News Flash! Joal and Sarah Henke Lie Under Oath! (Not That Channel 9 Would Report It)

Tuesday's hearing in Judge Marie Williams' courtroom was about what I expected it to be. Joal Henke and his pregnant wife Sarah lied a lot. They lied under oath, and their friends (including a former minister at Eastwood Church) covered for them. In other words, it was business as usual with the Henkes and the Eastwood crowd. Don't forget that the Eastwood bunch tried to convince everyone Tonya Craft was a child molester, even though the evidence clearly showed otherwise.

Now, if you watched only Channel 9's coverage, you would think that Joal and Sarah are honest, God-fearing people who care only about the welfare of their children. You would have no idea that Tonya's attorneys caught Joal in lie after lie, and that the guy who "suddenly remembered" all sorts of scandalous things about Tonya at her criminal trial had severe memory lapse all through today's session. (Channel 3 has more accurate coverage, not surprisingly, given that Channel 9 worked hand-in-glove with the prosecution in the criminal trial, even giving sympathetic on-camera interviews with prosecutors Chris Arnt and Len Gregor after the acquittal.)

It is hard to know where to begin, but I will begin at one of the lies told by Joal, that being his falsification of his address in order to pull Tonya's children from the school where they were attending and enroll them in Westview School. Once again, as she had in her conversation with Eric Echols, principal Margo Williams denied telling Joal to do it -- which he continues to claim.

Mortgage Fraud, Henke Style

In Tuesday's testimony, we found that Joal's father purchased the house where he and Sarah live, as Joal apparently could not qualify for a loan. (Smart people, those mortgage lenders.)

The problem is that Joal's father got a VA loan, which requires the borrower to live in the residence, and the borrower is required to state that on the application. That Henke's father did NOT live in the house or even intend to live in the house is mortgage fraud, which is a felony punishable by several years in prison.

So, if federal prosecutors in Southeast Tennessee would like a slam-dunk case, they have one right in front of them. Joal Henke's father committed mortgage fraud, and Joal and Sarah Henke were partners-in-crime, and conspiracy to commit mortgage fraud also is a federal felony. Ah! Joal doesn't care where he breaks the law, just as long as he can be a lawbreaker!

Now, as I see it, not only should federal prosecutors be interested in this open fraud, but also the state board of realtors, as licensed real estate agents are not supposed to be committing mortgage fraud. Perhaps someone needs to notify the board of this transgression and let the board take another look at Joal's license.

Here is the Channel 3 tweet on that situation, including the editorial comment:

11:43am Joal's house purchased by his dad, dad lied to get VHA loan, said he would live there, not Joal. (That's a federal offense.)

The Showering Sarah

Before dealing with Sarah Henke's frequent showers with Tonya's daughter, let us deal with another lie that Sarah told under oath Tuesday. Henke told the court that she never tried to "replace" Tonya as the actual mother of Tonya's children.

Yet, all during the trial, Sarah Bass Henke had a Facebook page in which her signature photo showed her holding Tonya's daughter and it was clear on that page (which conveniently was taken down after Tonya's acquittal) that Henke was claiming those children as her own, and she even thanked God for "giving" her those children. The only reason I did not mention it on my blog -- and I did save what I could from it -- was that what Sarah Henke was doing was so vicious and so evil that I did not want Tonya even to look at a picture of another woman stealing her daughter -- and that is exactly what Sarah Henke was doing.

[Update]: It turns out I was wrong. Sarah Bass Henke has a current Facebook page, and she is pictured cuddling to Tonya's daughter. She also writes a number of things pertaining to Tonya's children (claiming them to be her own), saying things like trying to "be a yes mom today" and saying what a blessing it is to tuck in her children at night.

In other words, even now, even after claiming under oath that she and Joal are not engaged in parental alienation, she continues to claim that the children of Tonya Craft are her own. Folks, it doesn't get any more evil than what Sarah Bass Henke is doing -- and continues to do. [End Update]

So, for Sarah Bass Henke to tell the court under oath that she was not trying to cleverly push Tonya out of the picture is a lie, yet another lie on top of other lies. (For those who still might think Sarah was being naive, remember that after Tonya's acquittal, Sarah stood in the courtroom crying, and somehow I don't think these were tears of joy.)

When asked why she showered with Tonya's daughter, Henke once again went with the same perjury she used in Catoosa County: Tonya's children were dirty; they were unkempt; they had matted hair; they stank. Dear, caring Sarah was just showering with the child because Tonya Craft was such an uncaring, unfit mother that she let her own children be walking pigpens.

However, as I posted a few days ago, when Sarah was questioned by attorneys in a deposition in 2009, she did not use the "stinking children" defense. Instead, she said she was just helping the young girl clean shampoo from her hair and the like. It was only at the criminal trial -- and now at the custody hearing -- that Bass Henke tried to employ that rhetorical device known as the Big Lie.

Here is the Channel 3 tweet for the "shower" nonsense:

2:55pm Scott King asking Sarah Henke about showering with Tonya Craft's daughter. She says girl wasn't clean when they picked her up.

Joal Continues the "Neglect" Theme

Sarah was not the only person to push a false "Tonya neglected her children" theme, as Joal insisted that Tonya was refusing to give them even basic medical care by failing to take the children to the doctor even for checkups for three years. Tonya's attorney, Scott King, made short work of Henke's lies. This is from Channel 3's postings:

11:24am King is challenging Joal's statement that Tonya Craft didn't take kids for well child visits for three years.

11:27am Scott King making Joal Henke read kids' med charts. There was no three year gap in their health care.

11:29am Joal seems confused, trouble reading charts. KING: It's not that complicated. JUDGE: Easy, counselor.

So, picture the scene. Joal Henke tells the court that Tonya Craft did not take her children to the doctor for three years, and when Scott King produces the medical charts of the children that demonstrate conclusively that Henke is lying, Henke pretends he is having trouble reading the charts. It was yet another Gotcha! moment in the life of serial liar and adulterer, Joal Henke.

Joal Can't Recall Anything

During Tonya's criminal trial, Joal was a fount of "I just remembered," including recalling what clearly was a nonexistent lesbian affair Tonya allegedly had with her good friend, Jennifer Sullivan. (Notice that "judge" Brian Outhouse refused to allow Jennifer to testify on her behalf.)

However, in testimony Tuesday, Joal seemed stricken with memory loss. (I thought that a "world-class" athlete -- as Joal describes himself -- was disciplined.) Here are some Channel 3 tweets that demonstrate Joal's Alzheimer's act:

11:15am Scott King asking Joal Henke about his conversation with court-appointed therapist. He can't remember what he told her.

11:59am A lot of Joal Henke's answers include "I don't recall" or "I can't remember".

12:28pm Joal continues being "unable to recall" most of King's questions regarding Craft's parents' access to kids.

Why would Joal suddenly be forgetful? It seems that he openly had been violating the court order that Judge Marie Williams herself had set. Here are some more Channel 3 tweets:

11:34am Joal admits he lied on application to get kids in school they weren't zoned for; left mother's information blank on form. (Emphasis mine)

11:36am Tonya Craft had to get court order to access her kids school records.

11:38am Joal called Catoosa court to see if Tonya Craft violated bond by asking for their kids' school records.

11:52am Joal says he denied Craft visitation with their son on Mothers Day 2009. He can't remember why.

11:53am Joal also denied Craft visitation on Mothers Day 2010.

11:57am Joal also denied Tonya Craft's parents' request for time with kids on Mothers Day this year.

There was nothing in the court order signed by Judge Williams that allowed him to do the things he did, yet he did it with impunity. Furthermore, he lied about what he did and why he did it, and when confronted in a court of law, he suddenly got a bout of Alzheimer's Disease. I only can hope that Judge Williams understands that Henke has given her the middle finger, too, because he believes she will do nothing about it.

Joal's Lack-of-Character Witness

In Dennis Norwood's report in The Chattanoogan, he goes into detail about one of the "character" witnesses for the Henkes, Joshua McGiness, who was a former minister at Eastwood Church. According to The Chattanoogan:

A former minister at Eastwood Baptist Church where the Henkes attend, Joshua McGiness, also testified in support of his friend and former tae kwan do instructor, Joal. When attorney Clancy Covert asked him why he had attended the Craft criminal trial, he answered, “To support Joal and Sarah.”

Mr. McGuiness told the judge that while he respected Mr. Henke now, he had not always. Asked by Ms. Craft’s attorneys what changed his mind, McGuiness said, “It was the way he handled his divorce from Ms. Craft.” He stated he did not attend any of the divorce proceedings, but came to his feelings from hearing what Mr. Henke had to say in their church small group meetings. “We asked Joal some pretty tough questions,” he said.

Addressing both Sarah and Joal as to the issue of Sarah showering with the daughter, both said they found nothing wrong with the practice. Ms. Craft had earlier complained to authorities about this practice. It was only after a psychologist associated with the case told her to stop the practice that it ended, according to trial testimony.

As a former minister, Mr. McGuiness said he didn’t find anything wrong with the practice either, saying there were just too many variables and facets to look at.

I think that readers should know that Tonya was pretty much run out of Eastwood Church because she was divorcing Henke. Now, Tonya did not leave him for someone else; no, she left because Joal was sleeping around, abusing her, and then claiming he was a "changed man."

I'm sure that McGuiness would claim that Joal just wanted to "restore his marriage" or nonsense like that. I would put it much differently, and I think that what I am going to say pretty much describes Joal Henke.

Henke is both tenacious and competitive, but he also is a sociopath, a person who will look a person in the eye and then lie with the most sincere voice one can imagine. If he is caught in a lie, he simply tells another, and then another.

It was not that Joal wanted to keep Tonya as his wife because he loved her; he wanted to keep her around because for her to leave -- and leave with the children -- would be for him to lose, and one thing that Joal Henke cannot accept is losing. He was tenacious throughout the divorce proceedings, but when it was clear that Tonya had a stack of videotapes of him having sex with other women, even Henke realized that he was finished.

The faux child molestation case was just another example of him trying to beat Tonya -- because in his twisted mind, she "beat" him at something she she successfully divorced him and won the child custody rights. True, he could manipulate the people at Eastwood Church, and if McGuiness is typical of the kind of person who attends that "emergent church," then it is not hard to figure what is happening there, and why so many people there still insist beyond all reason that Tonya Craft was and is a child molester.

The Wednesday hearing is closed to the press and public because it will involve psychological reports of the children. I only hope that there is one more psychological report: about a certain sociopath named Joal Henke who is unfit to be anywhere but in a jail cell.

Troll Time

One of the standard characteristics of those who make false accusations is their adherence to a "Heads I win, tails you lose" set of rules. Whenever a troll visits this blog, we generally see that person demanding that such rules be applied to the Tonya Craft case.

The logical (I used that word carefully) construct they give usually goes something like this: O.J. Simpson was acquitted and we think he was guilty. Therefore, Tonya Craft was guilty.

Yes, this is what logicians call a non sequitur ("that does not follow"), but given that our friends in the LMJC are fond of using the non sequitur as "evidence" during trials, we should not be surprised when the trolls do it as well. Don't forget that Chris "Alberto-Facebook and Cruisemaster" Arnt and Len "The Man-Misogynist-Racist" Gregor were fond of using this rhetorical device all through Tonya's trial, and some of their examples included:

• Tonya Craft was a fitness instructor;
• That makes her a "narcissist";
• Therefore, she molested children.

• Tonya Craft was photographed wearing an evening dress;
• Therefore, Tonya Craft is a child molester.

Now, I will say that coming from a prosecutor who wrote on a public website that being a prosecutor lets him be "the man," accusing someone else of being a narcissist is pretty rich. Likewise, Arnt's showing off before refereeing -- get this -- a KIDS' soccer game is prima facae evidence this guy is narcissistic to the core.

Furthermore, prosecutors are supposed to be able to discern what is real evidence and what is not, and they are not supposed to lie nor fabricate false "evidence" to try to win. Unfortunately, those who run the LMJC and who sit in seats of authority approve of lies, fabrications, and outrageous behavior on behalf of the "public servants" employed in that sorry excuse for a "justice" system.

Well, enough about the dishonest prosecutors. Let us now turn to our faithful troll who has been willing to share his/her wisdom with the rest of us. So, I will include some of the latest comments below:

just because Tonya Craft was found innocent does NOT mean that she didnt molest these little girls. young kids dont make that kind of stuff up. maybe all of the people on here, her "cronies" need a reality check yourself. what if it were your child who had been molested? you wouldnt be posting these ruthless comment on here then would you? i hardly believe so. its sad that all you people have to do with your lives is look at this web site to see what the latest gossip is. find something better to do with your lives than sit and stare at the computer all day. o.j. was found innocent at first as well wasnt he, but where is he now? once a child molester always a child molester.

Then there is this:

the fact of the matter is, you people have nothing better to do than sit on the internet and talk about/read about all the gossip going on in certain communities on this website. anon @ 5:39, i agree with you to an extent. yes, kids do lie, i agree with that however it is rare, if ever, that they could come up with something such as this at the age they are at. i do not believe parental influence had anything to do with this. as to the mcmartin case, i am sick of hearing about that. yes, maybe people do get accused of things they didnt do and get punished for it but at the same time people who are actually guilty are found innocent. i do not know TC or SL but this sounds to me like TC got lucky this time.

It is hard to know where to begin, but I must start somewhere. First, the person tells us that the McMartin case is irrelevant, although there were similarities in the interviewing techniques by people like Stacy Long and Suzi Thorne. That is interesting; the O.J. Simpson is relevant because he was acquitted when people believed his was guilty so, therefore, Tonya also is guilty.

However, when we point out the similarities between Tonya's case and what happened in California and elsewhere with false accusations, that does not matter. Those cases had nothing to do with this one.

I'd be willing to dismiss all of this as the ranting of a troll, but I suspect that we are hearing the same stuff with prosecutors, police, and judges in the LMJC. To a person, all of them lined up behind Buzz Franklin when he declared that the jurors were guilty of misconduct because they acquitted Tonya Craft. Not one judge, not Ralph Van Pelt, Bo Wood, nor Christina Graham, has said one thing about the blatant misconduct that went on in Brian Outhouse's courtroom. Their silence is a sign of their support.

Not one person has said anything about the (alleged) unreported ex parte meetings between House and prosecution witnesses and House and the prosecutors even though these actions violate the Georgia rules of judicial ethics (not that any judges care about ethics these days). No one tied to the LMJC has pointed out that prosecutors in Tonya's case openly suborned perjury, and no one in a position of authority seems to care that Sandra Lamb, Joal and Sarah Henke, along with Sherry Wilson, Suzi Thorne, and Tim Deal outright lied on the stand -- under oath (as though that means anything to judges and the Georgia State Bar these days).

No, instead, we get the same old message from everyone in the LMJC: O.J. Simpson was acquitted; therefore, Tonya Craft is guilty. And, then there is this most interesting LMJC syllogism:

• There were abuses that occurred in the investigation of the McMartin and other day care cases that clearly demonstrated that children were being coached to testify to things that had not happened;
• Investigators in the Tonya Craft case (who openly claimed they knew nothing about the McMartin case) engaged in many of the same abusive interviewing techniques that got innocent people sent to prison in other cases;
• Therefore, Tonya Craft is guilty of child molestation.

Does this syllogism make sense? No, but then why should we be surprised. When Sandra Lamb knowingly files a false police report that I have in my files that absolutely is contradicted by the video that first was run by Channel 3, nothing happens, but the person who was assaulted, Eric Echols, is the one who is arrested. Brad Wade still sits in prison, wrongly convicted, thanks to lies told by Len "The Man" Gregor and Stacy Long. That is not due to over-zealousness; it is due to the absolute lawlessness that is firmly entrenched in the culture of the LMJC. The slogan of the LMJC is "Wisdom, Justice, and Moderation," but maybe we need to have a contest to see if there is a better slogan that can fit what goes on in there.

Maybe, it could be something like, "We lie, you cry," or "Abandon all truth, ye who enter here." I'm sure readers might have some other ideas in mind.

Did Tonya Craft's Trial Produce an "O.J. Verdict"?

[Update: Thursday, August 19, 2010, 12:35 PM]: Just a reminder for all the readers to vote for Leah and Russell! (Yes, it is called "stuffing the ballot box," but since everyone else is stuffing the box, we might as well do it better!) [End Update]

In an email the other day from someone who seems to believe Tonya Craft was guilty, he laid out the issue of what we call the "O.J. Verdict." According to people like Sandra Lamb, Sherry and Dewayne Wilson, Buzz Franklin and others in the LMJC, jurors rejected a "mountain of evidence" that "proved" Tonya's guilty and acquitted her on (at best) flawed beliefs that she did not "look like a child molester."

Before dealing with this question, however, I need first to deal with, well, the O.J. verdict. As readers know, O.J. Simpson was acquitted in October 1995 of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole, and Ronald Goldman in a gruesome stabbing at Nicole's Los Angeles home. As the story goes, the mostly-black jury, after being presented with almost incontrovertible evidence of Simpson's guilt after six months of trial, engaged in what some have called "jury nullification" to acquit him of all charges.

Unfortunately, the whole thing was pictured in a black-white perspective (a mainstream media favorite topic) in which blacks were seen as celebrating the verdict and whites were dismayed. Certainly we saw these pictures on the news, so there was some truth to the reports of the divide. However, we have to understand that no matter what some people might think -- that American blacks were celebrating a black celebrity getting away with murdering white people -- the truth was that the black press and blacks in general looked carefully at how the "evidence" was collected and presented.

The standard for a guilty verdict is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," not, "We think he might have done it." Shortly after the verdict, I was speaking to an older African-American man in a grocery line in Auburn, Alabama (where I was going to graduate school), about the case and he asked me if I thought Simpson was guilty. I told him I did not know, but that I believed the defense had established reasonable doubt.

No, I do not believe it was a "jury nullification" situation. As one white juror told researchers later, he went into the jury room not convinced Simpson was guilty, but wondered if he was the only one thinking that. I do believe that the prosecution did a miserable job, and there were enough questions about the prosecutors' tactics to give jurors the reasons for the decision they reached.

Let us turn to the jury's decision in Tonya Craft's case. Franklin's post-verdict statement (which violated the Georgia State Bar's Rules of Conduct) claimed that Ms. Craft actually was guilty, but that jurors were guilty if not of misconduct, then of terrible judgment.

(Franklin claimed that the reason jurors voted to acquit was because some of them did not think Ms. Craft "looked like a child molester," and that the jury was not convinced because there were no "videotapes, confession or physical evidence." Jurors who spoke to the media after the trial did not mention any of these things, and especially the latter. Instead, they noted that there were huge gaps in the prosecution's "evidence," and that prosecutors were acting like bullies and the judge was openly biased in favor of conviction. Jurors also noticed that the CAC "expert" witnesses for the prosecution acted like disrespectful, spoiled teenagers whenever defense counsel cross-examined them, while the defense "experts" acted like adults and clearly were more credible than the eye-rolling, shoulder-shrugging, openly-sighing CAC gang.)

There is another huge difference between Tonya Craft's trial and the O.J. Simpson affair: with the Simpson case, there were two dead people. In Tonya's case, however, there are real questions about whether or not there was any molestation at all. Having examined the timelines, the police notes, and the interviews the three children had with the police and the CAC "interviewers," I and others are convinced that there was no molestation at all.

As I see it, not only was there "reasonable doubt" for Tonya's supposed guilt, but there also was "reasonable doubt" as to whether or not molestation even happened, which was a double-whammy for the prosecution. In that sense, Buzz Franklin was right; child molesting is not likely to be on videotape.

Keep in mind that the charges against Tonya Craft did not arise from the children, and the interview transcripts with Stacy Long and Suzi Thorne demonstrate this very well. Instead, they arose from an atmosphere of score-settling, as the Wilsons already had said they would get revenge on her for Tonya's recommendation that their child not be promoted to first grade. (Ms. Craft already had experienced a falling out with Sandra Lamb over a dispute at the birthday party of Ms. Craft's daughter.)

When one add Joal Henke's decision to try to get revenge for Tonya's objections to Henke's wife, Sarah, showering with Ms. Craft's daughter, it is clear that the atmosphere absolutely was poisonous. Furthermore, these are the very kind of people who gladly would bring false charges against someone else.

The second point about this group of people is that they are well-connected to police and prosecutors. For example, in her complaint against Eric Echols, Lamb lists Chris Arnt as her "attorney friend" who was advising her in what actually was a civil case. (Arnt allegedly told Lamb that she did not have to accept a subpoena in a civil case, which is bad legal advice, and especially bad for Arnt, since he stepped outside of his role as a prosecutor, which would raise questions about his immunity protections.) Thus, it was not hard to get these people to act against Tonya Craft, and since the LMJC personnel really are a law unto themselves, there was no risk or downside, in their view.

There is one other important point, and that was the sheer volume of perjury that prosecution witnesses committed, as well as the deliberate attempt by Arnt and Gregor to misrepresent the defense's expert witnesses during the closing statements. I am speaking of Lamb's denial on the stand that her daughter had taken acting lessons, Kelly McDonald's "power bill" perjury, the "hand rape" lies told by Lamb, her daughter, Tim Deal and Suzi Thorne, not to mention the lies that Joal and Sarah Henke told under oath.

Had the prosecutors really believed they had the "slam dunk" case they claimed before trial, then why all the subornation of perjury? Why the fabrication of documents, why the "Animal House" behavior, and why the lies at closing?

I find it interesting that "judge" Brian Outhouse kept out reams of exculpatory evidence, and he also kept out material that would have demonstrated Lamb was lying about her daughter's acting lessons, the Wilson power bill lies, the questionable (at best) Deal documents, not to mention the material from Dr. Ann Hazzard regarding her interviews with Tonya's daughter. Nor were jurors able to see any of the information that came from Eric Echols' investigation because of the trumped-up charges that "Alberto-Facebook" Arnt and his pals from the LMJC cooked up.

In other words, the jury was not permitted to see material that would have case even more doubt on the state's case, yet Franklin, Deal, most LMJC judges and employees, Arnt, Gregor, Lamb and her little friends all are crying that this was an "O.J. Verdict." Outhouse gave the prosecutors pretty much everything they wanted and still it was obvious that the case was a lie.

Following his acquittal, O.J. Simpson's life went downhill and he finally self-destructed and now is in prison, where he likely will remain for the rest of his life. In Tonya Craft's case, Ms. Craft is doing pretty well, but I would not be surprised to see the main players on the prosecution's side have some sorry turns in their lives down the road. After all, F. Scott Fitzgerald said, "Character is fate," and I think that in this situation, Fitzgerald's words are going to be proven true.

Joal Henke's "Recovered Memories," Part I

[Update]: He "remembers" again.

Joal Henke provides more perjured testimony, which is important, because the prosecution must keep its perfect record of having all its witnesses lying:

Update 11:20am

Dad answers to inconsistencies in his statement, "I don't have a lot of experience with this"

Dad says he didn't include in statement that daughter was allegedly molested because authorities had not interviewed daughter yet.

Dad testifies what is in statement he gave is not true. Says it may be a typo.

Dad in statement says he was called by parents of "several" small girls about alleged abuse. Says today just parents of one girl.

Well, there you have it. This guy wouldn't be giving false testimony. No, it's gotta be a typo. I think this speaks for itself.

Begin Original Post

In case readers still might have doubts about the impartiality of Judge Brian House, well, you can put them away. Today's testimony involving Joal Henke, Tonya Craft's ex-husband, has created a new low in a case that already has been in the muck for a long, long time.

I won't put everything from the media links, but nonetheless, I will put down a few things and then elaborate:

Update 9:38am

State calls dad of one of the alleged victims then court takes a ten minute break.

Update 9:50am

State is citing case law about whether bi-sexuality is relevant.

Update 9:56am

Judge will allow bi-sexual argument to be made. He denied defense's request for a hearing about issue.

Defense argues Tonya Craft's sexual preference does not relate to alleged child molestation. Citing case law.

Update 10:07am

Witness testifies Tonya Craft told him she was drugged and ended up in another woman's bed.

Witness testifies he has knowledge that Tonya Craft watched girl on girl sex tape years ago. (What the ancients once called heresay)

Update 10:15am

Witness says he asked his daughter if "anyone touched her" at first, not directly if Tonya Craft touched her.

Witness says father of another alleged victim called him to tell him about allegations.

State now asking questions about allegations against Tonya Craft.

Update 10:25am

Witness says didn't mention Tonya Craft being with woman or watching porn when he gave original statement. Says he remembered during trial.

It is difficult to know where to begin with this testimony, but what House is doing is reprehensible, absolutely reprehensible. Joal Henke's allegations WERE NOT IN THE DISCOVERY MATERIAL, but suddenly emerged deus ex machina in testimony and House permits it as though it were judicially proper.

This no longer is a trial, if it ever was. It is a smear campaign, and what House is doing is permitting Ms. Craft to be smeared on the stand in an attempt to inflame the jury.

As I have said before, however, there is a strategy behind this. House already knows that if there is a guilty verdict, deforestation of North America will be necessary to write all of the copy that will be filled with grounds for appeal. However, what House, Chris "Facebook" Arnt, and Len "The Man" Gregor are wanting is a short-term victory. They will have succeeded into railroading Tonya Craft into prison, destroying lives, and then they will claim that when the verdict is overturned, "liberal judges" are "putting child molesters on the streets."

Before Tonya Craft, there was Brad Wade

As I have noted before, the Tonya Craft trial did not occur in a vacuum. The Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit has long made prosecution of alleged child molestation a top priority, and Ms. Craft was caught up in that web of deceit and prosecutorial misconduct.

Given the patchwork of lies that prosecutors Len Gregor and Chris Arnt had to put together in an unsuccessful attempt to throw Ms. Craft into prison for life, one would wonder why they believed they could convince a jury she was a child molester. I believe that the success the LMJC had in railroading Brad Wade into prison three years ago -- done pretty much under the radar, unlike the trial against Ms. Craft -- had much to do with the confidence that Buzz Franklin's office had as it rolled over the cliff.

I want to examine the conviction against Mr. Wade over a number of posts, investigating things like the dearth of evidence, the alliance of Gregor (who prosecuted the case) with "judge" Kristina Graham, and the utter dishonest testimony by Stacy Long of the (What else?) Children's Advocacy Center. However, in today's post, I want to explore what I absolutely believe to be true: Gregor never believed Wade had molested anyone, but pushed the trial anyway.

That is a terrible accusation to make against someone, I realize, and if I am wrong, I will have done a major wrong to Gregor. Because I cannot know what was going on in his mind during the trial, in the end all I can do is to surmise rather than have a definite answer. Nonetheless, from everything I can see and have been able to find, I am confident that although Len Gregor has not told me personally that he believed Brad Wade was innocent, nonetheless the facts of the case itself are such that it is hard to draw any other conclusion.

Unlike the case against Tonya Craft, there is the very real possibility that there WAS molestation of a young child. In fact, the three-year-old child who was the subject of part of the trial claimed "the boys" as doing things that clearly were molestation, yet the authorities were not interested. Furthermore, as we saw in the Craft case, there is other testimony from another child that differs wildly within a year's time, after constant questioning from (Who else?) Long.

Yet, why would Len Gregor and the LMJC go after Brad Wade instead of investigating what the child in question originally claimed? It seems to me that the answer is quite simple: there is nothing in it for Gregor if he goes after juveniles. The Big Prize for a prosecutor is to gain a conviction against an adult, not a teenager, and Gregor, who narcissistically refers to himself as "The Man," always likes to get the big enchilada, even if he must be dishonest to do it.

One thing "The Man" was able to do early was to have exculpatory evidence withheld on the basis of "rape shield" laws. Now, the "rape shield" laws were enacted not to keep exculpatory evidence out, but rather to keep the defense from delving into irrelevant aspects of a rape accuser's past. Unfortunately, prosecutors whose motto is "Win at all costs," have found ways to prop up questionable charges by scheming with judges (most of whom are former prosecutors themselves) to keep the jury from hearing information that could acquit someone.

Indeed, that is what happened in the trial against Mr. Wade. Gregor, as we shall see in upcoming posts, teamed with "judge" Kristina Graham to keep important information from the jury, information that certainly might have had an influence on a jury not to rush to the "guilty" verdict. There are a number of irregularities and incidents of misconduct, which would seem to fit any trial which "The Man" prosecuted, and future posts will examine them.

During the Tonya Craft trial, Gregor declared that Mr. Wade's mother, Glenda Shull, who often was in the courtroom, was not there because she cared about the fate of Ms. Craft, but rather "because she hates me." Indeed, after seeing how "The Man" railroaded her son and so many other innocent people, I don't think I would be surprised if Ms. Stull had some negative feelings toward this prosecutor.

(Mr. Wade's sister, Angie Granger, also was in attendance at the Tonya Craft trial, and her appearance also seemed to unnerve "The Man." She has been a tireless advocate for her brother, and one hopes that she will be able to see her brother vindicated.)

My purpose in writing on the Wade conviction is twofold. First, and most important, I believe that Mr. Wade was innocent of the charges and that Gregor either knew he was innocent or should have had his doubts about this case. Second, I want to demonstrate that the prosecutors in the LMJC are out of control and that their "win at all costs" mentality is destroying families, all in the name of "protecting the children," of course.

This is a very sad story. A man sits in prison, and lives are shattered. It did not begin with Tonya Craft, and I will be doing my best to show it does not end with her, either.

The Latest from Jacob Sullum at Reason

Jacob Sullum, a columnist and editor with Reason Magazine and Reason.com has been blogging on the Tonya Craft trial, and his latest post, dated April 18, has a lot of insight into the inconsistencies presented in the testimonies:

On Friday, two more girls, including Tonya Craft's 8-year-old daughter, testified that the former Chickamauga, Georgia, teacher had sexually abused them. The daughter, who used to live with Craft, is now in the custody of Craft's ex-husband. Other local news outlets have joined WRCB, the Chattanooga TV station that has been providing the most detailed trial coverage so far, in highlighting the gaps and inconsistencies in the testimony of Craft's three alleged victims, who in addition to her daughter include two girls who say she molested them during sleepovers at her house. Here is a report from the Chattanooga Times Free Press:

Conflicting details emerged Friday in testimony from two child witnesses in Tonya Craft's trial on child molestation charges.

An attorney for Ms. Craft asked the 8-year-old girls to explain why their answers in earlier interviews with investigators and social workers were different from what they said Friday on the witness stand.

Each responded with a similar statement: "I didn't remember" or "I don't know."

Here is The Chattanoogan:

As with the first young witness who testified on [Wednesday and Thursday], the latest young witness peppered her testimony with "I just remembered," and "I don't know," or "I don't remember." The only difference was that this witness used them with the prosecution, as well as the defense.

WRCB:

The answers from the girls sometimes differed from their answers in earlier taped interviews with investigators and social counselors. The girls would explain the differences with responses like "I don't remember."

The inconsistencies were not trivial. The second alleged victim, for example, told investigators Craft had touched her outside her clothing, while on Friday she said it was underneath her clothing. The same girl told investigators she did not report the alleged abuse because Craft told her not to; on Friday she said she remained silent because Craft threatened to "hurt my mom and dad." (This shifting story is similar to the evolving account of the first child witness, who initially said she remained silent because she thought she would get in trouble with her parents but later "remembered" that Craft had threatened to kill her mother.) The second child witness also was inconsistent about how many times she had been at Craft's house:

Defense Attorney: You’ve told us that you’ve been over to Miss Tonya’s house several times, but this morning you told us it was only once. Why is that?

Witness: I just remembered.

Another point that has been difficult to pin down is approximately (let alone exactly) when these alleged incidents of abuse are supposed to have taken place. The indictments cover a six-year period, from 2002 to 2008. Craft's defense attorney labored mightily to narrow this window down during his questioning of Craft's daughter. "I can’t remember when it happened," she exclaimed at one point. "I just know it happened." Finally, after using photographs of herself at different ages to refresh her memory of the time frame, she agreed that the incidents must have occurred between April 2007 and May 2008.

In previous posts, I've noted indications that the first child witness was encouraged to report abuse, whether or not it actually happened. On Friday the defense showed videos of interviews with the other two girls that provided more evidence of coaching (emphasis added):

Before the interview was over, the girl [the second child witness] told the detective, "Mom said I could get a toy if I talked to you." "She didn't tell you you could get a toy for just coming to me, did she?" "Yes, she did." After several more attempts to get the girl to tell him, that she was getting the toy for telling the truth, she finally responded affirmatively.

Video of an interview with Craft's daughter also suggests adults were determined to elicit allegations against Craft (emphasis added):

In the video, the child remained calm and didn't say Ms. Craft touched her inappropriately, but she started to cry after she was asked about another girl who is not one of the alleged victims.

"Don't ask me," the girl cried, and covered her ears and face.

On the video, the social worker left the room and re-entered, then asked the child directly how Ms. Craft had touched her inappropriately. The image shows the girl became completely flustered and said, "I don't want to talk."

In that first exchange, judging from Friday's questioning, the girl was upset about allegations that she had played "the boyfriend/girlfriend game" with her friends, which reportedly involved putting their hands down each other's pants. In the second exchange, it seems the social worker, not the girl, first raised the idea that Craft had touched her inappropriately.

The Times-Free Press' Disgraceful Portrayal

I guess Joan Garrett of the Times-Free Press must be burning up the line with John Madewell of Channel 9, as her account of the Tuesday hearing paints a picture of a delusional and vengeful Tonya Craft throwing mud at her ex-husband and his wife in an attempt to take her children out of a loving, nurturing home. I guess this truly misleading article is what Todd Foster meant when he said in taking the top position at the paper that the TFP would be going after "sacred cows."

So, the TFP apparently thinks that Ms. Craft is a "sacred cow" that needs to be attacked. Conversely, Garrett and Foster try to portray a couple of perjurers -- Joal and Sarah Henke -- as wonderful, loving parents who just want what is best for their children. Thus, it is time to deconstruct this piece, which is every bit as disgusting as what Channel 9 did all through the Tonya Craft criminal trial last spring.

As I read through this piece, it strikes me that Garrett has managed to turn it into a "food fight" of "he said, she said" that makes up much of the sordid world of custody battles. Her article basically says that it is Joal's and Sarah's word against Tonya's -- as though there were no other documents in the case, and the current circuit court testimony is the only evidence available.

The story's bias is evident in its headline: "Craft's children doing fine, testimony in custody dispute shows." Granted, Garrett did not write the headline, but I believe it reflects the story. Keep in mind that the testimony did not "show" anything; some people testified who said they believed that the children were "doing fine," but there was no proof.

(From what I can see, Garrett does not need proof that the kids are OK, as she takes the word of a serial liar and adulterer and that of his friends. On the other hand, I doubt Tonya ever could "prove" her innocence to Garrett.)

The first paragraph demonstrates right away where this story is headed:

Tonya Craft's five-week trial on child molestation charges dredged up sordid, intimate details about her and her ex-husband's private lives, but some witnesses testifying in the couple's custody case say all the nastiness has not affected their children.

First, the spring trial produced real-live evidence against Joal for his serial adultery, but there was no proof actually given against Tonya except for Len Gregor's accusations of her wearing a thong and Joal's patently dishonest "I just remembered" testimony in which he claimed she had a lesbian affair with Jennifer Sullivan.

But the most telling paragraph is farther down in the story, when Garrett writes:

In a $25 million federal lawsuit filed against her accusers, Craft claims her ex-husband, the entire Catoosa County government and child therapists conspired to bring a false case against her by manipulating the children who accused her.

Most important, the lawsuit uses "conspiracy," but in the legal sense under federal law. Catoosa County is a defendant because Det. Tim Deal, who is being sued, is a Catoosa County employee. Nowhere in the suit does Ms. Craft claim that "the entire Catoosa County government and child therapists" were conspiring together, as though they had a huge meeting in a big auditorium and hatched out a dastardly plot.

Instead, under federal "conspiracy" laws, when people involved in lawbreaking have any kind of meeting at all, it is considered part of a "conspiracy." Yes, it is a very loose definition, but that's federal law for you.

Garrett goes on:

But during nearly three hours of questioning Tuesday, Henke said he never instigated nor drove the criminal case to court.

While making the children available for interviews and court appearances and also responding to subpoenas himself, he never spoke with his children about the allegation against their mother, he testified in court.

"It wasn't mine to stop," he said. "This wasn't about me. I was concerned with anything that would be of danger to my children. I reacted with the best I knew to do at that time, which was cooperation."

As much as he hated it, when his children had questions or were upset about the case, he said he told them they had to talk with a professional therapist.

"We sheltered them from the news. We sheltered them from the media. We avoided that. They didn't see computers, television," he said.

Now, he said he wants Craft to be involved in the children's lives but doesn't want her to be more involved than he is.

Apparently, Garrett has read nothing of the depositions and trial testimony. She says nothing of the numerous hours that Henke spent talking to people like Sandra Lamb and the Wilsons, who were driving the whole case. She says nothing about all of the times that Henke denied Tonya and her parents visitation rights -- and that, too, is part of the record, even if the Garrett wants to ignore it.

The "professional therapist" of whom he speaks is Laurie Evans, who was so notorious in this case that not even the prosecution -- which openly suborned perjury -- was willing to put her on the stand as a prosecution witness. (The defense subpoenaed her as a hostile witness, and she proved to put on quite a spectacle on the stand.) It was Evans who managed to get Tonya's daughter to claim that not only had Tonya molested her, but that Tonya's mother also got in on the act, something that not even the prosecution was willing to swallow.

Garrett's biased account continued with this gem:

At times during Henke's cross-examination Tuesday, one of Craft's attorney's, Scott King, became so animated and aggressive, Circuit Court Judge Marie Williams told him he had to calm down.

"We are going to switch examiners if you can't keep it together," Williams told King.

It would have been instructive to the readers to understand just why Scott King was zeroing in on Joal Henke, but Garrett ignored something that was very, very important.

Henke, as I noted in my earlier post, claimed under oath that Tonya had failed to take the children to the doctor (even for "baby care" visits) for three years, which he wanted the court to believe was "proof" of neglect.

Scott King, however, was ready and had the medical records of the children in front of him and he had Joal read the dates of the visits. You see, the official record demonstrated beyond a doubt that Henke was lying, and when Henke pretended that he was having a hard time reading those records, Scott King became aggressive in his questioning, and who could blame him? That was when Judge Marie Williams cautioned Mr. King.

Unfortunately, Garrett tried to portray Mr. King as an out-of-control lawyer attacking a loving and caring father who simply was standing up against an alleged child molester. In other words, Garrett deliberately presented a false picture of what was happening.

At this point, I admit that I have passionate feelings about this case, but those feelings are rooted in the facts of what happened. I'm angry about it because prosecutors knowingly brought false charges, prosecution witnesses committed perjury with full knowledge and encouragement of prosecutors and the judge, and the judge tried to rig a conviction.

Don't trust my word on this point. Read the material yourself. Read the depositions, the interviews with the children, the police reports, trial transcripts, news stories, and the literature on false accusations. Read Sandra Lamb's statement regarding Eric Echols, and then watch the video of her encounter with Mr. Echols and then try to reconcile the two; It cannot be done.

My point is that I don't believe in Tonya's innocence because she is attractive or because of personal relationships. I believed in her innocence long before I ever met her or talked to her. All it took was a look at the record, and I understood.

Unfortunately, Joan Garrett is not one of those people who apparently has looked at anything. In reading the article today, I get the sense that she believes that maybe, just maybe, it was a situation of Tonya Craft "beating the rap." In her view, Ms. Craft definitely is not a sympathetic character, but rather just another lowlife trying to manipulate the system to get her kids.

Yes, I know that reporters are busy (and so am I and so is everyone else), but for Garrett to give the account she did is unconscionable. If she claims that she is not familiar with the depositions and trial testimony, then perhaps she should give the trial coverage to someone who is familiar with the material. But whatever the reason, be it ignorance or malice, Garrett and the TFP have proven that they are trying their best to rival Channel 9 for the Slimy Coverage Award in this case.

The LMJD and CAC Give Everyone Else the Middle Finger

[Update, Sunday May 9, 4:30 PM]: Lest anyone think that the "showgirls" at the CAC-LMJD fundraiser Friday are NOT wearing thongs, here is the picture that is shown for the promotion of the "fundraiser" on the Willow Tree Farms website. The photo is of "Elvis" and the "Showgirls," and look at their outfits:

What if a picture of Tonya Craft that was anywhere CLOSE to that had been in the prosecutors' hands? Does anyone think they would not have waved it in front of the jury? The stench of hypocrisy of the CAC and the LMJD can be smelled all the way up to my mountain home in Maryland.

[End Update]

I originally had limited this story to my previous post, but the more I think about the "Viva Las Vegas Casino Night fundraiser" for the Children's Advocacy Center (and co-sponsored by the Lookout Mountain Judicial District) is so reprehensible that it deserves a special look. If anyone needs more proof that the principals in both the CAC and the LMJD believe that they are hammers and everyone else is a nail, this "party," timed to coincide with the Tonya Craft trial, is proof.

For those just becoming familiar with this outrage, let me first remind you of some of the reasons that prosecutors Len Gregor and Chris Arnt (and, face it, Judge Brian House) are using to try to convince the jury that Tonya Craft molests children:

• She has gone to Las Vegas;

•  She allegedly has worn a thong (although the prosecutor only could allege it and never proved in court);

•  She drank alcohol at her wedding.

So, if these things are as evil as Gregor and Arnt have been insisting, we find that the LMJD and the CAC are hosting a big party which is described as following:

Lookout Mountain Judical Circuit and Children's Advocacy Center will host Casino Night, Viva Las Vegas on Friday (May 14) at 7 p.m. at Willow Tree Farm located on Post Oak Road in Ringgold.

There will be professional dealers, showgirls and Elvis. Games will include poker, roulette, craps, blackjack and Texas holdem tables.

Music will be provided by the Collins Brother Band.

Admission is $25 and includes food, fun money and entertainment. Drinks will be sold separately.

Casino Night is for adults 21 and up. (Emphasis mine)

Yes, showgirls wear thongs. There will be drinking of alcohol (and most likely the bartenders will create the very kind of vodka drink that prosecutors pointed out is "proof" that Ms. Craft sexually molests children). Furthermore, two things that are highly correlated with child abuse and neglect are alcoholism and habitual gambling, both of which are intertwined with the "Las Vegas experience."

So, here we have it. After weeks of being told that Tonya Craft is "immoral" (and, by association, a child molester) because of the things listed above, the very people who have made those claims are hosting a party which will celebrate all of the same things for which they condemn Ms. Craft. This is not an accident, people, nor an embarrassing coincidence. This party was planned at the same time that the prosecution -- working hand-in-hand with Brian House and the CAC -- was planning to smear Ms. Craft.

No, they are sending all of you a message: They will do what they darn well please, and the rest of you had better watch out. If anything, this demonstrates the utter contempt in which men like House, Arnt, Gregor, and every judge and prosecutor in the LMJD hold for regular, decent people who live in that district.

By the way, does anyone doubt that had Tonya Craft attended a party like this, that Len Gregor would not have thrown it into her face during his faux cross-examination? Yet, no one at the LMJD sees the irony here? Why am I not surprised?

It is not enough that the players of the CAC and the LMJD worked together to destroy a family financially and literally to steal a woman's children from her, and then tell those children over and over again that their mother abused them when all of them know they are lying. No, they have to engage in behavior that is geared to let everyone else know that they play by no rules, no laws but their own.

Furthermore, as Dr. Nancy Aldridge, Dr. Ann Hazzard, Dr. Nancy Fajman, and Dr. William Bernet told the jury, the methods with which the CAC "interviewers" examined the three children in this case were "sloppy," "misleading," and utterly devoid of the techniques that are supposed to be used in cases like this. What was the response of the representatives of the LMJD? That these experts were "lying," and that they lied for money.

So, not only do the CAC and the LMJD engage in hypocritical conduct in order to raise money, they also insist that people contribute to an organization which has incompetent, dishonest, and poorly-trained associates so that these people can go forth and engage in more false accusations against innocent people. So, if you believe that there are not enough innocent people in prison, if you believe that the rules don't apply to you, then by all means go to the party. You can meet the "heroic" Len Gregor, Brian House, and Chris Arnt. Wear a thong. Drink vodka. Do the excess to your heart's content because you can bet that these people won't be targeting you.

As we move into the fifth week of this sham of a trial, perhaps it is fitting that the end of these sorry events be celebrated with a fundraiser to honor the very people who have made this sorry spectacle possible. People who have their hearts set on doing evil might as well go all the way.

Tonya Craft Trial Travesty is Reported on the Criminal Justice Blog

Noah Arenstein, "a lawyer writing for change.org," has written on the Tonya Craft trial, calling it "A Travesty of Justice in Northern Georgia." He jumps right into the heart of this case, noting that it involves misconduct on behalf of the prosecutors and the judge:

At this point, Craft's trial has devolved into a ludicrous, back-and-forth character assassination of everyone involved. Prosecutors Chris Arnt and Len Gregor, in particular, have asked lurid and wholly irrelevant questions about Craft’s sexual history, while her attorneys have been barred from introducing evidence of Craft’s good character.

It gets better:

Craft’s trial has also seen a parade of so-called forensics experts act as effective cheerleaders for the prosecution. One expert who made an appearance, Holly Nave Kittle of the Children's Advocacy Center, was openly hostile to questions about her lack of credentials and was unfamiliar with any relevant child abuse literature. Neither did she help her credibility as a witness after she “liked” a public Facebook post by Arnt, in which he wondered “if Tonya Craft’s Defense [sic] lawyers are really insane of [sic] just trying to jack up her defense bill?” (Both Arnt and Kittle’s conduct likely violate Georgia's ethical rules.)

Another prosecution “expert” involved, Suzie Thorne, lacks a college degree, and her testimony seems highly suspect. When Thorne interviewed one of the children involved during a videotaped session, she asked the girl a whopping 16 times whether “anything else happened.” Each time, the child said no. However, Thorne testified that after she shut off the camera, the child left the room and then returned — suddenly remembering that yes, Craft had sexually abused her.

Fair enough. But then why didn't Thorne record this statement, or press the child for more information on camera?

We should also remember that — as a third prosecution expert testified — both children and adults are "equally susceptible to suggestion,” which you should keep in mind the next time your child asks about Santa Claus, the Boogeyman or the Tooth Fairy.

As I see it, there is a better chance that there is a Tooth Fairy than Tonya Craft is a child molester. Unfortunately, she is in a courtroom being run by men who molest the law.

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.

Tonya Craft: Looking at the Evidence: The Children's Testimonies

During cross-examination of a defense witness Thursday, Len Gregor asked the woman if she had seen the "evidence," or if she had simply made up her mind without it. It is ironic that Gregor ask that question, for in this series, I will demonstrate that there is NO evidence against Tonya Craft that should convict her of child molestation, provided the court is a place where the Rule of Law is followed.

It is further ironic that Gregor make that statement, because if anyone has ignored the evidence, it has been Gregor and Chris Arnt, who decided early on that they were going to convict Ms. Craft no matter where the evidence led, and they are sticking to that promise. The idea that they have conducted an authentic investigation is a joke, given that we are seeing many of the same patterns that were part of the "investigations" of the fake child molestation hysteria cases of the past, as well as the infamous Duke Lacrosse Case.

My series has some good researchers behind me, and while they are anonymous, nonetheless all are very, very qualified in their line of work, and I trust what they do. Furthermore, we will check our facts before writing on them.

In 1977, when I was a reporter with the former News-Free Press, I covered a preliminary hearing in which Jimmy Don Spangler, who later would be convicted of murder, was accused of molesting a child. The hearing took place in the late Judge Dixie Smith's Juvenile Courtroom, and the young girl, I believe about 7 or 8, testified.

Unlike the robotic and contradictory testimony that we have heard from the child accusers in the Tonya Craft case, the young girl spoke clearly and told the judge what the accused did to her. When it happened, no therapists were needed to ask the girl 16 questions, nor did the "disclosures" start from "nothing happened" to a bunch of wild tales. The testimony she gave to the interviewers after the incident happened -- and there was no doubt that it did -- was the same throughout.

In this post, I want to examine the accusing girls' testimonies in order to counter the prosecution's line that these girls went to their families and "reported" the abuse. Nothing like that happened, and Chris Arnt and Len Gregor know it. For that matter, Brian House knows it too, but the three of them have decided they want Tonya Craft to be convicted and go to prison, and they are determined that even the law itself will not get in their way.

It is important for readers to know that these three girls did not appear out of a vacuum. There is a specific reason they are the ones who are making the accusations, and it has to do with their parents and the sets of perverse incentives that come with custody battles over children.

About two decades ago, courts all over the country were trying people for child molestation charges in which the claims were unbelievable. In the McMartin case in Manhattan Beach, for example, there allegedly were secret tunnels where the children were taken (it turned out there were no tunnels under the building), babies were cooked in microwave ovens, and Raymond Buckey allegedly shot a horse in front of a bunch of children.

In the Little Rascals case, children allegedly were thrown to sharks, there was a "magic room" where all sorts of nasties took place, and Robert Kelly regularly stuck swords into the rectums of children. In Wenatchee, Washington, pastor Ronnie Robertson was supposed to be having grand orgies in church, shouting "Hallelujah" while adults were having sex with children. Kelly Michaels in New Jersey was feeding children cakes made of urine and feces.

The verdicts in these cases all were overturned, and it became obvious to nearly everyone involved that the whole thing had occurred because of two things: mass hysteria among mothers and extremely faulty methods of questioning by "forensic interviewers" and "therapists" that were designed to pry "disclosures" from children no matter what actually happened. It should surprise no one familiar with these horrible cases that the authorities in North Georgia are running over the same cliff.

In the Tonya Craft situation, people might reply: "Yes, those cases had extreme testimony, but none of the three children have said anything like that." That is true, but remember: in the beginning of the Craft investigation and the investigations into these other allegations, all of the children said the same thing at first: NOTHING HAPPENED.

Going back to the hearing I covered 33 years ago, there was no equivocating on behalf of the child, as I remember it well. The little girl did not need a "therapist" to "disclose," nor was she asked the same questions 16 times by someone who would take nothing but "Miss Tonya stuck her fingers here" or "Miss Tonya put her hand down my pants," and so on.

That should tell us something. The vast majority of authentic child molestation cases do not need the kind of manipulation, "I just remembered" testimony, and leading questions to get to the truth. The truth comes forth, as it often does.

With that in mind, let us examine not only to the things to which each child testified, but also how they got to that point. It is a sad story that began with two separate situations that came together. However, it could not have happened without the role of "investigators" who fall into a category of the advocates from Hell, people who decide first that children are sexually abused, and then find a way later to "prove" it.

Child #1 is the daughter of Sandra Lamb, who is at the center of this whole thing, and perhaps is the most person most motivated person in the mix. She is driven by a hatred of Ms. Craft and maybe she even believes Ms. Craft actually molested her daughter. I don't know; I don't have access to that woman's mind, and I think for that I can be thankful.

Like all of the children, this young lady, who also is a child actress, having played a role of an abused child in a movie, and has taken acting lessons. Now, Sandra Lamb testified (under oath, although that means nothing for prosecution witnesses in Brian House's court) that her daughter had taken no acting lessons, but the girl's IMBD resume clearly lists a number of people who have given this child, well, acting lessons.

One has to understand that if a child's mother will lie on the stand under oath (not that the judge nor prosecutors care), it is going to make me suspect of the entire testimony this girl gives, for if Sandra Lamb is trying to hide something that is available quickly on-line, what else is she hiding? Nonetheless, a mother's false testimony does not mean her child is telling whoppers.

I have not seen the child's testimony on video, and that is the situation for the two other girls as well. Nevertheless, I have talked to people who have seen the video, and will depend upon them at least for some interpretation.

As is the case with all three of the children, in the early interviews, she says that no sexual abuse happened. Unlike the child I saw testifying 33 years ago, this child had to be coaxed and, ultimately, given something akin to a script before she "disclosed" anything. Such a situation should set off all alarm bells for anyone who cares about valid testimony.

In reading the notes presented by reporters during this child's testimony, I read the following:

Child in video is asked whether there is anything else that happened to her.
Response: "I'm thinking."
Interviewer in video gets up and leaves. Comes back into shot and asks more questions.
Interviewer asks child how she knew something happened to her.
Girl says, "My momma told me (emphasis mine)."

The last line should make anyone wonder. From what I understand, at no time did this child (nor did the others) give the clear, concise and believable testimony that the child gave in Dixie Smith's courtroom more than three decades ago. Instead, it not only seemed contrives, but it was drawn out for more than a year.

This is important. While it is not unusual for a child at first to say that nothing happened (out of sheer embarrassment), according to the experts, nonetheless it would be quite out of the ordinary for a child's memories to improve as the year went on, which goes against everything that researchers know about the reliability of our memories.

Yet, that is the situation with all three of these girls who testified. Despite the claims of the prosecution that the defense wants to paint these children as liars who are part of some great "conspiracy" to frame Tonya Craft, the real problem is that the "interviewers" have used discredited techniques not to get at the truth, but rather to reach the conclusion that they, Sandra Lamb, Sherry Wilson, Jerry McDonald, the prosecutors, Brian House, and Joal Henke and his wife Sarah, wanted them to reach.

All of these people have had a vested interest in the outcome that the therapists reached. I believe that is important to point out. Most reputable investigators and psychologists take the information that they find and reach conclusions; however, as we have seen in other cases, the interviewers from the prosecutors' team of police and "child advocates" from the Children's Advocacy Centers begin with a conclusion, and then look for "evidence" to buttress their original conclusion.

As with the first child, the other two girls began the process by saying that nothing happened. In the case of the third girl, Tonya Craft's daughter, it especially is tragic. Not only did clinical psychologist Dr. Ann Hazzard (by request of Circuit Court Judge Marie Williams in Hamilton County) examine the child and conclude that she found NO EVIDENCE of sexual abuse (something to which Brian House refused to let her say in court Friday, lest Len Gregor and Chris Arnt be offended that a real expert contradicted the perjured testimony they had introduced earlier), but the child herself when first interviewed said something like: "Mommy did terrible things to me. I don't remember, but that is what my daddy tells me." (emphasis mine)

This should set off alarms everywhere. When a respected psychologist says one thing, but "interviewers" along with the child's father, Joal Henke, and his wife, Sarah Bass Henke, are telling the girl for a year that she WAS abused (and that she needed to tell that to investigators), something is not passing the smell test. I find it quite telling that Judge Brian House decided that Dr. Hazzard's conclusions regarding this child were not credible, but the conclusions of motivated people like the Henkes (who have gained full custody of the girl) have full credibility.

People who have seen the videos of the children tell me that something is wrong with the children's demeanors and the way they are speaking. When a child is describing what should be terribly traumatic events and sits quietly coloring as though she is talking about the weather, we should be suspect of something.

True, the "advocates" always have a tale to tell us. When Crystal Mangum claimed a number of mutually-exclusive accounts of how the Duke lacrosse players raped her, the "advocates" assured us that traumatized women who have been raped are confused and tell a bunch of different stories. Later, her promoters claimed that she never had deviated from her first account, and, somehow, the "advocates" insisted that both situations were equally true and constituted "proof" of the rape claims.

Likewise, we are told that these children were so traumatized, that someone needed to give them a script, "mommy" had to tell them what to say, and that we are supposed to "believe the children" because, after all, children always tell the truth. Never mind that these children, to a person, started with "nothing happened," and within a year, were saying what the adults wanted to hear and telling a much different story, complete with descriptions of events that medically or physically just could not happen (like Tonya Craft placing her entire fist into a little girl's vagina).

The issue with the children's testimonies, no matter what Len Gregor will claim in his closing remarks, is not whether they are lying, but rather who told them what to say in the first place. The record is clear: children are susceptible to interviewers who implant false memories.

For example, while the notion that Ray Buckey shot and killed a horse in the middle of a daycare session was ludicrous, nonetheless the child who claimed such a thing while testifying in court years later continued to insist his tale was true. Was the boy "lying"? No, as a lie goes to intent. Instead, as a young boy, he was manipulated by an interviewer with an agenda, just as the interviewers at the Children's Advocacy Centers in North Georgia are notorious for having agendas.

When Dr. Demosthenes Lorandos in his cross-examination of the interviewers from the CAC asked them if they were familiar with the child molestation hoaxes of two decades ago, to a person, they said they were not. They were not familiar with any literature on interviewing, as it seemed to them to be a distraction from pursuing their agenda that all children (except those of their political allies) are sexually abused, and it is up to them to prove it.

In the end, the issue is not the truthfulness of the children, for they are saying what the adults want them to say. As for the truthfulness of the adults who are pushing this case, that is another story.

[Update: May 2, 7:00 AM]: The commentator named Kerwyn, who actually is a SANE in another state (whose courts tend to have higher justice standards than do courts in North Georgia), makes an important point. Following her second arrest, Ms. Craft had both her children taken from her, and she wanted to have visitation rights. She went to circuit court in Hamilton County and Judge Marie Williams, who apparently took her job as a judge seriously, unlike Brian House.

I include some of Kerwyn's comments below:

I am not sure exactly what happened but, Judge Williams ruled CAC's Laurie Evans was not credible and ordered her to have NO contact with the Craft Children. Dr. Ann Hazzard interviewed these children at that time. THIS testimony was what the prosecutors (Arnt and Gregor) and the judge (House) refused to allow the Jury to hear.

She adds this point:

I guess it has NO bearing on this case that Craft brought this up FIRST against Sarah Henke complete with CAC interviews. That interviewer somehow pissed the judge of to the point of getting a no contact order? Wow... Oh and that doesn't apply to THIS case.

Again, I find it interesting myself that House has restricted ANY expert medical and psychological testimony that contradicts what Arnt and Gregor are presenting. For all of his "I will let the jury decide" which testimony is credible and which is not, House seems to be going out of his way to make sure that the jury does not hear testimony that does not help the people who are running this trial: the prosecutors and the "witnesses" such as Sandra Lamb, Kelly McDonald, and Sherry Wilson.

But Why Would Anyone Bring False Charges? Part II: The Police, Prosecutors, and "judge" Brian House

In dealing with the obvious question of, "Why would people bring false charges?" I noted that the parents of the accusing children had plenty of incentives to do what they did. Granted, they actually believed they would see Tonya Craft convicted and sent to life in prison, and are stunned that the tables now are turned upon them.

Why were they so sure of a conviction? They knew that the players of the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit would do everything to grease the skids of the Tonya Railroad, as they have been quite successful in doing that for years. It is very difficult for someone to beat a tag team of police, prosecutors, and judges, and Sandra Lamb, Joal Henke and company simply bet on the odds.

The other day, I received an email from someone who has a friend with personal connections to the LMJC and the emailer told me that the people from the judges to the police are trying to say that Tonya really was guilty. To increase the intensity of this howler, they are claiming that they had evidence of "horrible" things Tonya had done, but were not allowed to bring it into the trial.

That, my dear readers, is a crock of you-know-what. As shall be done in a future post, we are going to deal with the "mystery fourth victim" and explain why prosecutors did not bring that into "evidence." This so-called disclosure was so ridiculous and so full of holes that "Facebook" and "The Man" understood that even under the "House Rules," the defense would shred it to bits.

Since when did "judge" brian house (from now on, his name is always in lower-case) not give the prosecutors what they wanted? They were permitted to add "I just remembered" testimony from Suzi Thorne and Joal Henke, they suborned perjury, and they also knew that house would prevent the defense from entering into evidence material that would demonstrate beyond a doubt that the prosecution's witnesses were lying.

The notion that house would prevent ANYTHING that he believed could help convince a jury to convict Tonya Craft is so laughable that I am surprised that even a perjurer like Tim "Dirty" Deal would be spreading that lie. Furthermore, the insistence of the LMJC players from police to the judges (yes, even the judges are trying to claim it was an "O.J. Verdict," from what my sources tell me) that Ms. Craft "did it" tells me that the ENTIRE "justice" and "law enforcement" apparatus of the LMJC is incapable of being able to differentiate between truth and lies.

If these people really, truly believe that Tonya Craft molested these children, and that the "I just remembered" nonsense and the sudden appearance of "documents" written to fill the holes and being permitted into "evidence" by "judge" house were true, then they literally cannot tell the difference between fantasy and truth. Now, I will say that I have no confidence at all in American "justice" and the government employees who work to throw people into prison, many of them innocent. However, I cannot get myself to believe that "Dirty" Deal, Det. Steven Keith, "Facebook," "The Man," and "judge" house are unable to differentiate between false and true evidence.

Furthermore, if they really believed Ms. Craft was a child molester, then why did they have to suborn and commit perjury? Why did "Facebook" and "The Man" lie to jurors in their closing arguments? Why did they not ask ANY questions of substance David and Tonya Craft when they were on the witness stand being cross-examined? Why was "Facebook" giving hand signals to "judge" house the entire trial to help direct him?

Why did "judge" house grant the prosecution almost ALL of its objections and almost NONE to the defense? Why did "judge" house sanction the defense for innocuous comments but permitted prosecutors to scream, throw down books on tables, roll their eyes, yell at witnesses, insult the defense counsel, and generally make a mockery of justice?

Why? They wanted to win. Winning brings federal money to the LMJC, and when Buzz Franklin came into office and declared that the LMJC was going to emphasize child abuse and molestation cases, he was not doing it for love of children. But, there is another reason besides money, although I am sure that greed partly drove this and other such cases in the circuit.

The LMJC players are the kind of dishonest people who manage to self-select themselves into the line of work in which they are protected by immunity. Think about it. Cops are notorious for lying on the stand under oath (cops like to call it "testilying" -- their term), yet it is a very rare thing when a police officer is indicted for perjury or even sanctioned. Prosecutors who suborn perjury receive at most a slap on the wrist, and the courts jealously guard the immunity of their own.

So, we are supposed to marvel when a serial liar like Det. Jim Broderick is indicted for perjury for giving false testimony that led to the wrongful conviction of Tim Masters in Colorado. Yet, at least Larimer County grand jury was willing to investigate wrongdoing by police and prosecutors; one can bet that a grand jury of the LMJC (with all its good church-going "Christians") would cover up lies and outright crimes of public officials.

I believe that the players of the LMJC have moved to the Point of No Return in which they no longer care about telling the truth. They just love to win; the whole thing is a game to them, a "heads I win, tails you lose" game that attracts the worst of the worst. For some people, that is incentive enough.

Henry Wade, the "legendary" prosecutor of Dallas County, Texas, was supposed to have coined the saying, "Any prosecutor can convict a guilty person. It takes a GREAT prosecutor to convict an innocent person," and his office had enough wrongful convictions to prove it. (The Oscar-winning documentary, "The Thin Blue Line," forcefully showed a wrongful conviction in action. It is worth seeing if you really are a True Believer that prosecutors would not purposely seek a conviction against an innocent person.)

I am sure that "Facebook" and "The Man" believe they are Great Prosecutors. After all, the LMJC has a 98 percent conviction rate, and they supposedly are the Great Heroes Saving Children From Child Molesters. The local press has treated them like gods, but they finally overstepped even their limits and came up against a determined defendant and a crack defense team that put those prosecutors in their places.

And it was not just the direct participants who worry me. We saw one judge of the LMJC being sanctioned, and she was the one who presided over the wrongful conviction of Brad Wade. (Yes, Brad Wade was wrongfully convicted, unless you want to believe that Stacy Long of the Children's Advocacy Center, and Len Gregor are honest people.)

For that matter, the original judge in the Tonya Craft case recused himself because at the time he was dating...Laurie Evans. Yes, Evans had him convinced that Ms. Craft was a sociopath (her explanation of why Ms. Craft passed two lie detector tests), as though Evans has any credibility herself.

So, we have an entire judicial circuit full of people who apparently see no problem in lying and suborning perjury, who chase after rabbit trails of "evidence," and who have no problem lying to jurors and then excoriating them when they acquit an obviously-innocent defendant. This is an utter disgrace, but it tells us something about human nature: If one gives people immunity from their actions along with nearly-unlimited power, then no one should be surprised when they gravitate to doing evil.

Who Is Holly Kittle? Part II

My earlier post on Holly Kittle apparently has struck a nerve with some people in the LMJC, with one of Kittle's supporters writing:

Mr. Slanderson,
You continue to be both judge and jury for those invovled (sic) in these cases. You talk about the Bible as if you may know it but you tend to judge others more than any other person I have had the displeasure of listening rant their nonsense. You have found your 15 minutes of fame and are now running with it acting as your (sic) are the swift justice to save North Georgia and all "innocent" child molesters (because your logic seems to believe their [sic] is no such thing as child molestation, maybe you are a child molester and thats (sic) why you have this strong view on the topic, yet I feel you have crossed a line with your latest blog. I hope God judges you as harshly as you judge others.

The point that Kittle's supporters are making if this: if someone is accused of being a child molester, then the person is automatically guilty and anyone who disagrees is doing so because that person also is a child molester. This is what passes for "law and justice" in Kittleworld.

(Important: I have concentrated on three child molestation cases in the LMJC, Tonya Craft, James Combs, and Brad Wade, even though there have been others. The reason is twofold: first, I cannot deal with every case, and, second, I believe that some of the other cases are legitimate. The ones I have emphasized have featured either contradictory or utterly implausible testimony, prosecution-suborned perjury, "expert" prosecution witnesses who should not be permitted inside a courtroom, and misconduct by prosecutors and judges. Unfortunately, Kittle's supporters have translated that into my being a child molester.)

The question is this: Why am I featuring Kittle and why am I speaking out so harshly against her? My sense is that Kittle and her friends believe I am treating her unjustly, but in this situation, justice seems to be in the eye of the beholder. I believe strongly that Kittle's behavior during her cross-examination in during the Tonya Craft trial reflected both ignorance of how her job should be carried out and arrogance that she seemed to believe that no one ever should question her.

Furthermore, by publicly approving the comments in Chris Arnt's Facebook forum when he attacked Tonya Craft and her defense, Kittle not only acted unprofessionally but also was guilty of misconduct for someone in her line of work. That she was nasty, arrogant, and haughty during her testimony only confirms to me that Kittle, like so many others in the LMJC, believes that the law only applies to those who are not part of the "injustice" system. In a real court of law, she would not be permitted to testify at all, at least as an "expert."

Why do I believe her to be incompetent? First, as I will point out in this post, her interview with Sandra Lamb's daughter on, quite appropriately, April Fool's Day, 2009, violated all standards of forensic interviewing and NEVER should have been entered into evidence as "proof" that Tonya Craft had molested anyone.

Second, Kittle admitted during her testimony that she did not keep current on literature, and then later told Arnt (on re-direct) that she had been reading up-to-date materials. However, when asked by Dr. Demosthenes Lorandos the titles of what she supposedly had been reading, Kittle had no recollection. This is not someone who actually is trying to find the truth; this is someone who believes her job is to try to fix a case for the prosecution, and people like that have no problem with fudging the truth or even outright lying (since they know they won't be charged with perjury).

For the sake of length, I will not include the transcript of Kittle's interview with Lamb's daughter, but it is available here, and the interview and the comments that I wrote afterward (with help from an experienced analyst not connected with the Craft case) put the whole thing into perspective.

What the child told Kittle was absolutely preposterous, yet Kittle was all ears. However, I did not point out in that article that Kittle violated an important protocol in the forensic interviewing of young children: she left the room during the interview, not once, but twice.

In the Chattanoogan's account of Kittle's testimony, we have this gem:

The young child, six years old at the time of the alleged incident, told the interviewer that Ms. Craft had inserted all of her fingers in her ‘privates’ and one finger in her rear. The defense would later question the physical possibilities of this happening. The witness told the defense counsel that she had never considered that possibility. (Emphasis mine)

So, here is an "expert" who never considers the possibility that a "hand rape" such as what was described was even physically possible, and if it actually happened, why there was not severe damage to the child's private parts. Instead, Kittle acted like a stenographer while claiming to be a well-trained "forensic interviewer."

Likewise, I suppose that when Kittle interviewed the two boys who are claiming that Mr. Combs molested them in a classroom, it never occurred to her that since the room was full of children, perhaps others might have witnessed such a scene. Why didn't a bunch of children come forward? While I don't have access to the transcript of that interview, nonetheless I have no doubt that Kittle was both incompetent and dishonest, seeing her job as helping Buzz Franklin's office railroad Mr. Combs into prison.

After the trial, Kittle gave an interview to WDEF-TV that demonstrated her own arrogance:

Holly Kittle says, "I do not go into an interview searching for anything. In fact, I go into an interview hoping that this has not happened."

Holly Kittle is a forensic interviewer for the Children's Advocacy Center and interviewed one of Tonya Craft's accusers about a year after the allegations came out.

She says she's trained to the Children's Advocacy of Georgia standards. Kittle says she asks the kids open ended questions, not leading or suggestive ones like Craft's defense suggested.

Kittle says, "I felt like I was personally attacked, but my interview and my job was minimally attacked."

Kittle says she keeps and open mind and even looks into an alternative hypothesis.

Kittle says, "I know how to do my job, and I know that I was trained to do my job, and I do my job to the best of my ability."

So, even to QUESTION what clearly was a sub-standard "forensic interview" was to personally attack Kittle. Yet, in doing research for an article on the Craft case, Kittle's interview stood out (as did the rest of the CAC interviews, including those by Stacy Long and Suzi Thorne) as how NOT to interview children.

Believe it or not, I am not motivated by a personal animosity toward Holly Kittle, although I will say openly I have nothing but contempt for her and her CAC and LMJC colleagues. Instead, I am attacking the quality of her work and the fact that she is part of a machine that seeks to destroy people who clearly are innocent of the crimes of which they are accused.

Kittle, because of her job, has the power to help destroy innocent lives. However, I get the sense that she really enjoys the influence and "prestige" that being a "forensic interviewer" brings. Because the consequences of destroying innocent lives are so great, I believe that someone must speak out when people like Kittle are acting in an unprofessional and haughty manner and promoting false testimony instead of the truth. That is what I am doing, and I don't care if some people in North Georgia don't like it.