“Contaminated Testimony”

The blogger Kerwyn does not miss much when doing research, and during a conversation about our upcoming article in Reason Magazine, she and I went over transcripts of Suzie Thorne’s interview with Tonya Craft’s daughter at the Greenhouse on June 3, 2008, and she put together four items that apparently are closely related. The first was this paper written by Dr.Nancy E. Walker in 2002 that covers, among other things, “contaminated testimony” that often is the product when authorities investigate alleged child abuse/molestation. The other three items included Thorne’s “Who’s On First?” interview, Joal Henke’s April 23 testimony during Tonya’s trial, and telephone records of calls between Henke and other parents.

As we look over the materials in our possession, there is one thing that is front-and-center: the authorities had decided beforehand that they were going to find a way to charge Tonya Craft with child molestation. They had no real evidence of such, but it is absolutely clear that the police, the parents, and the “investigators” from the Children’s Advocacy Centers that they were going to find whatever they needed.

Such “investigations” are doomed from the start, should the supposed goal of an investigation be to find the truth. However, if the people guiding the investigation from the start have decided beforehand what the outcome is going to be, then “truth” is whatever they want it to be, and that is what we saw in the Tonya Craft case.

“It didn’t fit their theory”

When Dr. Nancy Aldridge testified for the defense, on May 3, she was asked about the interviewing techniques of the children, especially from Thorne and Stacy Long. At best, Dr. Aldridge note, they were “inappropriate” at best and misleading at worse. The interviewers broke all of the rules of forensic interviewing. In looking at what Dr. Aldridge said and what Dr. Walker wrote in her paper, the following things should be avoided if the goal of the interviewer is to wish to get at the truth:

•  The interviews should not be long, and there needs to be a lag of several days between interviews. The “rule of thumb” is five minutes for each of the child’s years. Thus, a six-year-old child would be interviewed at the maximum for 30 minutes;

• Interviewers should not ask the same questions repeatedly to a young child, as it sends the message that the child is giving the “wrong” answer; 

• An interview of a child should not be an interrogation, and the child should not be asked “leading,” “inappropriate,” or “suggestive” questions that either plant an idea in the child’s mind or attempts to do so; 

• Parents should not be asking their children investigative questions or be trying to plant ideas in their minds about alleged incidents;

• The interviewer should conduct the proceedings with an "open mind," as opposed to demonstrating a bias from the start.

Dr. Walker writes regarding these kinds of tactics that violate protocols:

An interviewer who completes an assessment using faulty or problematic techniques risks having the evidence thrown out of court -- and appropriately so. No interview is perfect, of course, and interview evidence should not be ruled inadmissible simply because of a few harmless errors. Instead, courts should use standards for evaluating the probative value of forensic interviews. These standards will assist the court in ruling on the admissibility of the interview evidence and in determining the weight to be accorded that evidence.

Anyone who followed the Tonya Craft case knows that the CAC/Greenhouse interviewers failed to follow any of the protocols. In fact, when the defense asked Stacy Long about suggestive questioning, she laughed and replied, “So what?” In fact, not one CAC interviewer even admitted to reading any of the current or relevant literature and Thorne told the defense she was not aware of the infamous McMartin case, which more than any other event was responsible for clinical psychologists to find ways of properly interviewing young children in these types of situations.

(I recently spoke to Ione Sells, director of the CAC in Fort Oglethorpe, and I was surprised at her arrogance and her belief that her organization really did not have to play by the rules. When I asked about Dr. Aldridge, she hinted to me that she believed that Dr. Aldridge lied on the stand, and when I reminded her that Dr. Aldridge mostly had testified for the prosecution, Sells replied, "She has not testified for the prosecution since 2007." The whole thing reminded me of the scene in the movie “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” in which the character played by Humphrey Bogart asks bandits claiming to be Federales to show their badges. One bandit replies: “Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges.”)

As for the interview process, a review of the transcripts of interviews that Long and Thorne had with Sandra Lamb’s daughter and Tonya Craft’s daughter demonstrate a number of conclusive things:

• The interviews were quite long and involved, and Lamb’s daughter was interviewed twice in the same day, morning and afternoon; 

• Both Long and Thorne repeatedly asked the same question, with Thorne asking the Lamb child 16 times, “Is there anything else?"

• Long, after a break, came back that afternoon and asked the Lamb child about Tonya giving the child a bath. No one had brought up baths, and certainly not the girl. However, once it became clear that the girl received affirmation for saying what the adults wanted her to say, she went along. As for the questioning of Tonya’s daughter by Thorne, it is clear, absolutely clear, that this was not an interview; it was an interrogation, and this fact is obvious just from a reading of the transcript. For example, on a number of occasions, when the child said something that disagreed with Thorne’s line of questioning, Thorne would ask, “No?” in a way that clearly indicated that the child was giving the wrong answer. 

• Numerous times during the interviews of both the Lamb child and Tonya’s daughter, the children would say that they got answers from parents, the Lamb girl her mother and Tonya’s child, her father, Joal Henke. Furthermore, during his trial testimony, Henke denies having told his daughter that Tonya “had lied to the police,” even though the girl stated firmly that she had received that notion from her father. To make matters worse, the phone records show conclusively that Sandra Lamb and Joal Henke had numerous phone calls clustered around the dates of the interviews, and that on several occasions, the parents would call the police or the CAC to say that the children “had more to tell.” 

• It absolutely is clear that Long and Thorne were doing everything to steer the children into making sexual abuse accusations against Tonya. They did not even have a “theory” about Tonya Craft’s guilt; to them, it already was an established fact, and it was their job to manipulate the children into making the accusations they wanted to hear.

(It should also be pointed out that Thorne wore an earpiece during her interviews which allowed her to receive instructions from the police, who were observing the proceedings. This also is considered a major breach of protocol in the interviewing of children, and one CAC director from another state expressed horror at what was done when Kerwyn spoke to her.)

Thus, anything that did not fit the “Tonya Did It Theory” was discarded or hidden, which was why prosecutors fought so hard to have every scrap of exculpatory evidence excluded from Ms. Craft’s trial. The testimony was, in the terms of clinical psychologists well versed in these matters, “contaminated.” It also explains why “judge” Brian House had one set of rules for the prosecution and another, more draconian, for the defense.

While defense attorney Dr. Demosthenes Lorandos was questioning Dr. Aldridge, he noted that Lamb’s daughter had said in an interview that her mother told her where she was “touched.” When asked why the police, CAC interviewers, and prosecution did not take a hard look at that statement and recognize the red flags it had sent up, Dr. Aldridge replied, “It didn’t fit with their theory.”

I have seen police and prosecutors do this before, and with tragic results. The infamous Duke Lacrosse Case is defined by the dishonest means that former (and now disbarred) prosecutor Michael Nifong used to hide exculpatory evidence.

At least no one went to prison in the Duke case. In Larimer County, Colorado, Tim Masters was convicted in 1999 of a murder he did not commit because police and prosecutors became convinced he was the killer and were willing to lie to prove it. Masters’ subsequent exoneration cost Fort Collins nearly $10 million in settlements and the lead detective in the case recently was indicted on eight counts of felony perjury for his false testimony in Masters’ trial.

The real tragedy here – and for the numerous cases like this nationwide – is that the authorities in so many situations no longer care about the truth. They have decided upon their own “truth,” and it does not matter whether the facts fit the situation. People in the United States go to prison now because the authorities either are too ignorant or too craven, or both, and for every Tonya Craft who goes free, many more are wrongfully convicted and imprisoned.

Learning the "Correct" Lines: Suzi Thorne and Interview Manipulation

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

Eight days after interviewing with Stacey Long at the Children’s Advocacy Center, Accuser #1 now meets on June 4, 2008 with Suzi Thorne, who already had performed her infamous “Who’s On First?” interview with Tonya’s daughter, Accuser #3 the day before. There are a number of notable things about this particular interrogation that I mention below, and also highlight from the transcript.

First, the child now knows the “correct” answer to the question of why she was there. Second, she has caught on to what the adults want to hear regarding alleged molestation acts committed by Ms. Craft. Third, she still is not able to memorize all her lines correctly, and there are glaring errors, as are shown below. Perjury Central was in full swing by then.

SUZIE: Well, let me ask you something. Do you know why you came to the Greenhouse today?
ACCUSER #1: Uh-huh
SUZIE: Yeah? Why did you come here today?
ACCUSER #1: Because a girl was mean to me.
SUZIE: Because a girl was mean to you?
ACCUSER #1: (Moves head up and down)
SUZIE: Okay. Do you know the girl’s name?
ACCUSER #1: Tonya.
[In the first two interview, the “mean girl” was Tonya’s daughter, but now Accuser #1 has learned what the interviewers want to hear. Don’t forget that the previous interviews were eight days earlier, and the child’s mother had plenty of time to fill her daughter in on the details she wanted her to tell.]

ACCUSER #1: She [Tonya] would touch me everywhere, and she would – she would tell me that – she would tell me that my momma was mean to me and she loved me, that my momma didn’t.
[Compare this statement to what the child had said eight days before:
STACEY: Okay. Did she ever talk about your mom, though, like say things about her?
ACCUSER #1: Huh-uh. (Moves head from side to side.)]
ACCUSER #1: She would touch me down here (indicating), right down here.
SUZIE: Okay.
ACCUSER #1: She would touch me on my stomach –
SUZIE: Okay.
ACCUSER #1:-- on my back, and right on my cheeks and my head, all over my body.
SUZIE: All right. What would she touch you with?
ACCUSER #1: Her hand.
SUZIE: Okay, now where would you be?
ACCUSER #1: We would be in the kitchen.
SUZIE: Would anybody else be in the kitchen?
ACCUSER #1: No.
[NOTE: In the previous interview, this happened in the bathroom or near the kitchen.]
SUZIE: Was anybody else at the house?
ACCUSER #1: (Moves head from side to side)
[NOTE: This contradicts what she says later, Accuser #3 was there. We have to ask where were the Potter kids or the Lewis kids who all testified they were there every single day.]

ACCUSER #1: She made me touch her right here (indicating).
SUZIE: What do you call that?
ACCUSER #1: Breast.
ACCUSER #1: [talking about touching Tonya’s breast] It was right in here (indicating). Like all – she made me do it with one hand, just like do it all over.
SUZIE: Okay. What did she make your hand do?
ACCUSER #1: Like – like just have it like this and just go like this all over it (indicating) –
SUZIE: Okay.
ACCUSER #1: --and rub it.
[NOTE: This is what she said about this supposed incident eight days earlier:
STACEY: Did she want you to move your hand or keep it still?
ACCUSER #1: Keep it still.
Embellishment continues]

SUZIE: Now was that on the outside of her clothes or inside of her clothes?
ACCUSER #1: Outside.
SUZIE: Okay. Now you said that she touched your private?
ACCUSER #1: Uh-huh
SUZIE: Where were your clothes?
ACCUSER #1: They were on.
ACCUSER #1: Outside [stating Tonya touched her on the outside of her clothes]
SUZIE: Did she say anything to you?
ACCUSER #1: No. She just rubbed me there (indicating) and just – and she didn’t say anything.
ACCUSER #1: I think I was 6 [when she rubbed me]
ACCUSER #1: I think it was – it was after school.
SUZIE: Yeah? What grade were you in?
ACCUSER #1: First.
ACCUSER #1:… she would make me kiss her on the cheek and squeeze her on the stomach, and she would make me – she would get my hand and start rubbing all over her stomach --
[NOTE: 8 days earlier Accuser #1 stated "
STACEY: What did she want you to touch her with?
ACCUSER #1: My hand.
STACEY: Did she want you to move your hand or keep it still?
ACCUSER #1: Keep it still.
STACEY: Okay. Did she want you to touch her anywhere else?
ACCUSER #1: Huh-uh (moves head from side to side)
STACEY: Or was you too scared to talk about it or what? [asking why Accuser #1 didn’t say this before].
ACCUSER #1: I forgot.
STACEY: Okay.
ACCUSER #1: And a little bit scared.]

SUZIE: Were her clothes always on or were they ever off?
ACCUSER #1: They were always on.
SUZIE: Always on? What about your clothes?
ACCUSER #1: They were always on.
SUZIE: How many times did she do that [have Accuser #1 rub her]?
ACCUSER #1: Like, five or – five or six. [In the previous interview it was "once"]
ACCUSER #1: That’s the only place she would do it. She would only do it in the kitchen, like, anytime I was over at her house.
[NOTE: Remember, as pointed out earlier, she had told Stacey Long that it had happened in the BATHROOM after Long introduced the concept of the Bathroom.]
ACCUSER #1: [in the kitchen] We would be standing up and she would just be – like, she would be on her knees.
SUZIE: Did she ever say anything [while in the kitchen]?
ACCUSER #1: Well, she said that my momma didn’t – that if my mom – my momma didn’t love me. And she got me not to say anything to my mom. She told me if my – if I told my mom, she would hurt her. So I couldn’t tell anything.
[NOTE: Remember what she had told Stacey Long eight days earlier:
STACEY: Okay. Okay. What about -- did she ever talk about your mom or saying things to you?
ACCUSER #1: She told me not to tell my mom if she done something.
STACEY: Okay. Did she ever talk about your mom, though, like say things about her?
ACCUSER #1: Huh-uh. (Moves head from side to side.)]

SUZIE: Okay. Did you believe her?
ACCUSER #1: No.
SUZIE: You didn’t think she would hurt your mom?
ACCUSER #1: Huh-uh (moves head from side to side)
ACCUSER #1:… And she said, if you call my daughter that again [Willy Wonka] she’ll be really mean to me. And so, I didn’t call her it again. And she would just be mean to me my whole life. She would be mean to me.
ACCUSER #1: Because she would always want to play boyfriend-girlfriend. And she said she would tell on me, so I would have to play it. And she would all—she would stick her hand down my pants on my panties and rub. She asked me if it felt good, and I said huh-uh. And she made me do it back to her. And I said I didn’t want to, so she said she would tell on me. So I had to do it.
SUZIE: And you said it [Accuser #3’s touch] was on – was it on the outside of your panties?
ACCUSER #1: uh-huh.
SUZIE: Okay. And you said you were 6 when she started touching, when Tonya started touching you?
ACCUSER #1: When I was in first grade, yeah.
ACCUSER #1: …[Tonya] would also turn bad music on and turn bad shows on, and she would turn it up really loud.
ACCUSER #1: … she told me that it’s [working out] the way she gets strong to hurt people.
SUZIE: What did she mean by that?
ACCUSER #1: Mean, like, to hurt them and kill them.

SUZIE: Okay. Now when y’all would be in the kitchen –
ACCUSER #1: Uh-huh
SUZIE: -- where would you be right before you were in the kitchen?
ACCUSER #1: I’d be playing with Accuser #3.
[Remember that earlier in this interview, she claimed she was alone in the house with Tonya. ]
ACCUSER #1: She would tell me to come here, she got to -- she had to tell me something. And then she took me to the kitchen and started touching me right down here (indicating), my private. And she told me to touch her back right there (indicating). And then after I did that, she took my hand and rubbed right on here, down here (indicating). That's when she did that.
[Note: down here where? Is she suggesting she masturbated Tonya on the vagina?]
ACCUSER #1:… she pulled down the blinds, and I couldn’t see. And I was right in front of them looking out one day, and she shut them. And I asked her why she did that. And she goes, I don’t want you to see.
SUZIE: Did it ever happen [Tonya touching Accuser #1] anywhere else?
ACCUSER #1: No. Just in the kitchen. [She has already forgotten the Bathroom story]
ACCUSER #1: I told Stacey [5/27/08 interviewer] – I forgot what I told Stacey. [Note: 8 days ago]
ACCUSER #1: And Accuser #3 would make her friend Accuser #2 get in a bathing suit. One day when I woke up, I thought -- I didn't know what -- and I thought it was pajamas. I said, Accuser #2, why are you wearing pajamas? She goes, it's a bathing suit.
SUZIE: Okay. And then what happened?
ACCUSER #1: And then -- then she told me Accuser #3 made her change into it. And I go, why did she make her change -- why did she make you change into it? And she goes, I don't know.
[NOTE: Here is what she told Stacey Long eight days before:
ACCUSER #1: Accuser #3 would make her friend Accuser #2 put a bathing suit on --
STACEY: Okay.
ACCUSER #1: -- early in the morning one day when I spent the night. And I didn't know who it -- and I thought it was Accuser #3. So I said, Accuser #3, why do you have a bathing suit on? And Accuser #2 turned around.
STACEY: Okay. How come she wanted her to do that?
ACCUSER #1: I don't know. She didn't tell me that.]

ACCUSER #1:… And one day we were jumping on the trampoline. And Tonya said, Accuser #1, do your back handspring. I said, I can't do it. She goes, yes, you can. And I go and I tried to do it, and I hurt my back. That's when my momma came to get me.
ACCUSER #1: One second. One day when she invited me over, one day at -- me and Accuser #3 were playing, and we -- and we were watching TV. And it was -- and I wanted to change the channel. So I told Accuser #3; she told her mom. And she told her we couldn't change the channel. And I asked her why. And she said, because -- because y'all are -- because I want to watch this movie. And it was, like, a kid movie. And I told her I didn't want to watch it, can we watch something that -- that we all want to watch. And she said, no, we're going to watch this. So I had to sit and watch it.
[So she’s mad about “bad” movies, mad about “kid” movies – sounds like the tv must be on Accuser #1’s channel or else.]
SUZIE: Did you tell your mom that there was something that you wanted to say but didn’t want to tell her?
ACCUSER #1: She said one – I don’t remember.
[NOTE: Thorne is trying to get something – anything – from the child, but Accuser #1 goes on babbling, trying to make up "bad" stuff as she goes along. Notice Accuser #1 never talks about sexual assault, touching, hitting or anything remotely like that when given free rein to say what she wants. She only makes those statements when asked a direct leading question. What conversation did Thorne and Sandra Lamb have for her to be asking this question in the first place? Again, evidence that Thorne is improperly conducting an interview.]
ACCUSER #1: One day when I woke up from spending the night at her house, Tonya was awake. And she would never give me anything for breakfast. She would only give Accuser #3 some. She would only give Accuser #3 some and dinner. She would never give me anything. She would never give me anything to eat; she would never give me anything to drink.
ACCUSER #1: I asked her if I could have something to drink and eat. And she said, no, you can’t. She said that would waste her food.
[NOTE: Here is what she told Stacey Long on May 27:
ACCUSER #1: She would say – like, if I asked her if I could eat, she would say no. And I asked her why. She goes, just because.]
SUZIE: Okay. How many times did that happen [not feeding Accuser #1]?
ACCUSER #1: A lot of times. She would never let me have nothing to eat any time I went over there.
ACCUSER #1: Well, Accuser #3 had this chair one day. And I was sitting in it, and Tonya told me to get up out of it. And I said, why, because she -- because she said she wanted to sit in it. She was putting it up because -- she said she wanted -- she wanted to sit in it. And so, I -- and she was putting it up. After she sat in it, she was putting it up. And I said okay. And she sat in it for a while, and -- and she would just leave it there and not put it up. She told me she was putting it up. And so -- and so, when she left the room, I got back in it. And she said, get out, I'm putting it up. And so, she sat back in it. Then the next time, she put it up. [SHE = Tonya]
SUZIE: All right. Did anything else happen?
ACCUSER #1: Like, if I brought pajamas over there, I would wear her -- I would wear my pajamas. And she said, you could -- you couldn't have worn Accuser #3's, good thing you brought your pajamas. And I said why. And she said -- and she said because. And I -- and then -- and I go, because why. And she goes, just because. And then she left the room.
SUZIE: Is there anything else that you want to tell me about anything?
ACCUSER #1: I was watching a channel at Tonya's house once and -- and she turned it off. And I asked her why she turned it off. And she said, you can't watch any TV. And so -- and so, I just went back -- so I just went back in Accuser #3's room and sat down. And then she turned the TV back on for Accuser #3. And then I wanted to watch it, so I went to watch it. And she said, you stay in her bedroom. And I said why. She goes, because you can't watch TV. So I sat down in her bedroom until the movie was over, and just sat. And I took a little nap, and I sat down. And then she came back in there. And she said, movie's over, come out. And so, I came out. And then she said -- and we started another movie. And she -- and she started another movie. And she told me to sit down. And so, I sat down, and I was just -- and I sat down, and I was playing with some of Accuser #3's toys so she wouldn't see and -- like her Barbies, and so -- and Tonya came back in there, and I was playing with the Barbie. And she said, don't play with those. And she told me to sit back on the bed. Movie was -- and the movie was over and she didn't put back any more movies. And then it was time for me to go. And so, I had to go home.

SUZIE: Okay. Did anything else happen during that time?
ACCUSER #1: Tonya wouldn't let me watch any TV. And when she was mowing around the house, she would always just mow for a long time. And Accuser #3 would -- one time that -- she would be mowing around the house, and if I called her name, she would just, like, mow fast so I wouldn't find her. So I didn't find her, and I went back in the house. And she came in. I said, where were you? She goes, I was outside mowing. I go, well, I looked everywhere. And then she wouldn't answer. And I said, but where were you? She didn't answer.
ACCUSER #1: And one time her -- Accuser #3's dad would -- went to pick her up, and she wouldn't let me go with Accuser #3. So -- and so, she went to buy -- she had been -- that day she was just being real sweet to me, pretending like she was sweet to me and she loved me, so she bought me Taco Bell. And she would take me somewhere, and then she would go pick up Accuser #3. And then it -- and then we went back to her house, and it was time for me to leave her house.
SUZIE: Okay. Did anything else happen while y'all were -- just the two of y'all were together?
ACCUSER #1: She would -- she would, like, go -- like, drive really reckless. She would, like, drive really bad. And she would, like, try -- she would not try to stop at a stoplight. She would try to skip it, but she didn't, and scare me. And so, I was -- I was really scared. And then we went to pick up Accuser #3, and then we -- and then I had to go home.
SUZIE: Okay. Okay. Is there anything else that you want to tell me? (5th time she asked this out of a total of 16 times)
ACCUSER #1: One day she said, what color are your eyes, to me, Tonya did. And I said blue. She said that's a -- and she said that's a weird color. And I go, why is it a weird color, weird color? And she said that is just really just a bad color. And I go, why? And she didn't answer me.
[NOTE: Accuser #1 testified Live that after the third interview while she was holding Suzie Thorne’s hand in hall way – she " just remembered" that Miss Tonya penetrated her vagina with four fingers & thumb – this allegation is nowhere to be found in any DVD, transcript or police summary. Thorne testified live that she was sitting at her desk writing her notes when Accuser #1 comes in (without mom) to tell her.]

This interview was the basis for the supposed “hand rape” accusation that the child made on the stand, and that the prosecution used to suborn perjury from a number of witnesses, as well as manufacture a fraudulent document that “just happened” to appear magically in the files. Thorne is trying to find something – anything that she can use, but the child instead babbles on about this and that.

As we saw from both Long and Thorne in previous interviews, they asked leading questions and they clearly were trying to find a way to get the children to “disclose” that Tonya Craft molested them. They were not interested in any other conclusions; all of the people involved want to implicate Ms. Craft, and they were going to find a way to do it, period. Truth was not an issue; obtaining indictments and a conviction were the only things that were acceptable.

If the Tonya Craft accusations were a “bridge too far,” then the “hand rape” was something akin to the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign of World War I. Not only did the prosecution and its witnesses have to commit felonies to promote it, but even the prosecution’s own contrived “facts” did not allow for it legitimately to be part of the evidence.

(That it was an obvious lie did not stop the prosecutors from promoting it and suborning perjury, nor did the fact that it was a lie keep "judge" Brian House from allowing it to be entered into evidence. Perjury Central was in full swing.)

Unfortunately, this was not the last of the bogus and leading “interviews” by CAC employees and the police. There are more of the same, which I will highlight in future posts, the next one being with Holly Kittle interviewing Lamb’s daughter in April, 2009. Perhaps it is not surprising that 10 months later, the child would be giving graphic testimony that (of course) contradicted much of what she told Long and Thorne.

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.
SUZIE: Who?
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.
SUZIE: Huh?
CHILD #3: No.
SUZIE: 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.
SUZIE: Who?
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.
SUZIE: Who?
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.
SUZIE: Huh?
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.
SUZIE: 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.
SUZIE: Huh?
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
SUZIE: Huh?
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.