,m poster 3:21,

I've been misunderstood. What I meant was that I thought the the may 14/15th dates were chosen on purpose to be at the same time as the Tonya Fundraiser and this was just another coincidence that these sick bastards are putting on (show girls, vegas,etc)

Anonymous said...

add on from 3:21 guy,

wow, I see how words can be misunderstood. I have been following this blog everyday for weeks now.

I thought the date chosen for this vegas gambling night was chosen specifically to be on the same weekend (that was the striking coincidence)

Mr. Anderson - so you know that i'm not a troll, I was that guy a couple weeks back who commended you for all your hard work from Toronto Canada.

Sorry if anyone misunderstood

William L. Anderson said...

Sorry!! I appreciate your explanation. We just get so many trolls on here that I was suspicious. And I do appreciate your comments! I will delete my previous post.

Denise C. said...

Anon 3:21...No problem... this just goes to show how passionate and dedicated we are to this. We are strangers from all around the globe will to fight and defend a women whom most of us have never met.

kbp said...


Good to see efforts to help Tonya out!

"... Casino night .. immoral or threatening"

Exactly, Gregor and Arnt have continuously made efforts to show something Tonya has done in the past indicates she has a propensity to commit the crimes and then they try to add some ridiculous event illustrating "poor judgments" she might have made.

All these efforts require us to go as far as six degrees oe more to somehow tie them into being remotely associated to Tonya being a person that even COULD have committed the crimes. Even then, the best they get is an indirect chance to convict a PERSON, not prove a CRIME was committed.

The pattern - or strategy if one could stoop to giving them that much credit - of what the prosecution has presented for evidence in their case is what makes the 'Vegas Night' so striking[ly] different any family fundraiser set up for a good cause.


And the point stands without it being in response to a comment that evidently a few of us misunderstood!

Maybe it would be good for one or more of us to sneak in and stir things up here occassionally!


Anonymous said...

How does one send money to help Tonya Craft? I can't attend the picnic, but hubby and I can give some money to her cause. Is there a contact site? Thanks!

Mr. Anderson, you have gone above and beyond the call of duty to help us understand what is going on have many of your bloggers with their comments. We live in TN outside of Chattanooga. We just want to show our support.
Thanks to all and anyone that can guide us in the right direction.


Anonymous said...

Oh, I meant to ask if there is something besides a financial contribution that we may be able to offer. Again, thanks to anyone that can help.

Anonymous said...

Here's the venue for the "Casino Night" No mention is made of a recommendation for designated drivers, even though they do mentions drinks will be sold.

Denise C. said...

Bobb, you can go to and contact them to see what you can do. We will be having a silent auction and a raffle so if you want to donate something for that it would be greatly appreciated.

volfan69 said...

Denise C., many thanks to you. I can't believe that I missed that!LOL I'll be there shortly. I taught in Ham. Co. for 32 years and I certainly know how things can go for you and against you in a heartbeat. Again, thanks to you and all of the nice people here. Bobb

Lookout Spy said...

I notice some serious contradictions in the story here about Laurie Evan's testimony here.

" 1:39 p.m. Evans says the child exhibited signs of agitation, sleeplessness, and signs of withdrawal in his behavior that prompted her to diagnose him with major depressive disorder. Lorandos is asking questions to try and give the court a better idea of why and how she came to that conclusion."
I believe "him" is a "typo" here.

"2 p.m. Lorandos presented Evans with another transcript and it reflected that at an earlier point when asked if Catoosa County sheriff’s detective Tim Deal was her main source of information when she began treating the children, the transcript stated that she had replied "Correct" to that question. Lorandos is now asking what assessments were made regarding girl victim #3. Evans says there wasn't a diagnosis made of the child because the Children's Advocacy Center has alternative ways of evaluating children in her situation. Lorandos asked if there were any assessments made of the child. Evans leads him to a paragraph in the report which describes the assessment. Lorandos then becomes more inquisitive as to why an assessment of a child would be so small, consisting of only 29 words made up mostly of names and addresses."
Again, I believe "him" is a "typo" here.

"2:14 p.m. Lorandos asks if Evans gave diagnoses to each of the three girl victims in this case. Evans reiterates that the Children's Advocacy Center doesn't conduct diagnosis of the children. Lorandos is asking Evans about treatment plans and assessments that were made of victims #1 and #2. He is surprised there are not short-term goals, long-term goals, or diagnoses for either children. Evans reiterates that the CAC doesn't conduct diagnoses."

In less than an hour, Evans goes from saying that she makes a diagnosis, to saying she doesn't make a diagnosis.

Granted, the reporter may have flubbed a few pronouns, however, we've got some serious conflicts in testimony here. There's lot's more, but Evans should be in jail, in my opinion, not testifying in court as an expert witness, with 29 word assessments fed to her by the Sherriff's Department.

Steph said...

I was seriously just trying to post the same picture! I'm not so tech savvy. Interesting isn't it?

William L. Anderson said...

Well, if one commits perjury while testifying for the prosecution in the LMJD, that person is given an insurance policy from being prosecuted for it. After all, why have truth when the prosecutors and judges want a lie?

I would like to ask the following question: Is there an honest person in the employ of either the DA's office or anywhere else in the LMJD apparatus? I ask that question seriously.

William L. Anderson said...

Yep. Interesting picture.

ihatecatoosa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ihatecatoosa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Denise C., I contacted the website. Thanks again.

Mr. Anderson, do you, in your heart of hearts, think that charges can be brought against the Judge and the rest after this is over? I am praying that it will happen. This could be your child or mine in the same situation. I taught for 32 years and never wanted one of my three children to be a public education teacher!Bobb

Anonymous said...

I have never seen a bigger bunch of hypocrites in my life. Scantily clad showgirls in thongs for their fund raiser. Now everyone say it with me.

Lookout Spy said...

Bill, to answer your question as to if are there any honest persons in the employ of the LMJD, I'd have to say this. I couldn't swear for the janitors, because janitors in lots of places are known for thievery, petty as it is. I'd have to say that some of the clerks, secretaries and adjunct staff, not all of them, are reasonably honest. I do believe that there are officers in all the Sheriff's Departments that are good honest, hard working men and women who take their jobs seriously, and as in any law enforcement agency, there's a goodly number of bad apples as well. I believe that in general, the courthouse bailiffs are good honest people with little opportunity to be dishonest. In the jails, they are pretty much underpaid, but generally honest, with exceptions, of course, as in anything. But, higher up, when it comes to Department managers, the hierarchy, pretty questionable. I happen to know that there are a few honest ADA's, I can say with some certainity Melissa Pittman is one. The Public Defender's offices are largely honest, again they are severely underfunded, with little motivation to be dishonest. I believe the PD's office does have to cut a lot of corners due to their lack of funding to really investigate and advocate in defense of their clients. Overall, we're looking at a ratio in my estimation, of 20% honest, the rest are part of the game we see going on in the trial.

KC Sprayberry said...

Okay, after that assessment of Laurie Evans' testimony, and that was only a short portion of it, does anyone here wonder why Dr. Lorandos had a splitting headache. I believe one of Callie Starns' tweets included how he went around the courthouse looking for aspirin. I watched video of that segment. Evans went from looking confused to grinning (almost laughing) to bored. The grinning only happened when Dr. Lorandos turned his back. This is the same day court started an hour and a half late due to a meeting in chambers, with her present. Poor Dr. Lorandos. He tried to show her poor skills and ended up in physical pain.

And that bit about the him instead of her in two places. At the time, I thought they had changed to talking about Tonya's son. But you might be right. Evans was so confusing in her testimony, I can't blame anyone for losing track.

Harmony said...

There is at least one honest person in the LMJC and her name is Debbie Crowe. I grew up with her son and she was one of our band mom's. She is an awsome lady. I believe she works for the juvenile court division though. She is really a great person. She is also my MIL best friend.

Anonymous said...

I am FURIOUS...who do these people think they are? Bill Anderson, I can only hope that you chew them up and spit them out!!!!@

Dan said...

This is just another example of the depth of their incompetence.

From a pure public relations perspective, the title and content of this event is so ill-conceived, I can't find a single beneficial point to it.

From a market awareness perspective it’s a disaster. Public sentiment is running 91% to 9% against them (from a recent local poll). In Northern Georgia, you don’t throw a fund-raising party with showgirls when you need to win back the public trust. I doubt that would even work in Nevada.

From a community perspective it’s just plain idiotic and incredibly insensitive. No matter how this trial turns out, the community there needs time to heal.

But! They are a public charity so I thought I would be charitable, and assume they need this events to keep their doors open. So I looked it up.

The CAC is a 501c(3) public charity and you can obtain a copy of their form 990. (This is the return that tax exempt organizations have to file with the IRS each year) The one I have was filed on May 15, 2008 and covered their 2006-2007 fiscal year.

On the revenue side they took in a whopping $201,371 from government funding sources and $9,994 from public contributions (like those that come in from events like the upcoming Whoo Hoo We Won! Las Vegas). Their third source of revenue was $2,050, the training fees they collect from their volunteers.

Since it costs them money to put on these events (their fundraising costs were $4,635 that year) That means only about 2.5% ($5,359) is used to support them.

But wait! on their website they show both WalMart and Target donated $1000 and Radio Shack $500.

Now, if I was being less than honest – I would subtract $2,500 from the $5,359 leaving $2,859 (1.3%) to make a point – but since I don’t know what those companies donated the year covered by their IRS return – I won’t.

This event is not a necessary fundraiser for them, it is nothing more than a inconceivably poor public relations move and celebration.

kbp said...


That testimony was about Tonya's son.

Anonymous said...

Wow. Talk about judgemental. First, let me assure you all that I'm no troll. Second, I'm the husband of one of the individuals helping to organize Casino Night & I've also volunteered some of my time to help set up for it. Third, I'm pulling for Tonya Craft. I suspect this whole mess is nothing more than a witch hunt by some very vindictive people. With this being said, Casino Night just happens to be the theme of this year's party. Every year, around this same time, a charity motorcycle ride is put on by the Blue Knights to benefit the CAC. There is always a "pre-ride" party the night before. In the past, the party has been reserved for riders only but in the last couple of years the party has been opened up to the public. Casino Night was being planned well before the Craft trial started & personally, I think many of you have your tin foil hats on a little tight & are making more of this than there really is.... and for those who are worried about impaired drivers leaving the event, arrangements have been made for a shuttle service. Now, you can obviously think or believe what you want but please, put away the torches & pitchforks. As I said, you're making way more of this than there actually is.

kbp said...

The judgment passed along here are the product of House, Arnt and Gregor, the last two members of the SART team that the CAC is also a part of.

Anonymous said...

Wow, Dennis Norwood just sent out a tweet about this fundraiser....

Hes the writer for and is a blast to follow his tweets. He just asked if wearing a thong makes you a child molester... bahahahaha. Dennis, are you here?

my hubby and I will be at the funraiser next weekend, I hope to see a big crowd


kbp said...

That should read "the last two BEING members..."

Anonymous said...

"The time for half measures and talk is over"

Jerri Lynn Ward, J.D. said...

If I were the defense attorneys, I would subpoena the CAC for rebuttal. Then I would cross-examine them on this party and about that picture of thongs to completely destroy the prosecution's position that bawdy adult behavior equals child molestation.

The prosecution has walked into a trap by making the very things that their star witnesses are doing to raise money the indications of a child molester.

Anonymous said...

anon 6:29

If you have followed the whole prosecutorial theme of Tonya Craft's trial, you will see that:

1. The CAC employees were woefully untrained for their positions, and because of that,

2. The prosecution team has followed a recurring line of questioning that would assasinate Ms. Craft's character for the very same things that you have available at your fundraiser.

Perhaps, sir, it is time you take a stand, too. The CAC enabled these vindictive people that you refer to destroy Ms. Craft's life.

Jerri Lynn Ward, J.D. said...

Here's some of my cross to CAC:

1. Now you wouldn't hold a fundraiser show casing the kinds of activities and behavior that indicate a child molester, would you?

Johnny said...

I too am surprised by this "showgirl" party. But then I think "why not". There are obviously two ways of thinking here in Catoosa County. I'm wondering what the special code is that those on the "in" have that those of us regular folks don't have. Maybe there is a secret decoder ring worn by those that battle against child molesters and the rest of us are up for the "molester of the month" because we don't have that decoder ring. Another strange thing I find is the sign outside of the DFACS office in Ringgold. It says "OVER A THOUSAND CASES OF CHILD ABUSE REPORTED A YEAR". Now, my question is, how many of these cases turned out to be an angry ex-spouse trying to get back at the other ex-spouse? How many reports are unsubstantiated? Where is the actual number of true child abuse cases? If there were over a thousand cases of abuse each year then in a few years every child will have been abused. And if these numbers are actual numbers then why isn't the paper running these facts instead of a propaganda sign outside the agency responsible for investigating these cases of abuse? I challenge a case worker from DFACS to provide true and actual numbers of actual abuse. I know a person that was reported to DFACS for bruises on her son that the case worker determined was "ex-spouse revenge syndrome". So that was one of the "over a thousand reported cases of abuse a year" that turned out to be a revenge report. Numbers look good but when you study them they look overinflated and misguided. Is DFACS trying to justify their existence? I for one have concerns about the purpose of DFACS. Who is the oversight for DFACS? I know they work hand in hand with the "wonderful" detectives of Catoosa County.

DFACS must of course be attending the Vegas shindig. Isn't gambling illegal? I know we have the lottery but the government runs that or at least regulates it. Will they really be gambling with money? And our District Attorney's office not only will be supporting this endeavor but participating? And there will be drinking? Will the FBI be outside the gates doing breathalyzer exams on leaving attendees? The local police and The Man and Facebook will be there so who will be protecting those of us not attending but innocently driving the public roads if Catoosa County. We will be the ones put at risk that night. Can this be reported as a case of abuse?

Kerwyn said...

Anon 6:29

Had in the normal course of events you had this fund raiser at any other time, most likely no one would say a word.

However, given the vitriolic attack by Arnt and Gregor on Ms. Craft for "drinking at her wedding", Dancing at a Gala with "other men", the ubiquitous and non stop "Thong", the insinuation that she went to Las Vegas so she could have a little couples action with her friend and husband ... the list goes on, puts anything the CAC does in the light.

The CAC was in the drivers seat for this whole farce. From uneducated (and proud of it) to intentional leading questions (as testified to by Shelly "so what" long, to not having the basic professional education to do an appropriate pediatric SANE exam.

For you to support an organization that sets it's standards this low is appalling. Rather than raising money for them, you should be demanding they bring their staff current in regards to their education,procedures and standards, policy, guidelines and accountability.

Please review the testimony given by 3 of CAC's "finest" and then stand back and ask yourself. Do you REALLY want to be associated with an organization that has such a critical role in determining the mental health of not only a child they are speaking with, but hold in their ill educated hands, the very lives of those around that child.

Do you really want to be so closely aligned with an Organization that hires those of such poor education, experience and integrity.

It is your choice to either quietly plan a "cool party" so these folks can get more money or stand up and demand that the CAC have professional standards per national and industry standards, procedural guidelines per national and industry standards, require minimum education and continuing education certifications per national and industry standards and most of all develop open accountability for all of it.

All of the above, the current and former employees of CAC "laughing, rolling eyes and shrugging shoulders" testified they did not do, did not know about and had no clue what even the STATE standards (let alone national standards) were.

Do you REALLY want to be associated with "experts" that act like this in a case where not only does the accused's life hangs in the balance, but the children who have also been destroyed with their proudly announced ignorance and deliberate contamination of 3 young children.

I am sorry, I am sure your wife worked very hard for this, I am sure she has the best of intentions and the kindest of hearts.

Sir I leave you with this thought. You wife most obviously has a lovely heart to want to help children, so did Tonya Craft... it didn't take much to destroy her when she made the wrong parent mad.
What would you think if Deal showed up at your house because your lovely wife had ticked off the wrong person and you had to stand there while they said, handcuffs, your being arrested for sexual battery on a child. The you had to face the incompetent interviewers at CAC who hold your very life in their hands..

Would you be afraid then?

Anonymous said...

WOW again, why would anyone want to support CAC with fund raisers? During the course of this trial it is very obvious that the employees of CAC have no professional credentials, ethics, or conscience. It seems to me that for every three child molesters put behind bars, there are also six inocent people put behind bars also. More harm than good. Lets save taxpayer dollors and shut down the CAC.

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps, sir, it is time you take a stand, too. The CAC enabled these vindictive people that you refer to destroy Ms. Craft's life"

Look, I'm not defending the CAC or Ms. Craft, although I do feel in my gut that she's innocent of the charges. The intent of my earlier post was to clarify that Casino Night is in no way some suggestive "conspiracy". As I said, it has been in the works since last year. It's laughable that so many people are willing to give Ms. Craft the benefit of the doubt but are certain that Casino Night is some devious plot to influence public opinion.

kbp said...

To Anon 6:29

Catoosa, Chattooga, Dade, Walker Counties.

"... a witch hunt by some very vindictive people"

Which of the following individuals or entities are not associated with each other and hold some responsibility for what Tonya faces?

1. Det. Tim Deal
2. Stacey Long
3. Suzi Thorne
4. Holly Nave Kittle
5. Dr. Carmicheal
6. Laurie Evans
7. Chris Arnt
8. Buzz Franklin
9. Sharon Anderson
10. CAC

As for the "...vindictive people", something has led them to all the reports of abuse and neglect being filed or called in.

Getting together with drinks & show girls is a mighty strange way to put together a crowd that feels all warm & fuzzy about doing their part to promote any entity that has received reports from numerous people that will attend the event.

If the response was to Dan saying "is nothing more than a inconceivably poor public relations move and celebration", I say he is accurate. The funding gained from the party event will not make or break the budget.

The "$201,371 from government funding sources" is what could do that. Take out the local government funds and you're left with federal funds, a source which pays more to the TEAM if the TEAM can show more children were handled through foster care and adoptions.

The system looks like one only set up to help, but the incentive (mo' money) is to find more abuse or neglect, not solve it. For every child services case any can find that shows children reunited with their parents or close relatives, I can produce 10 that were not. Of those 10 cases I could show 3+ that turned down relatives because of some reason like 'grandma is too old at 65 YO or here income is deficient' (too poor to care for a child?).

NOW, on the brighter side...

I'd feel safe saying that NONE here want children to be abused, so the remedy is to take the time one wishes to donate to the cause and concentrate on improving how that TEAM works. More money and goodtime parties are not the solution.

The CAC there is batting 71% last report I saw (713 of a 1,000+ cases reported were "substantiated"). Take the time that would have been provided to help at that party and review how in the world they beat the national average by almost 20%. That would be my contribution if I were in that area, saving a few children that might not need to be "substantiated". Talk to others about HOW the CAC can be better in its performance, not funded better.

Dan said...

Kerwyn, very well said.

Kerwyn said...

Anon, 7:27,

Please note, I refer to NOTHING about a conspiracy in my post. I would actually like to hear your thoughts on what I said. I simply stated facts as produced by CAC during testimony. Either they lied during testimony or they are indeed incompetent.

Sir, I am a Forensic Nurse Examiner as well as a SANE-A (adult) and a Sane-P (pediatric). I hold 3 bachelors and 2 master degrees and many certifications (the alphabet behind my name *smiles*.

I have over 15 years in my field and I testify in court frequently as a qualified "expert" witness. MOST of the time I do testify for the prosecution, but I assure, I would never have done what any of these folks from CAC done regardless of whose momma or daddy was involved.

Sir, I pride myself on my professionalism, I spend hours of my off duty time doing ongoing education so that I am as current as I can possibly be, not only in the medical field but in the forensic field as well.

I, as a professional who literally holds an individuals life in my hands would never be so cavalier as to "giggle, roll my eyes or proudly proclaim, I have no degree but I took a few seminars and then have the unmitigated HUBRIS to pronounce what amounts to a life sentence on another human being based on all that "expertise". Nor, Sir, would I associate with anyone who would do so or employ someone who would do so.

When I testify, I know the end result is going to destroy someone regardless of the outcome. Whether it be the defendant, the defendants family, the alleged victim, the alleged victims family or society to whom, in the end, I must answer for my actions.

I would challenge you Sir, to have the same courage. I assure you it is a difficult path that is absolutely filled with pitfalls to walk.... but then a path of honor always is.

Anonymous said...

What is the address for the courthouse where the trial is taking place?

Kerwyn said...

For Bill

The judge DID indeed appear in court on behalf of Henke in his divorce with Tony Craft. What I didn't know (and missed was)
"Further, since Assistant District Attorney Chris Arnt has testified against Ms. Craft during previous proceedings, the defense argued, the prosecutor is a potential witness in the case. "

“Your motion is denied,” the judge said.

so let me understand this, both the Judge and the ADA have been, in a previous matter, against her in court.

Also, the women who testified that Ms. Craft had never signed a power bill for them.. I know you all remember. The document was admitted into evidence on Fri proving they lied under oath.

Also, apparently one defaulted on the Bill and Ms. Craft had to pay it (I have no hard proof just a private message from someone).

Jerri Lynn Ward, J.D. said...

"Further, since Assistant District Attorney Chris Arnt has testified against Ms. Craft during previous proceedings, the defense argued, the prosecutor is a potential witness in the case.

OMG! Kerwyn, what are you reading from?

Anonymous said...


If I recall correctly, this power bill surfaced during the defense cross-examination of Accuser 2's parents. She denied that Ms.Craft had done signed the power bill, but somebody from the defense team took a ride over to the power company and provided the document with both signatures. I thought this evidence surfaced way before last Friday.

Anonymous said...

Hi Mr. Anderson,

Are you editing out negative posts by trolls or avid opponents of your position? While I'm on your side, I would note that it's very important to keep these posts somewhere, especially so that you can track the IP addresses. I know that they're annoying and burdensome, but they're also very useful to have later to demonstrate the vitriol of opponents as well as do some sleuthing. For example, would you be surprised if some negative comments were traced to government offices? In the case of a conviction, being able to show access from a juror's home can cause a mistrial. Please keep these in mind, and feel free to delete this comment once you've read it as to not tip anyone off ;-)


Anonymous said...


It is referenced from this article from early March concerning the pretrial motions.

Dan said...

To Anon @ 7:27

"Look, I'm not defending the CAC or Ms. Craft, although I do feel in my gut that she's innocent of the charges. The intent of my earlier post was to clarify that Casino Night is in no way some suggestive "conspiracy". As I said, it has been in the works since last year. It's laughable that so many people are willing to give Ms. Craft the benefit of the doubt but are certain that Casino Night is some devious plot to influence public opinion."

If that is the case then the people who in charge of this event are either public relations morons or are completely insensitive, probably both. They should have canceled it or at the very least changed the theme.

I've looked at the numbers, the CAC doesn't need local fundraising to support itself.

These are marketing and PR events designed to involve the community and to make sure everyone hears inflated statistics and casts a "suspicious" eye at clergy, teachers, friends, neighbors and families because it's people like them, not just poor folk and "people in black trench coats" that abuse children.

Gregor is right about one thing he keeps saying. "It is easier to destroy a bridge rather than build one."

The rhetoric spewing from agencies like the CAC doesn't build awareness or prevent child abuse. It's propaganda that plays off a basic human revulsion. It is designed to sustain these agencies and the system that kicked into high gear to destroy the lives of everyone involved the Tonya Craft travesty. And did so with cruel efficiency.

kbp said...


I had the link wromg in the last 2 posts I'd put it up in!

kbp said...

Anon 7:27,

In comments elsewhere (and maybe here?) on the matter, I had suggested that the trial date changes make it look to me as if the event was not scheduled because of the Craft case.

It's still foolish to have it with the case 'strategy' being used by Arnt & Gregor.

Unknown said...

Why not everyone show up at this fundraiser with a yell ow shirt on or truth for tanya shirts.if its an open party who could send you packing?

kbp said...

...and I should add that the "showgirls" does not look like a smart idea ever, if you consider the CAC is a part of the SEXUAL Assault Response Team.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:14 very good post

kbp said...


I see the humor there, but I don't think it would help Tonya any, actually the opposite.

If the event was know about by all, I'd expect some adult rape victims to protest about alcohol & showgirls there.

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

@ kbp, thanks for clarifying the pronoun references. Of course, the observation about perjury by Laurie Evans still stands.

@ Jerri Lynn Ward, J.D. , ma'am, with all due respect I am doubtful you are the attorney from Texas, either that or trial procedure is very different in Texas compared to Georgia. When the prosecution does rebuttal in Georgia, the defense has no statutory right to subpoena new witnesses or evidence. They may cross examine new witnesses or challenge new evidence, however.

On the other issue of the power bill cosigning, The power bill bill deposit being cosigned by Ms. Craft was denied under oath and later admitted into evidence by the defense, showing perjury by Ms. Craft's accuser.

William L. Anderson said...

To the 7:27

I agree. I'm not a "tinfoil hat" conspiracy theorist but the timing could not be worse. Because the CAC and the LMJD have worked together to frame Ms. Craft -- and it is a frame -- and one of the things they have been saying in their accusations is that she is a "loose" woman, which means she is a child molester, then why in the world would they WANT to have an event that is associated with the ultimate of "loose," Las Vegas?

You have the admit, the timing is terrible and it looks bad. Frankly, it tells me that the people at the LMJD and the CAC are liars. I'm sorry, but even if this was planned TWO years ago, the idea of associating the CAC with two things that contribute to child abuse and neglect, alcoholism and problem gambling, tells me that the people there are utterly arrogant.

Lookout Spy said...

As far as going to the party wearing yellow, better to send the $25.00 you'd spend on admission to the "party" to the defense team. Also, there may be a verdict by that time, we don't know what it's going to be yet. I sent money already to the defense. Not a $1000.00 by any means, but enough to help buy part an hour of legal service.

William L. Anderson said...

Kerwyn, Jerri, and kdp,

You guys are the best!!

BTW, when this whole ordeal is over, I have some great stories to tell, and I will let all of you know one thing: no one from the defense has been a source of mine for ANYTHING. You guys have no idea, and the prosecutors are even more clueless about my sources than you can believe.

The defense has been very, very diligent about keeping to the gag order, and I have honored that as well. The prosecutors even have tried to pull one trick on me, but it did not work, either.

Kaye said...

Mr. Anderson,

I do hope that you plan on posting those stories that you have alluded to. I would love to read about them.

Kaye said...

BTW, I have previously been posting as an anonymous poster, but with all the other anonymous posters, it get's a little confusing.

kbp said...


Bill and I both could vouch for you that Jerri is an attorney in Texas.

I think it's a little late to "subpoena the CAC for rebuttal", but I just assumed Jerri was in a hurry when I saw she was going to cross-examine her own witness!

I will add that there are witnesses subject to being recalled that could be asked the question she mentioned, so we may get to laugh together if we read of questioning like that.




I look forward to any you add to the loads you've shared already on the case, just like most commenting here keep saying.

I'll be glad when it's over, I am so far behind at work, haven't done anything in 4+ weeks!

kbp said...


It is so much BETTER to be able to put a name or some ID on comments, even if it is not real or revealing who one really is.


Dan said...

kbp said..

I'd feel safe saying that NONE here want children to be abused, so the remedy is to take the time one wishes to donate to the cause and concentrate on improving how that TEAM works. More money and goodtime parties are not the solution.

I've disclosed this previously on this blog.

I was sexually molested as a child, when I was 7. Thankfully, my family did not have to endure what has happened here. The cretin that did that horrible thing to me was put away for a very long time.

I am VERY passionate about preventing child abuse. But I am absolutely against any policy, however well-intended, that casts such a wide net that it consume innocents as well.

Harmony said...

Or better yet bring the 25 dollars to the Truth for Tonya picnic.

Trish White said...

Bill, I too can't wait to hear what you have to say that can't be told at the moment!!! Thanks again for all that you are doing to bring light into darkness!!

Kerwyn said...

To the poster who inquired about the deleted posts. We actually delete our own posts when we have gotten our factual information wrong, or have (in our frustration) perhaps stooped a bit too low as it were.

Mr Anderson does no deletions on these comment threads. I assure you, the rest of us are quit intelligent and possessed of the actual facts in this case in order to deal with trolls quit handily.

Kerwyn said...

I would like to note, I have invited the Anon poster who was associated with someone who is helping to plan this "gala" to post his views on my views (normally called intelligent debate). I note he has not.

I await your feelings on the matter.

William L. Anderson said...

Kerwyn is right. The first week, I deleted some comments that were entirely inappropriate, but now I delete them ONLY if the writer makes the request.

Kerwyn said...


Kbp beat me!

Yes, I missed that little gem. So we have House who did indeed represent Henke in court (in person) although he apparently appeared on the behalf of one Mike Giglo (who also ran along with House, Arnt and Gregor for the Judgeship). Mr. Giglio was the Attorney of Record I believe.

Reading the motion it appears that Arnt most likely testified in the Henke issue since that was addressed ad nauseum in the brilliant cross of Arnt on Friday.

So yes, we have the Judge and the ADA who have both been on the other side against her in a previous civil proceeding.

How is this not inappropriate and in my mind, obviously unethical? Of course I do realize, that what an honorable person would question as inappropriate is legal in the court. I do admit to my ignorance.

Anonymous said...

Now wait a minute Bill not being smart and I think you have the right to delete any and all since its your blog but you delete House's cell number the other day.

Kaye said...

I believe that House stepped in for Giglio in a divorce proceeding involving Tonya's first husband, not Henke. In any case, it was still a civil case involving her, and does still show a conflict of interest.

Kaye said...

Look what I just found.

Link for document for request of recusal. It was indeed for her first husband

perhaps, I can find these other motions somehow, without going to the court clerk's office.

SJL said...

I figured out how to give myself somewhat of an identity instead of continuing to post anonymously.

To Mr. Anderson...with all due respect sir, if you're absolutely sure that Ms. Craft is being framed then why don't produce your evidence so this woman can get on with her life? I'll say for the third time, I think she's innocent. Notice I said "think", I wouldn't "swear" she is though. After all, I don't personally know Ms. Craft or her accusers. Also to the person who suggested wearing shirts showing support of Ms. Craft: How can you be that sure? I feel for her but I'm not yet willing to parade around in public, before a verdict has been reached, showing that I'm positive she's innocent without a shadow of a doubt. Finally, the Hamilton Co. (TN) CAC which is right up the road, is holding a casino night fundraiser the very same night. What are your thoughts on this event?

Kaye said...

I read the request for recusal and it appears to me that the request was made twice. It mentions that the affadavit was not notarized the first time. I'm not an attorney, but it seems like any representation involving a contested divorce with much animosity as described would without question pose at the very least the appearance of a conflict of interest.

kbp said...

March 8, 2010

"...Judge House, who recently put down a gag order in the case, directed that no signs or T-shirts in favor of one sign or the other be on the courthouse grounds."
(guessing it should be "one siDE or the other")

Steps on First Amendment Rights just a bit there. I suppose he could restrict access to the "grounds", so that leaves the street right-of-way as the nearest property off those "grounds".

William L. Anderson said...


I am sure because the evidence simply points that way. NONE of the children made "accusations" at first and all of them said that nothing happened. It was only after the "interviewers" badgered them for nearly a year did they make the claims they now are saying. Experts in that field will tell you that these "disclosures" are VERY suspicious.

I think that the testimony of both Dr. Nancy Aldridge and Dr. William Bernet in saying that the questions asked of the children and the way they were asked violated ALL of the rules on how you interview children. Dr. Aldridge is considered perhaps the nation's top expert in this field, and she ALMOST ALWAYS TESTIFIES FOR PROSECUTORS.

Furthermore, I would ask this of you: Why, if they have such a good case, are prosecutors using tricks that clearly violate all of the rules?

When I was involved in the Duke Lacrosse Case four years ago, people like you were asking the same questions, and I said this: the "facts" as presented by the prosecution simply don't add up. And they don't add up here.

SJL said...

To Kerwyn, I'm still here. In response to your request for my thoughts on your post. You're right, my wife helped with this event with best intentions but make no mistake, niether one of us is "closely aligned" with the CAC. Let's just say that we have a strong desire to help innocent children with our involvement in other organizations but our help in planning this fundraiser is as close as we've been to CAC. I've attended this ride/party for the last 4 years just as a participant because I'm a motorcyclist & I enjoy the commraderie of charity rides. It wasn't until this trial that I learned more details of the CAC. I realize that there are contradictions with the CAC & Casino Night but at the same time I realize that we all contradict ourselves from time to time. I'm no expert on these legal matters & I'm certainly not as qualified as you to be able to critique the CAC (seriously, I'm not being sarcastic). That being said I have to go with my limited knowledge of such matters & come to my own conclusions. I've said many times how I feel about the case & I'm not going to judge either side, that's for jury to do. If Ms. Craft is found innocent then I truly hope she can pick up the pieces of her broken life & somehow find happiness again. It will be at that time when I turn a suspicious eye toward the CAC & recosider my support of them in the future.

Lookout Spy said...

Re: the question on motions for recusal, a judge is expected to follow the law, so legally and technically he was right in refusing the motion to recuse on procedural grounds; the affidavit IS required by statute to be notarized. However, in all situations a judge is bound FIRST by the Constitution of the State of Georgia, under which the auspices of the Canons of Judicial Conduct are promulgated, in which event a judge is REQUIRED to recuse himself in all situations where the "appearance of a lack of impartiality might be inferred". The problem with the whole issue is that Georgia law does not provide a party with the right to an interlocutory appeal to force a judge to recuse himself. A motion for reconsideration would not revive the TIMING of a motion to recuse, as GA Code requires a motion to recuse be filed timely, that is within 5 days of a party's becoming aware of grounds for recusal. However, the recusal issue may be reversible grounds on appeal in the event of a conviction. On procedural grounds, Louse, I mean House, is right, however, by violating the Canons of Judicial Conduct he has placed himself at jeopardy of maintaining his office for violating those Canons of Judicial Conduct, which he swore to uphold when he took his oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the State of Georgia.

William L. Anderson said...

House strikes me as someone who always plays by his own rules. My hope is that some people downstate take notice of his lawless court and do something about it.

Sandra Pearson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lookout Spy said...

Above all, the defense must act timely and thoroughly in its objections, and further, they must demand a written ruling stating the statutory grounds for a judge's ruling a certain way on a motion. Failure to object and failure to request a written statutory ground for denying a motion are issues which cannot be brought up on appeal.

Sandra Pearson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Okay, can someone "accidently post this flyer on the door where the jury comes in. Hmmmmm, wonder what they would think then?

Sandra Pearson said...

i have been contacted by many people asking where they can send money to help tonya... and i wanted to let you know that i am working on that and hope to have bank and account information by tomorrow evening.
i will post the information on the Truth for Tonya facebook group and on the Truth for Tonya web site.
thank you to all who have shown support throughout tonya's fight to prove her innocence. please continue keeping tonya in your thoughts and prayers as the fifth week of this trial begins tomorrow.

dmk said...

I agree that the CAC showgirl gala is supremely poor timing, whether by coincidence or design, and is absolutely the pot calling the kettle black, and they should be called out on that. But, I think we may be on the verge of letting our outrage get in the way of clear thinking. What started off as pointing out the hypocrisy when it comes to thongs, having a drink, Vegas, etc. evolved into some pretty questionable jumps we were making ourselves.

Not trying to stir anything up, and I get wound up on here sometimes too, but just saying how it read to me coming into this thread late. Right now, this wonderful blog is the only website where people can come to share ideas and get good solid information, and they are coming in droves I think. When we start making big leaps and get kind of out there, I think we run the risk of people thinking we are just as bad as the other side.

Just my $0.02.

Lookout Spy said...

Jury tampering is a felony. Not a good idea. They probably are reading everything they can get their hands on anyway. That is a whole 'nother legal nightmare in itself.

Anonymous said...

CAC opinion....Chattanoogan

Jerri Lynn Ward said...

"When the prosecution does rebuttal in Georgia, the defense has no statutory right to subpoena new witnesses or evidence. They may cross examine new witnesses or challenge new evidence, however."

No kbp, I was not reading too fast, and I'm talking about the cross-examination of a CAC person, a hostile witness whom the defense DOES have a right to cross-examine.

Lookout, I'm not talking about bringing the CAC witness during the prosecution's rebuttal. The defense can ask to reopen their case-in-chief, and they can bring hostile witnesses whom they can cross-examine. Or, if the prosecution brings rebuttal witnesses who testify to the thong, etc., the defense can bring additional witnesses as rebuttal witnesses to that kind of testimony as well.

So, the defense has a case-in-chief and a rebuttal just like the prosecution as is made obvious in the Georgia Rules of Procedure right here:

Therefore, the defense also has the right to bring rebuttal witnesses, and they have the right to cross-examine such a witness if they are hostile.

Frankly, I'd ask to reopen the case-in-chief.

kbp said...


Just so ALL here know; I did not write what you quoted above my ID, I merely responded to Lookout with my presumption of what might be an explanation for what you had written.

My explanation was based on what appeared to be a rushed post, with 'cross' of your own witness.

As for "hostile" witnesses, I suspected D-Lo was going ask for that when "Miss Laurie" Evans was on the stand. I also anticipated House would deny it if he had asked.

Are you familiar enough with Georgia rules to know whether or not any witnesses they gave notice to recall are supposed to still be available for rebuttal?


Victoria said...

Sandy, why not start a paypal account for donations?

There is also

Lookout Spy said...

@Jerri Lynn Ward, 17/17-16-4 has to do with pretrial discovery, not proceedings. Why are you using Oncle? Most attorneys use Westlaw or Nexis, and verify caselaw arguments by Shephardising their caselaw lookups.

O.C.G.A. § 17-8-71. Order of argument after evidence presented.

After the evidence is closed on both sides, the prosecuting attorney shall open and conclude the argument to the jury. The defendant shall be entitled to make a closing argument prior to the concluding argument of the prosecuting attorney.

O.C.G.A. § 17-8-73 (2010)

§ 17-8-73. Time limits on closing argument -- Noncapital and capital felony cases

In felony cases other than those involving capital felonies, counsel shall be limited in their closing arguments to one hour for each side. In cases involving capital felonies, counsel shall be limited to two hours for each side.

§ 17-8-75. Improper statements by counsel

Where counsel in the hearing of the jury make statements of prejudicial matters which are not in evidence, it is the duty of the court to interpose and prevent the same. On objection made, the court shall also rebuke the counsel and by all needful and proper instructions to the jury endeavor to remove the improper impression from their minds; or, in his discretion, he may order a mistrial if the prosecuting attorney is the offender.

If need be, before closing arguments begin, A motion under O.C.G.A. § 17-8-74 can be made for additional time for closing arguments. I suspect Judge House is not going to grant the defense an awful lot of extra time. Let's hope he lets the prosecution ramble on all they want, it should make an interesting show.

Jerri Lynn Ward said...

Sorry kbp, I didn't mean to make it seem that the quote came from you.

No, I don't know what the Georgia rules say about that. For one thing, the only site I've been able to find with them is horrible to navigate.

The experience I have had here is to allow witnesses to leave the courthouse, but still be subject to recall. I bet that it is the same there. So, I would expect that the subpoenas for the witnesses are still in effect.

Also, if the defense recalled a prosecution witness, I would HOPE that the judge would allow them to cross-examine.

I would LOVE to cross a CAC person about that casino party. I can taste the blood.

Also, I think that I'm a bit of a prude myself. I can't stand gambling and have always avoided fundraisers based on casinos. The thought of a casino night to benefit children makes my skin crawl.

Lookout, my Lexis account doesn't include Georgia. Also, I was using that section to demonstrate that the defense also has an opportunity for rebuttal as the section discusses discovery requirements for the defense's evidence for both the case-in-chief and rebuttal:

"...if the defendant intends to introduce in evidence in the defensés case-in-chief or rebuttal the results..."

After the prosecution's rebuttal, the defense will have the opportunity to rebut the prosecution's rebuttal witness, or the defense will close. So far, the defense has only rested its case-in-chief. It still has the opportunity to bring additional witnesses during its own rebuttal, but only to rebut the prosecution's rebuttal.

That's why I'd ask to reopen and put on the CAC witness. The prosecution may not bring up thongs, Las Vegas or drinking again.

Jerri Lynn Ward said...

Another thing, Lookout, the sections you posted have to do with argument, not the putting on of evidence.

Lookout Spy said...

Evidence is closed. Game is up for the next move.

Jerri Lynn Ward said...

The evidence is not closed until both parties have closed. There is a distinction between resting and closing. The prosecution rested its case-in-chief. The defense put on evidence and then rested its case-in-chief.

Both sides now have the opportunity for rebuttal. When that's all done, the parties will close. Then argument comes.

Lookout Spy said...

Possibly this game may get played:

§ 17-16-6. Failure to comply with discovery requirements

If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that the state has failed to comply with the requirements of this article, the court may order the state to permit the discovery or inspection, interview of the witness, grant a continuance, or, upon a showing of prejudice and bad faith, prohibit the state from introducing the evidence not disclosed or presenting the witness not disclosed, or may enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances. If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that the defendant has failed to comply with the requirements of this article, the court may order the defendant to permit the discovery or inspection, interview of the witness, grant a continuance, or, upon a showing of prejudice and bad faith, prohibit the defendant from introducing the evidence not disclosed or presenting the witness not disclosed, or may enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances. The court may specify the time, place, and manner of making the discovery, inspection, and interview and may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just.

Lookout Spy said...

Texas law is based on Spanish procedure, I used to live in Houston. GA is based on English Common Law. I'm not a GA lawyer, but nowhere here do I see two sets of evidence and rebuttal. Discovery, prosecution evidence and witnesses, defense evidence and witnesses, arguments. I'm more familiar with civil procedure, I have no interest in criminal law up until this case, so I'm happy to learn anything useful.

daisy said...

I meant the flyer to the jury comment as a joke. I do however know a juror on this case. I know for a fact that this juror is an honorable person and could never be bought or suade by influential people. This juror has went to the extent to avoid people who are talking about the case, avoid the news and to avoid any article in the paper. The only three things I have heard spoken about the case are the above comment and 2)that this person is frankly tired and will be glad when this case has been wrapped up. 3) This person will not decide guilty or not guilty until case has been given to the jury. I would appreciate that comments about the jury as awhole be refrained from however. There could be a few jurors who are in fact in the pocket of the prosecution but not them all. Thank you. I am not trying to be harsh just needed to point that out.



Unknown said...

Your post is most choijeble.Take my cordial love. I am very interested to watch your valuable work.
Hope your site will develop very soon . I admire the valuable information u offered in your message.
I am very impressed to watch your KEYWORDS.Everybody can excited to see your post.
That is very authentic & fantastic. Take care & Thanks. For more information plz click this link
Start-up Business
small business help
business success
business entity
tax help