[Update, Thursday, June 24, 10:10 AM]: I will be a guest on WGOW-FM (102.3) this morning at 11 AM. We will be discussing the aftermath of the Tonya Craft case.
(This is the second half of a letter I sent to Buzz Franklin last month.)
Let me now discuss the testimony of Sandra Lamb, mother of Accuser #1. First, she had an ex parte conversation with House two days before her testimony, yet no one notified the defense, as is required by the Rules of the Georgia State Bar. Second, while on the stand, she claimed (under oath) that her daughter, who is a child actress, had not received any acting lessons.
However, according to Raegan Lamb’s official on-line IMDb resume, that is not true. Here is what is says about her training:
• John Robert Powers, Atlanta, GA, Cold Read Techniques, Janet Milstein, 2005
• John Robert Powers, Atlanta, GA, Monologues, Janet Milstein, 2005
• John Robert Powers, Atlanta, GA, Scene Study, Kwietha Bolden, 2005
• John Robert Powers, Atlanta, GA, Commercials, Kwietha Bolden, 2005
Your prosecutors were successful in convincing House (who apparently needed no convincing) to keep this resume out of the evidence file so that the jury would not be made aware that Ms. Lamb did not tell the truth while under oath. I find it interesting that your prosecutors, whom you claim acted “ethically” and “honorably” throughout this whole case, were anxious to keep out this evidence which would cast doubt on one of their key witnesses. Unfortunately, such actions were the norm, not the exception, when it came to the performance of Mr. Arnt and Mr. Gregor.
I now would like to move to the issue of Laurie Evans, the CAC “therapist” who would be considered “ground zero” for the official accusations of child molestation against Ms. Craft. As you know, Evans interviewed Ms. Craft’s two children, her son and daughter. As you know further, Judge Marie Williams of Hamilton County, Tennessee, who was hearing arguments in the custody issue of the children between Ms. Craft and her ex-husband, Joal Henke, had strong doubts about Ms. Evans and finally issued a court order that said Ms. Evans was not to have ANY contact with the Henke children.
Yet, what happened? She engaged in contempt of court and continued to have contact, and your prosecutors continued to use her material uncritically. Don’t forget that Ms. Evans was diagnosed with PTSD and not considered to be competent to engage in the kind of evaluations and “therapy” she was performing with those children. Yet, your office continued to use her as an important figure in pushing this prosecution, even though her actions as pointed out by Judge Williams should have been a red flag.
As you know, prosecutors are supposed to exercise good judgment, as opposed to trying to “win at all costs,” and that means knowing where the red flags might be located. Unfortunately, with prosecutors Arnt and Gregor, a “red flag” seems to be exculpatory evidence, and they do their best to try to make sure that such evidence cannot be seen by a jury.
Let me ask you how you would like it if you or one of your loved ones were put on trial and the prosecution was pursuing a “win at all costs” strategy, and the Rights of the Accused were being eviscerated. I suspect you might howl a bit. I remember when Nifong was the subject of an investigation by the North Carolina State Bar and suddenly he remembered his precious rights, the same rights he ignored when he pursued the lacrosse players from Duke, and complained loudly that he was being treated unfairly.
Your prosecutors, Arnt and Gregor, certainly managed to draw attention to themselves. Despite the Bar Rules on “respecting the tribunal,” they managed to engage in activities meant to disrupt the proceedings and to throw off the defense when its lawyers were questioning witnesses. For example, on numerous occasions, the two of them rolled their eyes, shrugged their shoulders, made loud sighs, threw books and other materials on the table to make loud noises, they yelled at witnesses, demeaned them unnecessarily, and also tried to intimidate people in the courtroom.
As pointed out before, Gregor one day while court was in session literally dressed down Melydia Clewell of WRCB-TV in Chattanooga because he did not like some of her dispatches. I never have seen a prosecutor go after an individual reporter while in court and pretty much demand that he or she report the news the way the prosecutor wants it reported. This is what one calls naked intimidation, and that should be grounds for disciplining a prosecutor, not praising him.
A friend of mine, who has testified in more than 500 criminal trials as a nurse SANE, recently told me that in one session, an ADA simply rolled his eyes at the comments of the defense. The judge stopped the proceedings, dressed down the ADA for violating the decorum, and then fined him $500. Unfortunately, in the trial of Tonya Craft, a number of courtroom observers told me that Judge House was taking his cues from Arnt and Gregor, and while you are not responsible for the judge’s behavior, you do have a responsibility to make sure that your ADAs actually respect the proceedings and act in a civilized manner.
If you doubt what I am saying about the behavior of Arnt and Gregor, you might want to watch the many hours of video of courtroom procedures. Should that not convince you that your ADAs were misbehaving, I can produce a number of people who were in attendance at the trial who will sign sworn, notarized statements attesting to both the outright rudeness AND crudeness of your employees.
Because this letter is quite long, I would like to move quickly to the next topic, that being the prosecution’s treatment of the defense’s expert witnesses. As you recall, there were four witnesses, and I gave their names earlier in this letter. Let me deal, then, with the treatment of each of them.
First, and most important, these witnesses were not hacks. All four of them are highly respected, and they either are Ph.D.’s or M.D.’s and all of them are experienced expert witnesses. Second, your prosecutors chose to call each of them “whores of the court” and people who are “liars” for money. In other words, you called each of them liars, but only after they had testified.
This creates a huge problem for your office and for Georgia prosecutors. Let me explain. Dr. Nancy Aldridge is a highly-respected child specialist who literally “wrote the book” on questioning children who are suspected of being sexually abused. Furthermore, Dr. Aldridge almost always testifies for the prosecution in these kinds of cases, and only rarely does she testify for the defense.
Thus, by calling her a “whore of the court” and a “liar,” ADAs Arnt and Gregor have impugned the integrity of every prosecutor in Georgia and elsewhere who has used Dr. Aldridge’s testimony. If she really is a liar, as BOTH of your prosecutors loudly proclaimed on the record in court, then it would seem that her testimony should never be allowed in a court of law. This is more than just a PR problem, for what you are saying is that there are numerous people in Georgia prisons who have been wrongfully convicted because Dr. Aldridge’s testimony was key to their being found guilty.
Furthermore, because Dr. Aldridge was cited as an important authority in a Georgia Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of someone, then that decision should be invalidated, according to your public statements regarding the actions of Arnt and Gregor. Please do not say that they made those assertions in “the heat of battle.” They were cold and calculated statements that were meant to tell jurors that Dr. Aldridge was committing perjury.
In fact, if you and your ADAs are so convinced that these four witnesses perjured themselves, then why don’t you have them arrested, charged, and put on trial? After all, if they are liars, and they lied to a jury, then you have all of the evidence you need to bring felony charges against them. That you would never even consider doing such a thing tells me that your ADAs figured that they could try to get away with lying themselves. (Ironically, one of the jurors said that all of the jurors believed that Arnt lied about previous testimony during his closing arguments.)
One question that people have asked me has been why your office has been so aggressive in pursuing this case. I believe that one of the main reasons that your office has prosecuted so many of these cases is that you receive lots of federal money through the Mondale Act. At the present time, I am engaged in research that looks at this relationship between certain kinds of prosecutions and the financial payout, and I have my suspicions that there will be a strong correlation. In other words, I don’t believe you have targeted so-called child molestation cases out of your love for children.
My last topic is the continued prosecution of Private Investigator Eric Echols, who was arrested for the trumped-up charge of “interfering with a witness” because he recorded Jerry McDonald, father of “accuser #2,” saying he had strong doubts about the veracity of your case. (Your prosecutors then threatened Mr. McDonald with “obstruction of justice” if he did not change his views.)
Unfortunately for you, Mr. Echols also has a video recording of being assaulted by Sandra Lamb while he was legally delivering a subpoena to her home. Furthermore, on that video, Ms. Lamb is recorded as calling him a “black bastard,” which gives a racial motive to her assault, as Mr. Echols is African-American. Your office ignored the fact that she both interfered with his legal duties and engaged in what would be classified as a “hate crime,” and I don’t believe that this failure of your office to do its legal duties here is an accident or just an oversight on your part. Instead, it seems to be part of the same pattern that characterized you and your ADAs all through the Craft case.
This has been a very long letter, and I believe I have made my points, and it is time to close. However, because of your public statement given on May 14, 2010, I will say emphatically that this episode is not over. You made very serious charges against me, and even though you did not mention my name, nonetheless I was the main blogger and you certainly were aiming your comments at least partially at me.
You said that I was part of a “shameless” defense strategy, except I was part of no strategy but my own. If you have proof that I was working at the direction of the defense, I sure would like to see it, although you would have to fabricate the evidence, and I know that your office never would fabricate anything like that.
Since you have no proof, perhaps you might want to understand that your comments are untrue and certainly need to be scrutinized by people who have authority over you. Your office brought transparently false charges against a woman, forcing her to be bankrupted and to lose everything in her effort to defend herself. Your ADAs brutalized her and all of the defense witnesses, referred to four very respected expert witnesses as “whores of the court” and “liars,” and engaged in brutal and disrupting behavior. Furthermore, they openly mimicked the defense attorneys in open court, which in most states would not be regarded as acceptable behavior.
Yet, you blame everyone else. You blame the jurors and imply that future juries had better “get it right.” You blame the media because not every media reporter acted like the people from Channel 9, and then you blame bloggers like me because you don’t like the First Amendment. Furthermore, you demonstrate remarkable ignorance about who is on trial during court proceedings (it is NOT the state, Mr. Franklin), and then act as though we should feel sorry for you because you did not get your cherished conviction.
As I see it, this case has been marked by prosecutorial misconduct at every turn. Before the trial, one of your ADAs was making nasty comments about the defense counsel on his Facebook page, and both of your prosecutors were trying desperately to keep out exculpatory material, and they also instructed police not to give any material to the defense. They also ordered a brutal police raid on the office of Dr. Ann Hazzard to seize records when, in fact, she would have given your office anything you had asked without the show of force. (I suspect you would not like a gang of police officers with guns drawn ransacking your office, and the fact you did it to a respected clinical psychologist demonstrates the lack of respect you have for the law and for other people.)
During the trial, your ADAs clearly suborned perjury, brutalized witnesses, intimidated spectators and news reporters, claimed that one of the most respected prosecution witnesses in the State of Georgia is a “whore of the court” and a “liar,” and after you lost your case, you blame jurors, the media, and people like me. Let’s face it, sir. Your record throughout this whole sorry affair has been abysmal, and so I hardly am surprised to see you closing the chapter with yet one more sorry pronouncement.
Would be that I had the kind of influence you attributed people like me, as well as to members of the local media. Furthermore, I only wish that you had the same ability to recognize a weak or even nonexistent criminal case against someone that many other people in the community – including 12 honest jurors – seemed to have done. My sense is that there are many people from the LMJC who were wrongfully convicted because you and your ADAs were able to roll over them in court, getting away with the same slimy tactics that were used against Tonya Craft. Thus, I will continue to investigate – and publicly criticize – you and your ADAs.
William L. Anderson
Thursday, June 24, 2010
My Letter to Buzz Franklin, Part II
Posted by William L. Anderson at 12:02 AM
Labels: Buzz Franklin, Eric Echols, Judicial Misconduct, LMJC, Prosecutorial misconduct, Tonya Craft
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I hope under your name you included "Professor of Economics, Frostburg State University," "Doctor of Philosophy in Economics, University of Alabama." It is a smear to refer to you as a blogger, you are Professor Anderson, who also happens to write a blog.
Part of the insanity here is that the House/Franklin cabal tried to make lack of education a virtue and then tried to sell it by appealing to the "Big City" and "Yankee" prejudice which only existed in their delusions about the people of North Georgia.
We may hate Yankee manners, but we know the difference between an uneducated hack who's over her head (while blissfully unaware of it) and a PhD clinician with decades of experience. We know the difference between a Yankee lawyer who calmly and carefully explains the dangers of improper interviewing techniques and Assistant ADAs who try to win the case by smearing reputations and talking about underwear.
I cannot believe that Franklin is defending all of this. He had such perfect cover and now he will likely go down in ignomy with the others.
When you say things like
Thus, by calling her a “whore of the court” and a “liar,” ADAs Arnt and Gregor have impugned the integrity of every prosecutor in Georgia and elsewhere who has used Dr. Aldridge’s testimony.
it sounds as if you are supposing that anyone believes Arnt or Gregor. You end up with a long letter because you entertain such outlandish alternatives.
I believe Arnt and Gregor. I believe them both. I believe both to be liars and hypocrites
I agree with you.
Arnt and Gregor did impugn.
Whether anyone believes Arnt or Gregor is a different issue.
Buzz Franklin is so hungry for money, fame, whatever, he does collections on the side for Citbank, one of the slimiest banks in America. I didn't know Chief Prosecutors were allowed to do private legal work on the side, especially since he should be so busy dealing with the "crime wave" of child molesters in the LMJC. Go get 'em, Bill. You should move here and run for Magistrate, it seems the Magistrate Court in Catoosa County is short a couple of idiots, oops I mean Magistrates. Interestingly enough, you don't have to be an attorney to be a Magistrate.
This story is just a terrible tragedy for the whole North GA area. I sit & ponder just how deep the corruption goes. WHERE are the Mayors, Sherrifs, State Representatives, Judges, etc. and WHY have they not went public trying to defend that the all are not so inept as the FLAG tag team?
Is this the NORM with the Entire State?
Looks like more individuals with some hint of integrity would be bold enough to say "We just DON"T approve of, nor conduct ourselves in this manner."
HOW can the ones responsible NOT resign, before someone does it for them?
I agree with eagle1 but I don't see these people resigning nor do I see them giving up their lucrative side businesses. It's a shame Franklin sets such a poor example for his underlings. Perhaps the collections for Citibank he does gave Arnt the idea he could give Sandra Lamb legal advice about illegally avoiding a subpoena service? Hmmm? Certainly explains a lot about the attitude of those we ask to prosecute charges against supposed criminals in LMJC. Next week's arraignment court in Walker County should be interesting when Buzz is handling a child molestation case and Arnt will go after the big bad check writer and a DUI case with a multitude of other charges. Around here, Arnt was just given the equivalent of slops, since those kinds of cases are prevalent. It makes one wonder if he will mess those up?
Murray Rothbard used to have a lot of "Rothbard's Laws." One of them was: "Nobody resigns." I think that is applicable here.
True, I doubt that even Buzz believed Arnt and Gregor. Heck, not even Arnt and Gregor believed Arnt and Gregor. However, I was addressing Buzz from his own ground: Buzz was claiming that the Dishonest Duo presented a "compelling case for conviction," and I was saying that if that were true, then all of the rest followed logically.
My larger point was that if he was making the claim to the prosecution being honest, then he was being legally and morally inconsistent by not charging Dr. Aldridge and the others with perjury.
Remember, Cyril, my doctorate is from Auburn.
It is taking me a while to get used to the heat here. Where we live (on Signal Mountain North), it is a lot cooler, and the nights usually are in the 50s.
Bill, everyone is having trouble with the heat. It's rotten this year. I find it funny that after declaring a moratorium on prosecuting child molestation cases, Buzz is now preparing to go to trial on one. Just proves he's as big a liar as those who work for him. I've mentioned it before and I'll say it again. The number of child molestation cases around here has increased a hundred fold since Bart Huskey's arrest a couple of years ago. That man deserves everything he gets and more but darn it, these prosecutors are bending over backward to prove they're doing everything possible to make this area safe for children.
One thing I can believe out of Buzz's statement. Parents of children saying someone did this to them will be wary of coming forward. Because LMJC proved they have no idea what they're doing in these cases, and they're proud of that. Even cleaning house won't give us back the trust in our judicial system for a lot of years. It's a sorry turn of events for these men to continue practicing law when they aren't even fit to work at the local McDonalds.
KC you said,"...Arnt will go after the big bad check writer and a DUI case with a multitude of other charges. Around here, Arnt was just given the equivalent of slops, since those kinds of cases are prevalent. It makes one wonder if he will mess those up?"
I figure those hardened criminals will likely go free as well, unless somehow he can prove they were wearing thongs at the time, listening to rap music, eating taco bell,and just had come from a hotel room that we all know has a bed in it.
Note that Arnt's current trials are in Walker County instead of Catoosa. Geez! Like we need his issues here. But you have a point. And we do have a Taco Bell on the north end of town. Near the courthouse, you'd have to say Subway or KFC. I feel for those people, even if they did actually commit the crimes. They are about to experience court like they never have before.
Yeah! Mr. Anderson will be on WGOWTalk Radio 102.3 at 11:00 this morning. You can listen on the internet.
Thanks, Mr. Anderson. I look forward to hearing you. Bobb
Any chance Franklin could be disbarred over the Craft and Echols cases? Or is the only recourse to not reelect this nut?
I'm betting we're stuck with Buzz Franklin unless we don't reelect him. But I heard a rumor early on in the Craft trial that he plans not to run for another term. He's supposedly looking for a judgeship. Now, that's a scary thought!
I'm afraid your right.
I am so afraid to see who, if anyone runs against these incumbents. I just don't know if there is anyone in our
area that will have the stones to attempt. I truly believe that folks considering to run opposed in the past have been intimidated into backing out. Maybe some of us should try for magistrate,since the standards to hold this position are set so low. It's so frustrating to feel like I'm just sitting on my hands doing nothing. I just really have no idea where to start. Other than to educate myself by reading and study on process and procedure. I learn something here daily.
Kdaw, you're already doing something by learning. Running for a political catastrophe like magistrate judge isn't in the running for me, since I don't live in Catoosa and I don't have any beef with the magistrate around here. In fact, if I remember right, Jerry Day usually comes up with the best decision based on the information he receives. Although, I've heard rumors he's as much a part of the whole mess as everyone else. Then again, when the tar brush starts swishing, few escape its taint. Our job, over the next few years, is to look over the candidates who will pop up to run for these open positions and I mean really look at them. Not at what they're saying but what they've done for the community at large. But not their recent acts, which I attribute to their desire to be elected to that position. We also need to look at their qualifications, as in can they really do this job or are they just running because they don't like the person doing it right now. Can you imagine having a district attorney without a clue as to how to do his/her job with the losers like they have now as ADA's. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I realize there are good people in the DA's office and I realize they are trying to keep their jobs. But the problem of weeding out the chaff will be difficult.
Also, we need to make sure everyone goes out and votes on election day. Every vote does count. That was proven during the 1980 presidential election, when Ronald Regan had such an overwhelming sweep, President Carter conceded with the polls still open on the West Coast and Hawaii. In that particular election, the military voted as they never have before because the three previous presidents failed to keep up with the rising cost of living and we (yes, that was when I was in the service) actually made less than most other Americans. I believe the starting pay for an E-1, the lowest grade, was somewhere in the vicinity of 500 to 600 - a month.
With that as an example, we can bring people around in LMJC to make sure they make their opinion known in the upcoming elections.
Mr. Anderson, I think you are awesome and I admire you very much. I can't thank you enough for all that you have shown on this site and all that you have brought to light to educate me.
I tried to teach my children the following:
When someone says, writes, or does something that you don't like:
First, respond in love.
Second, if you can't respond in love, then respond in like.
Third, if you can't respond in love or like at least respond with respect for yourself and the other person/s.
Fourth, if you can do none of the above, don't respond until you can do one of the above.
Perhaps Mr. Franklin is waiting to respond to you until he can do one of those things. I sure hope he is.
Also, I tried to teach my children that when you say a negative thing about a person you had to say three positive things about that person. Example: Johnny is rude. Johnny has nice blue eyes. Johnny has nice brown hair. Johnny has a nice smile. I hope this makes sense to all. Maybe Mr. Franklin is trying to find his three nice things to say since he was so negative in so many ways about others--you included. Bobb
Bobb, you just explained how I try to show my kids the right about life. Unfortunately, I don't believe Buzz will respond as graciously. His hit and run tactics are such that he'll probably issue a statement, faxed after business hours on a Friday, stating his office's position and that no one will use public opinion to force him to change. That's just my humble opinion, based on how he has reacted thus far to public opinion.
Sounds like you told him the way it was, not the way he thought it was!! Doubt he will care, since apparently they are either too egotistical or have their heads in the sand to know or care about the truth.
Keep it up Bill!!!
Loved the letter.
Where can you find Bill's talk with WGOW? They have so much on their site.
Just read that Tonya and David will be on the View Monday!! I am so glad she is able to get her story out to the public. People need to realize that this can happen to them or someone they love at anytime! I praise her for keeping this out there and showing the public how crooked the LMJC is and the other people involved in the case against her(including that scum of an ex-husband). Thank you Mr. Anderson for continuing your mission to expose these people for the true liars that they are:))
I did a search on 102.3 FM's site to see if they archived the interview but I am not locating it. Does anyone know if the interview is available and if so what is the link? Thanks!
My father (B.S., Electrical Engineering, Auburn) probably rolled over in his grave at my mistake. Forgive me, my friend!
Great commentary on this. Guys, I really hope some positive changes come. I expect that nothing will change, but at the same time I still hope for the best.
Also, just to let y'all know, I'll be on a church campout this weekend in beautiful Springville, Utah. It's one of the most beautiful places God placed on this Earth for our enjoyment.
So, Mr. Anderson, what are your thoughts on the West Memphis 3?
Post a Comment