This is a photo of Henry in the hospital a few weeks before he died. This was after the bruises on his face had healed, although he still had some bleeding from his ears. This was before he began deteriorating again from the hypoxia brain injury caused by Yolanda Harper and Randall Houser preventing him from getting the medical care he needed for hours while he was trapped in their trailer, unable to breathe.
For weeks, we could not understand why Detective Brad Hall of the Knox County Sheriff’s Office – the investigator assigned to Henry’s case – refused to make the effort to come meet us at the hospital or take any information Henry might have been able to offer. Even when I pretty much begged District Attorney Randy Nichols in writing to PLEASE send someone to talk to Henry in the hospital, no one came.
Detective Hall only came to the hospital one time. It was after Henry had already been hospitalized for a month, and by that point, his brain damage had progressed so that his ability to communicate was almost nil.
Detective Hall didn’t let anyone know he was coming that day, so when he arrived at the hospital unannounced, Henry was away from his room for therapy. My mother was in the room and came out to the nurse’s station to meet Detective Hall. She thanked him for coming, but explained that Henry had been taken for therapy by his nurse, so wasn’t available. She suggested that Detective Hall call Henry’s parents or Dr before coming back so we could be sure Henry would be available when he returned.
Henry died less than one week later.
No one from KCSO ever tried to come back; that was the only time anyone ever came.
And then, on the day of Henry’s funeral, Knox County Sheriff Jimmy “JJ” Jones flat out lied to the local newspaper, saying that his investigator had tried to interview Henry several times, but was “denied access.”
He just plain lied. Period.
And no one in the local media has ever called him on it. To this day, JJ Jones’ lie stands in local reporting on my son’s case. No reporter ever even asked him
the obvious follow up question of how law enforcement could be repeatedly “denied access” to an 18 year old crime victim for 5 weeks. The Sheriff’s explanation for why his agency failed to do its job is patently absurd, in addition to being a complete lie.
If a man will lie about this, what else is he willing to lie about?
+++++
All comments at Justice for Henry are moderated. Please be patient if it takes time for yours to appear.
I am disgusted with Satterfeild and Macelroy. Their coverage of this story is as pathetic as the investigation performed by the Sheriff’s Dept. I’ve never seen anything like it. Denied access? Please.
What’s a lie about saying the Detective was denied access when the Detective actually WAS denied access?
Well for starters, JJ told the newspaper that his guy was “denied access” again and again. So that’s a lie. Second of all, if you would call what happened the one time Brad did make it over to the hospital in five weeks being denied access, you must not have ever worked in law enforcement. I can promise you that we deal with people trying to block us from doing what we need to do every day and the grandma explaining that the victim didn’t happen to be in his room when Brad showed up and also letting him know who to contact so he could be sure the victim would be in his room when he came back is not denying access. Saying that it was is insulting to law enforcement capabilities and to this victim’s family. If Brad had wanted to meet with or talk to Henry Granju in the 5 weeks he lived it would have happened. Trust me on it. Nobody would have stopped him from doing it.
Maybe because he WASN’T denied access? Just a thought. All he had to do was sit down in the room and wait for Henry to be brought back. Perhaps they don’t teach that in detective school these days.
Henry could have been called out of therapy, right? The family asked the detective to come back later. That’s denying access. He never said the family blocked the Detective completely.
By your logic, if a deputy comes to my house and asks for my husband, who happens to be at work, and I ask the deputy to come back later, I’ve “denied access” to my husband because I didn’t call him up and demand that he race home right away. Ummm – no.
Besides that, I doubt seriously that anyone but a doctor or nurse can “deny access” to a law enforcement officer who needs to interview a hospitalized adult.
In hindsight, and for anyone else who may be faced with a similar KCSO episode, always, always invite the policeman to come into the room and wait for the victim to get back. It’s their job, and most will wait all of 5 minutes and then leave. It is rubbish anyone would have to even think about such things at such a time like that, but Henry’s story is showing us that unfortunately, at least in Knox County, one must.
As a journalist, I am appalled that nobody is asking the questions that need to be asked. The press is supposed to be the guardian of truth.
Someone cannot be ‘denied’ access to some one or thing that is not accessable in the first place.
If access is available it can be granted or denied.
Henry wasn’t there. He wasn’t available. So, access wasn’t possible. It was not denied.
The family requested the detective come back later, when I’m sure Henry could have simply been fetched out of therapy. That’s denying access.
“Anon” – [do remember that no one is truly anonymous on the Internet ... I will be very interested to see from where your IP address originates]
Your defense of Detective Brad Hall is highly suspect. You ignore the obvious facts in your attempt to parlay his inexcusable negligence in investigating what happened to Henry into his being thwarted from talking to him by the family, which simply is not true. They were calling him over and over, begging him to come talk to Henry.
Showing up unannounced is one thing, but being advised that Henry was in therapy and asked to return later is not being “denied access”. Det Hall did not request that he be “fetched out” of therapy and in any case, he did not return later nor did he call and make arrangements to come back when Henry was available. He made one lame attempt and gave up, or just did not care to make any further effort.
The truth of the matter will come out one day. I don’t think that will be a happy day for Det Hall and his boss, JJ Jones.
Lissa, surely you did not just make a 1990′s-era ‘I can learn your ip address’ threat at me, in some sort of mealy attempt to bully me and squelch my opinion.
I am equal parts insulted that a commenter on the blog of an author who frequently cites her use and appreciation of the First Amendment can’t handle a dissenting viewpoint and amused by the threat of 90s computer ‘espionage.’
As it is 2012, I–and everyone else on the internet–am well aware of the identifying stamp of ip addresses, and that’s why my comments are civil-tongued and made in the interest of intelligent discourse, in the comment section of a public blog that invites discussion.
But I’ll be sure to do keep that in mind.
Thank you for the tip.
It is interesting that you comment such nonsense with anonymity in defense of a detective who, for whatever reasons – and corruption is currently in the lead, did not conduct any sort of an investigation that was intended to bring these people to justice. So I can’t help but wonder who you are … that would be very enlightening to know.
If you are, in fact, so darn proud of and stand thoroughly behind your opinions that you have stated here, why not post your real name? It is not even so much your opinions that are being taken to task, but instead your lack of ability to grasp the facts at hand and your obstinance in clinging to your assertion even in the face of correction.
So, are you being purposely obtuse or are you just that way naturally? In any case, your defense of Det Hall’s actions … or rather, lack thereof … is highly suspect. The origin of your IP address could either confirm or refute that. If you’re feeling “threatened” by these pixels on a computer screen, that is your own problem.
No, that is not denying access. Denying access would be for the attending physician to appear and say “You are not allowed to interview Henry Granju until I OK it.”
Weak. Read a little, and try again.
If Whitney Houston lingered for one month before passing away, what would the world’s reaction be if the investigation was conducted Knox County style?
-The scene was not secured, searched or otherwise investigated.
-Land line phone record were not requested by investigators.
-Whitney’s cell phone records were not requested or reviewed by investigators and are irrelevant because such communications are hearsay.
-Detectives did not request a hold on blood samples, Whitney’s blood samples were disposed within one week of arriving at the hospital.
-The people with Whitney in the hotel room were questioned and deemed to be good Samaritans by the investigator. “They were just trying to help.” (When in fact both of the so called good Samaritans have criminal histories. One is a two time felon, under indictment and awaiting trial and the other person has a lengthy and serious criminal history of his own – including rape charges)
Beverly Hill PD concedes the hotel room was not treated as a crime scene by a deputy who responded to the 911 call along with emergency responders.”The call came in as a medical call,” he said. “Very rarely would that be treated as a crime scene.”
-Investigators did not request a hold on Whitney’s blood samples, therefore blood draws were disposed of seven days after arriving at the hospital.
-Because of her death, anything Whitney might have told investigators could not be used against the person(s) had any of them been charged, a Los Angeles veteran defense attorney said, because the defendants are guaranteed the right to “confront their accusers” in court.
“We’re not saying anybody involved in this is innocent,” Beverly Hills Sheriff said. “We can’t prove what drug killed Whitney. Without that evidence, it’s impossible to charge someone. If we could put somebody in jail for causing Whitney’s death, certainly we would have done that.”
Press release from Beverly Hills Sheriff: “It doesn’t matter if you live under a bridge or in the Hamptons, you still get the same professionalism from our department,” Beverly Hills PD said. “No matter if you complain on us or don’t complain on us, you’ll still get the same professional investigation.”
Our investigative file memorializes what Beverly Hills Sheriff called one of the most “thorough” probes ever launched by our department.
Seems absurd and is absurd. But not absurd to Knox County Sheriff, some of his detectives, The DA’s office, and maybe a judge or two. Certainly not absurd to the two criminals in the room at the time.
Nice.
And don’t forget that the fine detectives of Beverly Hills decide to wait for a year before interviewing key suspects or witnesses. But of course, they have the time to go moonlighting on Sunset Boulevard.
Every new post hurts me. How you keep sane amidst this negligence blows my mind. Seriously. You are heroic.
It is reprehensible that he is still in his position. My hope is that your continuing to bring the details of the case to light; that he ultimately will lose his job and be brought up on charges of negligence in handling this case.
You are a very strong woman, Katie!
In no way was he “denied access” and he knows it. I did shake his hand and thank him for coming. I told him how much I appreciated it. I wanted desperately for something to finally be done and made that clear. Henry had just been taken for an hot and a half of therapy, which I explained. There were nurses within feet of us he could have asked to bring Henry back to his room. He didn’t suggest that to them or to me. I told him that Henry’s mother, father or doctor would make sure Henry was available if he called one of them. We didn’t know he was coming or Henry would have been there, as would his parents. This was a terrible time and we were all exhausted and scared, but he didn’t express his concern or sympathy and, in fact, was surly. I was appalled when I read the article because I was there and know what took place.
This needs to be brought up during the next election cycle. Make sure it’s known wide and far.
All I’m saying is the title of this piece outright calls the Sheriff a liar because of his saying the detective was ‘denied access’. All ‘denied access’ means to me is that the Detective showed up, asked to see the party to interviewed, and family apparently told the Detective that the interviewee was elsewhere in the hospital and therefore unavailable. The family then apparently asked him to come back later.
There is nothing untrue about characterizing that as denying access. He did not say access was permanently blocked; he did not say the family was wrong for denying access when the interviewee was apparently in such critical condition that he would pass away within a week. He said only that access was denied, and I would think anyone with a dictionary could see that is an accurate, non-accusatory, clinical description of what happened.
The sheriff IS a liar. That has been borne out by the facts several times over.
Let’s go back to English class:
denied past participle, past tense of de·ny (Verb)
Verb:
1. Refuse to admit the truth or existence of (something).
2. Refuse to give (something requested or desired) to (someone).
Key word here is REFUSE.
ref·use/riˈfyo͞oz/
Verb:
Indicate or show that one is not willing to do something.
Synonyms: verb. decline – deny – reject – repudiate – disallow – repulse
NOT WILLING.
No one REFUSED Det Hall access to Henry.
No one stated they were NOT WILLING Det Hall access to Henry.
If you need more assistance with definitions: http://dictionary.reference.com/
He was not available because he was not present. Det Hall did not make the next logical step of asking for Henry to be brought back, or of waiting until he returned, or even of arranging to come back at a later time when Henry would be available. There was no follow up call to Henry’s parents to make such arrangements … however, there was a call from Henry’s mother upon learning Det Hall had been there, begging him to return. He did not. I don’t think he even returned her call.
Sorry, but there is NO defending Det Hall’s actions or lack thereof. Not in this instance nor in the rest of that sham of an investigation. Not unless one is just plain old stupid, is a friend of Det Hall, a co-worker of Det Hall, or Det Hall himself. So which is it, “Anon”?
The apparent paranoia some of my fellow commenters and the author of this blog display is so odd to me. This is a public blog is available to anyone in the world interested in following the story. Yet you don’t think the readership extends beyond Knoxville? Or you believe that anyone with an opposing view simply must be connected to the various Knoxville agencies (Sheriff’s Office, DA, judge, etc, etc, etc) mentioned in here?
As I’ve explained to the author before, I’m not from the state of Tennessee and I do not know any of the locals mentioned in this blog. And it is beyond easy to confirm my location, so I suggest you do that instead of coming up with these wild flights of fancy, inserting me into your conspiracy theories.
As to your other post, where we differ on the ‘denied access’ thing is that it appears from your definitions, you read it as a definitive and final refusal to ever grant access to a person. I see it as an accurate comment on one occasion–the Detective arrived, asked for the interviewee, and the family said he was out and asked the Detective to make an appointment later.
I’ve seen many a report where an officer itemizes his various visits to an interviewee, noting that on one date he was ‘denied access’ (ie, the interviewee was in distress and the caretakers asked him to delay his interview) and on a second date, he returned and was ‘granted access’.
I have never known ‘denied access’ to carry the weight of finality that some people appear to be ascribing to it. It’s just a term, noting that on this particular occasion, the officer did not complete his interview because his access to the interviewee, for whatever reason, was thwarted.
That’s my issue. Even if you believe steadfastly the Sheriff meant ‘denied access’ in your permanent sense, there is still another meaning (likely more predominately accepted among law enforcement) that speaks only to the case-by-case description, and is readily accurate in describing what happened.
I cannot imagine publicly characterizing someone as a ‘liar’ without having these very basic facts straight.
@Anon Let me ask you very clearly, so I understand. You are saying that Sheriff Jones was NOT lying when he replied when asked by a newspaper reporter right after my son died why his investigator did not speak to or even meet the teenage victim of a case assigned to that investigator for more than one month before the victim’s death that (direct quote), “Our investigator made several attempts to talk to Mr. Granju, and each time he was denied access,”
That’s not a lie to you? Can you explain how what he said is true? It’s not supported by KCSO’s documentation, so how is it true?
I truly pray that you never learn the way I have what it means to have local law enforcement officials freely mislead the public and make things up to justify their own shocking failure to investigate crimes committed against someone you love, and furthermore, to have the local media accept these egregious lies without question, confirmation or even much interest.
-Katie Granju
As to any other attempts to interview, I wouldn’t know. I’ve limited my comments to what I’ve read on this blog about the reported facts surrounding the one occasion when the Detective attempted his interview at the hospital and to what ‘denied access’ means in that capacity.
Personally, I would never publicly call anyone a liar, because while the First Amendment protects my opinions, that protection stops quite short when one makes a statement of fact (especially directly concerning a person’s character and calling him immoral or unethical and/or attacking his public standing and career) and presents it as indisputable fact, when actually the accuracy of the writer’s interpretation is dubious and shaky at best.
And, incidentally, I make no judgments there. Like I told Lissa, I’m sure you sincerely believe the Sheriff meant permanently denied access, but there is–in my experience–a second, equally valid meaning of ‘denied access’, as noted in my post above. (And indeed, since you say the Sheriff apparently said he was denied access ‘several’ times, he appears to have meant it in the manner I explained. So that answers that.)
In my opinion, it is never prudent to bandy about terms like ‘liar’ when one doesn’t have a sufficient understanding of police reporting and protocol to know whether or not the terminology she believes means ‘x’ actually means ‘y’.
Anon:
I am totally and completely comfortable that should the Sheriff decide to sue me for calling him a liar related to the statement he made, I would prevail. Frankly, you’re making little sense. Even if you want to split semantic hairs over what the words “denied access” mean in the context in which Jones made them (I believe that the great majority of people would share my position on Jones’ intent and meaning in using those words as compared to fact), he’s lying in saying that his investigator tried more than once. Don’t take my word for it; read KCSO’s own case file, which carefully documents the single instance Brad Hall came to the hospital during the more than a month my 18 year old was dying as the victim in a criminal investigation to which Hall was assigned.
Setting aside the meaning of “denied access” debate for a moment, the bigger question is why it took the detective investigating this crime four weeks to come and interview the victim? After repeated (and documented) attempts by the family asking him and others to do just that, for weeks.
“There is nothing untrue about characterizing that as denying access.”
Of course there is. Denying access would mean *preventing* the detective from having access to the person he came to see.
What you have described isn’t denying access at all. It’s pointing out that the person sought doesn’t happen to be present at the moment.
Perhaps the great majority not familiar with the standard and widely-accepted terms found in a police report, yes.
Just because you may dislike someone and may have other legitimate grievances against him doesn’t give you license to call him a liar over your mistaken interpretation of a law enforcement term-of-art.
So let me get this straight… In law enforcement vernacular, when seeking a person with whom to conduct an interview:
Not present at the time the officer shows up unannounced after 4weeks of repeated calls begging said officer to please come and conduct an interview with a response from the relative who was present to please please please come back later, call first to make sure the intended interviewee is available = denied access.
And
This one attempt (after 4 weeks of calls begging officer to come interview the victim) = several times
Is that what you are saying here, Mr/Ms Anon?
You are saying that the sheriff used terms that mean something other than what they mean to every other intelligent member of English speaking society, ostensibly to make his detective’s effort in this investigation sound more thorough than they actually were?
I don’t know about your little world, but here in the real one, that is called LYING.
To the first portion of your question, yes. In my experience, in law enforcement vernacular, ‘denied access’ means that officer (1) arrived at particular place to interview the interviewee, (2) the interviewee was on site at the time the office arrived, and (3) the caregivers of an incapacitated adult or minor child requested the interview be delayed, for whatever reason. In other words, denied the officer access to their charge, on that one occasion. It does not mean denied access for all time; it does not attribute fault to the party denying the contact; and it presupposes the office will return at a later date and be granted access then.