Tonya Craft Trial: Spoliation of Evidence? Part II

     There was a reason why I wrote the previous "scenario" like I did. The whole scene seemed just really bizarre to me. I honestly can't imagine any professional I've ever worked with behaving like that.

   When I look at a certain case, or situation, I tend to look closely at the behavior of each of those involved and ask myself if their behavior makes any sense. Is it logical? Is it believable?

    What we had in this situation were two professionals interviewing an alleged victim at the time. Description of the scene was written in the previous post. Detective Keith had been with the Sheriff's Department since 1999 and Ms. Thorne had completed almost 1000 interviews. These are two people who should certainly have known interviewing protocol backwards and forwards.

     I find it extremely difficult to believe that both of these experienced professionals simply forgot all of a sudden. I mean, we all forget things, even while doing a case. But both of them? At the same time? I'm sorry, It just doesn't make any sense to me. It's not logical. And it's not believable.

    So, I did what I usually do and try to put myself in their place. I take a good look at the facts of the case. Then I ask myself questions like:

1. What would suddenly make me totally disregard protocol, possibly jeopardizing my job and career?
2. What would I be thinking if that child came running back, from her mother, to suddenly disclose digital penetration out of the blue? Especially, after I had just asked her sixteen times if there was anything else!
3. Would I be suspicious?
4. Then again, why did Ms. Thorne ask her that question sixteen times? That's excessive.
5. Since there supposedly was a disclosure with Holly Kittle on April 1, 2009, would that info have already reached Ms. Thorne and Detective Keith prior to the interview?
6. Could that possibly be why Ms. Thorne asked the child if there was anything else sixteen times? Was she trying to get the child to make the same disclosure?
7. Could that be why Ms. Thorne did not turn on the video again?
8. And could that be why Detective Keith didn't think to remind her? Or turn in any notes of the disclosure? Could it posssibly be that he questioned the child's story?

          There is a reason why I wrote about the waiting room area and the fact that our own DSS waiting room was just outside the door. Whenever our kids came out, it was maybe all of about five seconds that they were at my side. Once they were out the door, the door closed and that was it. We were out of there.

   I have no idea what the lay out is of their facility. However, considering that we're dealing with a young child at the time, I doubt the child would have just been left to return to her mother, then back to Ms. Thorne, on her own, if there had been any distance. Kids aren't allowed to go roaming far by themselves.

   And, like I said, if it had been me, I would have taken the child by the hand back to the interviewer. In fact, as a parent or foster parent, had I known about such a disclosure, I would have made sure the interviewer was aware of it myself.

   Come to think of it, I did do that, only by telephone, when I observed abnormal behavior the very first day I had the siblings. It seems very strange to me that any mother wouldn't have gone to Ms. Thorne's door with her child.

     The reason I pointed this out in my post is that it appears that by the time the child returned, the detective was already in the room and Suzie Thorne was labeling DVD's. So, it seems to me that it must have taken the child more than a few seconds to return.

    Which indicates to me that the child possibly spent more than a just few seconds with the mother before she suddenly "remembered" that particular something she forgot to tell Ms. Thorne.