Monday, August 16, 2010

Integrity, a Sham Investigation, and Tim Deal

During his testimony in the Tonya Craft trial, Tim Deal declared that he did not like seeing his integrity questioned, and that he would not "jeopardize" his career over this case. Those are high-sounding words, and he was right, at least on the second part: Lying does not jeopardize one's career in the LMJC, at least if one is a police officer or a prosecutor, or a prosecution witness.

However, since Deal has claimed that standing up for Tonya Craft is tantamount to attacking innocent people, and because he has claimed that any questioning of his work is the same as attacking his "integrity," then I believe that we need to take a much harder look at what he has said - and how it compares to what he actually did.

First, during his testimony, he made this declaration:
"What the media and what Tonya Craft's cronies have put these families through, I don't know anyone that would allow their child to go through garbage, and subject their child to this kind of abuse."
I'm not sure who Ms. Craft's "cronies" might be, although I have an idea. (Deal believes that if one is innocent, then one should not even contact an attorney, something that Gregor said as well during the trial, and Deal is adamant that Tonya's attorneys were bad people who simply wanted to harm the poor and innocent "Mommie Dearest," her friends Kelly McDonald and Sherri Wilson, and Joal "I Just Remembered" and Sarah "Shave Down There" Henke, along with their families.)

What concerns me more, however, is the fact that Tim Deal has the authority to have people charged with crimes (or at least to be very influential in that process), yet apparently has no idea of what a legitimate criminal investigation entails. For example, during testimony, when asked why he had not conducted a search of Tonya's house for evidence (including looking for pornographic images on her computer), he replied that he had not believed there was "probable cause" for a search.

That is most interesting. If there is "probable cause" for an arrest, then there certainly would be for a search. Furthermore, there is a known connection between child molesters and pornography and Angela Carroll already had made an allegation that Ms. Craft was involved in taking pornographic images of young boys.

(We should not forget that "Dirty" Deal and others from the LMJC now are spreading the Big Lie that they had "material" that "was not allowed into evidence," referring to the Carroll nonsense. The notion that Outhouse would have disallowed ANY request of material from the prosecution is a very sick joke, and the fact that Deal and others are trying to claim that Outhouse kept out the "magic bullet" that would have enabled them to gain a conviction in the Craft case tells me more about those people than it does about the case itself.)

In what is supposed to be a routine or normal police investigation, the narrative is supposed to flow from the facts that they discover, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. One would think that an alleged vicious child molester like Tonya Craft would have incriminating evidence around her house that a detective might want to find, not to mention to view the lay of the house to get a better picture of where the supposed molestation had taken place.

Deal's lack of curiosity about Tonya's house and computer tells me that he was involved in a very different kind of investigation, one that paralleled what Michael Nifong and the Durham police conducted in the infamous Duke Lacrosse Case four years ago. In that case, Nifong refused to interview anyone (except to offer another stripper, Kim Roberts, a sweetheart deal to get her to change her story) and had a curious lack of interest in important materials, like Reade Seligmann's electronic and photographic proof that he was miles away from where the alleged rape occurred AT THE TIME when it supposedly was happening.

(Nifong's response was to arrest the cab driver who had given Mr. Seligmann a ride and then to change the timeline of the events in an attempt to deal with the alibi. In other words, his deliberate failure to launch a real investigation came back to bite him.)

Likewise, it is clear to me that Deal and his cronies conducted a sham investigation. When Stacy Long interviewed Sandra Lamb's daughter and when Suzi Thorn interviewed the Lamb and Henke children, those interviewers were under orders from Deal and others to get something - anything - they could use for indictments. To make matters worse, "Alberto-Facebook" Arnt and "The Man" Gregor fashioned six indictments from Thorne's "Who's On First" interview with Tonya's daughter in which the only thing established was that Tonya put medicine on her child's bottom when the girl had a rash, and if that is a crime, then every mother in this country is a felony child molester.

(Of course, there also is the sticky issue of the so-called fabricated "hand rape" document that magically appeared in Deal's file after it had not been there when Tonya's defense team photocopied everything before the trial. Given what I have seen from "Dirty" Deal and the prosecutors, I find it hard to believe the detective's story.)

One can draw only one of two conclusions from Deal's handiwork. Either Deal really does not know how to conduct a real criminal investigation - and neither does anyone else in the LMJC - or Deal and his friends perpetuated a sham investigation in which one pretends to be looking for evidence when, in fact, one actually is attempting to avoid evidence that might not fit the narrative.

Either conclusion tells us that Deal and his friends are not fit to be wearing their government-issued costumes and tin badges. If the truth really coincides with the first conclusion, then they are incompetent and really learned nothing from their police academy and all the cop shows they watch on Fox.

However, if the conclusion is Door Number Two, then they are felons who actively are engaged in crimes of obstruction of justice. I happen to believe that if he wants to do so, "Dirty" Deal can carry out an authentic and competent investigation, and in the Craft case, the LAST thing he wanted was to find evidence that would not fit what Sandra Lamb, Dewayne Wilson, and French Newton were demanding.

As I have said before, a number of felonies were committed in the Tonya Craft case. All of them, however, were committed by the people bringing charges and by those who are given a special public trust to seek the truth.

Does this mean I am questioning Tim Deal's integrity? Actually, I am not "questioning" it at all. I'm saying forthrightly that he has none.

SPEAKING OF SANDRA LAMB, I have found out through reliable sources that Lamb, Sherri Wilson, and Kelli McDonald have been given the privileges of parking in the teacher parking lot at Chickamauga Elementary School. All other parents are supposed to park elsewhere.

I also hear about attempts by officials to intimidate the CES teachers who testified for the defense in Tonya's trial. Why am I not surprised to be hearing this? I'm also hearing other things that I won't repeat on this blog, but it seems that Sandra Lamb is a very busy woman.


kbp said...

“For example, during testimony, when asked why he had not conducted a search of Tonya's house for evidence (including looking for pornographic images on her computer), he replied that he had not believed there was "probable cause" for a search.”

I hope I do not sound like a stuck record here, but out of all the evidence indicating Deal never wanted to search Tonya’s house, that which shines the brightest for me was when Deal took the child protective services investigator with him to coerce Tonya into giving her EX custody of her children.

If the investigator wanted to investigate inside her house, and Tonya refused him entry, he could have had an Order For Investigation there within the hour.

If that investigator had the probable cause to threaten temporary custody regarding her children, he could have had a Search Warrant also within the hour.

That CPS investigator (whatever he’s called in Georgia) could legally share ALL he uncovered in the house with the law enforcement and demand a LE officer to accompany him in an investigation or search.

Many Search Warrants obtained in child protection investigations list digital equipment that may hold record of an alleged abuse or neglect, which evidently was sufficient to take temporary custody of her children.

I have no doubt Deal has used CPS investigators to get inside and uncover evidence before.

To take temporary custody of a child, they must be in IMMEDIATE danger of physical harm. That must have been included in the allegations for them to threaten taking custody and placement in foster care.

This all took place before Deal claimed to have the probable necessary for an arrest warrant.

As for their “"magic bullet" "material" that "was not allowed into evidence,”” they’d better hope and pray the “magic” does not wear off before the civil trials!

KC Sprayberry said...

The more I read and the more I go over everything Bill has written about this case, the more I wonder how these spoiled women were allowed to go so far in what amounts to a temper tantrum. Now, I will never admit to being totally current on the law but I was under the impression adults targeted by CPS in GA have few if any rights. I say that from my own experience where the woman told me I didn't have the right to tell her to leave and she could be back in ten minutes with a warrant, a bunch of cops, and then I'd be in jail and unable to see my child until long after he turned 18. Yet, Tim Deal goes around whining about his integrity and says he didn't have enough 'probable cause' for a warrant when anyone that's ever had an encounter with CPS and their Gestapo tactics knows better. Then we have confirmation law enforcement is 'harassing' the defense witnesses, as if the defense isn't allowed to present evidence of a person's good character. Oh, and those poor people who 'gave their all and endured such a nasty time of time of it by the defense' are given special parking at an elementary school where the best and brightest go to assuage their hurt feelings. Isn't it about time the elite of this area just find their own community far from civilized humanity and just do their thing. Then we won't have to put up with them and no one will disturb their elitist society. But they'll soon have a problem, with no one to point their perfectly manicured fingers at and accuse of horrendous things so no one notices their decaying, rotting lives.

Anonymous said...

I don't remember anything about French Newton mentioned before. Can someone give an update? Thanks.

kbp said...

Judging from how Tonya's case was getting started - the original child-on-child complaint with Tonya's name tossed in a few times by Saundra - I had presumed that the intent was harassment, embarrassment and difficulties for her job.

Not seeing the success desired then, Saundra and Sherri soon added to the tale, accomplishing more that they anticipated in my opinion.

Unfortunately, I’d wager that those two are still happy about some of what was accomplished.


Was Greg Lamb actually one who was laughing, or was he just present?


There is a difference between refusing them access without a warrant and trying to force them to leave.

KC Sprayberry said...

kbp, try telling CPS to leave if they don't have a warrant. They claim they don't need one, just a complaint. I did try and was subtly threatened. Well, not so subtle when I understood the true content of said statement, I would never see my now teen son again and would be in prison for the false charges. Even explaining the blatant falseness, the individual that called in the anonymous complaint said my son's father was his stepfather, made no difference. CPS believes they have the right to do as they please and if 'accused' parents don't cooperate, they're guilty and the cops come in and then you have more problems than you can handle. However, we did get the last laugh. The worst thing that woman observed was what she called our 'spoiled' child. Come on. Five year olds love running around and ignoring their parents, especially when someone else is around. Thankfully, we've not heard from them again. I made it pretty clear I would call an attorney and force them to produce evidence more than an anonymous call from a disgruntled neighbor before I ever cooperated again.

Anonymous said...

I live in the Atlanta area and I first heard about Tonya's case when I saw a news article about her acquital. It intrigued me enough to go back and read your blogs as well as other news stories about the case I found on the Internet. I have been keeping up with your blog every day since then.

I get sick to my stomach when I think about what has happened to Tonya and especially for her children that were taken away from her. How do these people sleep at night? Do they not understand the implications of what they have done to Tonya's children?

I am just dumbfounded that something like this is happening just a few hours drive from me.....It seems more like a movie on Lifetime. I hope one of the national programs like Dateline or 20/20 picks up this story so the evil, despicable people that have been involved with trying to take down Tonya are seen for who they really are and just maybe, through the civil trial will end up paying financially for the harm they have caused Tonya and her family.

Bill, you write an awesome blog. I have found all of your entries very interesting. Keep up the good fight!

Sara J.

dmk said...

Tim Deal - little man with a big gun in small town. It does not surprise me a bit the way this went down. The local self-anointed royalty got pissed off at Tonya and issued the marching orders, and the serfs fell all over themselves getting into line to do their bidding in hopes of a few extra crumbs or moving up the favorites list a notch or two.

Buzz, Lenny, and Face can talk all they want about their "evidence" that would have changed things, doesn't matter. I have yet to talk to a single person locally who doesn't think this was anything more than a railroad job, are thrilled that Tonya stood up to them and won, and hope to see everyone involved get what's coming to them. Just par for the course in the LMJC.

For those who aren't local (and those who are) I just discovered a new blog that deals with corruption and the good old system in the Lafayette/Walker Co part of LMJC. Pretty funny, the web address is the same as the "official" site but for the .com at the end. I haven't read a lot on there yet, but some good stuff so far on how things really work around here.

And in Chattooga Co LMJC news, word on the street is it's same old, same old. The judges are acting like spoiled children arguing over who gets to have their office in what building, and the one they don't like gets stuck across the street since Judge KCG refuses to even be in the same building with him.

Anonymous said...

Ya know, this sounds a lot like how the feds investigate. So much so that I wonder if the feds weren't the ones who trained Deal and the others. Something has changed in the LMJC over the course of years that is quite curious. I have a relative whose daughter was molested by her father, probably 8-10 years ago. This occurred in the LMJC. There was substantial physical evidence from the exam and the daughter's initial statement. However, the DA, who I believe was Chris Arnt but I am not sure, refused to prosecute because of the interview tactics of DFACS. Specifically, the interviews were too suggestive and leading. The girl was young at the time, probably 4 or 5. Back to my earlier comment - the interview tactics sound just like the feds. Take a statement and twist it, ignore exculpatory evidence (because you have to turn it over to the defense), bully the defendant, etc. If indeed the LMJC received training to conduct fed-like investigations, it is no wonder the feds have not taken an interest in this case - they are just doing what the feds told them to do. Bill, I believe there is a substantial amount of material from the archives of the LMJC that may interest you. The word from the defense bar in that area (at the time) was that DFACS conducted leading interviews which created significant difficulties in prosecuting alleged perps.

William L. Anderson said...

I eliminated my comments about Greg Lamb because other sources have questioned whether or not he was laughing. As I have said before, I actually am interested in putting out the facts, so I am willing to go the extra mile to make sure that people are not being falsely accused, given that there has been enough false accusation in all of this.

Doc Ellis 124 said...

Kind of late notice by me:

Greetings Dr Anderson,

I have linked this to my
BikerorNot blog line at
and I tweeted this to
Facebook at , to
MySpace at, and to
LinkedIn at
Thank you for writing this

Doc Ellis 124

Anonymous said...

Kelli McDonald did not even bring her kids to school until late last week. I guess being a celebrity allows her to do as she pleases...or maybe she was in hiding.

KC Sprayberry said...

DMK, LaFayette Underground has been around for a couple of years but has picked up steam in the last couple of months. In fact, if you want to become part of what we hope is the solution to our corrupt officials, join up at L.U. LaFayette on FB. We're currently having a rather heated discussion on the county commissioner of Walker County and the City of LaFayette council. Both are in the crosshairs for some rather intense questions about their operations as usual tactics. Interestingly enough, the antics of local law enforcement and justice are also hot.

Bill, I really believe Greg Lamb may have gone along with his wife and her family in the beginning. From what I've read though, it looks as if he backed away whenever things got too intense. He's not lily white in this situation because he stood back and let them get away with their actions when he could have come forward and told the defense team what he knew. It's an ugly situation but having insider information and not disclosing it when someone's life is on the line is just as bad as what the others did to Tonya. I think, when all is said and done, the secrets about to be revealed in the civil trial will shock outsiders while bringing relief to those who've crossed the paths of these vindictive people. You can only kick a person for so long before they kick back. And those of us in this area are darned tired of the so called aristocracy getting away with whatever they please while the rest of us pay.

Anonymous said...

If someone knew a murder took place or simply watched with no hands-on involvement and did not report it they would be held accountable as an "assessory". Greg Lamb fits that bill.

Anonymous said...

On the Catoosa County Website where they post the Civil Jury trail list it shows on page 96, Case # 2010-SU-CV-149- that Greg Lamb as the Plantiff has filed for a divorce from Sandra Lamb.

Anonymous said...

hahahahaha! Someone go get the complaint by Greg Lamb and post it. Also, they will have to file several other documents with the court. Its all public information. Pleadings can be a wealth of information!

Kellie Graham said...

This whole situation is terrible, sad, and disgusting. Tonya has been found innocent and yet the Chickamauga School system (and really the students & parents also) still have to pander to the injured ego's of these parents who just can't stop themselves from lying. I see this everyday, my children go to school here, why can't they just leave and quit ruining our school!

Anonymous said...

Hello everyone,

The following link fills me up with rage and anger and disbelief that innocent people get treated this way.

Sadly, however, I have been following dr. Anderson's blog since the 2nd week of Tonya's trial. I'm still angry but i'm not surprised anymore.

kbp said...

Infamous NY child molest case may get new look

“…A teenage Friedman and his father, Arnold, pleaded guilty in 1988 to molesting 13 children during computer classes in the basement of their home in Great Neck, on Long Island. Jesse Friedman, now 40, was paroled in 2001; his father committed suicide in prison in 1995. The pair were charged with several hundred counts of sex abuse.

Their case was the subject of the 2003 Oscar-nominated documentary "Capturing the Friedmans."

The federal judges said the allegations against Jesse Friedman must be viewed in the context of the late 1980s and early 1990s, which they called "a period in which allegations of outrageously bizarre and often ritualistic child abuse spread like wildfire across the country and garnered worldwide media attention."


In the "context of" 2008-10 in Georgia!

Doc Ellis 124 said...

To Anon 5.12:

You posted a 202 character link. Here is what the link looks like with just 26 characters You can make passing along a link a lot easier if you goto and follow the instructions. A 202 character link will not fit on twitter and takes a lot of room when telling other readers about a judicial outrage. The shorter link makes for a cleaner post.

Doc Ellis 124

William L. Anderson said...


How does one make a link when doing comments? I never have known how to do that!

Anonymous said...

"If there is "probable cause" for an arrest, then there certainly would be for a search." If you want to post facts you'll remove this statement because that's not true.

Probable cause is what would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that something connected with a crime is on the premises of a person or on persons themselves. From what I have read the only evidence that could be obtained from a search would be the cell phone. That's subject to question depending on how long after the picture was taken/sent and when the information was passed on to law enforcement. As you know searches cannot be exploratory in hopes of finding something; they must be calculated, looking for something specific.

"One would think that an alleged vicious child molester like Tonya Craft would have incriminating evidence around her house that a detective might want to find, not to mention to view the lay of the house to get a better picture of where the supposed molestation had taken place."

Again a search cannot be exculpatory.

"Deal's lack of curiosity about Tonya's house and computer tells me that he was involved in a very different kind of investigation"

Looks like he knew he had no probable cause to go into the house and didn't bother asking because he knew he would have been denied a search warrant.

William L. Anderson said...

Yeah, I'm sure the LMJC judges would have denied a search warrant. Right.

People arrested for child molestation have their computers and houses searched all the time. What you have said is utter nonsense. Sorry, but it is late, I'm tired, and totally out of patience. Don't take it personally.

kbp said...

Anon 10:44,

I agree with the basic ideas you posted, but the facts as they relate to Tonya’s case appear to vary between us.

You appear to address a picture or pictures that involved claims which were so ridiculous that even Buzz’s crowd would not touch them, or I am forgetting something.

By the time the first arrest was made they had sufficient probable cause for a search, and the child protective services investigator could have investigated (searched) the home and shared what he uncovered with the law enforcement officers.

This is the SEARCH WARRANT for the YFZ Ranch Raid in Texas, issued after phone calls.

Read what all is listed in B), (6) & (7) to see what the standard list of “specific” items are they look for in child abuse or neglect cases.

Tonya’s home was the scene of the alleged crimes (with some mention of the school). It was reported to have been a location of crimes in which searches are commonly made to recover communication equipment that may show records that could be incriminating.

I’m not certain what you mean by writing “Again a search cannot be exculpatory”. The search that turns up nothing shows nothing is incriminating and that fact can be raised in trial. If something exculpatory is uncovered in a search, that must be shared.

Doc Ellis 124 said...

Dr Anderson:

When you post a link, like the one above
·         start with this:<
·         add: a href="
·         add: the URL
·         add: ">
·         add: the title of the link or the URL
·         end with: < / a > no spacing within this tag in real life
·         no spaces except between the a and h of: a href=". 

To make something bold: start with ; whatever you want to make bold; add . Spacing only within whatever you make bold; like this: >whatever you make bold<. Bold markers go on the outside of the link markers.

I hope this helps.

Doc Ellis 124 said...

Last graf does not appear as I posted. I will be back with a visible post. Gotta run; getting late for work.

GerhardRP said...

Have you seen this?

Anonymous said...

someone should flatten the tires of Lamb, Sherri Wilson, and Kelli McDonald in the teachers parking lot

Anonymous said...

To the anon who thinks there wasn't probable cause to search the house, get a life. There was an allegation about touching while bathing. They could have looked in the bathroom for the girls' hair. There was an allegation about spending the night. They could have checked the bedrooms. Finally, there was an allegation about "hand rape." Gee, no probable cause to search the house for blood is there? Along with the allegation about improper images being on a phone, the allegations supported sufficient cause to be able to obtain a search warrant for the house. The breadth of the warrant could have been enormous. The problem? The allegations were fabricated later after the girls had been mentally violated by those claiming to protect them.

Lame said...

It has been a couple of weeks since I last posted here.

I have been losing all hope for reforming the justice system of late. It can't be done from without, and it sure as hell isn't going to be done from within. It is like the Catholic church in the 16th century, the powers at be will never change. The only solution is to make a clean break and start afresh. Where's a judicial Martin Luther when we need him?

Also, I've got to let you know about a couple of things I've come across in my research lately.

There's a 25 year old woman teacher in Mississippi who was recently sentenced to 30 years for having sex with a 15 year old girl. The judge in that case has openly declared that he's personal friends with the "victim's" family, but never recused himself, despite several attempts by the defense. I can't say for certain if she really did do it, but many accounts show that the girl was basically stalking the woman.

Then, on the other extreme there's a woman who is about to graduate with a PhD in education from a university in Ohio who was previously fired from her high school teaching job after it came out that she was having an affair with one of her 16 year old female students, whom she divorced her husband to be in a relationship with. In that case the woman and the girl told the police they never had sex until the girl turned 18, so while she violated protocal, because they couldn't prove they had sex no charges were ever filed. So, while she's not a registered sex offender, she certainly is as much a sex offender as the woman sentenced to 30 years. I don't know how Miami University, where she's about to graduate from, can reconcile the fact that they have a known lesbian pedophile who has represented them at several teaching conferences and is about to receive a doctorate in a field that she has no business being in after having an inappropriate relationship with a student.

Anonymous said...

the teachers at that school must be walking on egg shells.... they might be next!

Anonymous said...

Here is a kicker...How has Kristen Bradley allowed documents drafted by nut-job Sandra Lamb into all staff/teachers files who testified for Ms. Craft forbidding them from any contact with the actress girl?

Hell needs to come down on Kristen Jones Bradley!!!

Kaye said...

Here is another molestation case that is just being reported today. This one occurs in Dade County within the LMJC. Please notice that law enforcement secured a search warrant and confiscated computers, etc. of the suspect. Apparently, they didn't have any problem proving probable cause yet somehow Det. Deal did? Nah, not buying it.

Kaye said...

Going to see if this shortened url works:

Newschannel 9 is reporting yet another child molestation case today which allegedly occurred in Chickamauga.

dmk said...

If that story and the others Dr. Anderson included in his post are true about the school, then the parents are just going to have to get some backbone and take care of that themselves. Sandra and crew are few, moneyed few I'll admit, but few; the rest are many. Get your facts, not rumors, together and make a stink each and every opportunity you get and make sure the media knows ahead of time. Turn up the heat hot enough, and those that can change things will to save themselves.

Too, vote with your feet if possible. I have yet to understand the cultish obsession with a public elementary school. So what, it's Chickamauga, who cares? It's this "mine doesn't stink" because my name is X, I go to church at X, I send my kids to school at X attitude that is at the heart of this whole mess anyway. Until people stop caring about those superficial things themselves, then they just continue to enable and empower the likes of the Lambs, etc. Truth be told, I think a lot of the Chickamauga School crowd and their drama we got to see displayed here aren't much if any better than the one's they bitch about the most, they are just PO'd they are lower on the pecking order but still enjoy their so-called "status". I'll be blunt, if where someone's kid goes to 3rd grade is that big of part of their persona, then they need to get a life.

Anonymous said...



Lame said...

Of course, the first thing ChannelSlime does is knock on the doors of her neighbors and ask the tried and true question, "SO what do you think about having a child molester in your neighborhood?" Just when those people started to regain some credibility in their reporting style, they go and blow it with the same tactics they used in the Tonya Craft case. I'm beginning to think that there's one group of people who report on certain types of crimes and one group that reports on sex crimes, and the group that does sex crimes is headed by a flaming idiot. Still, whoever does the reporting, it still has to make it past the editorial news staff, who are the ones most to blame for allowing their reporters to use such dastardly tactics.

Doc Ellis 124 said...

I'm back. The tiny url link worked.

Here is how to make a link bold:
To make something bold: start with<; add b; add>; add whatever you want to make bold;add <; add /; add b; end >. Spacing only within whatever you make bold; like this: >whatever you make bold<. Bold tags go on the outside of the link tags.

That's all the tech tips I will share on this thread.


Abraham said...

I'm sure Sandra knows that her daughter will be questioned by the other kids and also the teachers at school.
If she lets the cat out of the bag it will really upset her civil trial future.
I'm really surprised that all this gang has not moved their kids out of the state.
I think this is wonderful.

Anonymous said...

For those who are not familiar with an exculpatory search I'll explain. It's a search where your just looking for stuff. Nothing specific to the crime just some sign that a crime occured. You can't get a search warrant just to look.

Bill "What you have said is utter nonsense."

It's Federal and State law in all 50 states. Not much nonsense there.

KBP "By the time the first arrest was made they had sufficient probable cause"

Depends on how long after the alledged incident occured and the information was given to the police. There is a timeline that police have to adhere to.

"and the child protective services investigator could have investigated (searched) the home and shared what he uncovered with the law enforcement officers."

This is true in every case.

Anon 10:08 "There was an allegation about touching while bathing. They could have looked in the bathroom for the girls' hair. There was an allegation about spending the night. They could have checked the bedrooms. Finally, there was an allegation about "hand rape." Gee, no probable cause to search the house for blood is there? Along with the allegation about improper images being on a phone, the allegations supported sufficient cause to be able to obtain a search warrant for the house."

I think the girls were at Craft's home on multiple occasions so finding their hair in the bathroom would not corroborate anything. It should be expected that they may have hair there. Spending the night? What evidence would they find that would prove a crime occurred? I don't recall there being any claim of blood. No allegation you can't search for it. You guys need to stop watchin CSI, and NCIS for you law enforcement/legal advice. Get involved with you local law enforcement.

Anonymous said...

10:36, you truly have no clue as to what you are talking about or should I say "trying" to talk about.
First of all, I do believe you mean exploratory rather than exculpatory. Please learn the terms before you spout them off in the wrong context. So kbp was more than correct to ask you what the heck you meant, then you turned around and made the same ignorant statement rather than correcting it. This means you do not know what you are talking about.

Second, if you knew anything about search warrants, you would know that you can have specific & non-specific warrants. You would also know in the last 10+ years, EVERY legitimate child molestation case in the world has confiscated all forms of electronics; computers, cell phones, digital cameras, discs, video tapes, memory cards....Shall I go on?

Here is an example. A salesman for a company I worked for 10 years ago was accused of molestation by his grand-daughters & a couple of their friends. The children never said anything about pornography, computers or pictures. The search warrant was non-specific, just an open warrant. The investigators confiscated everything & guess what, there were over 100,000 images of child pornography on his computer. Even though they weren't directly associated with the case in which the warrant was served, it opened up new charges. So basically, your information is WRONG. Do the research & you will see how it works. Whoever you are friends with in the LMJC is feeding you a line of bull which is simply making you look ignorant. It doesn't matter if you are executing on a car, home, bus, train or yard gnome, if anything is deemed as possible evidence, it is bagged & tagged.

Let's look at a scenario to hopefully help you better understand. "Bob" is accused of selling drugs from his vehicle. A warrant is executed on his vehicle. During the search, a bloody knife & let's say some duct tape & rope are also found. The investigators have 2 choices, either bag & tag & deal with the possibility of it being thrown out (if these items were used during a crime) or they contact the issuing judge & have the warrant expanded to cover any items possibly used in another crime. Most seasoned investigators (like your buddy Deal claims to be) would do the latter & make the call to the judge. It's simply called covering your ass. "Bob" just went from a possible drug dealer to a possible murderer or committed some act of assault, so investigators would make sure it was covered so it could not be thrown out. Are you following????

Basically, you seem to be the one with poor information which is either coming from LMJC idiots or from the crime shows in which you referenced. To sum it up, in child sex abuse cases, computers are one of the first items taken. It's called a "given" in these cases now. Do some research & figure things out before you post ignorant comments again. You obviously don't know the difference between exploratory & exculpatory, so it's best to just stay quiet. I must agree with Bill, it is utter nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 10:36 "I don't recall any there being any claim about blood." Really? First, it doesn't matter what you recall. Second, if your reading comprehension skills were slightly above marginal, then you could have realized that "hand rape" on a very young girl might produce a little blood. So, while you may not have "recalled" blood, it was right under your nose. It was an allegation made by the prosecution, not on NCIS or whatever show you watch. Not that it would make a difference because your comprehension skills are so low but you should study the Fourth Amendment "search and seizure" laws. If there is an allegation of hand rape on a child in a house, there is more than sufficient probable cause to justify a warrant to search that house for blood.

You can try and cheerlead for Tim Deal all you want, but it just makes you look like him, either incompetent or corrupt.

volfan69 said...

These people have no shame and they have no guilt. Honestly, my heart breaks for them because they will meet GOD one day and they will have to answer for what they have done. I would not want to be in that position. Thanks Mr. Anderson. Bobb

Trish said...

My son's contempt case against his children's mother has been postponed again! It is now scheduled for Sept. 22. Apparently something has come up in the judges schedule, which I can understand, just don't understand why it has to be postponed another month. Once again, she gets to continue breaking the law and laughing in the face of the court, that she and her husband think they are above!!

Trish said...

Oh, and if any of the judges read this blog, yes, I am upset!!! You would be too, if your grandchildren were being kept from you, because your former daughter-in-law married a nutcase, who wants to have his world and we aren't included. And Bart, should you read this, YOU ARE NOT THEIR FATHER, MY SON IS AND MY HUSBAND AND I ARE THEIR GRANDPARENTS, NOT YOUR MOTHER!!!!!!

Even more so that if false charges had never been made, none of this would have ever happened.

johnlichtenstein said...

I was really curious what the reasoning was going to be behind the idea that a search can't be exculpatory.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:17 your right I meant exploratory, thanks for pointing that out. That's what I get for typing and watching tv. I know quite a bit about search warrants
thank you. There is no such thing as a non-specific warrant. You can however generically identify an item in the search warrant that is to be seized. In this case like a computer instead of a Dell Inspiron with serial number 12345.

You are incorrect in saying that in every case some for of electronics is taken. It depends on the type of sex crime and the information that was uncovered about the offender. Based on what was discussed in this case it sounds as Crafts Criminal sexual behavior was for the service of basic sexual needs (i.e., “horniness,” lust).
Child molesters like this are often opportunistic and impulsive. She would be considered a Situational sex offender. Situational-type sex offenders
victimizing children do not have a true sexual preference for children. They may molest them, however, for a wide variety of situational reasons. They
are more likely to view and be aroused by adult pornography, but might engage in sex with children in certain situations. Situational sex offenders frequently molest readily available children they have easy access to and control over such as their own or any others living with them. These
types of sex offenders generally have pornography of adults if any.

In your example "bloody knife & let's say some duct tape & rope are also found" does not make someone a possible murderer. It would lead to the suspicion that another crime may have occurred. At that point you collect the evidence based on exigent circumstances. You can not get a warrant expanded. You must get a new warrant with the new information included. In this case a new warrant for the car for new evidence.

Anon 10:46 you can't put MIGHT in a search warrant. There either was blood or there wasn't. MIGHT is an exploratory search.

To obtain a valid search warrant, officers must meet two critical requirements of the Fourth Amendment: 1) establish probable cause to believe that the location
contains evidence of a crime and
2) particularly describe that evidence.

A search is not reasonable unless there was probable cause to believe that the search would produce evidence of a crime
or contraband. Probable cause is defined as a state of facts
which would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe that the object sought is presently located at the designated place.

A mere hunch, suspicion, guess or unfounded opinion that
evidence or contraband will be produced by the search is not probable cause. The person seeking the search warrant must reasonably believe that the evidence or contraband is there, and must be able to point to facts which would
create in any prudent and careful man a similar belief.

Thus, a popular belief that Seizable items were in a building sometime in the past does not constitute probable cause for a search unless there is a reasonable belief that the items are still there. Staleness of
information establishing probable cause cannot be defined
by arbitrary time limits. The question of staleness must
be reviewed in light of all the circumstances.

Anonymous said...

Both the affidavit and the search warrant must particularly
describe the place to be searched and the objects to be seized.
It is inadequate if the descriptions are so general that
the executing officer has discretion to search more than one
place or seize more than that specifically intended. For example, if the place to be searched is an apartment, the apartment number as well as the address should be specified. Or for example, if the item to be seized is a gun, it must be described so as to distinguish it from other firearms that may be found.

The purpose of the particularity requirement is to prevent the
issuance of general warrants which could be used for general exploratory searches. A search warrant cannot be issued for "the search and seizure of evidence of a crime." A search warrant cannot authorize a fishing expedition.

The search itself must be limited in its scope and intensity. That is, the search must be limited to those items specified in the warrant. If the warrant is for the search and seizure of "one Brand Y 25 inch color TV, serial #2541," the police must search only in those places of the specified location where such an item could be hidden, i.e., they could
not search in desk drawers for a 25 inch TV set.

“As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion
of the officer executing the warrant.” - Marron v. United
States, 275 U.S. 192 (1927)

“By limiting the authorization to search to the specific
areas and things for which there is probable cause to
search, the requirement ensures that the search will be
CAREFULLY TAILORED to its justifications, and will not
take on the character of the wide-ranging exploratory
searches the Framers intended to prohibit.” - Maryland
v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987).

The Forth Amendment is no joke. Figured you consipriacy theorists would embrace that like the Turner Diaries.

Anonymous said...

Somebody has been reading Wikipedia again!

Anonymous said...

Like I said Anon @9:16, your reading comprehension skills are terrible. That hand rape "might" produce some blood was obvious sarcasm and you completely missed it. Hand rape would produce massive injuries in a child. If you hadn't been cutting and pasting from Wiki... nah you would have missed it anyway. Applying the standards that you cut and pasted, would an allegation from a child that hand rape occurred in a particular house be enough probable cause to issue a warrant to search a house for blood? The Georgia courts have ruled that a rape that occurred in a field combined with identification of the perp supported a warrant to search the perps house. So if the sexual assault occurred in the house, there is more than enough justification to search the house. You lose again anon.

Anonymous said...

9:16, you once again have proven your ignorance of law & search & seizure. You contradicted yourself in all of your posts today & obviously, as 10:40 pointed out, your reading comprehension skills are terrible.

I find you & your diatribe very comical because you prove so many points of the far-fetched "case" that was brought against Tonya. First, I would ask that you quit saying "her crimes" as there were none & it was clear when the jury handed down 22 not quilty verdicts. I guess you were watching television when that happened also. Second, you completely contradicted what the prosecution tried to say about Tonya. They didn't accuse her of being a "situational molester", they accused her of being a predator & pedophile. So your reasoning is once completely off. You should seriously speak to a lawyer about your ideas of search & seizure. I was setting up an example for you, but you completely missed it. The warrants are stated to be specificc & non-specific, that is simply what they are. If you knew anything about the law, besides what is being fed to you by your LMJC friends, you might be able to do something with it or make a valid point. You can not do that by speaking to lawless people & looking up crap, yes it is crap, on wikipedia. I could go in and make an entry on it right now. Would you believe everything on there if I did? Probably, because you do not understand the basics of law. Also, every state & jurisdiction has different ways of handling warrants.

Another thing with your "theory" of Tonya being a "situational molester" is off-base in yet another light that the prosecution (your buddies) tried to shine. They claimed her to be a lesbian/ bi-sexual also. So, your "theory" on what kind of porn she might have is way off. You might want to do more research on true child molesters. They do not molest children because they are "horny" as you said. They molest children because that is what they desire & their brains allow them to think that it's ok. Most even try to say the child wanted it. Do you understand? Would you like to attend some law classes or even go to the CAC to see what their guidlines of a child molester are? I think you should stay away from the television & computer because you are dangerous. Oh, and look again regarding computer & other electronic seizures for sex abuse charges. Hell, what I think is hilarious about you & your cronies is that they didn't even search the house. PERIOD! Even though that is apparently where all of the "evil" acts took place, they still didn't look. Hmmmmmm.

I hate calling people this, but you are an idiot. I only reserve that term for people who have proven to be that & you have done so in a fierce way.

Anonymous said...

should read warrants are not rather than are. :-)

sorry for the miscommunication

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:40 None of that information I posted came from Wikipedia. Haven't read
what it has for search warrants. "The Georgia courts have ruled that a rape that
occurred in a field combined with identification of the perp supported a warrant
to search the perps house. So if the sexual assault occurred in the house, there
is more than enough justification to search the house." I'm familiar with this,
that's why I included in my previous post about the staleness of information. The
police can't search a place for evidence months after the crime has occurred unless
they can prove that the evidence is still there to be recovered. "Would an allegation
from a child that hand rape occurred in a particular house be enough probable
cause to issue a warrant to search a house for blood?". Only if the police were
searching a reasonable amount of time after the crime, i.e. a few days. Or, they could
cooroborate that the evidence was still in the place to be searched months later.

Anon 8:22 Where do you get your knowledge base about what a true child molester is? If you
can arrange some classes I would be more than happy to attend. According to the FBI Academy's
Behavioral Science Services Unit in Quantico, Virginia, child molesters are split in two groups based on descriptive typology:
situational and preferential. A pedophile is a completely different type of offender. And please
find me a non-specific search warrant. As I posted before the US Supreme Court has already
given an opinion on non-specific search warrants or exploratory search warrants. The purpose of
the particularity requirement is to prevent the issuance of general warrants which could be
used for general exploratory searches.

Anonymous said...

Ok, and once again, your point is????? You are claiming that Tonya is a situational molester, when your buddies were saying she was a preferential. You also need to look at the sub-groups of those types of molesters. Btw, she was acquitted on all charges, so she is not a molester at all and these children were never molested. Nonetheless, you are specifying items that are nonexistent to the former "case". I use that word very lightly. You are throwing around terminology which has absolutely no bearing on the farce, so what is & where is your point. You have proven that you have no clue about search warrants. You are using a loose description of one incident. As I said, speak to lawyers, police officers, judges....real ones please, not the fellow idiots in the LMJC. No one, including myself, has said, "hey, a judge can order a warrant for anyone at anytime". Guess what, if there is probable cause for an arrest, then as Bill said, there is justification for a warrant. They could have & should have searched her house (which is where the alleged crimes occurred). They could have searched her car also. Do you remember when they went on & on about the rap music being played? If they wanted to use that as a form of prosecution, then they should have looked for the music. That whole thing was asinine. Did you notice that the prosecution's whole "case" was based on things they could have seized? Music, thongs, "hand rape" name it, they could have searched for it & seized it. You claim that any blood could have been cleaned up. Have you ever heard of luminol? Someone could use straight bleach on something, and blood will appear. This is something that is used in everyday investigative work. Also, your little theory about the frequency of the children being at Tonya's was completely false & was proven in court by multiple witnesses. The only child who was there all the time was her own daughter. The other kids were seldom there & when they were, it was with many other children or adults around.

Please do some more research & get back with me. I can go all day. In fact, I can not stop laughing. Seriously, look at your "U.S. Supreme Court opinion" & see what it deals with. You are talking about one thing, when the subject is completely different. You think you are proving points, but you have yet to prove one. You speak in circles to try to sound more educated than you are & it really looks foolish. Stick to the subject & the laws at hand, not the nonsense you are spewing.

I think I have figured out which show you watch now.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:29 We are talking about you stating without any proof that law enforcement can get a non-specific warrant. Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192 (1927) is a illegal liquor case where the officers took things not on the search warrant. After this the US Supreme Court decided that warrants shall particularly describe the things to be seized which makes GENERAL searches under them impossible, and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. Thus no non-specific search warrants. Nice to see you back away from that statement.

"Guess what, if there is probable cause for an arrest, then as Bill said, there is justification for a warrant." An arrest warrant but not a search warrant. The facts I laid out in previous posts are some of the rules law enforcement must follow in order to obtain a search warrant.

I have heard of luminol. I'll give you an education on that.
Forensic investigators only use Luminol after exploring other options and often not with quite as much abandon as on TV cop shows.
If Luminol is used it can destroy important properties of the blood. While it can detect even small amounts of blood, the disadvantage is often that the small amount identified is diluted further by the Luminol solution. For these reasons, Luminol is encouraged to be used as a last resort in crime scene investigations to protect the physical evidence.

I'm still available for that class you are going to set up for me. I assume you have connections with one or you wouldn't have offered. "speak to lawyers, police officers, judges". If your not one of these then where do you get your information because it is obviously wrong. You should get involved with your local law enforcment and discover what is real police work. I can set you up with a citizen police academy.

Anonymous said...

11:03, that's the kicker, I do NOT need to be a part of a "citizen police academy". Think about it & think really hard. I guess that is where you are getting your info which is quite sad. They are NOT designed to give you all of the info & training needed to be an officer, much less the info needed to know the laws of which they arrest under. Most police officers only know basic law, otherwise, they would go all the way and become criminal lawyers. Then, you still have to worry about them knowing every law. Catoosa County has zero respectable, trustworthy lawyers. The Chattanooga area fairs a little better, but still a great deal of corruption. One of my recent cases shed a great deal of light on the prosecutors for Hamilton County & guess what, when I called them on it, they backed down & dropped the charges on my client. At least they had the balls to do so, otherwise, the can of worms which was close to being opened, would have made them look as crooked as they are.

Once again, you take portions of quotes & that is what you answer to, which is completely idiotic. It simply shows your ignorance towards law. The examples you show have absolutely nothing to do with the Craft case, so they mean nothing. The "facts" you laid out explain zero, nothing, nada. The facts of Tonya's case would indeed require a search warrant of the house. You say that the charges came so much later than the arrest? Hmmmmm, apparently we followed or were involved in 2 different cases. Also, if you will remember (it hasn't been that long ago, so hopefully you can), the prosecution's "case" was purely circumstantial. So, if they would have used luminol to show any traces of blood in the house, especially where this alleged "hand rape" occurred, then they could have thrown that in there. It would have been the only thing remotely close to solid. So your reasoning is once again moot.

By the way, I completely did not back away from your mention of the US Supreme Court case, in fact, please go back & read what I said regarding it. I think either you need some serious mental help or need to at least get your GED. Hopefully they still cover reading comprehension because you are lacking in that greatly.

I do not watch "tv cop shows" because I find them completely off base & obviously give people like you your "education" on police work & the law. Maybe your ride-alongs with your "thousands" of LEO friends has given you your education. Not sure, but you are certainly a frightening part of society. I am wondering who this "we" is that you referred to also. Is that your other personality? Because if you will read everyone's responses to you, not one person is in agreement with you & find your information & your examples useless regarding the subject at hand.

Blogger said...

I've just downloaded iStripper, so I can watch the best virtual strippers on my taskbar.