Details in the Concord Monitor
Monitor reporter Maddie Hanna is also tweeting from the trial here
WMUR-TV is providing live updates here
UPDATE (1:30 EDT)- Chuck Phelps is taking the stand. Live updates at the links above.
2:50 PM EDT- Video footage from WMUR here
Thanks, I was just about to look for this link when you tweeted it.
The crux of this unfortunate saga is the terrible how and why IFB has practiced church discipline over the years.
The crux of this saga is how an adult male took advantage of a young woman.
But you betray where your interest in the story lies. It isn't on the side of justice.
Don, I agree with your assesment of the "crux", but the other issues are not insignificant.
Maybe I said it wrong . . . a better way might have been to say that as far as the reason that the broader, IFB community has been pullled into this whole thing is because of how we have carried out church discipline in an unbiblical way.
Certainly, I agree that the greatest crime was what happened to Tina.
I think almost all of us agree that if it was actually discipline, then it was wrong. That being said, if Phelps and Willis are right, and the relationship was consensual, then discipline *may* have been warranted. That's why I want to look at the legal testimony once the dust settles.
Again - it *MAY* have been warranted. All we know is that there's two sides right now, and it doesn't look like it was done correctly. But "looking like it was done correctly" and two bucks will get you a Coke.
-edit-
Legal Testimony of Tina's Mom from Twitter is below
Willis admitting he was "the aggressor" is not necessarily the same as an admission that he used force. By admitting he was "the aggressor" he was saying that Tina was not "the aggressor."
He may have meant only that he was the initiator of the encounters.
Moreover, do you understand the difference between a reporter's words and the actual testimony?
The cross-examination has yet to happen with respect to bro. Phelps testimony. I am sure they will pick up on the word 'aggressor' and seek to have a full and frank explanation about what that word means.
It is interesting to note that there are contradictions between the WMUR reports and the Concord Monitor's reports. The TV station says that the infamous question about 'enjoying' the encounter came from Willis' wife, not from Mrs. Phelps, as has been reported repeatedly in the paper, and also the subject of commentary and discussion on the web. Which is correct? We don't really know, do we?
Even that small discrepancy shows how foolish it is to sit as judge and jury on the internet based on news reports. The reporters often don't get the story straight, even after all this time. So how can we expect to get the story straight here?
Remember what the issue is. Think critically.
The issue about her age also seemed to be settled in court during Pastor Phelp's testimony.
Although it is a separate issue, I still have quite a few questions about the way the church discipline was handled. Why were Willis and Anderson brought before the church?
Was it because of gross, unrepentant sin as in I Corinthians 5? Or was it because of an offense against a brother? In what way was Tina "restored"? Trying to figure out what biblical model was followed here - if Willis repented when confronted privately, does Scripture still demand that he go before the church? I guess that Tina's "sin" would have become public, so that might demand some kind of public accounting . . . but boy . . .
Growing up in IFB-dom, I only remember church discipline being practiced for two things: physical immorality and alcohol use.
ag·gres·sor
–noun
a person, group, or nation that attacks first or initiates hostilities; an assailant or invader.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.
If it doesn't mean he raped her, then Phelps wrote down the wrong term.
You can hear a video clip of part of Pastor Phelp`s testimony here . This is concerning Ernie Willis being the aggressor and there having been two incidents.
Moreover, do you understand the difference between a reporter's words and the actual testimony?
... The reporters often don't get the story straight, even after all this time. So how can we expect to get the story straight here?
Did you watch the video? Looks like the reporter got it right, Don.
I am not disputing the word "aggressor", I am pointing out a difference in the reporting of a different point. Please read my post again.
The word 'aggressor' is important. I am sure the defense will not let it lie there without getting some kind of clarification. You will have to wait to see what that clarification is. One plausible scenario is suggested by dan in post # 8, there are probably other possibilities.
My point in pointing out the other discrepancy is to simply urge outside observers to let the process play itself out. It will be interesting to see how the jury takes all the testimony in the end.
The issue about her age also seemed to be settled in court during Pastor Phelp's testimony.
Although it is a separate issue, I still have quite a few questions about the way the church discipline was handled. Why were Willis and Anderson brought before the church?
Was it because of gross, unrepentant sin as in I Corinthians 5? Or was it because of an offense against a brother? In what way was Tina "restored"? Trying to figure out what biblical model was followed here - if Willis repented when confronted privately, does Scripture still demand that he go before the church? I guess that Tina's "sin" would have become public, so that might demand some kind of public accounting . . . but boy . . .
Josh-
The reason why I say that discipline *may* have been warranted for Tina is that if it was a consensual relationship when she claims that it wasn't (and Phelps, Anderson's mom, and Willis all agree on that it was consensual), and if she continued to lie about it, parcelling out bits of info as the lies were revealed, and then fought against Phelps or her mom's reporting to the cops, then yes, I might consider discipline because it's obvious that she's lying about being forcibly raped (again, because it was consensual in my hypothetical example) and also for lying about what happened to her mom, her pastor, her lover, and the church / society at large.
Now, we're back to the legal / moral question of legally she was raped (because she was underage) when in fact she was fully aware of what she did (morally, in my hypothetical example). Legally - either way, she was raped because she was a minor. Morally - is it rape if the law says it is but she's actually furthering the relationship after her 'attack'?
As for Willis, I'd say that's much, much easier. If Willis "repents" after being confronted but doesn't turn himself into the police, then I think you can and should pursue discipline because a part of repentance is bearing the consequences for your sin / actions. Furthermore, I would make the report to the police myself (if it hadn't been done already) - reporting this is mandatory by law, and failure to report can get the pastor jailed.
-edit-
I think that it's better to get some actual facts via sworn testimony and act on that than rumors and hearsay being passed around by people with agendas. As John Adams once said:
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
I'm sorry, Jay C., but are you still debating whether Tina should have been brought up on church discipline? Am I reading your comments correctly? If so, you are beyond out of line at this point.
"I think it's better to get some actual facts via sworn testimony ... "
Well, what court date are you waiting on? Because I've been watching two days of sworn testimony ...
I think Jay was addressing a hypothetical.
So, based on the hypothetical and what we know, no one was "put out" from the assembly in this situation, so we have to assume that they both repented?
At what point is a person compelled to go in front of the church? Because if they repent prior to that step, they are restored...right? So, if Willis repented before his wife and pastor, why did he have to go before the congregation? Same with Tina, assuming this was a moral sin and not a legal matter, why did she have to go before the church? Did she repent after that service? Because if she repented prior, she should not have had to go through the ordeal. Is she did not repent, the Scriptural command is that she be "put out".
There seems to be no consistency with biblical instruction, hypothetical or otherwise.
Hi all,
I have alot I want to say about this. But I am going to refrain so as to not bring anything close to a mistrial. The last thing any of us want is for that to happen. I certainly don't want to see the victim go through this again.
ag·gres·sor
–noun
a person, group, or nation that attacks first or initiates hostilities; an assailant or invader.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.
If it doesn't mean he raped her, then Phelps wrote down the wrong term.
In a thesaurus, one if the synonyms of "aggressor" is "initiator", another is "instigator."
I'm just pointing out that in the only quote I saw, an admission of being the aggressor is not a clear admission of being an attacker - it could easily have meant initiator in the context in which it was used. It's fairly standard English usage.
Can't we just wait for the trial to end? It seems to me that the wisest course of action would to be to wait until all of the important information has been given under sworn testimony...then once the "facts" are out there we can really comment on those facts instead of reports, hypothetical situations, the dictionary vs. Thesaurus meanings of words, etc., etc., etc.
Proverbs 18:13
Can't we just wait for the trial to end? It seems to me that the wisest course of action would to be to wait until all of the important information has been given under sworn testimony...then once the "facts" are out there we can really comment on those facts instead of reports, hypothetical situations, the dictionary vs. Thesaurus meanings of words, etc., etc., etc.
Proverbs 18:13
...that would be the prudent thing to do. 
Well, what court date are you waiting on? Because I've been watching two days of sworn testimony ...
Louise, if you want facts, then why didn't you note these anywhere on these discussion threads:
* Willis claims that the relationship was consensual in his testimony
* Tina's mom reports that Tina begged her not to report it in her testimony
* Chuck has stated the name of the officer he reported it to AND the name of the employee at Youth Services in his testimony AND says that he has the a copy of the report in writing.
Or
* One of Willis's public defenders, Donna Brown, said during her opening statement yesterday that Anderson only reported having sex with Willis on one occasion when she told her mother and Phelps what happened.
And when a nurse midwife at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center examined Anderson after she became pregnant, she didn't report being raped, according to the medical records, Brown said.
Or
Anderson said she told Willis she was pregnant while they were at a restaurant in August 1997. Brown asked if that was when Willis took her to the Bedford Village Inn for her 16th birthday, and Anderson said that was possible.
Those facts are important, too.
I am a little amazed at the distrust of Tina and her testimony. I have read so much about victims who are terrified, scared to speak out, even of a young girl that did not admit she was raped until she was older and more removed from the situation - and no one believed her.
I have been very slow to pick sides. I have been reading blogs, news articles, personal testimonies, - on both sides of this issue. You have a young 15 year old that everyone has said was very upset, sobbing, emotional, terrified, etc. I imagine a lot of what she had to say was hard to understand. So I give a little leniency to the people saying - she never said . . .
Monday, her mother, on the stand, said Tina never said it was rape. When questioned she admitted Tina never said it was a consensual relationship. So basically, because she didn't say either way - everyone is now stating it was consensual?? That doesn't seem right. I have heard NO testimony that Tina actually said it was consensual. I have heard Tina didn't want them to go to the police, Tina was upset, . . . but doesn't that all fit the response of a terrified 15 year old, trying to do the 'right' thing?
Going back to the church discipline thing - it was handled WRONG! Ernie's was handled wrong. Why on earth, if he was brought before the church, was it not stated he was with a minor?? (And that is a whole other question I have - what grown man commits adultery with a CHILD unless there is a lot more sin in his life??) As far as Tina's discipline. Hypothetically, if it was consensual (which I don't believe), Ernie said he was the AGGRESSOR. Very strange word choice for him to use. Even so, say it wasn't rape - you have an adult man seducing a child, trying to get her to sin. Sounds like a case of a brother CAUSING a sister to sin. I just don't think church discipline is appropriate. Would we require church discipline for a teen who is coerced by a family member to cooperate in a robbery?? Maybe not a good comparison, but it is a known fact now that Ernie was the seducer (at the VERY least). He should have faced some major church discipline.
I am a little amazed at the distrust of Tina and her testimony.
Please do not mistake a reluctance to draw conclusions from hearsay as 'distrust' of anyone. Only now, as information and evidence is brought forward, examined, cross-examined, is the truth going to slowly but surely come out.
Why can't we just be honest and say "We don't know what happened"? The possibilities, based on very different accounts of events, are too numerous to list. And the more we posit hypothetical scenarios about this case, the more emotional and confusing it gets.
Let's allow the trial to take place in a court of law. The only really productive thing we (those not directly involved) can do is pray for the truth to come out, that justice be done, and to consider ourselves and our churches. Are we prepared for such an occurrence in our own church? What precautions do we take to protect our young people? What kind of records are kept of counseling sessions? Do we have a Biblical and consistent church discipline policy?
We'll have plenty of time to play armchair quarterback when the trial is over, the verdict is reached, and the transcripts are available.
Why can't we just be honest and say "We don't know what happened"?
This is true. We don't know. Unless we are involved in the situation, we will probably never know exactly what occurred.
It just seems that the victim (even if it was consensual - she was a victim of a predator. He WAS the aggressor) is doubted most and her motives questioned the most. Yet clear evidence is out there to show that many adult women will not speak up when attacked. Why would we expect even more from a child? And now that she is an adult and willing to speak up, why are we so fast to question her and her motives?
It is interesting to see more facts come out that support her testimony.
At what point is a person compelled to go in front of the church? Because if they repent prior to that step, they are restored...right? So, if Willis repented before his wife and pastor, why did he have to go before the congregation?
Isn't that a little simplistic? There was going to be a minor child carrying Willis's unborn child (Rather conspicuously, at some point) around the church. A public acknowledgement of his sin would likely be an appropriate part of true repentance.
Also, given that the time between any private statements of repentance and the time when the pregnancy would be conspicuous (had she not been sent away) might not have been long enough to guage Willis's behavior on a 2 Cor. 7:9-11 scale, some degree of "sidelining" action (up to and including being put out) would also be appropriate, no?
Or do you believe any private statement of repentence about any level of sin brings immediate, full restoration?
At what point is a person compelled to go in front of the church? Because if they repent prior to that step, they are restored...right? So, if Willis repented before his wife and pastor, why did he have to go before the congregation?
Isn't that a little simplistic? There was going to be a minor child carrying Willis's unborn child (Rather conspicuously, at some point) around the church. A public acknowledgement of his sin would likely be an appropriate part of true repentance.
Also, given that the time between any private statements of repentance and the time when the pregnancy would be conspicuous (had she not been sent away) might not have been long enough to guage Willis's behavior on a 2 Cor. 7:9-11 scale, some degree of "sidelining" action (up to and including being put out) would also be appropriate, no?
Or do you believe any private statement of repentence about any level of sin brings immediate, full restoration?
David,
If - and I'm just speaking of hypotheticals here - Willis is confronted, breaks down and confesses, marches himself to the police and turns himself in, and says that he sinned against the Lord and this girl, then I don't see any need to pursue church discipline, since you have 'won your brother' and his repentance is honest and clear (Matt 18:15-17); at some point, however, he needed to acknowledge that the baby was his if he's legitimately repentant. If he says that he did it but that he's not guilty of breaking the law, or refuses to acknowledge it, or refuses to turn himself in to the police, then I would pursue it further because he hasn't demonstrated "fruits of repentance" (Matt 3:8) in keeping with what he says he's sorry for.
Keep in mind that dealing with a sin issue is very different from making sure that legal justice is satisfied. The church isn't supposed to enforce the law themselves, but rather to make sure that the law notified so that they can properly deal with criminals. Again, this is if my hypothetical situation from post #17 is right.
I'm just speaking of hypotheticals here - [if] Willis is confronted, breaks down and confesses, marches himself to the police and turns himself in, and says that he sinned against the Lord and this girl, then I don't see any need to pursue church discipline, since you have 'won your brother' and his repentance is honest and clear (Matt 18:15-17); at some point, however, he needed to acknowledge that the baby was his if he's legitimately repentant.
I'd say we're more or less on the same page.
It just seems that the victim (even if it was consensual - she was a victim of a predator. He WAS the aggressor) is doubted most and her motives questioned the most. Yet clear evidence is out there to show that many adult women will not speak up when attacked. Why would we expect even more from a child? And now that she is an adult and willing to speak up, why are we so fast to question her and her motives?
I agree that there appears to be a tendency to 'blame the victim', regardless of the particulars of a case. Any time we hear that someone was attacked, or a child was killed, we automatically think "What could have been done different? Could this have been prevented?" It sounds like the victim is being blamed, but I don't believe that in most cases that is the intent. If you heard that a tall bookcase fell over and killed a child, what's the first thing you'd do? Check the bookcases in your home to make sure they are sturdy, perhaps? If a woman is attacked on 44th St., are you going to avoid or be more alert in that area? Does that mean the parents deserved to lose their child because the bookcase wasn't secured? Is it the woman's fault she was walking down 44th St when a criminal decided she was his prey? But that doesn't stop us from taking note and trying to prevent similar things from happening to us and our family.
In this case, because some aren't assuming that a young girl is incapable of giving consent to a sexual relationship (in the moral but not legal sense) there are accusations of 'blaming the victim'. If the perpetrator was a 15 yob, we'd still have the same questions- was it consensual or forced? Because in either case, there are spiritual implications, albeit different ones, that have to be dealt with. As far as I'm concerned with this case, legally, it should be open & shut. He's an adult, she's a child, it's illegal. Period.
As for Pastor Phelps, the problems are not legal ones, but spiritual and ethical. That's an entirely different issue, and one that is not relevant to the legal case. There are no laws as to how churches handle discipline and counseling. If Pastor Phelps reported the incident, then he did his part, in the legal sense. The ethical case- how Tina and Willis and the families were dealt with in the church- isn't going to be determined in court, Pastor Phelps is not the one being prosecuted, and that whole situation is best left up to pastors and churches affiliated or involved with him and his church.
A couple of posts have been unpublished for review by the moderator team.
Thanks to those who are using the flagging system to help us spot problem posts.
+End Moderator Note+
There's a good chance we'll not keep these Willers case threads open. As we've sometimes done in the past, we'll post news as we become aware, but I seriously doubt there is anything important we can say now that couldn't be said just as well after the whole business is over--and from that standpoint it will be much easier to judge what sort of discussion has any potential value.
(I don't think I have to point out to most people that reporting news but not allowing discussion is not "covering up" something... but for those who are foggy on that concept, there you go.)
It just seems that the victim (even if it was consensual - she was a victim of a predator. He WAS the aggressor) is doubted most and her motives questioned the most.
Perhaps some of the appearance arises from the fact that no one is unclear about Willis. Everyone agrees he broke the law and violated scripture. It is clear he was completely wrong. The discussion has revolved around Tina because her role is not entirely clear yet.
There's a good chance we'll not keep these Willers case threads open. As we've sometimes done in the past, we'll post news as we become aware, but I seriously doubt there is anything important we can say now that couldn't be said just as well after the whole business is over--and from that standpoint it will be much easier to judge what sort of discussion has any potential value.
(I don't think I have to point out to most people that reporting news but not allowing discussion is not "covering up" something... but for those who are foggy on that concept, there you go.)
I hope you will make that the policy. There is really no need for our commentary. The news is of interest, but what any of us thinks about it is largely irrelevant.
Don you could say that about everything on Sharper Iron. That's the whole point of a discussion board--to discuss news and matters of interest.
But I understand what Aaron is saying, that if something has already been hashed and rehashed, there's no need for re-re-rehashing.
Very sad. Simply from what I have read - NO ONE has stated that Tina said it was consensual. It appears that everyone assumed because of her reaction and statements. Strangely enough, those statements and reactions don't seem that abnormal coming from a frightened girl who has been raped and doesn't want to tell people, but because of a pregnancy, has to.
Sad that assumptions are made and then stated as fact. Frightening how easy that is to do. It sure makes me wonder what kind of assumptions I have made about people because of what they said or didn't say.
Very sad. Simply from what I have read - NO ONE has stated that Tina said it was consensual. It appears that everyone assumed because of her reaction and statements.
No one is disputing that Tina says it was rape. What I'm pointing out is that three other people who are directly involved in the case, including the father of her child, are saying that it was consensual. That's worth noting...their claims ought to be considered as well.
Very sad. Simply from what I have read - NO ONE has stated that Tina said it was consensual. It appears that everyone assumed because of her reaction and statements.
No one is disputing that Tina says it was rape. What I'm pointing out is that three other people who are directly involved in the case, including the father of her child, are saying that it was consensual. That's worth noting...their claims ought to be considered as well.
Did you see the live feed? Willis said Tina never said a word so he assumed it was consensual. That just makes me weep. A young girl lays their SILENTLY and the adult man decides that means it was consensual?? The three people who SAY it was consensual, say so because of assumptions. Tina's own mother testified that Tina NEVER claimed it was consensual. Her mom made that call on her own. Ernie decided it was consensual because Tina was passive. Phelps decided it was consensual because Ernie was 'honest' and Tina claimed it happened once.
For anyone interested, pastor Phelps has put up a web page where he has statements from Tina's mother and the statements that were released to 20/20, etc.. He also has an article, written by Dr. Charles R. Surrett of Ambassador Baptist College, entitled, "the Fallacy of 20/20's Logic" that lists every reason why ABC and the producers of 20/20 are the devil's playthings (my personal interpretation of the article)The link is here http://www.drchuckphelps.com/fallacy.html On a side note, I am curious about the "logic" of taking "logic" lessons from anyone in the KJV only camp. Seems a little "illogical" don't you think?
Very sad. Simply from what I have read - NO ONE has stated that Tina said it was consensual. It appears that everyone assumed because of her reaction and statements.
No one is disputing that Tina says it was rape. What I'm pointing out is that three other people who are directly involved in the case, including the father of her child, are saying that it was consensual. That's worth noting...their claims ought to be considered as well.
Did you see the live feed? Willis said Tina never said a word so he assumed it was consensual. That just makes me weep. A young girl lays their SILENTLY and the adult man decides that means it was consensual?? The three people who SAY it was consensual, say so because of assumptions. Tina's own mother testified that Tina NEVER claimed it was consensual. Her mom made that call on her own. Ernie decided it was consensual because Tina was passive. Phelps decided it was consensual because Ernie was 'honest' and Tina claimed it happened once.
Micheledo-
Did Tina ever stop hanging around with Willis afterwards? Did Tina report her rape as rape at the hospital? Did Tina try to keep people from going to the cops? Did Tina voluntarily go out with Willis to the Bedford Village Inn for her 16th Birthday after her pregnancy?
Witnesses say "No", "No", "Yes", and "Yes" to those questions in sworn, legal depositions. That's important to know. You can't throw out facts just because you find one person in a trial to be credible. That's why Phelps and the others are testifying as we speak...to get at the facts of the case. Not just what one person, no matter how sorry we may feel for her, says.
I'm not excusing Willis and I'm not trying to crucify Tina...she's suffered enough. I would actually prefer to stay away from this discussion entirely. However, there are people who are arguing that Phelps was an legal accessory to Willis and that he obstructed justice by sending her to CO. Those are serious charges that demand the truth, not just accusations in a public discussion board. Cherry picking witnesses and testimony to sensationalize claims is wrong.
This thread demonstrates why we have consent laws in this country. I'm actually shocked reading through some of this thread. Even though Christians may have qualms about the purity motives of teenagers, it is the perp who violated the laws of God and man.
Rape is often a weapon of war for a reason. It shames women into saying nothing. It confuses them. Often abused women will find even ridiculous reasons for why it's their fault. At it's core this is about a grown man who violated a teen girl.
I honestly don't know this - what does it mean to take a motion to dismiss under advisement? Does it mean that he might dismiss one of the charges?
Did Tina ever stop hanging around with Willis afterwards? Did Tina report her rape as rape at the hospital? Did Tina try to keep people from going to the cops? Did Tina voluntarily go out with Willis to the Bedford Village Inn for her 16th Birthday after her pregnancy?
Couldn't this behavior be considered somewhat normal for a girl being told to do the "Christian thing." The majority of Rape victims (I believe over 60%) never report the crime, due either to embarrassment or the assaulter being a "friend." In this case a 15 year old girl is dealing with both, she is being told to forgive this man who has been her friend and she is surely embarrassed so I can understand not reporting or wanting this to blow up publically.
To me this is normal behavior for a victim of a rape, especially such a young victim.
Did Tina ever stop hanging around with Willis afterwards? Did Tina report her rape as rape at the hospital? Did Tina try to keep people from going to the cops? Did Tina voluntarily go out with Willis to the Bedford Village Inn for her 16th Birthday after her pregnancy?
Couldn't this behavior be considered somewhat normal for a girl being told to do the "Christian thing." The majority of Rape victims (I believe over 60%) never report the crime, due either to embarrassment or the assaulter being a "friend." In this case a 15 year old girl is dealing with both, she is being told to forgive this man who has been her friend and she is surely embarrassed so I can understand not reporting or wanting this to blow up publically.
To me this is normal behavior for a victim of a rape, especially such a young victim.
Exactly! Thank you.
This is also why the testimony about Tina's stepfather is also relevant. According to Tina, this was not the first time that she had been abused by a trusted adult and had been convinced to "forgive and forget" in some form. Her mother welcomed her former abuser back into their home. Her pastor made her face him and forgive him. She had been taught to tolerate this kind of and similar types of abuse. (if we accept her testimony as true)
Here are the facts established by testimony over the last 3 days.
1. Chuck Phelps reports that Ernie Willis told him he was the aggressor. (by definition, aggressor is a person, group, or nation that attacks first or initiates hostilities; an assailant or invader.)
2. Chuck Phelps reads Tina a passage from Deut 22 about a woman who doesn't scream out when she is raped. Indicates that not screaming out implies complicity.
3. According to Phelps' notes, Tina had problems with the idea that she was guilty.
4. Chuck Phelps reported to youth services that the sex was consensual.
Here are the implications from these facts.
Phelps knew that Tina didn't believe she was responsible, that she didn't want sex with Willis. He also knows that Willis himself says he was the aggressor. But Phelps reads the Deut passage to Tina to convince her that she is partly to blame because she didn't scream out for help (though she was alone in her apartment and a car during the events). Based on these facts, Chuck Phelps is likely to be prosecuted for obstruction of justice by reporting that the sex was consensual because it's clear from his own testimony that he should have known better. He at least should have had reasonable doubt. Telling authorities it was consensual was beyond inappropriate, and likely outright illegal.
Here are the facts established by testimony over the last 3 days.
1. Chuck Phelps reports that Ernie Willis told him he was the aggressor. (by definition, aggressor is a person, group, or nation that attacks first or initiates hostilities; an assailant or invader.)
2. Chuck Phelps reads Tina a passage from Deut 22 about a woman who doesn't scream out when she is raped. Indicates that not screaming out implies complicity.
3. According to Phelps' notes, Tina had problems with the idea that she was guilty.
4. Chuck Phelps reported to youth services that the sex was consensual.
Here are the implications from these facts.
Phelps knew that Tina didn't believe she was responsible, that she didn't want sex with Willis. He also knows that Willis himself says he was the aggressor. But Phelps reads the Deut passage to Tina to convince her that she is partly to blame because she didn't scream out for help (though she was alone in her apartment and a car during the events). Based on these facts, Chuck Phelps is likely to be prosecuted for obstruction of justice by reporting that the sex was consensual because it's clear from his own testimony that he should have known better. He at least should have had reasonable doubt. Telling authorities it was consensual was beyond inappropriate, and likely outright illegal.
You think he can be prosecuted for obstruction of justice based on his opinion?
You really seem to be out for blood here.
What in the world? Yes, he can be prosecuted for obstruction of justice if he knows it wasn't consensual and he reports to authorities that it was. ESPECIALLY since he's a mandatory reporter. Implied in the label "mandatory reporter" is that you are required to report the TRUTH.
Pastor Phelps is not a cop. His opinion on consent had and has no legal weight. The charge in this case is that an adult had sex with a minor. By law, minors can't consent. End of story.
Obstruction of justice is any action that is an attempt to impede an investigation or tamper with evidence. Giving one's opinion is not obstruction of justice. His opinion did not prevent any aspect of the investigation. Even if the officers believed him, it doesn't matter, because again- minors can't legally consent.
I agree with Susan here. What is moral and what is legal are often two different things.
Here are the facts established by testimony over the last 3 days.
1. Chuck Phelps reports that Ernie Willis told him he was the aggressor. (by definition, aggressor is a person, group, or nation that attacks first or initiates hostilities; an assailant or invader.)
The idea that the use of the word "aggressor" proves force is an opinion, not a fact. The fact is that today Ernie Willis explained that he meant exacty what I said he might have meant. Looked up "aggressor" in a thesaurus.
3. According to Phelps' notes, Tina had problems with the idea that she was guilty.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but from Live Wire:
State: in your dayplanner you wrote "Tina having a hard time with guilt"
This does not clearly mean what you said above. This could easily mean that he thought Tina was having a difficult time because she felt guilty. Tina herself said on the stand that she felt guilty (doesn't mean she was).
Perhaps you have a different source of information that makes it clear?
4. Chuck Phelps reported to youth services that the sex was consensual.
So far there has been no information from the trial that that proves he believed it was not consensual.
I do think that with a 39 year old man and a 15 year old girl, everyone should have assumed it was not consensual until there was a clear admission from Tina otherwise.
Phelps knew that Tina didn't believe she was responsible, that she didn't want sex with Willis.
Still no evidence corroborating evidence of that.
He also knows that Willis himself says he was the aggressor.
Still doesn't mean what you say it means.
But Phelps reads the Deut passage to Tina to convince her that she is partly to blame because she didn't scream out for help (though she was alone in her apartment and a car during the events).
Disgusting. This makes Phelps look very bad, IMO. I read on his web site where he denied doing that. Under oath, he admitted it.
Based on these facts, Chuck Phelps is likely to be prosecuted for obstruction of justice by reporting that the sex was consensual because it's clear from his own testimony that he should have known better. He at least should have had reasonable doubt. Telling authorities it was consensual was beyond inappropriate, and likely outright illegal.
Some of the things you say are facts are not facts, and they don't support an obstruction of justice charge, or even perjury. It is still possible that Phelps actually believed it was consensual.
This won't make me any friends, but I will say that in my limited experience in IFB, in this type of situation the female is usually seen as the one bearing the greater responsibility. "She should have known better than to be alone with a married man", "She must have encouraged him", etc. I've seen it and heard it before. I don't know Phelps, but maybe there was some of that going on.
I read on his web site where he denied doing that.
He actually only denied saying she was lucky not to be stoned.
Micheledo-
Did Tina ever stop hanging around with Willis afterwards? Did Tina report her rape as rape at the hospital? Did Tina try to keep people from going to the cops? Did Tina voluntarily go out with Willis to the Bedford Village Inn for her 16th Birthday after her pregnancy?
Witnesses say "No", "No", "Yes", and "Yes" to those questions in sworn, legal depositions. That's important to know. You can't throw out facts just because you find one person in a trial to be credible. That's why Phelps and the others are testifying as we speak...to get at the facts of the case. Not just what one person, no matter how sorry we may feel for her, says.
I'm not excusing Willis and I'm not trying to crucify Tina...she's suffered enough. I would actually prefer to stay away from this discussion entirely. However, there are people who are arguing that Phelps was an legal accessory to Willis and that he obstructed justice by sending her to CO. Those are serious charges that demand the truth, not just accusations in a public discussion board. Cherry picking witnesses and testimony to sensationalize claims is wrong.
Again, it doesn't really matter if she still hung around Willis, if she didn't report it, if she didn't want people to go to the police. Considering a LARGE number of adult women do not report, do not want it reported, and some even stay friends with their abuser, why does it look bad that Tina did those same things, as a child?
I am not cherry picking and I am also not claiming that Phelps hid anything. I do think the way he handled it was wrong. That he was wrong to trust a man who admitted to being a pedophile, over a frightened child. But I take him at his word, even if I think the way he went about it was wrong.
IMO, Tina did not behave in a way that is different from most rape victims. In fact, it sounds like she would have never said anything if she hadn't ended up pregnant. That forced her to come forward, with fear.
I read on his web site where he denied doing that.
He actually only denied saying she was lucky not to be stoned.
Yes, I messed that one up.
I am wondering though: why did he read her that passage at all if she never said she had been raped?
I think I'll just move along now.
That is an interesting point . . . if she says that she consented to the act or didn't give any characterization at all . . . why go to Deuteronomy 22 in the first place? Are there no NT passages that address the issues of sexual sin?
Hopefully the prosecution isn't reading this thread. You are right to move along . . .
I am wondering though: why did he read her that passage at all if she never said she had been raped?
I think I'll just move along now.
EXACTLY! At least we agree on the inconsistency of this point.
I honestly don't know this - what does it mean to take a motion to dismiss under advisement? Does it mean that he might dismiss one of the charges?
That means that that the judge chose not to rule on the motion to dismiss at that time but rather to delay his ruling until a later time. When I saw the discussion of the motion on the WMUR-TV live blogging, I had anticipated that the court would choose this route. While the court can rule on the motion at any time, at this point, I would not expect a ruling until after a jury decision. If the jury acquits Mr. Willis on the relevant charge(s), then the motion to dismiss effectively becomes moot, and the court will not need to make a ruling. If the jury convicts him, then the court will have to rule on the motion and could dismiss the relevant charge(s) at that point. Were that to occur, the court judge would be deciding that the evidence presented was insufficient as a matter of law to support a conviction.
These motions to dismiss are quite standard when the prosecution rests. If the court declares the evidence legally insufficient to support a conviction on any particular charge and thus dismisses that charge, then the prosecution is over as to that charge: the defendant cannot be retried, even if the court was clearly erroneous in dismissing the charge. Accordingly, courts are understandable cautious.
Again, it doesn't really matter if she still hung around Willis, if she didn't report it, if she didn't want people to go to the police. Considering a LARGE number of adult women do not report, do not want it reported, and some even stay friends with their abuser, why does it look bad that Tina did those same things, as a child?
I am not cherry picking and I am also not claiming that Phelps hid anything. I do think the way he handled it was wrong. That he was wrong to trust a man who admitted to being a pedophile, over a frightened child. But I take him at his word, even if I think the way he went about it was wrong.
Micheledo,
If you were raped by a guy in your church, would you voluntarily go out to eat with the assailant a few weeks later for your birthday, as the Concord Monitor reported in a story titled "Rape Defendant Admits to Touching", p. 2? (URL - http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/259340/rape-defendant-admits-to-touching?page=0,1&CSAuthResp=%3Asession%3ACSUserId|CSGroupId%3Aapproved%3A5285D5C6A5B6964E12805A575246ADB5&CSUserId=21871&CSGroupId=1)
The point isn't that Tina is responsible for Willis. Willis will go to jail, and rightfully so. The point is that several people, esp. on Facebook, gossip about the facts that are "helpful" to proving Phelps is a monster or is guilty of conspiracy, or whatever and they do not admit the facts that are now legally on record that indicate that Phelps and others tried to help Tina. That kind of vindictive, malicious gossip is going to destroy more lives - like the unsaved in the Concord area who will refuse the gospel as a result of this trial / campaign, or Tina's child - and that's really my concern.
Some here have been victimized by others. I understand that, and I understand because I work with someone who has been a victim of decades of sexual abuse. But to start responding to their offense by taking justice into the victim's hands is not the right way to handle this...the law and the courts are, and when they are done, then God will ultimately deal with all things perfectly justly.
That means that that the judge chose not to rule on the motion to dismiss at that time but rather to delay his ruling until a later time. When I saw the discussion of the motion on the WMUR-TV live blogging, I had anticipated that the court would choose this route. While the court can rule on the motion at any time, at this point, I would not expect a ruling until after a jury decision. If the jury acquits Mr. Willis on the relevant charge(s), then the motion to dismiss effectively becomes moot, and the court will not need to make a ruling. If the jury convicts him, then the court will have to rule on the motion and could dismiss the relevant charge(s) at that point. Were that to occur, the court judge would be deciding that the evidence presented was insufficient as a matter of law to support a conviction.
These motions to dismiss are quite standard when the prosecution rests. If the court declares the evidence legally insufficient to support a conviction on any particular charge and thus dismisses that charge, then the prosecution is over as to that charge: the defendant cannot be retried, even if the court was clearly erroneous in dismissing the charge. Accordingly, courts are understandable cautious.
Thanks for that, Brent.
A general reminder to avoid binary thinking...
People tend to think in either-or's... the more emotional the issue, the more likely this becomes. So folks tend to fall into: "Either Willers Willis is a criminal or Tina was a completely willing participant." It's not even close to that simple. It's quite clear that Willers Willis is a criminal. That's not even in dispute. He has pleaded guilty to statutory rape and nobody is questioning his guilt on that point.
Nobody.
In the trail, the defense is arguing that her consent would mean he is not guilty of regular rape (as opposed to statutory... I don't know what the proper legal term for "regular" is).
I'm glad I don't have to make that decision. It's up to a jury. I'm happy to leave it with them.
But it's really unlikely in a situation like this--where we're hearing testimony from more than a dozen years ago--that either side is going to be correct on every point. So again, the binary thing (either the defense is correct on every point or the state is right on every point) would be pretty ridiculous.
Again, it doesn't really matter if she still hung around Willis, if she didn't report it, if she didn't want people to go to the police. Considering a LARGE number of adult women do not report, do not want it reported, and some even stay friends with their abuser, why does it look bad that Tina did those same things, as a child?
I am not cherry picking and I am also not claiming that Phelps hid anything. I do think the way he handled it was wrong. That he was wrong to trust a man who admitted to being a pedophile, over a frightened child. But I take him at his word, even if I think the way he went about it was wrong.
Micheledo,
If you were raped by a guy in your church, would you voluntarily go out to eat with the assailant a few weeks later for your birthday, as the Concord Monitor reported in a story titled "Rape Defendant Admits to Touching", p. 2? (URL - http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/259340/rape-defendant-admits-to-touching?page=0,1&CSAuthResp=%3Asession%3ACSUserId|CSGroupId%3Aapproved%3A5285D5C6A5B6964E12805A575246ADB5&CSUserId=21871&CSGroupId=1)
I don't know what I would have done as a child. My point is that it is common to maintain a relationship with the abuser. I personally know someone that had a relationship for MANY years with her abuser. I don't understand that, but apparently it is common.
Jay, I went back to edit my previous post and it was too late. I've been thinking about it, and I probably would have. Growing up I was the girl that wanted nothing than to please my parents. I went to summer camp EVERY year. HATED every minute of it. Sobbed through game time, meals, chapels, cried myself to sleep. I spent all my free time in the craft shop making things for my parents while I cried. My parents never knew - until I was an ADULT!! I guess I just assumed they knew, but I also thought they wanted me to go to camp - so I went every year without saying a word or questioning it.
So it makes sense to me that I would probably maintain our 'friend' relationship afterwards. If I hadn't told anyone that happened, I would have based my decision on what I thought my parents would want of me. They wouldn't want me to be unkind or rude all of a sudden. So yes, I probably would have continued with my abuser. 
Maybe I can understand after all.
The facts are that after the initial incident (be it sexual touching or intercourse) in the car the plaintiff voluntarily allowed the defendant into her home where the rape occurred (statutory or forcible). The plaintiff admits to not remembering what actually took place in her home. Her own words were, "I blanked out." No one has testified under oath to the use of the term rape by the plaintiff within years of the actual incident. There were no physical signs of forcible rape to the plaintiff; nor were there any signs of forced entry into the home. The plaintiff and defendant have both testified to a subsequent dinner engagement near her 16th birthday which was the age of consent at that time in New Hampshire. The pastor who has an outstanding track record as an honest and godly man promptly reported the incident to the authorities as a statutory rape near the time of the incident. The pastor has the full support of the plaintiff's mother in his sworn testimony. The defendant is certainly guilty of statutory rape and criminal sexual molestation. He deserves to be imprisoned for those crimes and may be guilty of forcible rape. However, the maligning of the pastor's character is not justified. The accusation of moral bankruptcy is itself slanderous and immoral.
There were no physical signs of forcible rape to the plaintiff
She wasn't examined until after finding out she was pregnant! Those signs would likely have healed by then.
No one has testified under oath to the use of the term rape by the plaintiff within years of the actual incident.
Doesn't it seem likely or at least possible, in the case of a young and troubled victim, that some level of denial would prevent this?
The plaintiff and defendant have both testified to a subsequent dinner engagement near her 16th birthday which was the age of consent at that time in New Hampshire.
What does age of consent have to do with when they had dinner? Again, to a young girl victimized by multiple men in authority over her-- stepdad, family friend-- this surprises? Poor girl from a poor family has a birithday dinner out dangled in front of her and, after her mother has kept an abuser (she may have been told by some authority to forgive) around she's supposed to have the wisdom and fortitude to turn down something that would equate, to a younger child, to a shiny piece of candy from a shady person.
Which brings me to
The pastor has the full support of the plaintiff's mother in his sworn testimony.
You say this like it cannot possibly be a liability rather than a credit.
However, the maligning of the pastor's character is not justified.
Fair enough. But what about his behavior back then and today? Fair game?
I have not followed this case that closely, and I was wondering if someone could help me out on one issue. I have read through the notes from the trial, and one thing that surprised me was that no one really pursued the police involvement in this. There has been a lot accusations that the church handled this improperly, but I have not read anything about the police failing to follow up. Maybe I just missed it. Anyone???
While public defenders are often thought of as "not as good" as private practice attorneys, that is not always the case. In cases such as this, meaning high profile, a PD has an opportunity to have local law firms notice their skills as potential future hires. These two will probably be public defenders for a long time.
While Ernie Willis is guilty of rape, the level of defense he had was poor. In a trial, the prosecution wants to tell a a story to the jury that is believable. One of the tactics for defense is to disrupt that "story line." Every time the prosecution brought up anything to do with the church, whether it was the incident in front of the church family, or going away to Colorado, the defense should have objected on the grounds of relevance. All of that "story line" had nothing to do with the innocense or guilt of Ernie Willis. This was a matter that occurred outside of the church - not in the church and not by a church deacon or any other authority figure. The church was asked for help. They did not cover it up and whether you agree with how it was handled or not, does not matter in this case.
I do want to get the full transcript of the trial because in speaking with people (one of whom a friend who is a former police chief) who were actually there yesterday, the prosecution became frustrated with Pastor Phelps when he tried to answer the questions but the prosecution cut him off. The judge allowed Pastor Phelps to complete his answers. All WMUR did was type snipits - you don't get the entire picture. The Concord Police, did not look very good.
At one point they asked CPD if Phelps called them and they said yes. But then the police officer said he "phoned" both Phelps and Christine Leaf and never got a return phone call. There are no records of it but even if there were, was that all you'd do. When I was a police officer, I made more effort solving a smashed mailbox.
The 5:00PM headline on WMUR News was "Accused Rapist from strict Baptist church takes the stand". I really wonder what this verdict will be. While I hope that a guilty verdict comes back, I am not 100% sure it will. Could it be that Ernie Willis could get away with no time??? Hope not.
The one telling point was the cross examination of the Concord Police officer when he was asked if Pastor Phelps had contacted both CPD and DCYF - the answer from the officer was "yes".
Dave,
I don't object to your interpretation or possible explanation of the facts. They can go either way. The nasty thing about facts is that they have to be interpreted and that's why we have an impartial jury who has to decide a verdict of guilt or innocence beyond a "reasonable" doubt based on their corporate interpretation of the facts.
As far as Pastor Phelps is concerned, he would not handle this case today as he handled it fourteen years ago. Hindsight is 20/20 (pardon the pun).
I have not followed this case that closely, and I was wondering if someone could help me out on one issue. I have read through the notes from the trial, and one thing that surprised me was that no one really pursued the police involvement in this. There has been a lot accusations that the church handled this improperly, but I have not read anything about the police failing to follow up. Maybe I just missed it. Anyone???
That confuses me as well, since a church is not legally able or required to investigate criminal acts. In Ohio, church staff are mandatory reporters, but that is all we can do. We can't investigate, and if no charges are filed, we can't file on the behalf of a victim. Once a report is filed, it is up to the police and district attorney to pursue the case.
There are a few threads around here about church gov't and discipline, and I think those could be very helpful as churches consider how they might handle a similar situation. What was SOP 20 years ago simply does not fly now.
I watched an interview and some commentary on the Elizabeth Smart case last night, and it was jaw-dropping that the defense was asking for a lighter sentence based on the fact that Elizabeth has recovered from her ordeal and told her abductor/rapist "I have a wonderful life now", in spite of what happened to her. It's amazing that her current condition could even be considered, rather than an impartial judgment of the crime itself.
I wondered if the Willis defense would try a similar tactic.
Official Mod. Note Two
I am temporarily, and on my own initiative, unpublishing a few posts for further review by the rest of the team. Once we have consensus on the posts from the rest of the team, we will either republish or leave hidden.
All involved members will be contacted via PM.
Jay C.
If the defense is as poor as you claim, then can the charges be appealed due to poor representation?
(Not that I want this case to drag on longer...)
If the defense is as poor as you claim, then can the charges be appealed due to poor representation?
(Not that I want this case to drag on longer...)
Yes, a convicted defendant can seek a new trial and appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel, but as you can probably imagine, the standards are strict. Here is some language from the opinion of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire in State v. Whittaker, which you can find here:
To prevail upon a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show, first, that counsel’s representation was constitutionally deficient and, second, that counsel’s deficient performance actually prejudiced the outcome of the case. To meet the first prong of this test, the defendant “must show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” To meet the second prong, the defendant “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” (citations omitted)
For a short two-page opinion showing how the Supreme Court of New Hampshire applied these principles in a simple case, see State v. Kidd here.
Hope this helps.
would be a tough road. Appeals are based upon the "rule of law" so counsel would have had to violate, or ignore, a rule of law that would be beneficial to the defendent. An appeal does not turn on the facts or circumstances of the charges - but how it was handled in court, i.e. evidence admitted or withheld, improper instruction to the jury, comments/testimony allowed by the judge etc. Normally appeals are based on violations of previous state supremem court rulings on similar matters. In some states I believe, the judge can rule as to the ineffectiveness of counsel and declare a mistrial. Not sure there was in this case but I only got snippets like most others. However, guilt is determined based on "reasonable doubt", not "beyond all doubt". While they will probably come back with a conviction, I am not sure as I think defense did manage to raise "reasonable doubt", which I guess is their ultimate goal.
Many of the defense attorneys I know whom you would term as "aggressive" would have objected on a regular basis to the testimony allowed that really had nothing to do with Wilis' innocense or guilt, such as the alleged church discipline, the move to Colorado, etc. It would be a way to interrupt the prosecutions story. Sometimes it backfires as the jury starts to wonder what the defense is hiding. Althought in this case, everything was so well publicized for a year, you would be hard pressed to find a juror who was not familiar with the case.
I have stayed away but now that the jury is deliberating...here goes.
1. Obviously Willis is the one who committed the crime, he is the biggest sinner in this whole mess. Reading what I read on the livewire, he is in deep trouble. He was trying to be Clinoneske with the facts by saying it only occured one time, then changed his tune when Phelps notes were entered into evidence. If he is lying about that, what else is he lying about??
2. David Gibbs may have acted as a good lawyer, but I don't think he should be in any pulpit. The result of him getting the notes thrown out would have helped a criminal either get away with a crime or made it easier for him to. That is disgusting.
3. Chuck Phelps should have not been investigating, but he did. His testimony showed he was more concerned with Willis' well-being, than Anderson's. He was crying when he was worried about Ernie being suicidal. OK, I have been there as a pastor. But now, we have a man who has committed a crime, that was reported...but now he is suicidal. If someone is a danger to themselves or someone else, they need to be put in a position where they are less likely to hurt themselves. This is reason to be agressive, not handle things things the way he did. Alot of what he says, just does not make sense. And I say this as a a pastor that has had to deal with these issues.
4. As far as why Tina went to dinner with him. People who are assalted by someone who is close to them often act this way. It's easy to say, If I were raped I wouldnt have contact. Well, it is not that simple when you know the person and he is a close, trusted family friend. Her behavior is consistant with other rape victims in this circumstance.
Pastor Harding,
I respect you greatly. Yet, I don't think you are correct. You said Phelps would handle things differently. Where do you get that from? Everything he has said and done indicates the opposite. His arrogance is beyond pale in this whole mess. Tina's mom is no help to him..She shows her self as being a mom with a deep need to be with a preditor no matter what it did to her children. She has no credibility in this.
So much more to say, but I will refrian. I rewrote this more than once...
1. Obviously Willis is the one who committed the crime, he is the biggest sinner in this whole mess. Reading what I read on the livewire, he is in deep trouble. He was trying to be Clinoneske with the facts by saying it only occured one time, then changed his tune when Phelps notes were entered into evidence. If he is lying about that, what else is he lying about??
Please understand I am in no way defending Ernie Willis, but you arrive at a conclusion from facts not in eveidence. Pastor Phelps said there were TWO incidents. He does not, in his notes, explain what ann incident is. Will claims he raped Tina once and had inappropriate conduct on another. He did not change his tune...he stated that only one of the incidents constituted rape.
3. Chuck Phelps should have not been investigating, but he did. His testimony showed he was more concerned with Willis' well-being, than Anderson's. He was crying when he was worried about Ernie being suicidal. OK, I have been there as a pastor. But now, we have a man who has committed a crime, that was reported...but now he is suicidal. If someone is a danger to themselves or someone else, they need to be put in a position where they are less likely to hurt themselves. This is reason to be agressive, not handle things things the way he did. Alot of what he says, just does not make sense. And I say this as a a pastor that has had to deal with these issues.
I disagree that Chuck Phelps showed more concern ove Ernie Willis than Tina. The testimony that has been printed is partial at best and does not take into account many efforts that Pastor Phelps put forward on Tina's behalf...but that have been taulked about at length. If Pastor Phelps believed Ernie Willis was suicidal, he had limited options under NH Law. I do not believe as a pastor that he could have IEH which is involuntary emergency hospitalization. However, had the police interviewed Ernie Willis, they could have made a determination and either arrested him on charges, IEH'd, or taken into protective custody. The latter not as likely as that is really meant for drunks.
. As far as why Tina went to dinner with him. People who are assalted by someone who is close to them often act this way. It's easy to say, If I were raped I wouldnt have contact. Well, it is not that simple when you know the person and he is a close, trusted family friend. Her behavior is consistant with other rape victims in this circumstance.
While what you say may at times be correct, it is also correct that someone, even a young lady, in a consensual relationship, would act the same way. Tina's going to dinner at what is arguably the most expensive restaurant in the area, shows a lack of fear on the part of Tina. I think you can put your argument forward, but I think the argument on the other side is just as strong, if not stronger.
You said Phelps would handle things differently. Where do you get that from? Everything he has said and done indicates the opposite. His arrogance is beyond pale in this whole mess. Tina's mom is no help to him..She shows her self as being a mom with a deep need to be with a preditor no matter what it did to her children. She has no credibility in this.
You should check out Pastor Phelp's website and you will see where he states he would handle things differently. Claiming arrogance on the part of Pastor Phelps is an opinion you have formed. I am not sure if you know Chuck Phelps personally, but arrogant is about the furthest adjective I would use that would describe him. Tina's mom is nohelp is correct. But she is also a woman who was, at the time of this incident, diagnosed with MS, and her daughter was known to be a rebellious sort. I think she is emotionally weak, but you cannot question her love for her child.
You also state that as a small time pastor you would have been thrown under the bus had this been you. I am not sure what death threats against not only you, but your children away at college is...certainly not a day at the beach. Pastor Phelps is a man of biblical principle and he will stand on those principles. Again, we have another Pastor weighing in, based on partial news reports, snippets of a trial, and not even knowing the people involved.
There were 5-6 disgruntled former church members that have come forward and said it was church discipline. Well there were 150-200 others in attendence that disagree...but that doesn't make the news because it isn't what people, including some who call themselves Christians, apparently want to hear.
I feel very badly for Tina and I place the blame squarely on Ernie Willis not only as a matter of law, but as a matter of common sense. Trinity had another pastor at that time, a very good friend of mine who was also a Watertown Mass Police office prior to accepting the Lord. He knows as well as anyone that had Concord Police done their job in 1997 - none of this would have ever happened...none of it! Yet, Louise and now apparently you have formed an opinion about someone without speaking with him or knowing him.
Mr. Payette,
So are you saying in 1997 in the state of NH that if a mandatory reporter did not have to get police involved yet again if he believed someone who committed a crime was suicidal? In illinois, if someone is a danger to themselves or someone else, I have to take reasonable action to prevent that. Are you saying a Pastor in 1997 didn't have that obligation or was not allowed to do that?
Tina's mom is nohelp is correct. But she is also a woman who was, at the time of this incident, diagnosed with MS, and her daughter was known to be a rebellious sort. I think she is emotionally weak, but you cannot question her love for her child.
You also state that as a small time pastor you would have been thrown under the bus had this been you. I am not sure what death threats against not only you, but your children away at college is...certainly not a day at the beach. Pastor Phelps is a man of biblical principle and he will stand on those principles. Again, we have another Pastor weighing in, based on partial news reports, snippets of a trial, and not even knowing the people involved.
There were 5-6 disgruntled former church members that have come forward and said it was church discipline. Well there were 150-200 others in attendence that disagree...but that doesn't make the news because it isn't what people, including some who call themselves Christians, apparently want to hear.
Yes, you CAN question her love for her child. She obviously chose her sexually abusive husband over her daughter. WHO other than Tina's mother says she "was known to be a rebellious sort"? Nobody testified to that and no one has given that testimony elsewhere. Even Tina's mother testified in court that Tina made good grades and didn't give her trouble with boyfriends. Maybe Tina seemed rebellious to her mother because she didn't like living with a step father who sexually molested her and others. That seems reasonable from a middle schooler.
And WHERE ARE THE CHURCH MEMBERS WHO SAY IT WASN'T CHURCH DISCIPLINE? There are none on the public record. NONE.
**edited to clarify that there are no members who were first person witnesses on record that it wasn't church discipline. All of the first person witnesses on record say it was church discipline.
There were 5-6 disgruntled former church members that have come forward and said it was church discipline. Well there were 150-200 others in attendence that disagree...but that doesn't make the news because it isn't what people, including some who call themselves Christians, apparently want to hear.
PPayette,
I don't know how to say this gently to you, but Pastor Phelps read the statement HE READ for Tina before the church. Did you listen to that portion of his recorded testimony in court? There is no need for anyone else to testify to anything. Unless you have a profoundly different definition you are using for church discipline, there is no denying that is exactly what happened to Tina.
you don't have to say it gently...I can take it. No problem. The people you refer to that are not on public record are, for the most part, still members of Trinity. They are taking what I would refer to on this as the high road and looking forward to this ending and not drawing attention to themselves. However, I speak to these people three times a week and to a person they never interpreted it as church discpline. Does it mean that Tina should have gone in front of the church? No - absolutley not and Chuck Phelps has stated that he would not do that again.
I have not said this before, but my own daughter became pregnant out of wedlock. This church embraced her - there was never a shaming. We all have sin, my daughters was just there in front of everyone for everyone to see. Everyone elses just happened to be hidden.
What is your sin Louise? What could we talk about in here to endless lengths for something you have done? How could we make you feel as low as you could feel because of a mistake you made even if your intentions were good? I don't know you and so I will form an opinion of you...much like you have done to others and I have castigated others for. I may be wrong but you come across as an angry woman...probably quick to accuse and point the finger. I picture you picking up a news article and only reading what suits your position. If I am wrong about Patsor Phelps, I will be the first to apologize. But I am also not going to condemen him because he is a man, and subject to the same frailties as all of us. The only difference is that you Louise, get to blast him for all the world to see while hiding behind your computer screen. I feel sorry for you. You have shown disrespect for Pastor Phelps by constantly referring to him by his last name "phelps"...like it or not...that's a sign of disrespect.
Proverbs 18:8
The words of a gossip are like choice morsels; they go down to a man's inmost parts.
Proverbs 23:15-16
My son, if your heart is wise, then my heart will be glad; my inmost being will rejoice when your lips speak what is right
Refering to him in third person by his last name is a sign of disrespect? Really? Maybe if she directly adressed him that way, but in the context of third person.
What is your sin Louise? What could we talk about in here to endless lengths for something you have done? How could we make you feel as low as you could feel because of a mistake you made even if your intentions were good?
I haven't abdicated my responsibilities to widows, or orphans, or my children that I know of. However, if at some point I am accused of not protecting and advocating for the oppressed in my realm of influence, of putting additional shame on a victim instead of vindicating them before their abuser, then please do confront me. And if I choose to defend myself instead of confessing and seeking to reconcile the wrongs I've done, then feel free to bring added pressure on me in a public forum such as this.
You just told us everything you haven't done. But in fact I would not want you to tell us because I would not want you to go through what you have put others through. There is not an ounce of compassion in any of your posts...just anger. That's all you have and I feel sorry for you.
Mr Payette,
Were you at the trial then? Did you see everything? Just curious your thoughts of it if you were there.
Basically Pastor Phelps is telling the truth.
Tina's mom is the mother, she is probably telling the truth.
Ernie says the same things as the first two, so he is telling the truth.
Tina is to be doubted.
OK, maybe that is a little extreme. But why should those of us who don't know ANY of these people just take Phelps at face value? Why cannot we question his statements?
When I heard about this I started reading everything I could about what happened. I read Chuck Phelps site, I read sites supporting Tina, I read newspaper articles, I heard from people who knew the individuals. Basically I took Phelps, Tina, and her mom at their word. I will admit, I won't trust a single thing that Ernie says. He is a pedophile. He PREYED on a child. He even, finally, admitted in court that he instigated it and asked her to have sex with him (though that is different from Phelps notes). He is a pedophile. Sorry, but I won't even consider his account at the moment.
Tina says she was raped, that she was terrified, ashamed, humiliated, etc. She even admits to letting him in her house, to meeting him at a restaurant, continuing to babysit for him. Based on what is know about abuse victims, there is really nothing out of the ordinary in her actions.
Tina's mother allowed an abuser of her children back in the home. She says that Tina was defiant (and she was also being abused by her stepfather at the time - so that seems understandable). She also stated in court that Tina did not say she was raped and she did not say it was consensual. Tina's mom ASSUMED it was.
Pastor Phelps read his notes. Ernie said it occurred TWICE and that he was the aggressor. Phelps read that Ernie said Tina was still and did nothing so he assumed it was consensual. So Phelps assumed too, that it was consensual. (I don't even want to get into how messed up that is. A young girl is silent while a grown Christian man has sex with her - so it must have been consensual?? And Phelps chose to believe the man who admitted to being a pedophile and preying on a child!?) I really see no reason, at this point, to think that Pastor Phelps is lying, however his notes and statements and website give me a glimpse of what his view of rape is or a consensual relationship is.
And Tina - who admits to letting him in her house, admits to meeting him for lunch, admits much of these things - yet her perspective is that it was RAPE. That she was embarrassed, afraid, and felt guilty. What reason does she had to lie about what happened? She wasn't even the one who brought this up again. She just answered the phone when the police called her and asked about it.
Why is it okay to assume Tina is lying and not Pastor Phelps? Tina is our sister in Christ, just as Phelps is our brother in Christ.
Like I already mentioned, I (at this point) see no need to say people are being deceitful. I think a lot of assumptions were made by the adults in Tina's life (and several of them admitted that on the stand). I have heard of teen girls that had relationships with adults, and they are very vocal about their love for them, their desire to be with them, etc. But in this situation, not a single adult has stated that Tina SAID it was consensual. It was all assumed. Now we have a young lady saying, "I was raped." Sounds like at the time she was to fearful or ashamed to speak out that clearly in the past. When she told people what had happened, she was telling them that she was raped (in different words, apparently) and what they heard and assumed was that she wanted to be with the man.
Micheledo,
Your last post was excellent!
Roger,
Thanks for your input. I respect your viewpoint. I have spoken with Pastor Phelps several times about this issue. Therefore, I know he would handle things differently. Most pastors at some point have to deal with these situations. They are difficult to say the least and very complicated from a moral, ethical, legal, and pastoral viewpoint---all of which have to be simultaneously dealt with. In addition, it can be very difficult or sometimes impossible to know when someone is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. One has to guard against false accusation as well as naive credulity. In this case we now have the advantage of hindsight and fuller disclosure.
Regarding total depravity, a regenerated believer is no longer totally depraved. He or she is a new creature in Christ, a new man or new woman possessing a new nature. The old man died with Christ on the cross and we are to consider this to be true because it actually is true. This new nature is a complex of divine attributes given the believer by the Holy Spirit at regeneration. Though the new man still possesses the flesh, a complex of sinful attributes, the new man is no longer ruled, dominated, and surrendered in servitude to the flesh. He may temporally act in a carnal fashion; however, the regenerated man is no longer the natural man. Instead, he is the Spirit-man. One can strongly disagree with the way Pastor Phelps handled this situation. Nevertheless, charges of moral bankruptcy better fit those listed in Roman 1:18ff. Even among the unregenerate there are different levels of morality based on their response to common grace. All unbelievers are totally depraved, but they are not all equally corrupt.
A Verdict has been reached....waiting for announcement
http://livewire.wmur.com/Event/Jury_Deliberates_In_Willis_Trial
He has been found guilty of forcible rape.
Now the million dollar question. Does this conviction change anyone's mind regarding the circumstances surrounding this case? Can we let the issue of was it Forced/Consensual rest now?
I am not suprised. I am glad that justice was done! I am praying for Tina and her family. I am still praying Ernie that he will now show genuine repentance. I am also praying for his exwife and his children. What a mess sin does.
Two more posts have had to be hidden because they were related to a previous, now unpublished, accusation against Dr. Phelps. The parties involved have been PM'd as well.