Friday, May 21, 2010

The Tonya Craft Trial and the Evisceration of the Rights of the Accused

The Tonya Craft trial did not occur in a vacuum. Prosecutors Chris Arnt and Len Gregor, as well as "judge" Brian House did not suddenly wake up one day and decide to attempt to railroad an innocent person into prison. Moreover, it was not a spur of the moment decision in which House decided to team with the prosecutors in order to deny Ms. Craft even the basic rights of the accused that were handed down to us from our English heritage.

Furthermore, it really is no accident that House denied time and again the introduction of exculpatory evidence that would have made this case an even bigger rout against the prosecution than it already was. In really is no accident that the authorities tried their best to stack the deck in this farce of a trial. No, the table was set long ago.

I relate a speech given by Judge Andrew Napolitano a few years ago at the Cato Institute in which he related how Janet Reno successfully "won" her own "Tonya Craft" trial when she was a state prosecutor in Miami Florida more than 20 years ago. Writes Napolitano:
Political ambition can be a powerful motivating factor for government abuse of our rights. Consider one of the cases that helped propel Janet Reno to national stardom. In 1984, Reno faced a serious challenger in her bid for reelection as Dade County’s state attorney. In August of that year, Frank Fuster and his wife, Ileana Fuster, were arrested for sexually abusing more than 20 children who attended their home daycare center. Reno began the case by soliciting Laurie and Joe Braga, both billed as “child abuse experts” with no psychology training, to interview the children.

The Bragas used suggestive and misleading interview techniques to elicit false accusations from the children in the case. The children were brainwashed with fantasies of sexual abuse involving masks, snakes, drills, and other objects, and eventually came out of the interviews thinking they were victims.

Of all the children alleging sexual abuse against Fuster, Reno’s office only presented physical “evidence” that one child was abused. The prosecution invoked a laboratory test suggesting that a child had tested positive for gonorrhea of the throat. However, the lab test that was performed is very unreliable and often gives false positives. Reno’s agents tested for the family of bacteria to which gonorrhea belongs rather than specifically for gonorrhea; other bacteria that could have caused the false positive are harmless and are frequently found to live in children. Of course, the state ordered the lab to destroy the evidence three days later, thereby preventing the defense from challenging the state’s “evidence.”

Recognizing that the case against Fuster was weak, Janet Reno’s final straw was to torture Ileana Fuster physically and mentally to the point where she could be coerced into implicating her husband. Reno had Ileana isolated from the prison population and placed in solitary confinement, naked. Ileana described her treatment in a 1998 interview: “They would give me cold showers. Two people will hold me, run me under cold water, then throw me back in the cell naked with nothing, just a bare floor. And I used to be cold, real cold. I would have my periods and they would just wash me and throw me back into the cell.”

Late one night, the naked Ileana, according to her lawyer, received a visit in her darkened solitary cell from an intimidating 6-foot-2 woman. The woman told Ileana that she knew that Ileana and her husband were guilty. “But how can that be? We are innocent,” Ileana proclaimed. “Who are you?” “I’m Janet Reno,” the woman said. Ileana repeatedly told Reno that she was innocent, and Reno kept repeating, “I’m sorry, but you are not. You’re going to have to help us.” Reno made several more solitary, nightly visits to the naked Ileana, each time threatening Ileana that she would remain in prison for the rest of her life if she didn’t tell Reno what she wanted to hear.

Finally, Reno hired two psychiatrists from a company called Behavior Changers Inc., who met Ileana 34 times in a one-month period. These psychiatrists claimed to be able to help individuals “recover memories,” but their technique was simply to hypnotize Ileana so that she could be brainwashed into believing that Frank Fuster was a child molester. The coercion eventually worked: with the psychiatrists present and with Janet Reno squeezing her hand, Ileana implicated her husband.

Ileana’s trial testimony against her husband put the final nail in Frank Fuster’s coffin. Reno won the conviction, her reelection bid, her name in the newspaper headlines, and a stepping stone to a position as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. However, Ileana Fuster has repeatedly retracted her confession and testimony, swearing that she and Fuster never abused any of the children, and that her confession was the product of brainwashing.

Yet, thanks to Janet Reno, an Fuster remains incarcerated for 165 years without the possibility of parole.
The reason that Hillary Clinton pushed for Reno to receive her appointment as the U.S. Attorney General was that Clinton said she was "good on children's issues." If promoting false charges and using trickery, lies, and torture in order to promote children, then the people of the United States have a sick notion of what is "good" for children. It is no surprise that a month after taking office, Reno presided over the most bloody government massacre of its citizens since Wounded Knee in 1890; among a large number of victims of the raid organized by this "lover of children" were young children. Perhaps it is not surprising that after Reno said she was "taking responsibility" for this massacre (although she did not resign or do anything that really spelled "responsible"), her standing rose among Americans.

As Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence M. Stratton note in their book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, a book that has heavily influenced my thinking, the law was lost a long time ago in this country because people on all sides of the political spectrum decided that they wanted results over due process of law. Both Clinton and Reno are what one might call political "liberals," yet they favored using the law as a weapon to push what clearly have been false criminal charges.

Likewise, one has only to watch one episode of William O'Reilly on Fox to see someone who believes that once a person is accused, then the law should move directly to the punishment phase. Innocence before the law? Not a chance, at least not with O'Reilly, or his psychotic friends Nancy Grace and Wendy Murphy.

Americans like to think of themselves as people who want results, and they want them NOW. Furthermore, neither Republicans nor Democrats today believe that the Rights of the Accused, once the bedrock of Anglo-American criminal law, should have any meaning. That means that once someone is targeted for prosecution, almost no barriers stand between the state and the individual, no matter how flimsy the evidence might be. The only thing that can prevent a wrongful prosecution is the goodwill and moral compass of the prosecutors.

In the case of Tonya Craft, the prosecutors chose to lie, obfuscate, bully, and disrupt the proceedings. However, for once, the jurors in the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit were not impressed, and early on saw that House and the Dishonest Duo were working closely together, something that rubbed against their own view of fairness.

And what was the reward for following the law and their consciences? Oh, the jurors were called out in a most shameful way by LMJC DA Buzz Franklin, who decided that the rules that govern his office were to be suspended. Keep in mind that prosecutors in this country are so powerful, that if all of them have the moral rectitude of Franklin, Arnt, and Gregor, then there is no hope at all for the law because no one can stand up to people who have near-unlimited resources and who are fully immune from lawsuits or prosecution even when they break the law themselves.

No doubt, House, Franklin, Arnt, and Gregor admire what Reno did in the Furster case and wish they could have done the same with Tonya Craft. However, there still is some decency left in the LMJC, although it is not because any of the elected or appointed officials in that mix have any intention of being beholden to the law. There is decency only because jurors like those in the Tonya Craft trial recognized their duty before God and their fellows.


Anonymous said...

I like how you take the day off. :) just finished listening to the interview with Eric Echols. Interesting. It's a shame people are so evil. God is certainly grieved.

KC Sprayberry said...

Very interesting analysis of the situation. I do believe that will notch up the tension in the LMJC offices a bit more after they read it. Unfortunately, they will only see this as another slap in the face of good prosecution work rather than a warning of their futures unless they walk away from all the pending child molestation cases they've developed against innocent people. Money is a powerful motivator and these men have a lust for it so powerful they will do just about anything in the name of goodness to fill their pockets. Keep on going, Bill. You're making a difference down here.

Unknown said...

Mr. Anderson,

Thank you for a well written article. I have read most, if not all, of you posts since the beginning of the Tonya Craft trial.

It is frightening to think how many people in my hometown may be wrongfully imprisoned due to false allegations. I hope the work you're doing will be able to stop LMJC and CAC from doing this to anyone else and maybe even get some released who are truly innocent.

Thank you again and God bless you.

Trish White said...

Wow, I knew I didn't like Janet Reno, but she is truly a despicable human being. My goodness, how much of this kind of stuff has gone on all over the country?

Anonymous said...

A question for some of the legal-minded folks on board here.

If everything Mr. Echols stated in his interview were correct, would he not have a very solid case for a suit against the Sheriff's Dept.?

Not sure who requested the arrest warrant but if it was Tim Deal acting on behalf of orders from Chris Arnt and Mr. Echols was performing his job within legal boundaries, wouldn't this be illegal to have the man charged with a crime?

I would consider it false arrest at minimum and surely fits Mr. Arnt's definition of a conspiracy.

Anonymous said...

Remember that Echols is not charged with anything directly regarding his process serving duties re: Sandra Lamb. They decided to arrest him it seems only AFTER he refused to drop charges against her for assault. His charges are 3 counts of influencing a witness. Not really sure which 3, although one is most certainly J McDonald (perhaps they view the 2 conversations as 2 counts?) And perhaps they thought they could tack on his interaction with S Lamb? (Guess the recording really threw a wrench in that one!) It will be interesting to see if they try to quietly drop these charges or continue to dig their hole. Personally I think when this goes public there will be a HUGE s*** storm for LMJC from the national media. I wouldn't mess with Echols, this guy is smart, good at what he does and has evidence that could have the feds on them like white on rice on a paper plate in a snow storm! Wonder what is happening with his charges against S Lamb?

Anonymous said...

Buzz sent or faxed his 'after trial' diatribe to the Dade County Sentinel and it was published in this weeks paper. (It is a weekly paper).

Sure would be nice if you would write the editor of the Sentinel and ask him to allow your response to be printed. There are a lot of good folks in this county but many are enthralled with Buzz/Brian & company. They need to see all sides of this case.


kbp said...


I like the approach used to show in the blog post what Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit must commonly refer to as SOP, along with a few other jurisdictions across this nation.

The Arnt-Gregor-House TEAM brought out objections, rulings and remarks throughout the trial, especially in the earlier days of it, that were used as half-baked strategic maneuvers to disallow certain questioning or introduction of evidence through processes always camouflaged as if that's how it is done in the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit.

To put it in other words that more accurately reflect what that TEAM meant; 'that's just not how WE do it here in OUR court.'

Adding cover for this pattern of SOP, I noticed many in the press had even started to repeat the same thing the TEAM was saying, possibly leading readers less familiar with the case into believing all the out-of-town defense attorneys needed to learn the processes there, sometimes wording it as if all four attorneys on her defense team were from another state and totally unfamiliar with the practice of law. The press even went so far later to start telling readers how things were running much smoother after that "four attorney defense team" had grown more familiar with Georgia law.

The reality was that 2 of the 4 attorneys on her defense team were experienced attorneys from Atlanta, Georgia, and none were amateurs in the courtroom, so to go along with the idea that the A-G-H TEAM had some in the press promoting, it was necessary for readers to presume that Georgia LAW is different than Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit LAW.

Evidently the LMJC practice of law was just not quite enough to convince the jurors to vote guilty. And, it appeared to me that D-Lo started playing their game back at them, near the end of the trial, by just using those "LMJC rules" to convey his own messages to the jurors in the numerous objections he was making.

The irony here is that now with the trial having concluded, a hot topic that keeps coming up is the need to research past cases from that the 'Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit' TEAM to see not only WHO may have been deprived of their rights in previous cases, but HOW MANY might have.

It should be a given that any court considering an appeal from the LMJC will take the time necessary to look much deeper into the details of evidence and testimony not allowed, along with the methods used to obtain any inculpatory evidence presented.

Narcissist 07 said...

I think the HAG team set the trial date so far away in hopes they could convince Eric Echols to drop his pursuit of the warrant for Sandra. "Give the boy some time to think about it." mentality.
If this is not witness tampering I don't know what you would call it. Only it wasn't Mr. Echols doing the tampering. Denial of basic rights to a fair trial for Tonya for sure. I just want to know this. Has Mr. Echols even been allowed to have his pre-warrant hearing on the charges that he has against Sandra Lamb? I have not seen yet where that issue has even been taken up. I think that he should file federal charges against her, and take it to Rome to be heard by Federal Courts. And then throw in a violation of civil rights case to boot against her. There was evil present in Ms. Craft's trail, and it was all sitting on the right hand side of the court, as well as on the bench.

On a side note, I have talked with several attorneys in this circuit, and they are gearing up for a run for the Superior Court Judge positions. I think it is moronic that they have to choose one seat to run for, instead of putting them all in one group, and letting the 4 highest vote getters (I know that is not a word, but it is a word we use in LMJC) be seated.
There will be a major shakeup in 2012. If they all survive their position to the election.

Anonymous said...

I can't help but wonder if the jury that aquitted Ms. Craft have now seen the evidence that was not allowed, (ie. the two polygraph tests that she passed) and if they are more convinced than ever that they made the right decision. I know if I were on the jury, I would be furious that important exculpatory evidence was withheld.

Buzz, HAG, your days are numbered in your elected post. The first question I will ask a potential DA is, "Do you have any intentions of keeping Arnt and Gregor on your staff?" Any waffling from an absolute ""NO" answer, ("Well, I will review all of the ADA's and then decide") and they won't get my vote, and I will make sure that is vocally made known and will do my best to make sure that others feel the same way..

kbp said...

Anon 7:58,

I'm certainly no expert, but the sheriff's dept. evidently just did what Arnt told them to do when they arrested Echols, so there's not much there to support a civil claim against them.

Somebody, most likely Deal, had passed along information that provided the probable cause to arrest Echols evidently, even if it was just a secondhand claim with very little credibility.

Arnt was acting within the scope of his duties, as the courts seem to look for in civil cases, so that seems to cover his azz.

Judging from my limited knowledge on HOW the charges originated (who said what?), the only potential for success in a lawsuit looks to be limited to whether or not Deal, or maybe even Keith, purposefully ignored following up on what many might consider obvious sources needed to substantiate whatever report the allegations was based upon, often called "reckless disregard".

I've seen some who have tied the charges Echols faces to him having had interviews with McDonald. There are many reasons I see not to believe it was him, but instead Lamb.

1. McDonald testified and opened the door to cross examination of whether or not he had told Echols, or anyone, that he did not believe his daughter was molested;

2. Should McDonald have been the source of questioning by Echols, any recordings of an interview with him should have came in by him being able to confirm or deny that it was him in the recording;

3. Very many reputable sources have claimed that Saundra's husband did not believe their daughter had been a victim, so he sounds more like the source of the interviews that Echols described yesterday.

I had given some consideration on why Saundra's husband was not called by the defense, knowing the prosecution did not want to hear what he had to say. He could not testify that a crime did not happen, but the limit of what he could have contributed to the case looks to be more on how he perceived whether or not his daughter appeared normal to him. Not much help when you consider such was done by showing her happily coloring in videos and sending 'thank you cards' to Tonya after the alleged crimes were to have taken place.

My guess is that Tonya did not want to create more problems for him and his daughter and knew that he worked for Saundra's father - who he was divorcing already. With all knowing what court battles in divorces can do to relationships, and the potential for gain being near zero for making him testify, I can't imagine any on the defense wanting to call him up to testify.

Of course, knowing all the strange turns this case took as it developed, I could be wrong!

Anonymous said...

i am just really scared now hearing all this. Wondering if there is a chance at all to get my husband a non guilty verdict his accusations are absolutely insane but hearing all this will make me wonder what else they will come up with in catoosa county

Anonymous said...

Anon. 10:11, does your husband have a good attorney?

Anonymous said...

Just spoke with someone who had constant contact with TC during the trial and their children had TC as a kindergarten teacher. They told me it is common knowledge "at the ball fields" that Sandra Lamb is having an affair with one of the ball coaches, and that this probably sparked the divorce. Other things this person told me add to the suspicion that SL has a definite DSM-IV diagnosis! In response to an earlier post, I disagree that Mr Lamb is the father on Echol's tapes. IIRC the defense was precluded from using the recordings by the HAG team in all the pretrial wrangling? So could not bring it up in cross of McDonald. I may be wrong but just speculating. It may very well be Mr Lamb. Poor guy is really in the middle here with a crazy wife, works for father-in-law, and I'm sure fears that his soon to be ex-wife will accuse him of something! On another note I had my suspicions bolstered that it was Ms Wilson who ignited all this early on for revenge purposes, but had the good sense not to get involved too deep. An instigator or "pot stirrer" if you will.

kbp said...

Echols said...

"...But Mr. Echols says he videotaped Ms. Lamb cursing at him and using racial slurs when he subpoenaed her, and has an audio recording proving he didn't threaten the other girl's father when he subpoenaed him."


I must admit that I had not considered that the charges were a result of him serving a subpoena, instead of only being what happened in interviews.

I now recall having read someplace that both Lamb and McDonald had been interviewed. That might explain why Echols was charged with THREE counts;

1. Saundra Lamb
2. Served subpoena to McDonald
3. Interview of McDonald???

If that is correct, it just makes one question more of what the LMJC crowd was doing in this case.

The good news is that Catoosa County Sheriff Phil Summers is so kind hearted he wished to allow Echols the opportunity to PROVE HIS INNOCENCE!

"... "What we have to consider is if the (family's) complaint is valid," Sheriff Summers said. "If (Mr. Echols) feels like he's right in his actions that he didn't violate the law, he has the right to present his evidence through the district attorney's office.""

sister said...

this judicial circuit has been doing this for years. It's not just Brian House either. Check out the ethics of Christina Cook Connelly Graham. she is the same way. We also had exculpatory evidence that was kept from the jury during my brother's trial. so this ain't thier 'first rodeo' by any means. My brother is still in prison. INNOCENT!!

William L. Anderson said...

In response to "the sister," I am reading the documents regarding your brother's case, and they are quite disturbing. The purpose of "rape shield" laws were to keep information that was not relevant to the case out of the mix so that juries would not become prejudiced against the accuser.

However, prosecutors have been successful in using those laws to keep out EXCULPATORY evidence. As I read the documents of that case, I am convinced that both the prosecutors and the judge knew they had a false case.

Anonymous said...

With what you said Bill, this is what drives me & has driven me for years, absolutly mad about this district. I have seen how they work. They work harder to convict an innocent person than they work to making sure the truly bad people go to jail & stay in jail. I've seen how they take an open & shut case & sit idley by waiting for the plea deal or trial & I have seen how they get so determined to railroad people. AMAZING!!!!

To an earlier poster, they had said something to the effect that it is not the citizens' fault. It is OUR fault. We put these people in the positions they're in with votes. We need to stop, research & do the right thing and this is where we can make it right. Even for those of us who didn't vote for these jack holes, it is still OUR responsibility to get the facts out. I will take the punishment for my part of not being more vocal over the last few years, but we need more.

Unfortunatly, we were given a perfect opportunity last week to vote for a representative. Instead of giving someone who wasn't a career politician a chance, we voted for 2 people who have already done absolutely nothing for OUR community. We need to fight now & continue fighting or we will never get out of this hole we are in.

Anonymous said...

i sure hope we have a good lawyer but I don't know if this matters in catoosa. We sure don't have 500.000 dollar to fight this and our lawyer absolutely doesn't want media involved

John said...

I think we should pool some money and post this on a Billboard next to I-75 any takers.


any sugg.

Shirley said...

Thanks for continuing to write about the "illegal" court system.
Thank God Tonya Craft was found NOT GUILTY and now Eric Echols needs everyone's prayers.
Today, the man called before me in traffic court got off with no fine. His ticket was for rear ending a car and he had "no insurance". The judge changed ticket to "following too close" so the man wouldn't lose his license for a year. He sent him out to drive home with NO INSURANCE... now for ME..."following to close" resulting in slightly rear ending car in front...I get a FINE and COURT COST...I have up to date insurance, up to date registration and perfect record up to this date since 1968. Everything is wrong with our legal system !

Anonymous said...

In regard to the comment:

"There are many reasons I see not to believe it was him, [Jerry McDonald] but instead Lamb"

It was Jerry that is on the tape NOT Greg Lamb.

Do these people EVER sleep with their own spouses?

Victoria said...

I've been thinking a lot about the topic of your post. Last week my 6 year old daughter came home talking about "Bloody Mary" and how the kids at school told her about how the bloody ghost kills people with a knife and on and on. For a week she has been terrified after dark and each day at school has been fed more details about this false allegation which has taken on a life of its own. No amount of reasoning by me would convince my daughter that Bloody Mary was not real and that her friends at school were either making it up, or were told lies by someone else.

Now I remember the tale of Bloody Mary from when I was a kid. I told my daughter yesterday that I know all about it and that it is not real and that I will prove it by going in the bathroom and saying Bloody Mary 3 times while turning in front of the mirror in the dark and if I come out of the bathroom alive then she will know it was not real. As I went for the bathroom door my daughter was petrified beyond belief and made every effort to stop me because she was absolutely convinced that I was going to die. After performing the ritual and surviving, my daughter was convinced that her friends were wrong but the situation showed me how young children can be very easily misled to strongly believe terrible and fantastic events that are false even when a trusted authority or parent claims otherwise.

Anonymous said...

12:19, LMBO!!!! And the answer to your question is.........Nope!!!
That was funny stuff.

Anonymous said...

Excellent article and the information regarding Reno reveals that the rights of the accused mean nothing, the end justify the means. Also brings to mind happened at Waco and the child abuse accusations by Reno. We don't know if those accusations were valid or not but the outcome was the children who they supposedly were protecting died.

Also have you seen this? The recent SC ruling regarding convicted sex offenders.

Rob said...

If you get food poisoning from a restaurant, you don't have to go to that restaurant again. However, with politicians and (even worse) bureaucrats, you're usually still stuck with them for a while after they screw up. Sure, there can be procedures for recalling (elected) officials, but that's like requiring a petition signed by X of your "fellow citizens" just so you can stop going to that restaurant (the one that gave you food poisoning). Does anyone else see anything wrong with this?

Rob said...

Oops, I forgot my tagline:


Anonymous said...

Dr. Anderson,

Your comments today and on May 19 concerning the evisceration of people’s rights left me with cringes in the pit of my stomach. Evisceration, indeed. Scary. No, more than that -- terrifying.

I look forward to your writing more about these topics, and thanks for the link to Judge Napolitano’s comments and the Cato Policy Report.

Lame said...

It concerns me that only two people on the SC went against that ruling, and they, Scalia and Thomas, are quite old. We have a court that will soon be ready to vote the same way as did the courts who decided Scott and Plessy. With Roe they already took away some people's right to life, and with the case that allowed for the relocation of Japanese during WWII they took away our right to liberty, and a couple of years ago they voted to take away our property rights. I hate to say it, but one or two more decisions like the other day's and nobody will have any any rights left.

Anonymous said...

Well there were at least two cases of justice this week in the LMJD, despite the efforts of the prosecution.

Lookout Spy said...

The closer we watch, the better they'll behave.

John said...

and how was that

Kerwyn said...

To Anon,

Why would YOUR lawyer NOT want the media involved? Having the media involved (if your innocent) is nothing more than a nice club in the back pocket.

It is much easier to hide if the lights are not on. Make him tell you why he doesn't want the media involved and if his reason isn't good enough, contact channel 3

Anonymous said...

In legal circles, the media can do damage. It is possible that the attorney hoped to put an end to the case quickly and I am not talking about a plea.

The media is generally, in legal circles, a last resort.

With a client like Ms. Craft, however, it turned out to be a good thing mostly, in my humble opinion, because Ms. Craft could stay the course.

She is a strong woman and a woman of valour.

But a hard road all the same.

Anonymous said...

Lets not forget the true snakes in this mess.The Lambs,Wilsons,Mcdonalds,Henkels & Boyds.They did this.Sherri Wilson was the ring leader,her second daughter was not ready for first grade.But suprise her youngest daughter was also not ready for first grade.For the Wilsons a special class was formed,called prefirst.With 2 kids not ready they need to blame themselves,not a teacher.But a fat bitch like Sherri will blame anyone but her fat ass self.

Pete said...

I agree, scapegoating the media was defiant act of desperate losers. Without the media, HAG would have lynched Ms. Craft in the courtroom.

Dan said...


"Without the media, HAG would have lynched Ms. Craft in the courtroom."

I don't agree with that part. I believe the jury was not influenced by the media, and even if this case was not covered to the extent it was the outcome would be the same. The prosecution's case was beyond weak.

However, without the media coverage, the local, regional and national awareness of the corruption that exists within the LMJC and their support system (Sheriff's department, CAC, GreenHouse, etc.).

Frankly, I think that is what the DA and others are much more worried about how they "do things" reflects on them and why they reacted the way they did post trial.

Not the fact they lost a case.

Lame said...

I agree with Dan. Every shred of evidence that we have seen, form the interview, to the behavior of jurors in the courtroom, to postings made here and elsewhere from friends and relatives shows that the jurors had no outside source influence their decision to vote not guilty. In fact, the only influence was the discussion that took place after the first vote when one lady voted guilty.

And, guys, I want to thank y'all for having been pretty decent in all of this. Yeah, there have been some ugly comments about some of the accuser's families and their supporters. And, I'm still waiting to see anyone confirm any rumors about affairs between Sandra and Jaol, or that Sandra's husband is taking the girl away from her because he believes her a bad influence. So, I'll address certain things, factor rumored-about things into discussions about topics, such as motivations for this and that. But, I'm not making any conclusions on that until I get confirmation.

I appreciate this toning-down of rumors, because it shows how different we are from those who are still posting vile things about Tonya, here and elsewhere--two just awful comments about her went up today on badbadteachers.

Trish White said...

I think most lawyers in this area don't want the media involved, as they don't want their own shady activities being in the spotlight. I'm not sure there is any lawyer in this district that is truly above board and honorable.

I think if the media had not been involved in this case, Tonya and her witnesses would have been treated even worse than they were.

We were advised the same thing in my son's case. I wish we hadn't listened, maybe it wouldn't have taken almost four years for the charges to be dropped.

Anonymous said...

To anon 10:52,
Although I agree with your conclusion of the parents, I must correct some of your statements. The second Wilson girl was not ready for 4th and stayed in 3rd. The 3rd Wilson girl was placed in Pre-first because she was not ready for 2nd, then went to first because she still wasn't ready for 2nd. The school did not create the Pre-first class for the Wilson kid. That class had been in place for several years.

Anonymous said...

I say, for one thing, if you have one kid who's held behind and then another who's held behind, it's not the teacher's. Maybe you should stop letting the television be your babysitter and spend time reading to your kids instead of hitting the town with your rich buddies at night.

Unknown said...

I have a bit of news from here in Catoosa County. The Public Defenders Office has been told by Buzz and his little band of angels to have their clients charged with molestaion to plead out or else they will get 84 years with NO CHANCE OF PAROLE if found guilty by a jury! Sounds to me like the D.A.'s office is scared of any more trials.