Monday, June 7, 2010

Suzi Thorne and the "Who's On First?" Interrogation of Child #3

(This is the third in a series on the testimony of the child accusers)

On June 3, 2008, Suzi Thorne of the CAC and the Greenhouse interviewed Tonya Craft's six-year-old daughter (at the time) about allegations that Tonya had sexually molested her. I include (with appropriate name changes) as much of the dialogue as I can, including some notes that have been added to explain some of Thorne's tactics and the deceit she has employed.

Keep in mind that one thing that already was established with everyone involved (including Ms. Craft) was that this child at times would develop rashes due to problems with diarrhea, and her mother would apply topical medicine to those areas. Everyone agreed that Tonya had done this -- and many parents, including me, have done similar things with our children when they has these kinds of problems.

If applying topical medicine to deal with rashes in the private areas of one's child is a crime, then every parent is a criminal. That would include "judge" Brian House, and prosecutors Len Gregor, Chris Arnt, and Buzz Franklin, yet none of them need to worry about being arrested for "molesting" their children. Why? Because no one is trying to frame them. (One remembers that Arnt declared that Tonya's putting topical medicine on her own child was a "bad touch," but he does not explain why such an action by his own wife or any other mother in the courtroom is an "appropriate touch.")

I read the transcript of what is below to a person who is a trained therapist and who has worked with sexually-abused children, and her response to hearing what I read was: "This is evil." In other words, this therapist recognized that Thorne was not interviewing this six-year-old girl, but rather trying to manipulate what the young girl was saying so that she could find a way to frame Ms. Craft for child molestation.

As poorly-trained as Thorne might be -- and she clearly does not have the requisite training and education to be doing the kinds of interviews with children that could send their parents away for life -- what you will read below is not the product of someone who simply is incompetent. No, what you are reading is an attempt by Thorne to manipulate a six-year-old girl so that Thorne can help frame the child's mother for something that Thorne knew did not happen. What you are witnessing is a crime, and keep in mind that Thorne wears the "costume" of someone in "law enforcement."

Readers familiar with the Abbot and Costello "Who's On First?" routine in which Abbott is "identifying the players on a baseball team to Costello, but their names and nicknames can be interpreted as non-responsive answers to Costello's questions." Abbott is describing one thing, while Costello interprets it as something else.

That precisely is what is going on here, except Thorne is not engaging in comedy. In this exchange, she manages to drive a young child to tears by manipulating and bullying her and ultimately confusing the girl as to the nature of her mother's actions. One should remember that young children -- as this girl boldly demonstrates at the beginning of this "interview" -- know when someone inappropriately is touching him or her.

Furthermore, the child tells Thorne that she pulled down her own pants before her mother, yet read how Thorne tries to manipulate her into saying that Tonya was the one pulling down her pants. If the whole process here seems to be diabolical, that is because it IS diabolical.

The Interrogation, June 3, 2008, at the Greenhouse, Dalton, Georgia
CHILD #3: Why are you video taping it?
SUZIE: That's just what we do here. That's not nothing to worry about, okay? So don't worry about that. Just talk to me.
CHILD #3: Why are you video taping it?
SUZIE: Because we ... that's just what we have to do. It's no big deal.
CHILD #3: Why [are you videotaping it]?
SUZIE: Just ... just because. It's okay.
CHILD #3: Where’s the video camera?
SUZIE: You can’t see it, can you?
CHILD #3: Okay, that’s what my dad told me. He asked me a lot of questions and I told the truth and he said what are we going to do tomorrow? And he told us to say the truth so we said tell the truth.
[Note: she did tell the truth – medicine only. ]
SUZIE: Because see, even adults sometimes say something wrong, huh? Sometimes kids get in trouble and do things wrong, right?
SUZIE: Okay, and you said you used to live with your mom?
CHILD #3: Yeah but she was lying to them.
[Joal told her Mom was lying. Lie = no more mom]
SUZIE: [Tonya] was lying to who?
CHILD #3: The, uh, police.
SUZIE: What about [What was Tonya lying about]?
CHILD #3: They [police] asked her a question and she was just lying about it.
SUZIE: Well, what did [Tonya] lie [to police] about?
CHILD #3: I don’t know. She just lied about something.
SUZIE: Oh, you don’t know what she lied [to police] about?
CHILD #3: But my dad told me that she lied about something.
SUZIE: okay, uh, does anybody else ever live there [in CHILD #3’s house]
CHILD #3: You mean like come over and spend the night?
SUZIE: Uh-huh
CHILD #3: Yeah sometimes.
CHILD #3: Child Name [and then goes on to name the following other people, all children
SUZIE: Okay now who are all of those folks?
CHILD #3: My friends and [brother’s] friends.
SUZIE: …Well, did [Stepfather] ever have anybody come over and spend the night?
CHILD #3: At his house?
SUZIE: No, at your house. At your mom’s house.
CHILD #3: No.
CHILD #3: No.
CHILD #3: My mom and dad… my mom and dad don’t have grown ups spending the night.
SUZIE: Okay, so your mom never had anybody come over and spend the night?
CHILD #3: With her?
SUZIE: Yeah.
CHILD #3: Us… me and [brother].
SUZIE: Okay, uh, how come you are staying with your dad now? Why did you say?
CHILD #3: Because my mom got in trouble from the police.
SUZIE: What did [Tonya] get in trouble for?
CHILD #3: You just asked me that and I said I don't know.
CHILD #3: I think [Tonya] got in trouble by lying [to the police] because she was lying for a lot of people I think.
SUZIE: So, you know where it’s okay for people to touch you and where it’s not okay for people to touch you?
CHILD #3: Not really.
[Note: well, she’s about to learn real quick what the “right” answer is]
SUZIE: Yeah, where? Where are you pointing to? What do you call those places?
CHILD #3: I’m not going to say it.
SUZIE: It’s ok.
CHILD #3: No.
SUZIE: We can talk about anything and you can tell me anything.
CHILD #3: Can I just… can I just say the first letter?
SUZIE: Why don’t you just tell me what you call it?
SUZIE: Which one is the bottom? That one? Okay, well what’s the other one called?
CHILD #3: I don’t want to say it.
SUZIE: It’s okay to say it
CHILD #3: Vagina.
SUZIE:… Well, if somebody was to touch you on the vagina or the bottom what would you do?
CHILD #3: I would slap their arm and get them away or run away.
SUZIE: Okay.
CHILD #3: I don’t know. Probably I would slap their hand. I don’t know. Or I would tell them to go away. I don’t know.
[Note: Suzie does not differentiate parents/doctors/nurses from others, so CHILD #3 has NO CHOICE but to indict her mother a few lines down.]
SUZIE: Uh, has anybody ever touched you there?
CHILD #3: Yeah.
CHILD #3: My mom.
SUZIE: Your mom? Okay, can you tell me more about that?
CHILD #3: Well, she has put medicine on me sometimes and sometimes she washes me.
[Note: Suzie follows up on medicine, but does NOT follow up on washing. Later, she returns to asking why Tonya touched CHILD #3’s vagina, and CHILD #3 is too upset by then to respond past mentioning medicine again – which is still a plausible reason for a mom to touch a kid’s perineal area.]

SUZIE: Okay, well tell me about putting the medicine on.
CHILD #3: She [Tonya] just puts medicine on me.
SUZIE: Where does [Tonya] put medicine on you?
CHILD #3: My bottom because sometimes my belly hurts and I have, like, a problem with my stomach and I have to go to the bathroom a lot.
SUZIE Oh, okay so she puts medicine on your bottom.
CHILD #3: Yeah, because my bottom keeps hurting.
SUZIE: Ok, well, uh, when she does that [puts medicine on] where are your clothes?
CHILD #3: I just do this. I just pull them down for a minute so she can put the medicine on and then I pull them back up.
SUZIE: Okay, uh, does… does your tummy ever make your vagina hurt?
CHILD #3: No, not really.
SUZIE: No, not really? Okay, uh…
CHILD #3: Well sometimes yeah, pretty much. Sometimes…
[Notes: 1) What the heck kind of question is that? 2) CHILD #3 flipped her answer when it didn’t satisfy Suzie]
SUZIE: Well, what happens when your vagina hurts?
CHILD #3: Same thing.
SUZIE: Same thing what?
CHILD #3: As my bottom
SUZIE: Well what happens if your vagina hurts? You said ... you said your mom puts medicine on your bottom.
CHILD #3: Yeah she does.
SUZIE: What about your vagina?
CHILD #3: I never tell her that. I just keep it a secret.
SUZIE: you just keep that [vagina hurting] a secret? How come?
CHILD #3: I don’t know. I just don’t like saying that.
SUZIE: Does something… something upset you make your tummy hurt?
CHILD #3: I don’t know. My dad thinks I’m allergic to something. I haven’t really been allergic to stuff and we don’t know.
[Note: so upset stomach is an ongoing problem that dad knows about]
SUZIE: :You don’t know. Well, does anything make you sad and then your stomach hurts?
CHILD #3: Not really.
SUZIE: Not really?
CHILD #3: Sometimes my belly just hurts and then it makes, like, my whole… it makes me have to go to the bathroom a lot.
[Note: Suzie tries again to make it about something else, even though CHILD #3 just told her a few times that it’s a stomach problem. CHILD #3 sticks to her story.]
SUZIE: Yeah. What kind of games do ya'll [CHILD #3 and her friends] play?
CHILD #3: Sisters.
SUZIE: What else?
CHILD #3: Doggy, mom and kid, and tag, gymnastics, dancing. Sometimes I play in the sand with my brother's friend.
SUZIE: Oh, okay. You said you played, uh, mom and kid and mom and dad, and tag and all that stuff…
[Note: No she did NOT say mom and dad. Important because it’s brought up later]
SUZIE: Okay, when you said you played mom and dad, how do you play that?
CHILD #3: I didn't mean to say dad. I meant to say kid.
SUZIE: Oh, okay so you don't play mom and dad?
CHILD #3: No. I just play mom and kid.
[Note: interviewer is looking for a game analogous to boyfriend/girlfriend]
Elsewhere, CHILD #3 is questioned about showering with Sarah Henke. She is asked what happens in the shower, but NO follow up questions are asked, and NO pubic hair questions are asked. It is stated in Detective’s notes and elsewhere that CHILD #3 has been questioned about Tonya’s allegations that Sarah is inappropriate in the shower with CHILD #3, and that no evidence was found to warrant an investigation. The ENTIRE shaving line of inquiry is below – focuses on legs instead of labia.

SUZIE: Oh, okay. Do you do anything to your legs [in the shower]?
CHILD #3: Yeah.
SUZIE: What do you do with your legs?
CHILD #3: I wash them. And there's this little shaver you can, like, take it off and there's a little shaver .. .it's not a real shaver. You can use for like that.
SUZIE: Oh, so do you shave your legs sometimes?
CHILD #3: Uh•huh.
SUZIE: Okay, alright, did, uh, did you talk to your dad this weekend?
CHILD #3: About what?
SUZIE: I don't know. About anything important?
CHILD #3: Uh, no. Not about anything important.
[Note: not important in the child’s mind that she had medicine put on her bottom, since it is a common occurrence – as her father knows]
SUZIE: Okay, uh, did you talk to your dad this weekend about your mom?
CHILD #3: Yeah.
SUZIE: Yeah?
CHILD #3: Well, actually he talked to me about my mom.
SUZIE: Yeah? Tell me about that.
CHILD #3: He asked me a few questions.
SUZIE: Okay, like what [did dad ask you]?
CHILD #3: Kind of like you asked me.
SUZIE: Kind of like?
CHILD #3: Uh-huh, yeah.
SUZIE: Well, tell me what [Joal Henke] asked you.
CHILD #3: Almost the same as you.
SUZIE: Well, I don't remember what I asked. Can you tell me?
CHILD #3: You don't?
SUZIE: No, so can you help me out?
CHILD #3: Why?
SUZIE: Because I need your help.
[Note: Why B.S. the kid?]
CHILD #3: He asked me if someone ever touched me.
SUZIE: Okay what did you say?
CHILD #3: Yes because she did.
SUZIE: Okay, what did you tell him about [Tonya] touching you?
CHILD #3: I just said yes she did.
SUZIE: Did you tell [Joal Henke] where?
CHILD #3: Yes.
SUZIE: What did you say?
CHILD #3: I said right here and here.
SUZIE: And what did we call those places?
CHILD #3: Vagina and bottom.
SUZIE: Okay, now when you said right here and right here what are you talking about?
CHILD #3: Vagina and bottom.
[Note: CHILD #3 already said she was uncomfortable with the words. See how many times Suzie forces CHILD #3 to say them, even when CHILD #3 has already been clear.]
SUZIE: Okay so what did you tell [Joal Henke] about your bottom?
CHILD #3: I said she was putting medicine on it.
SUZIE: Okay, what did you tell [Joal Henke] about your vagina?
CHILD #3: I said sometimes it hurts and I never tell.
SUZIE: Okay, did you tell [Joal Henke] anything else?
CHILD #3: He asked me more questions but I forgot.
SUZIE: Okay, you forgot or you don't want to talk about it?
CHILD #3: I forgot.
SUZIE:…do you ever play a game with your friends called girlfriend boyfriend?
CHILD #3: Not that I know of. Maybe sometimes she likes to play with me.
CHILD #3: My friend [other child]. She’s been… she’s been really mean and she’s done a lot of stuff without her mom knowing.
SUZIE: Who’s [other child]?
CHILD #3: The one that I came over and my mom doesn't know that she's been mean to me and I've been trying to tell but my mom ... but [other child] always tells on me first.
SUZIE: About what?
CHILD #3: About a lot of stuff. She's been being mean to me.
SUZIE: How is [other child] mean to you?
CHILD #3: Because sometimes she screams at me and she says I don’t like you you're being mean because sometimes I just say I want to play sisters and she says no I'm going to go tell on you and she always lies.
SUZIE: Okay, well you said [other child] ... she's done some bad stuff.
CHILD #3: Yeah.
SUZIE: What kind of bad stuff?
SUZIE: She's been hurting me. Sometimes when I don't do what she says, she twists my arm.
SUZIE: Well, do you and [other child], do ya'll ever play girlfriend and boyfriend?
CHILD #3: She tries to ... she tried to slap my ... she tried to slap my back.
SUZIE: Okay, but. .. do ya'll ever play that game [girlfriend/boyfriend] though?
CHILD #3: She tries to but I won’t let her.
SUZIE: How do you play that [boyfriend and girlfriend] game?
CHILD #3: I don't. .. she [other child] tries to hit me but I try to not let her. And I was playing it and she ... and she knows how to play but she never tells me how to and I never want to.
SUZIE: Well, how come you’re getting upset about that [boyfriend girlfriend] game?
CHILD #3: Because I just don’t like it.
SUZIE: … so if you and [other child] were going to play girlfriend and boyfriend…
CHILD #3: I don’t want to. I don’t want to talk about it.
SUZIE: It’s okay to talk about [girlfriend and boyfriend game] it.
CHILD #3: I don’t want to.
CHILD #3: I don’t want to.
SUZIE: But we need to talk about that and find out what it [girlfriend boyfriend game] is.
CHILD #3: (CRYING) I don't want to talk about it.
SUZIE: How come [you don’t want to talk about the boyfriend girlfriend game]?
CHILD #3: (CRYING) I just don't.
SUZIE: How come you're getting so upset about that game?
CHILD #3: (CRYING) I don't know. I don't want to talk about it.
SUZIE: Okay, okay ... here, calm down, okay. It's okay. I'm not...I'm not going to be upset with you okay?
CHILD #3: I don't want to talk about [boyfriend girlfriend game] it.
SUZIE: Okay, we don't have to okay? We don't have to talk about it, okay? Uh, does anybody else ever come and play that game with you?
CHILD #3: No.
CHILD #3: No.
SUZIE: No?...
[Note: 1) Suzie fakes the kid out by saying we don’t have to talk, then zinging in another question immediately. 2) No one else plays the game except other child. 3) Suzie asks no? no? to elicit a different answer.]
SUZIE: Okay, well when the police came over to your house and talked to your mom on Friday, was it Friday?
CHILD #3: Yeah.
SUZIE: Yeah? Did your mom get mad or anything?
CHILD #3: She just screamed at us and told us to go to our room.
SUZIE: Okay, uh, now before you went to your dad’s that day, did your mom tell you anything about before you went over there?
CHILD #3: No she didn’t even tell me one thing. I didn’t even know who they were.
SUZIE: You didn’t know who they were [police]?
CHILD #3: Not until my dad told me.
SUZIE: [returning to room]Sorry it took so long.
CHILD #3: Okay. Why can’t I leave now? It’s been too long.
SUZIE: Do you remember when we were talking about ... when you and your dad talked this weekend? Yeah? And you told me that you told him that your mom put medicine on your bottom because it was hurting? Because your tummy was upset and you said that. .. that you told him that she touched your vagina?
CHILD #3: She did.
CHILD #3: (CRYING) She did.
[Note: Now CHILD #3 is conflating what mom did with “bad” after the questioning she endured earlier, when Suzie drew clear lines between the concepts.]
SUZIE: She did, okay. But why did she [Tonya] touch your vagina?
CHILD #3: She just did, I don’t know.
[Note: CHILD #3 already said it was for washing and medicine pg 10. Remember washing was NOT followed up on by Suzie.]
SUZIE: … But you said she just did [Tonya touched you]. You don’t know why?
CHILD #3: Uh-uh
CHILD #3: No I don’t know why.
[Note: all of her previous answers disconfirmed, CHILD #3 does not know the “right” answer and is upset.]

SUZIE: Where were your clothes?
CHILD #3: I said … I already told you.
SUZIE: You said that when she put medicine on your bottom that. .. that she pulled them down.
CHILD #3: Yeah.
SUZIE: Okay, when she touched your vagina ...
CHILD #3: (CRYING) They were pulled down. It was the same time when I had medicine.
CHILD #3: (CRYING) I don't want to [talk any more].
SUZIE: CHILD #3, I'm sorry that you're getting upset, okay? And I'm not trying ...
CHILD #3: (CRYING) I want to stop.
SUZIE: I'm not trying to upset you, okay?
CHILD #3: (CRYING) I don't want to talk.
SUZIE: Okay. Are you scared that ... are you scared that you're going to get somebody in trouble?
CHILD #3: (CRYING) No I just don't want to talk.
SUZIE: Okay well sit up for just a second and we'll be done, okay?
CHILD #3: (CRYING) I don't want to.

As I read through this manipulative interview, I realize that it could have been me, it could have been my wife, it could have been my oldest daughter, who has two young children. Thorne has managed to take something that is NECESSARY for parents to do when their children develop rashes in their private areas, and turn it into sexual assault. All it takes is an allegation and motivated "investigators" and prosecutors, and we are off to the races.

Thorne's tactics of manipulating a six-year-old girl are not the acts of a professional trying to investigate a crime. No, this is the act of someone committing a crime, a monster who is trying to frame this child's mother for something that never happened and destroy the lives of mother and daughter. This is the act of a bully, a manipulative bully, the act of someone who needs to be put away in prison where she no longer can harm law-abiding people.

Keep in mind that this child already had been taken from her home, and her father and stepmother had been working on her, peppering her with questions, and telling her that she would not be seeing her mother anymore. This was a little girl who was in a fragile emotional state, and then she had Thorne brutalizing her in an attempt to manipulate and trick the child into giving false information.

During the interrogation -- and that is what this was -- Thorne got up and left for several minutes, leaving this child alone in a strange room with a video camera running. One of the things that actual forensic interviewers (as opposed to the fraudulent and dishonest Greenhouse/CAC crowd) are taught in training is that one does not leave a child alone during questioning. The tactics you see Thorne using are reserved for people suspected of committing crimes, not for little children who allegedly have been molested.

This "interview" is only a snippet of what I have in my files. There are "interviews" by others, such as Tim Deal, Holly Kittle, and Stacey Long, and the questions they ask are just as leading and just as manipulative as what you have read above. If you wonder why I am so hard on the prosecutors, the judge, and the "investigators," you have your answer. These people are a danger to everyone else, for they cloak criminal behavior with the robe of the law. Their actions go to the very heart of the system of justice, and they go to the very heart of what it means to be a decent society.


Cyril Lucar said...

This makes we want to vomit. It is so manipulative and damaging. I've had some of these conversations with kids. I have not special training in this at all, but I would NEVER do what she did. COMMON SENSE would tell you not to try to lead and confuse a small child with something like this. Bill, this definitely goes beyond incompetence. This woman is either deluded by her own pre-determinations or she is evil.

William L. Anderson said...

I fully agree. This was a deliberate attempt to figure how to bring false charges against Tonya Craft. To compound this crime, Thorne committed perjury, but given that the Georgia "justice" system protects its own, we won't ever see her on trial for committing this crime.

My apologies for getting this thing out so late. I wrote it Saturday and had it timed for release at 12:01 this morning, but somehow in the interim I had managed to turn it into a "draft." That is the problem when an old codger like me tries to play with modern technology!

Anonymous said...

Just you guys wait until Suzie gets her A.S. in criminal justice from Kaplan U.

She'll be solving cold cases, taking down drug cartels and Bin Laden will be in Gitmo before the sun sets.

Caruso and Sinise ain't seen nothin' yet.

Mary Jane said...

Yes, what Thorne did is evil, and there should be no excuse for that!

I am also impressed with how intelligent and perceptive this child is for her age. She knew that Thorne was up to something when Thorne repeated the same questions or played dumb and pretended not to remember what she had been questioning. As I was reading the transcript, I felt that the six-year old was more intelligent than the adult that was questioning her.

Thorne is incompetent, and there is no doubt about that, but she must be delivering what the DA's office wants, and that's how she has been able to keep this job that is pretty "decent" and "respectable" (on the surface) without much education or training.

I'll say that no one with conscience (with or without much education) can last in Thorne's position.

Anonymous said...

Someone said on this blog that Suzi Thorne is a lesbian. Has that been established or was that just someone's opinion?

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

Oh my god.

From the reports coming from media covering the trial, I expected the interview transcripts would show incompetence, and especially from Ms. Thorne.

However, I did not anticipate something even close to this level.

After reading this, I now believe there was someone more intelligent and evil (if that is possible) in the wings, observing and directing (at least this one) interviews.

From her verbal reactions and follow-up questions to the child's responses, Thorne does not telegraph an intellectual capacity to orchestrate the frame. That occurs only after Suzie leaves the room, then returns to ask an incredibly misleading question to an obviously upset child.

Oh my God.

Vince said...

My God. Failure to treat "diaper rash" is a sign of neglect and abuse. The child describes her mother TAKING THE PROPER CARE OF HER.

"My mother lies about everything." You just heard Joal Henke speaking there.

Is there any evidence that this girl WASN'T brainwashed?

grits said...

In regards to the interview… shame, shame, shame. Everything about it is wrong but I was especially grieved to see that the child was left alone – hopefully for a very brief period. Not only is it scary for the child to be alone but could definitely move the child into slanting answers to what she thinks the interviewer wants to hear. She (the child) has already been removed from her mother and would not want to jeopardize removal from her father.

Bill, you were asked once to clarify this and it is so unbelievable that I would like to ask you to be more specific in your source. It has been said that this child showered with her stepmother, during which time she witnessed or helped the stepmother shave pubic hair. It is a big jump from a bikini shave (top of the thigh into pubic hair normally exposed by a bikini) to shaving around the labia (usually done with waxing).

It was WRONG for the child to be in the shower with her stepmother. Period. If her stepmother shaved her legs up to the top of her thighs into the pubic region (but still part of a “normal” shave) – EXTREMELY WRONG. If we make the jump to the child being asked to hold (?) the labia for a full shave??? That is so SICK as to make it unbelievable that no one has acted on this. So please clarify your source. And if this is true, why is the community not up in arms!!!

Throckmorton P. Gildersleeve said...

First off, Doctor Anderson you are not an old codger. I’m an old codger and you have a few years to go to catch up to me.

Secondly, when I read the Thorne “interview,” and I use that term in the broadest possible sense, I was struck by how much it reminded me of the old Dragnet television show of the 1950’s. If you are truly an old codger then you will recall how Joe Friday and his partner wanted “just the facts” and used a deadpan almost monotone questioning technique to hammer a suspect into a confession. In the Craft inquisition, Thorne hammered at this 6 year old child to manipulate the child into supporting Thorne’s forgone conclusion that abuse had occurred so she could deliver what Team HAG was demanding. You said it best: “This was a deliberate attempt to figure how to bring false charges against Tonya Craft.”

Thorne’s words channeling Joe Friday as she questioned this child produced the result she wanted. Her on-line education was showing as she tried to put words into the child’s mouth but the little girl was too smart for her. You have correctly characterized this as an interrogation, not an interview. It was also a crime committed on a 6 year old child by an under trained, under intelligent law enforcement officer seeking to support a foregone conclusion.

From news reports which may or may not be accurate, I understand that Suzie Thorne is now a deputy with the Whitfield County Sheriff’s office. The Peter Principle is at work and she has risen to her highest level of incompetence. The citizens of this area of North Georgia get the type of law enforcement they deserve as long as they allow the Thornes, Summers, Deals and Team HAGs of this world to run roughshod over their rights. Tim “Crooked” Deal with his arrogant comment that “only guilty people ask for lawyers” is another example of small town incompetence and needs to be in some other line of work or else posted to duty as a school crossing guard with his bullet in his pocket just like his intellectual mentor and equal Barney Fife.

Sorry for the length of this post but the more I read of this botched interrogation, the more incensed I became. I too sensed what Dan a@9:23 detected, the feeling that someone other than Thorne was directing this drama and that she was just a tool being used to collect what passes for evidence in Judicial Pimp House’s court.

William L. Anderson said...

Suzi Thorne is a deputy with the Whitfield County Sheriff's Department at the current time. She no longer is employed by the Greenhouse.

While Sarah Henke denied having the child hold Sarah's labia while she showered, I don't believe it. First, if we are to take what the child said earlier (not in testimony, but in conversation with her mother), then why should THAT account not be believable (since it was not made under duress), but then we are supposed to believe what the child said on the stand, after she had been given a script on what to say?

Second, we already know that Sarah and Joal Henke lied on the stand. Remember, Sarah claimed that she brought the child into the shower because the girl was "dirty" and had "matted hair." Wow. There was absolutely NO evidence of that. Sarah made up that story out of whole cloth.

No, you can believe the "labia" account. How do you know that Sarah and Joal are lying? Their lips are moving.

By the way, it is not just Suzi Thorne that engaged in this kind of dishonest questioning. Stacey Long is just as malevolent and we will be taking a much harder look at her and the CAC in future posts.

As for Thorne's sexual preference, I have no idea and don't care. However, if she does prefer other females, then by Len Gregor's standards, she would be a child molester.

Anonymous said...

We all know what these people are doing everyday to get their conviction's and sending innocent people to prison. What can we do can we march at Attorney General
office, or The Governor office. What can be done to get their attention. There has got to be something.

Lame said...

A couple of things here:

The tactic of leaving the person being interviewed in a room alone for a period and then returning to ask leading questions is a very common tactic employed by police. From every bit of information I've gotten regarding Greenhouse and CAC, they are not an unbiased entity but rather are an extension of the law enforcement community. They are the LAST place any child should be interviewed or examined for anything relating to physical or sexual abuse.

Setting qualifications aside, the very fact that these children, or any children, were taken to an organization that supports and is supported by a law enforcement branch of the government in itself shows bias.

I am certain that these places do some good for actual victims who have been brought there for treatment AFTER it has been proven they were victimized. However, their symbiotic relationship with the criminal justice system creates an atmosphere in which workers who interview potential victims are benefited by producing more victims.

It is, in a way, like a hospital specializing in treating lung cancer patients having employees encouraging people to smoke.

Anonymous said...

Reading the account of the interview makes one sick. There can be no doubt that the interview was directed in such a way to get the outcome dictated by a higher-up. The question is which in the cast of characters hated Tonya so much that he/she wanted her destroyed forever? \cks

KC Sprayberry said...

The interview is sad in so many ways. Ms. Thorne's deliberate efforts to force the child into answering questions other than the responses given is so apparent it's ridicilous. I feel for Tonya and her daughter both. They are the true victims in this travesty. And I picked up on something that came out very differently in the Trial. The child indicated that accuser 2 (or maybe accuser 1, that was never made clear) was mean and instigated the boyfriend/girlfriend games without explaining the rules. Now, my mind tends to jump to conclusions when faced with this kind of information. Now I'm wondering if the other 2 kids weren't 'rehearsed' to go along with a mad plan of their parents to discredit Ms. Craft by starting this kind behavior in her daughter, as a way to cause as many problems as possible. This doesn't seem all that impossible given their reactions both during and after the trial. If I'm remembering correctly, the whole thing came into the open after accuser 2's mom discovered TC's daughter and her own doing a little bit of investigation about each other's bodies. Very normal at that age but obviously those families think differently. That mom's reaction sure seemed a lot over the top.
But my biggest reaction to this blog was sadness at how Tonya's child was maniuplated with half statements and outright lies by people she's been taught to trust. I wonder how Suzie Thorne, Joal Henke, and the rest of those fools can look at themselves in a mirror without feeling guilt at the problems they caused in the past and ones sure to come up in the future.

Anonymous said...

I have been following your blog since the beginning of Tonya's trail. I am orginally from Chattanooga. If this can happen in Small Town, GA it can happen anywhere to anyone. I am expecting my 1st child (a girl) in October and am scared that anything I do to help my child will be mistaken as abuse. How sad!! I am glad that you are bringing light to such a corrupt system.

Anonymous said...

At best Suzi Thorne went into the interview with preconceived notions. At worst they, by they meaning all interviewers knew that they needed to get disclosures from the children or law enforcement would pay taxpayer dollars to find someone who would.

False accusations seemed to have a lot of similarities between false confessions. Hence why I will post this interesting link.


Anonymous said...

Thank's again to Mr Anderson for another Great job.

William L. Anderson said...

KC Sprayberry,

Joal Henke is not someone who is troubled by a guilty conscience. I think his own personal history of interactions with females, not to mention the manipulation of his children, demonstrates that the man is not someone who is troubled by his own dishonesty.

Likewise, we can see that the prosecutors, Len Gregor and Chris Arnt, are not people who seem to be bothered by lies that they help to generate. From what I can tell, both men are sociopaths, and that makes them especially dangerous as prosecutors, because they have no qualms about going after innocent people.

KDaw said...

What Thorne did to this child is nothing but outright emotional abuse!
The instant that the child started to cry this "interview" should have stopped completely.
It has occurred to me a possible reason child became so upset in the questioning about her vaginal area. After the shaving incident with her step monster, Tonya herself may have talked with her and explained that it was bad for someone to touch her there. Even telling her a possible appropriate reaction would be to "CHILD #3: I would slap their arm and get them away or run away."
It seems she is very bright. As soon as Suzie tries to connect her mother putting medicine on her with a "bad" touch, she begins to get distraught because she realized what Suzie was trying to do. She doens't want to talk about it beause she doesn't want her to think her mother is bad.
I could keep going, but I am so angry I need to go to my happy place in my garden and rest a bit. I am flabbergasted.

Anonymous said...

Another great commentary Bill...thank you for the time you put into is fascinating to read after following Tonya's trial from afar...

I have read on here many comments alluding to the appalling interview tactics employed with the children but I had no idea we were talking about something as grossly negligent and disgraceful as this transcript...MY GOD...I feel sick and absolutely disgusted after reading that...and heartbroken for Tonya and her daughter and the immense damage that has been done to their once secure, loving relationship.

On a positive side, what an incredibly bright, mature, switched on 6 year old...she is an absolute credit to Tonya's parenting...and she will recover once she is returned to the loving arms of her mom...shame on everybody involved in this persecution of dare you screw with the lives of young girls and how dare you come between a safe, loving mother/daughter should be ashamed

Anonymous said...

Suzi Thorne is a sick ass nazi-bi$%#. She has no shame although she should. God will get her and the rest of those pigs.

Anonymous said...

Off the topic of the interview, but on the topic of the LMJD....did anyone hear the person that called into WGOW this morning and stated that the LMJD has pushed back all upcoming child molestation trials because they have "run out of money"? The caller claimed to know this because a friend was supposed to be on trial this month. I'm hoping WGOW will follow up on this to see if it's truth or rumor. Has anyone else heard that this is happening?

Anonymous said...

I thought Tonya Craft was crazy to file a lawsuit. All that would come out of it would be that she was found not guilty, but the lawsuit would make people believe she may have done it because of the different rules for evidence.

After reading this account of one of the child interviews, I now understand her lawsuit and believe she may win. These people are idiots. Even her daughter was able to recognize this fact, but in the end I can see her just wanting it to be over. IF YOU JUST TELL US WHAT WE WANT TO HEAR YOU CAN GO.

How could Joal and Sarah Henke not have been looked at closer. With his behavior and the showering/shaving incident, it seems that they should have been the one investigated.

Anonymous said...

To kbp-

The bottom is used in general with dealing with kids for that area of their body.

-Sit on your bottom (for example)

It does seem strange that Vagina was stressed so much, but I think it would have been stranger to hear a child say rectum when most of the time they hear it referred to as their bottom.

Also, some parents do teach their kids the proper terminology for their genitals but still use bottom in general for their "bottom".

Trish White said...

Wow, Susie needs to be in the armed services interogating war criminals!!! I'm not really shocked, as I have copies of interviews done with my granddaughters by Stacy Long and yes, she too asks leading questions and tries her best to get the answers she wants. Everyone of these people who are involved in the prosecution of Tonya Craft and many others should all be the ones in prison. Keep the pressure of Bill, maybe just maybe justice will be done in this district!!

volfan69 said...

Pardon me for being disgusting, but that woman seemed to get "enjoyment" from what she was doing to that child. That is nothing but cruel, mean, and subhuman. Thank you again, Mr. Anderson. I know this must be difficult for you and those with whom you are working, but the entire mess needs to be exposed. Bobb

Anonymous said...

Just a thought.

If Tim "Dirty" Deal's philosophy is that you only need an attorney if you are guilty, Does that mean that He intends to go into this pending law suit without counsel? HAHA... According to his thought process, Everyone that Tonya has sued is guilty, because I am sure they have all hired lawyers!!! What a moron!!!
And Suzie Thorne, you are a sham and a shame to your supposed (internet born) profession!

I wonder how she felt getting owned by a 6 year old in her already preconcieved interview?
That baby beat her... I guess ole Joal didn't emphasize to "just tell the truth" again to his daughter. He didn't want the truth, He only wanted HIS truth!!
What a piece of work... If I were the realty company he worked for, I would have told him to clear his desk a long time ago. Only an imbecile would use him as a real estate agent.

Mary Jane said...

It's too bad Thorne could not be fired, because she knows too much incriminating facts about her employer! Same goes for Arnt and Gregor!!

Anonymous said...

While reading this, I couldn't help but think of Tonya, the mother of this child and feeling terribly terribly sad for her. As a mother, if my child had been put through this and I had to read this account, it would just kill me. Not because I would be upset about being falsely accused but because of the harm done to my child and worse not being able to protect my child. :(

volfan69 said...

Thinking more about this I have decided that I am just simple-minded. How can the judge in Chattanooga expect Tonya and her ex to be able to mediate an agreement about custody of the children? How can the judge not see that the children need to be away from the father and step-mother? Why is there no investigation of the father and step-mother? I just don't understand it all.

Anonymous said...

Probably because parents have done much worse then saying mom or dad lied to the police would be my guess.


Anonymous said...

Joel & Sarah remind me of the type that would flee the state before they would turn the kids over.Any parent that would deliberately harm their own child in such a manner,which is right out child abuse,is capable of anything.The courts need to step up & take charge immediately.

volfan69 said...

@anon 2:40
Are you replying to me? If so, you are more simple than I! Dad and step-mom have done much worse than what you wrote. Are you not reading everything? Look at this one article alone and see what they put that little girl through. Did you read about the showering/shaving incident? Good grief!

volfan69 said...

@anon 3:10
Thank you and I very much agree.

Anonymous said...

volfan69,that is what scares me the most about these people.They are two kinds of crazy in the worst way.You never know just how far they are willing to go.I think straight jackets are in order.P.S. I was not anon2:40 I hope my brain works a little better than that.

Anonymous said...

I don't know about Tennessee law, but in Illinois I found out from a friend who was having issues with her ex that you have to go to mediation first. Unfortunately, in this case they went to a hearing because they felt that the ex had abused the daughter emotionally , but the judge said it had to go to mediation, which meant she paid for a lawyer in court when the judge didn't do anything.

Anonymous said...

So nothing can be done to the interviewer's?? Georgia laws have their backs?? So people in positions of authority can just do whatever they want in Georgia??

eagle1 said...

And THIS was the interview that they said PROVED she was guilty??!!
Surely not...
What would be enlightening would be to know what Joal had told Suzie or the detective BEFORE the interview. FOR SURE it was clear that Suzie knew ALL this stuff that she needed to bring up. This concept in itself is flawed vs. letting the kid just talk. If the professional folks are right when they say you are supposed to just let the kid bring out the facts, then Suzie broke the rules very blatantly.
It's like she had a script to work with from the parent, and only needed to get the kid to say it on tape somehow. Then Suzie seemed upset that the little girl would not cooperate. This was pretty sick!
Are ALL the other interviews as inept as this one?!
This reminds me of the process to come to a conclusion. One method starts with facts to reach the conclusion. Another starts with the final conclusion and tries to fit facts in to support the final.
In this case they worked backwards, vs. forward.
And they just could not get the details to support the predetermined conclusion, because the conclusion was flawed to begin with.
Help me out, what are the 2 words I am trying to remember?

Anonymous said...

Inductive vs deductive? Maybe those were the 2 words you're looking for, but my 2 are F#$%ing STUPID!

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


I'm so glad you asked about source of the the labia comment, and even though I've seen Bill's answer, I am still troubled by it. After seeing Ms. Craft being falsely accused, I sure don't want to put anybody else through the same torture, whether the person is Sarah Henke or Tonya Craft. I don't know how we made the jump from "helping hold the skin tight", which is what I heard the little girl had done while helping her stepmother shave, to holding back the labia. I'm sorry, but this is just very, very hard for me to swallow.

Many others have referred to this interview has an interrogation, and without hesitation, I would describe it as such myself. What a pitiful excuse for an interviewer!

Since Suzie was so eager to please whoever was in charge of this fiasco at the time, how could anybody in their right mind think she would make a good cop?! Whitfield County needs to hand her a pink slip now so that Det. Deal has some company in the unemployment line!

Anonymous said...

Did you read about the showering/shaving incident? Good grief!
Sure. If that's child abuse than any parent could be charged with a crime taking their children to a changing area at a public swimming pool. The only thing that makes this outrageous is it was done without the knowledge and consent of the custodial parent.

Kaye said...

eagle 1:

flawed premise

Anonymous said...

Joal did a lot of things that I don't agree with but I cannot swallow the concept that he is totally evil. After all, he was there for his children when the alternative for his children for the hellpit that is know as foster care.


Kaye said...

But, Alinusara, surely you realize that if Joal hadn't proceeded to play along with the false allegations, then there is a very good chance Tonya would have never lost custody of her children in the first place!

Look, folks, this whole father vs. mother scenario is not all that unusual when there is turbulent marriage, and even more turbulent divorce. Children have been used as pawns to get revenge on the other parent in divorce after divorce. This case, however, is unusually unique in the fact that Daddy tried to pull it on Mommy. THAT is unusual! If he hadn't been contacted by these other parents, then he probably wouldn't have sacrificed his own daughter in the process, and I suspect that had the allegations been male children of these very same parents, then Joal would have attempted to utilize his son instead.

This is a horribly sad situation all around. I am very concerned with the mental well-being of both of Tonya's children. While I might not be so quick to jump on the whole "labia" wagon, I sincerely doubt that Joal Henke can provide a stable home environment where both of these children are encouraged to have a healthy and loving relationship with their mother. As a matter of fact, I doubt that Joal Henke can think of anybody's needs other than his own. What a wretched human being!

Anonymous said...

anon4:44 Joal is evil,the children would never been facing foster care if it was not for him.They never would gone into the system,they have grandparents,aunts,uncles ect. Wake up, Joal put everything into motion.

Anonymous said...

Not really Anon 5:08. Sherri Wilson put everything in motion by feeding into the worse fears of Sandra Lamb who had her own mental issues.


Anonymous said...

I ran across this link, here is a quote:

"Tonya considers what they did and said against her to be minor compared to what they did and said against her children, in particularly, her daughter, who was un-mercifully brainwashed until she now truly believes her mother molested her. The CAC, DAs and CASA, along with the media and her own father and stepmother will be served once Tonya regains full custody of both children. The children’s lawsuits will make Tonya’s look like peanuts."

Is this credible? RE her 'father & step mother' this is the first I've read or hear of Tonya having a step mother, how would Tonya have a possible lawsuit against them?

Anonymous said...

Hehe. Not Tonya's Craft's stepmother. Rather Tonya's Crafts own daughter stepmother, or more simply put Tonya's Craft's exhusband wife.

Kaye said...


The subject of the father and stepmother of the second sentence of the paragraph refers to "her daughter", of the first sentence. The father and stepmother, therefore, would be Joal and Sarah Henke.

Anonymous said...

Ah okay I reread it for the 3rd time I wondered if that isn't who was referred to, IMO it's very poorly written. Duh :P

Anonymous said...

anon5:16 we all know Sandra is mental.I think Sherri & Joel were the master minds behind it all.

Anonymous said...

kaye,I mean no disrespect,I hope you do not think so.Are you saying you do not believe what Mr.Anderson said about the labia act?

KC Sprayberry said...

I believe anon 5:16 hit the nail on the head. All along, we've looked at those whose children testified as the ringleaders (the first 2 accusers). But a far more pervasive set of circumstances existed. They might not seem like much to ordinary humans, like us. Joal and Sherri had agendas. They had the intelligence to tweak the weaknesses of the others involved. And those weaknesses came out during the trial for the world to see. I said it before and I'll repeat it. I've never seen another trial in LMJC given this kind of attention since the one about the doctor in Atlanta hiring someone to kill his ex-wife that was moved to LaFayette. Even the Parker trial last fall went pretty much quietly. But the combination of certain personalities pushing others to their limits through trickery or a few off-the-wall suggestions and then teaming up with a group of prosecutors, interviewers, and therapists who don't deserve to have such positions, and you have, as Tonya said, a perfect storm. Too bad those folks are about to find out how perfect storms have a way of thundering down on those who start them, too.
Thanks, Bill, for setting me straight on Joal. As a writer, I've developed a habit of looking for good points in everyone, to develop more rounded characters. Your comment about Joal set me back on the straight and narrow.

Anonymous said...

Good God Almighty....this is VERY WRONG! Like the first poster, I just want to vomit!

Kaye said...


Yes, I am saying that I am very skeptical about something said of this nature. That's not to say that I think Bill is lying, or even mistaken, but perhaps he has more information than I have seen on this subject and I'm just wanting more proof.

Also, if I have learned anything from the Craft case, it is to question, question, question. Question when I watch NewsChannel Slime pronounce judgement on someone that is merely accused of committing child molestation, question the verdicts that a LMJC jury may have come to when they don't have ALL the evidence available, question whether that nice Sheriff Phil Summers, who has already served a decade in his position and hired and promoted idiots like Deal, wouldn't be a "good" sheriff the next election.

If I have learned ANYTHING about myself during this trial, it is to question, even if it means sometimes I may offend somebody like Bill who has done so much for our community by exposing the corruption of our system.

Anonymous said...

I DO NOT DOUBT for a moment that Mr. Anderson is posting FACTS!!! These people need to go AWAY FOR A VERY LONG TIME!!!

Anonymous said...

KC Sparayberry,I agree no other trail has ever had so much attention.I believe this trail set off a bomb,so many people & even older students were glued to the tv.Everyone wanted to know everything they could.In little towns in this area it makes things even more magnified.We all felt like we were touched by the situation.

Anonymous said...

Kaye apparently has all the answers all the time.

Anonymous said...

I think the "labia vs. pulling skin tight" differentiation is a moot point. If the child is helping the step-mother shave her private area by holding ANY skin in that area tight, that constitutes some really strange, inappropriate behavior on the step-mother's part. Yes, questioning is good. This case has proven that beyond a doubt. But even if the labia wording isn't 100% accurate, the act involving the step-mother is no less disturbing and no less wrong.


William L. Anderson said...


I appreciate your point, and I will say that I have a very good source on this one. You are correct in that when one puts something in print like this, that one needs to have the ducks in a row, and they are. I'm not at liberty to give all my sources away, however, and I hope you understand.

Nonetheless, I do appreciate what you have said and I appreciate the spirit in which it was made. You and the other regular posters on this blog have done well in keeping the primary focus on the main players and what happened.

So, you don't have to apologize for anything. If my regular posters cannot hold my feet to the fire and hold me to the standards I am saying that others should hold, then you would be just a cheering section, and that is NOT what I want. I appreciate how your posts have helped this forum, and people like you remind me of why I do not have modified comments.

Anonymous said...

Well, if Thorne is gay then she likes vagina's. She sure loves to hear children say that word over and over doesn't she. Bet she knows how it sounds when girls touch each others vagina's. Vagina, Vagina, Vagina, now, is that enough times for you Lizzy Thorne!!

Anonymous said...

I read Tonya's 52 suit. It didn't say anything about skin being pulled tight. I'm not sure where that came from. Perhaps Bill will clear it up.

Anonymous said...


This poor kid.

Where is the sexual abuse?

Kids playing "doctor" as it used to be called, a little bullying, that's what it was, at least that's what I can see from this "interview".

This whole trial was indeed nothing more than a witch hunt.

Apparently one of the parents has a real problem in dealing with children and had to place blame somewhere and that blame was put on Tonya.

It couldn't be clearer.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:40,

Tonya testified that her daughter described to her how she held the skin tight so that Sarah wouldn't cut herself while shaving. This was part of the initial conversation where her daughter told her about Sarah shaving "down there" while she was in the shower with her. I don't know if it is mentioned in any suit, but I was present for her testimony to that effect.


Anonymous said...

Thanks N.J. Perhaps trial transcripts or a newspaper clipping will clear it up.

Lame said...

OK, I said it before and I'll say it again, the little girls here did get raped. However, it was not Tonya Craft who did it, and it wasn't their vaginas that were damaged. These three little girls, some sweet, some not so, had their minds brutally raped by the interviewers, police, prosecutors, and their own parents/step-parents.

As for the shaving issue, it doesn't matter what the Craft girl held, the fact that she's in the bathtub/shower with a grown woman who is shaving (be it legs or pubic region) is inappropriate for a 5 or 6 year old girl. If it was her legs that she was shaving, unless Sara's a super-duper Jaba the Hut-fat ass with massively flabby thighs, there's no reason for her to hold anything tight. If she did hold ANYTHING at all, that, in my mind constitutes inappropriate behavior. Not necessarilly abuse, but inappropriate behavior meriting a stern warning. If she was nude in front of the girl while shaving, still not abuse, but very borderline, and could be grounds for modifying custody arrangements. Notice I said "could." There was a custody case in Indiana recently where a woman sued to gain sole custody of her daughter after her husband married a woman who was a registered sex offender who had been convicted of molesting a teen girl. In that case the state supreme court found in favor of the father, citing that the step-mother, although a registered offender, had done her time, the registration period was to be over in a matter of months, and despite what the mother said, there was no direct evidence she had done anything untoward with the daughter. If Ms Craft was going to use the shaving incident, she would have had an uphill battle, even if she hadn't been framed herself for a sex crime.

John said...

Thanks Bill for this post. I was wandering thru this whole ordeal How they got where they did with the chidren. Now I see its was worse than I thought. What a complete (for lack of a better word) Goof ball. No wander these people Had strange faces during cross by D-LO, JERKS hope they all get what they deserve by this lawsuit. No wander they had to throw out that TC wore a thong lol.

So lets look at the prosecutors' TEAM and see why they lost with this SYLLOGISM

1) SOME women wear thongs, have lesbian affairs, drink, puke at their weddings, sleep around, married more than once, cut grass in shorty shorts. MIGHT make them a child molester.

2) Tonya was to have allegedly done the things I listed above. so.....

3) Therefore TC was a molester.

(key words in this losing SYLLOGISM was SOME, MIGHT)


1) ALL the children in this case were coached and lead to believe somthing "bad" happened to them, when it showed by Bad interveiws, lying under oath, that nothing occured.

2) Most to ALL child molesters get something from their acts ( i.e. sexual pleasure) NO child in this case EVER claim to have touched TC for her pleasure or seen her please herself. (To my knowledge noone on the prosecutors side claim this either.)

3) Therfore, TC DID NOT commit the act of child molestion.

(key words ALL, EVER)

Although molesting did occur in this case, it was to Tonya and the children by none other than the LMJC and "team".

justiceseeker51 said...

Very well said, John

Anonymous said...

anon3:10 I agree.What is to say Joel wouldn't do that.

Anonymous said...

The most "telling" aspect of the interview was the fact that the child had NO IDEA why the police had an issue with her mom... If Tonya had ever hurt her, she would KNOW. If Tonya had ever touched her in the way the other child had (which CLEARLY upset her)...she would KNOW. This child did NOT exhibit shame when describing her mother's touch using medicine...But the child on child touch brought shame and tears. She was clearly capable of unmanipulated "foreclosure", but it wasn't against her mom. When Suzi kept bringing EVERYTHING back to her mom, she was like, "Okay, whatever, just LET ME OUTTA THIS ROOM!!!!"

Ooltewah mom

Anonymous said...

I cant believe this was allowed as evidence. What an idiot. That interview is criminal. Someone had better settle out of court.

Anonymous said...

Who was the friend that always wanted to play the "girlfriend/boyfriend" game? Was it one of the other accusers involved in this case? It seemed strange that this friend associated the girlfriend/boyfriend relationship with hitting, a form of physical abuse.

Anonymous said...

Hitting and arm twisting. Gosh the child got her "arm twisted" by children and adults alike!!

But it's true she was totally confused as to what her mom had done to warrant the police involvement. That says alot.

Anonymous said...

Best punishment for the LMJC and company and all the parent's is to take showers with Sarah Henke once a day and hold her (((VAGINA)))skin while she shaves. It's NOT SEXUAL ABUSE, RIGHT???? No need to investigate??? How sick!!! Where's the FBI? Do they know about this?? Why did Joel get custody of the kids when he allowed Sarah to do this? Does the judge in Chattanooga know about this? Somebody needs to tell her. Those kids need to be taken out of that house immediately and put into the care of their mother. I want to see Sarah in jail for life!

Anonymous said...

This absolutely made me sick. My teenager read it (just the interview part w/out commentary from me or Bill) and was floored. She said, "mom, first, even with the 'interview' being ridiculous, how did they ever even still say she molested her at that point. Second, I'm sorry, but there can be nothing good that comes out of those places. I feel sorry for kids who are really abused who have to go there. How could they actually help them?" How right she is. Someone wrote that maybe they are good for the actually abused children & I have to absolutely disagree. They are uneducated, untrained idiots with an agenda & I don't know what can be worse. It broke her heart, just as it does mine. She also noted that Tonya's daughter, even at six, was highly intelligent & could read what they were doing.

As an adult & mother, someone needs to take Suzi Thorne, well honestly the whole bunch, and beat them to the point that their mental capacity is that of an infant. Oh wait, someone already has. It is obvious that she was leading the questions to coincide what she and Henke had already discussed before and during the interview.

If anyone thinks for one second that these children need to be transitioned from Joal to Tonya, you are dead wrong. If anything, let the transition take place between Tonya's parents and Tonya. We have learned that these people are law-abiding citizens & will follow whatever rules are set, no matter how ridiculous they are. They have proven themselves to our community & the government through the worst situation over the last 2 years. Those poor kids. Everyday with Joal & Sarah are days filled with hatred, lies & more brainwashing.

I will continue to lift these children and Tonya's family up in prayer. God will heal KH & AH, I know that.

As far as the Henkes, their selfish, disgusting behavior will meet their fate with who they have chosen to follow. That is satan himself & not God as they pretend to do.