5 Most Frequently Asked Questions

It’s really easy to make the leap from encountering an accused child molester to believing in his guilt without any proof.  Most of us would listen to a child that reports abuse, and would tend to not believe the accused until he proves his innocence.  If we are being real, that is how people work.

Here are five reasons to investigate and understand that prove Tim’s innocence of the crimes of which he was convicted.  These are all items that we begged our lawyer (Bernie McEvoy) to push harder on, which he refused to do to the extent required:

1.  What could possibly make someone falsely report a sexual crime?  Well, money could.  And this whole case is definitely about MONEY.

Tim bought a house in Tennessee, a rental property that he intended to make money leasing to eventually buy more rental properties, as was his plan for several years at that point. Jennifer Snyder Astle (presently of Cocoa, FL) asked to lease this property from Tim for her and her three daughters.  Knowing that Jennifer was a recovering drug addict, Tim required her to prove that she was serious about being serious.  He told her to go to school for a semester, she did, and she told him that she had a job lined up not far from the rental house.  She reassured Tim that she received $900 in child support each month, plus Federal Food Assistance, and TennCare for her kids’ health insurance, so rent would never be a problem.  She had also gotten several thousand dollars from Federal Student Aid loans for going back to school.  Tim rented to Jennifer, and Jennifer signed a legal lease with Tim in September of 2008 for use of 2026 Lintwood at $700 a month paid exclusively by bank deposit into a dedicated account.

Jennifer couldn’t pay September 2008 rent, however, because the job she said she had waiting for her failed to materialize and she didn’t expect moving would cost so much.  Tim forgave her this one month and made her first month due the beginning of October 2008, expressing to her that this house wasn’t free for her and her children.  She didn’t have the money on the due date of October 1 because of some sob story, so Tim said she could pay him October 25, a day before his mortgage payment was due.  She didn’t pay October.  Or November.  During this time he found out she had dropped out of school and gone back to using drugs regularly.  They began to speak a great deal about finances, and Tim was keeping track of what Jennifer owed him, structuring a payment plan for her to pay off the debt in increments while remaining in the house.  She agreed to the payment plans, but did not follow through with the payments.

Tim planned to evict her in January because he couldn’t throw 3 kids out on the street before Christmas.  She paid partial rent in December, and in that month her boyfriend “Bobbo” caught a discussion between Tim and Jen about rent as he was filming dumb cat tricks.  In it, Jen says she’s going to get a tax refund and will give it all to Tim since she was behind.  That never materialized.  Tim, still trying to help her, got her a job at a gas station he held sway with, and she was able to pay partial rent for January and February 2009.  Then Jen had the brilliant idea to play scratch-off lotto tickets while on duty and was fired from the job in the middle of February 2009.  She had paid only 2.5 months of rent in the 6 months she was his tenant and had just lost the job he bent over backwards to get her.

March came and no rent was in the bank.  Jennifer told Tim over the phone that it was, but the bank statement of the rental account clearly did not show that to be true.  Tim drove from Missouri to the rental house in Tennessee on March 11th, and that day in the living room she maintained her lie to him that the March rent was in the bank as Tim brought up the account on his phone to physically show her that it was not.  Tim asked her where the $900 child support checks were going, where her student loan money went, lectured her on how mortgages work and that he wasn’t able to cover for her even if he wanted to, which he didn’t.  Jen got mad, and also got silent. Tim called her to the carpet, and told Jennifer that she needed to pay the March rent and all the back rent, giving her the absolute final due date of March 25.  Since he knew she wasn’t going to be able to do that, he told her to get ready to move.  That was the last conversation Jen Astle and Tim Guilfoy ever had in person and it ended in steely silence.

One week later, Jennifer called the Clarksville, TN police and accused Tim of raping all of her kids.  Jennifer therefore wasn’t forced to pay March rent ($850), 2.5 months of back rent ($2125), or rent for the next 3 months ($2550)when she still lived in Tim’s house and he was in jail.  Jennifer had a motive of saving $5525 rent in sending Tim into the hands of a bloodlusting State justice system.

Tim was billed $8500 by the State of Tennessee for “Victims’ Services,” which is travel, counseling, and miscellaneous.  That means Jennifer Astle received at least $14,000 worth of rent and who knows what on Tim’s dime.  That’s a motive for a drug addicted unemployed single mother.  (In addition, Tim was charged $15,000 for court costs…for the privilege of being falsely convicted.)  When Jennifer Astle finally moved out of Tim’s house in late June 2009, she caused approximately $2,000 in property damage, and left trash, dirty diapers, and food to rot in the un-air-conditioned Tennessee indoor summer.  She also happened to leave behind her receipt for the child support money she received in March 2009 ($900), and a letter from the State Counseling office saying that they were concerned that she hadn’t shown up with her daughters for their State-provided victim’s counseling.

2.  “But what about the children?  This isn’t something a mother would put her children through!”

Yes, let’s please talk about the children.

Prior to Tim and Jennifer’s March 2009 discussion about rent, the three girls looked forward to seeing Tim all the time.  Pictures exist of Tim and Jennifer and their friends and the girls even a month prior to the accusations laughing and mugging for the camera during house construction projects Tim was doing.  They all had been neighbors a few years back, so they were all friends, the kids included.  They never feared Tim prior to the eviction discussion of March 11, 2009, yet their allegations were that the abuse was happening for years.

None of the girls can say what months or years or school years the abuse occurred.  None of them know how old they were.  None of the girls could remember if it was spring, summer, fall, or winter.  The girls admitted they could only remember things about the abuse after talking about it with the prosecutor, their mom, or by watching their forensic interview videos from the time of the police report several years prior.  The judge ruled that due to their age (11 & 12) the prosecutors could ask leading questions to which the girls only had to answer with one word or phrase, so they never gave an actual narrative, but just followed the lawyer’s cues.  The most specific they got about the allegations was that “he touched my private with his hand.”  Every time they retold the stories, Tim was wearing different clothing, sometimes describing clothes he never owned.  One child kept changing details about what she was wearing, each time that she was “positive” about what she wore.  That same child testified about one story that Tim only touched her on the outside, but in later testimony about the same event said that he went all the way in and swore up and down she never said he didn’t.  Another child said that she didn’t remember anything about “like, what happened.”  The same girl on the stand smiled at Tim when she identified him in court, said that he was a good friend, and said that she didn’t want him to be in trouble anymore.

The girls claim that Tim never touched them the times he was all alone with them, but only when there were other adults in the house, and sometimes when there were other people in the same room, sitting on the same couch.  They said Tim never touched himself in their presence.  They never described anything close to witnessing of Tim an erection, masturbation, or ejaculation.  They say Tim never asked them to keep secrets, never gave them extravagant presents, never asked them about boyfriends or sex, never made them feel uncomfortable, never looked at them weird, and never touched anywhere on their bodies except sticking only one finger in their vaginas.

In many stories, things just don’t make sense.  In the following and in later clarifying testimony, one girl said she was sitting on Tim’s lap, was definitely wearing long pants, and Tim stuck his arm down the back of her pants, put his arm through her legs in her pants, went through her underwear and touched her vagina on the skin.  She says this happened in the living room during the day while her sisters were sitting next to her on the couch (they never mentioned witnessing this nor were ever asked about it during trial), there was no blanket over them, and her mom, mom’s boyfriend, and possibly grandmother were also present in the small house:

Direct Examination of Child 1

8 Q. Do you remember a time when he touched you in a
9 different way?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can you tell us about that?
12 A. In my living room, I would sit on his lap, and he
13 would put his hand in the back and go to the front.
14 Q. When you say he put his hand in the back, what do you
15 mean?
16 A. Like put his hands in the back of my pants and then go
17 to the front.
18 Q. How did his hand get in the back of your pants to the
19 front of your pants, or to the front? When you are saying
20 “the front,” what do you mean, “the front”?
21 A. He put his hand under my legs.
22 Q. Like under your bottom, kind of?
23 A. (Nods in the affirmative).
24 Q. Where was his hand kind of in relation to your legs?
25 Does that make sense?
1 A. No.
2 Q. What was his hand touching after he went from the back
3 to the front?
4 A. My private.
5 Q. You say you were in the living room when that
6 happened?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you remember where anybody else was?
9 A. I am pretty sure my sisters were out there, but I
10 don’t think they saw, but I don’t know. If my mom was out
11 there — I don’t think so.
12 Q. Do you remember if anybody was there in the room with
13 you when that happened, other than Tim?
14 A. I think maybe my sisters were on the couch, watching
15 TV or something.
16 Q. Did you say anything when that happened?
17 A. No.
18 Q. What did you do?
19 A. I don’t know.
20 Q. How did that stop? Do you remember?
21 A. I just get up.
22 Q. [Child], do you remember going on a camping trip? [Reddick moves to another, less “troublesome” topic…]

July TT, JA, p. 13 line 8-p. 14 line 22

If you can’t picture how that’s logically and physically possible, I’m totally with you on that.  Tim got 10.5 years for that physically impossible story.

Most importantly, some guided versions of one girl’s stories described deep insertion that would tend to leave some sort of physical evidence, or cause them immense and lasting pain.  At their physicals (done as an afterthought a month after the indictments), there showed no evidence of any such physical damage or injury whatsoever.  Also important, the oral histories given at their physicals did not match that of the ones testified to at trial, which did not match their stories as told to the forensic interviewers.  There are no less than four stories of each alleged event and none of them are consistent from telling to telling. No matter what changed in their stories, the forensic interviewer and medical examiner took great pains to explain that no matter the inconsistencies it all meant that Tim could have and likely did whatever they claimed.

Not all children who allege abuse are liars, not by a longshot, but these three particular children lied.  They likely did it because their mom needed them to, she was also telling lies about Tim, and it was no big deal to her.  They did their family duty by getting up on the stand and making things up on the fly to get Tim convicted like their mom wanted.  From statements they made directly following the accusations, it’s very possible that each girl believed it was her sister or sisters who was touched by Tim, knowing that he hadn’t touched them.  It’s quite possible they didn’t fully or in any way realize the gravity of telling untrue stories about Tim.  In any case, the fear of calling a child a liar is paralyzing to so many people–I’ll bet some of you are still mad about the first sentence of this paragraph–and we’ve got to get past that and ask ourselves:  did these children lie?  Yes, they did.  Often and clearly.

Most convincingly, since the conviction I have been contacted by multiple friends of Jennifer and her children who wished to privately let me know that they think the Astles lied, and simply let the lie get very out of hand rather than end Tim’s persecution.  At least two of these people have offered to testify on Tim’s behalf should we receive a new trial (Edit 2020: Five people have offered).  They all reported that group discussions of Jen’s friend groups after the conviction all agreed that this is something Jen would do and put her kids up to. Each has let me know individually that they now think Tim is innocent. More than one of these people have said that the Astle motto is “you do anything you need to for your family,” and that they felt most betrayed by Jen when they learned that Tim did NOT outright confess to raping all three kids like she told everyone he did. I am most encouraged by a former friend of an Astle who has come forward with proof of the Astle plan to lie under oath. I just have to say that the people who have come forward to me have amazed me with their courage and bravery. It is hard to do the right thing, and helping Tim is definitely the right thing. If you knew Jen Astle during this time and have any information that may help Tim get his life back, please contact me and I will keep your name confidential. She is the only one who broke the law here, not you.

3.  If your daughter told you one morning while you were getting her ready for school that someone you know had touched her inappropriately, you would be shocked and instantly your lives would change, right?  You would hug her and cry with her and tell her that she did the right thing by telling you and start right away putting together a plan to care for your child.  Your instinct takes over.  You of course forget about her going to school that day and put them in the car, no matter when the touching had occurred, and drive to the emergency room while you’re calling 911 to have the cops meet you there.  There is too much at stake to think about anything else but your child’s safety and well-being.

Or, would your maternal instinct instead tell you to put her on the bus to go to school like nothing had happened?

The second scenario is what Jennifer’s daughters testified happened.  Two daughters had the same story.  For once.  One morning as they were standing in the front yard where the school bus stopped, Mom asked them if Tim ever touched them .  They say yes.  Mom cries, tells her boyfriend, and then the girls get on the bus and go to school.

Child 1, July Trial Direct Examination

10 Q. Your grandpa told your mom something.
11 And then did your mom talk to you about what he had
12 told her?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What did she do when you told your mom?
15 A. She told her boyfriend. And then we went to school,
16 and she picked us up early.

July 2011 TT, JA, p. 20, lines 10-16


Child 2, July Trial Direct Examination

5 Q. Tell us about the day you told your mom.
6 A. I was going to the bus stop. And my grandfather had
7 just called her and told her. And she went to my little
8 sister and me and asked me if it was true. And I couldn’t say
9 it, so my little sister told her. And then we just talked for
10 a few seconds and then told my mom’s ex-boyfriend. And then
11 we went to school. And later that day, she came to pick us up
12 and picked my big sister up and then we went to counseling.

July 2011 TT, TA, p. 21, lines 5-12

The second trial yielded similar but not exact stories:

Child 1, October Trial Direct Examination

13 Q. At some point, though, did you tell your mom?
14 A. After my grandfather told her, he didn’t say the
15 name, I told her.
16 Q. Tell me what you remember about telling your
17 mom.
18 A. Me and [Child 2]were going to go to school. And
19 she — I guess Brian called. And she came outside and
20 asked me and [Child 2] what happened.
21 And [Child 2] – and we didn’t want to tell her,
22 but then I ended up telling her.
24 THE COURT: Say that again.
25 WITNESS: We — me and my sister were going to
Page 37
1 go to school. And my mom came outside and asked us what
2 happened.
4 Q. (By Ms. Reddick:) So it was the morning time,
5 before school?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Where were you and [Child 2]?
8 A. We were in the front yard, at our been bus stop.
9 Q. You were waiting for the bus in the front yard?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. What do you remember about your mom coming out
12 there?
13 A. She just came outside and asked us what
14 happened.
15 Q. Did you know what she was talking about when she
16 asked you what happened?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did you know she had talked to your grandfather?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What did she do when you told her?
21 A. We went to school. And she took us out early,
22 when we got to school.
23 Q. What did she do immediately, when you first told
24 her? What was the first thing she did?
25 A. She told her boyfriend.
1 Q. How did she act?
2 A. She was crying.
3 Q. What were you and [Child 2] doing when your mom was
4 crying?
5 A. We were actually at our bus stop because we
6 couldn’t — like we had to go to school.
7 Q. So you thought you still needed to go to school?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Your mom started crying, and you went on to
10 school?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. What happened next? What happened later that
13 day?
14 A. When we got to school, at about like ten or
15 something, my mom came and got me and [Child 2] at school.
16 Q. What did you do after she came and got you at
17 school?
18 A. We went home. And she called the cops, Ginger.

October TT, p. 37 line 16-p. 39 line 18


Child 2, October Trial Direct Examination

25 Q. Can you tell us about the day that your mom
1 found out?
2 A. We were about to go to school.
3 Q. Who is “we”?
4 A. Me and my little sister.
5 Q. [Child 1]?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. We were on our way, like going to the bus stop.
9 And my grandfather had called my mom. He had told her
10 that something had happened to us and that we needed to
11 tell her, she needed to ask us about it.
12 She came up to us right before we got on the
13 bus. And she asked us. And we told her — my little
14 sister told her what had happened. And she started
15 crying.
16 Q. What did you do when your mom started crying?
17 A. I started crying.
18 Q. What did [Child 1] do when you and your mom
19 started crying?
20 A. Crying.
21 Q. So you were all crying?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Then what happened after that?
24 A. She told her ex-boyfriend.
25 Q. He wasn’t her ex-boyfriend then, was he? He was
1 her boyfriend at the time?
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. Is that Bob-o?
4 A. Yeah.
5 Q. Where was he?
6 A. He was in the house, doing dishes.
7 Q. Were you worried about Bob-o finding out?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Why?
10 A. Because next time like he seen him, he would
11 have done something.
12 Q. So you were worried Bob-o might have done
13 something?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What do you mean? Done what?
16 A. Like started fighting with him.
17 Q. So anyway, Bob-o found out.
18 And what happened after that?
19 A. My mom just — we got on the bus and went to
20 school.
21 And then later that day, my mom came and picked
22 me up.
23 Q. Did she pick you up early from school?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. What happened after she picked you up early?
1 A. We went to the DA’s office.
2 Q. What happened first? Did you go straight to the
3 –
4 A. I think we went home. But I am not too sure.
5 Q. Did you know at that time if your mom was going
6 to call the police?
7 A. Yeah.

October TT, p. 113, line 25-p. 116 line 7

Even Brian Schiff’s recollection in July seems to support the girls’ stories (somewhat):

12 Q. Tell the jury about your conversation with Jennifer?
13 A. I spoke to Jennifer and I told Jennifer that I had
14 something to tell you. And says, “What,” you know, that type
15 of thing.
16 And I said, “Well, there has been some issues
17 happening at the household and that you need to know about
18 it.” And I proceeded to tell her what happened. She said
19 that I was trying to start an argument, start something.
20 I said, “What do you by that?” I said, “The girls are
21 still at the bus stop go ask them.” After — you know “Go
22 find out from them,” after I told her what happened, that
23 [Child 1] told me, and also [Child 2], that they had been fondled.
24 And I said, “Well, you need to go tell mommy,” I said — or
25 “you need to go ask the girls,” rather.
1 Because I was telling them every day for the ten days,
2 “Did you tell mommy? Did you tell mommy?” I didn’t want to
3 start something, as a guy. I figured they can go to their
4 mom.

Brian Schiff testimony, July 2011, p. 25 line 12-p. 26 line 4

Jennifer, the mom, did not testify to the revelation of abuse in the first trial.  Funny thing though, in the second trial, when Jennifer testified about when her daughters told her about the abuse, it wasn’t in the morning before school.  According to Jennifer, the girls categorically did not reveal Tim’s abuse in the morning before school.  Jennifer testified that when she picked them up at lunchtime from school, it was first THEN she asked the girls if Tim had touched them and they said yes.  (By the way, at this time she didn’t take them to the ER like any normal parent would, but brought them home and called 911 to get that police report and restraining order on Tim asap.):

Jennifer Astle, Direct Examination, Second Trial:

16 Q. Did there come a time when you found out some
17 things about your girls?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And again, I’m not going to try to pin you down
20 to any exact date or time. But do you remember anything
21 about that day, whether it was morning? Night? What
22 was going on?
23 A. I found out in the morning. It was a school
24 day. The girls were getting ready for school. They
25 went to school.
1 My dad had been calling, probably three days in
2 a row, every morning.
3 The first two days, I don’t guess I thought
4 anything of it. But by the third day, I thought
5 something was kind of weird. He had called every
6 morning for about three days.
7 Q. Encouraging you to talk to your daughters?
8 A. Encouraging my daughters to come to me.
9 Q. Did that occur?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Which one said something first?
12 A. He’s actually the one that told –
13 Q. No. No. No. To you. We’re sort of leaving
14 him out of this.
15 Did either of them, on that morning as they were
16 getting ready for school, say anything to you?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did you speak to them?
19 A. Before they went on the bus?
20 Q. Yes.
21 A. I spoke to them, but not about the situation.
22 Q. How did that develop?
23 A. They got off the phone with my dad. And I
24 yelled, It’s time to get off the phone; time to get on
25 the bus.
1 They got on the bus. About as soon as they got
2 on the bus, he was calling back.


October Trial, p. 218, line 16-p. 220 line 2

9 Q. Again, we’re going to leave that conversation
10 out because — about what he told you.
11 A. Okay.
12 Q. Did that affect how you spent the rest of your
13 day?
14 A. Absolutely.
15 Q. Did you go to the school?
16 A. Yes. I did.
17 Q. Did you talk to either one or both of the girls
18 there?
19 A. I removed them from school.
20 Q. That is what I meant.
21 A. Yes.

October Trial, p. 220, lines 9-21


12 Q. [Child 1] and [Child 2], did you ultimately get them?
13 A. Yes. I did.
14 Q. And speak to them?
15 A. Yes. I did.
16 Q. And based on what they told you, did you call
17 the police?
18 A. I did call 911. Yes, sir.

October Trial, p. 221, lines 12-18

Neither Jennifer or her two daughters would offer that they may have mis-remembered events.  But they can’t both be true.

Most rape cases fall into a he-said/she-said vortex where there was not a third witness to corroborate either side.  Here, we have three people giving a story about the disclosure of abuse, a singular historical event, and they are not the same.  And it’s not that the mom and one of the kids jive and the other kid is off the reservation.  Here we have an adult saying one thing and two of her kids (as well as another adult) saying the other.  By classical logical deduction, at least one accuser is lying.

3b. Please notice too that Brian is allegedly the first person that the girls reported their abuse to, not their mom.  To refresh, Brian is the girls “Grampa” but actually Jen’s mom’s ex-boyfriend who grants Jen’s every wish. Ask these questions: Why is Brian absent from the second trial? Why in this testimony of Jen’s from the second trial do the prosecutors want to be “sort of leaving [Brian] out of it?” Why didn’t Brian testify about the freshest report of abuse? I’ll answer quickly: Because in the first trial Brian was shown to be a bumbling liar about all things big and small. Because Brian accidentally admitted exculpatory evidence in the first trial that the State tried to contain but couldn’t, most specifically that the girls were the ones that sought Tim’s attention, not the other way around. Jen needed Brian to give her story some safety–she probably calculated that she wasn’t as credible as a lone adult in this situation, especially given her financial situation with owing Tim, and Brian’s involvement was a good booster that she could absolutely control given her prior manipulation of his well-meaning nature. Seriously Davidson County, if you want to re-try Tim, Brian’s going to be called one way or another, and that’s going to be a huge pickle for you.

4.  And what of the investigation!?  Cops don’t just take the word of an accuser and not care if there is exculpatory evidence!  Except for when they do.

Tim has never been questioned by any police officer in the entire history of the allegations.  Although the most recent allegation was within a few days of the initial 911 call, no effort was made to collect clothing, bedsheets, or linens for DNA analysis in the Clarksville house.  Amazingly, the police didn’t even bother to go to the crime scene in the county where Tim was convicted–the allegations were made in Clarksville about incidents in Nashville, and the only “investigation” into the crime scene in Nashville was for the police to obtain an online real estate picture of the front of the house.  There was no investigation into a possible motive for a false report, and the detective (FORMER Det. Ginger Fleischer nee Fitting) even told our lawyer that “all monies Jennifer owed had been paid,” which is a blatant lie and proof that she didn’t even check.  Tim was never offered to take a polygraph, never was Mirandized, never even asked for his side of the story.  At that point, Jennifer had provided the police with defined dates of the allegations, and Tim was never asked where he was on those dates, which he could have proved was not in Tennessee.  Fleischer testified to indict Tim with zero evidence except her gut and doctored transcripts, and showed up to his trials to sit and giggle with Jennifer the entire time (we didn’t know it at the time of trial, but she was available to attend the trials because she was suspended from her police work as a subject of her own investigation of inappropriate contact with a minor).  She also noted on her police report that Jennifer told her she would be moving within three days of the initial report to get her girls away from the place they were abused, but did not follow up to find that Jen continued living there until June 2009.

The detective did not care about looking at evidence of Tim’s innocence and Jennifer’s motive to make a false report.  A more extensive examination of the subpar detective work is found on our Investigation page.

5.  Okay, now what about the prosecutors? They can’t take someone to trial without solid evidence.

I’ve learned this about prosecutors–when they want you to go to prison, the rules and ethics go out the window.  They will take the flimsiest hint of evidence and bolster the hell out of it, manipulate juries to not use logic, and re-work their star witness’ testimonies when it turns out they’re lying. Some will even manipulate video with intent to show them privately off the record to a jury during their deliberations.

Those dates that I mentioned in #4–the ones that Jennifer testified she was “absolutely sure” of because she had them “in her notes from when all this started” (quotes from first trial)–after she testified to them in the first trial (physically bringing “her notes” to the stand to help her testify), we were able to put Tim’s friend Mike and his work partner Gary on the stand to show that on those dates, Tim was with them and not the Astles (supported by receipts and work records).  Since there’s a loophole which lets family members of victims sit in on the full trial, Jen saw that she was busted with that set of lies.  Half the jury saw that too and voted to acquit, resulting in a mistrial.

In the second trial, all of a sudden Jen has no dates.  No records.  Doesn’t have any notes.  Doesn’t keep a diary or a journal.  And was set up by Prosecutor Moore that she never did and has no recollection of when Tim might have abused her daughters, just that it was over a three and a half year period.  So Jennifer, who only three months prior in the first trial not only brought and read aloud a written record of the dates Tim was there (even going so far as to noting which girl he slept with in which bed) has lost all record and memory of those days, and even lost her memory of having a memory of those in the first place.

So the prosecutors knew that Jen was lying, not just “misremembered” about one or two dates out of many, but that she fabricated an entire list of dates of abuse where not one proved accurate even on its most superficial basis.  Yet they keep going.  What’s the result of Jen not alleging specific dates in the second trial?  That Tim cannot prove a definitive alibi over a margin of 3.5 years as he could before.  The prosecutors, knowing that Jennifer did have those dates recorded and that they would be proven wrong, suborned her perjury on the stand to say she never kept those records.

This is only one of the despicable tactics Prosecutors Sharon Reddick and Roger Moore used to prosecute Tim.  They also concealed discovery (forensic videos) which they also tampered with, hid an exculpatory witness (Brian Schiff), and told the jury at the end of the trial to not try to use logic on “weird” evidence, to not call these sweet little girls liars, and to find Tim guilty because he looked like a child molester.  Silly me, I thought prosecutors were supposed to apply the law to people, not twist it to get what they want.  If you think you’ll just “reason” with the prosecutor if you’re ever indicted with a major crime you didn’t do, you better hope you get the complete opposite of Sharon Reddick.  By the time of the conviction she knew her accusing witnesses had played the State for fools and tools and won.  And since she was winning and losing meant she’d have to admit a former meth addict had conned her, she decided to go with squelching an innocent man’s life.

Receiving a fair trial may not sound so important in the abstract, but when a false accusation happens to you you expect the system to work.  The system is absolutely broken in Davidson County, Tennessee.

Next: A broken defense