Court Vindicates Dr. Paige Patterson’s Handling of Alleged Rape Case

No problem, the Churches had already pronounced him guilty and sentenced him before the trial!

Paul Henebury wrote: No problem, the Churches had already pronounced him guilty and sentenced him before the trial!

Not to mention internet experts everywhere.

I wondered if someone would remind SI readers that many assumed Patterson's guilt without considering the charges might be invalid. In this day of "me too", we need to remember that "victims" can and do lie, and its hard to get one's reputation back after being falsely accused. It makes one wonder if Christians haven't read the account of Joseph and Potipher's wife?

OK, the lawsuit was dismissed, but the ending of this particular claim does not mean that Patterson has been exonerated. It means one plaintiff has come up with a case that was insufficient under Texas law to get a judgment.

You want to defend lying to the SWBTS trustees about lying to them about a case involving SEBTS, keeping Title IX documents in one's personal collection and releasing them through a subordinate's spouse, trying to "break down" a rape victim, and more, be my guest, but the trustees of SWBTS and higher-ups at the SBC have a docket for the man that I cannot ignore.

The internet expert line begins to form

I see you and two others totally misreading the linked article and agreeing with a guy who is basically a Patterson fanboy.

The "Internet expert line", starring you, Don.

For my part, I'm going to go back to what the SWBTS board said a while back.

I'm no fan of Paige Patterson. I got an "up close" perception of him when he was president of Southeastern seminary about 50 miles from my home. I give him huge credit for clearing out liberals and returning the seminary to a strong Bible based position, which, as far as I can tell, is still carrying on under Daniel Aiken. However, I didn't post above out of love or loyalty to Patterson. I saw several of his traits which caused me concern back then, and I'm not surprised that he ran into difficulty at Southwestern. Bert has reminded us of events which I had forgotten which call his integrity into question.

Still, I believe the "me too" situation has resulted in a number of people being wrongfully accused, and it would appear that Patterson's situation may fit that category. Pendulums swing, and now is a dangerous time to be a male leader if someone is trying to get you out of the way. Leaders beware. Guard against even the slightest appearance of wrongdoing.

Bert Perry wrote: trying to "break down" a rape victim

Bert, correct me if I'm wrong, but there really was no rape victim after all. The woman who made the allegation refused to go to the police even after being encouraged multiple times to do so (by Patterson!). When the accused was questioned, he said the encounter was consensual and provided evidence to that effect. As a result, no charges were ever filed.

You cannot continue to refer to her as a rape victim without any corroborating evidence. An allegation of rape doesn't substantiate that a rape actually occurred.

And the "break down" comment you're referring to was taken way out of context, as the court record shows.

Let's turn it on its head; when the accused was questioned, what evidence did he provide that the encounter was consensual? Keep in mind here that sexual assault cases are notorious for being he said/she said, and hence it often turns on how one or both parties do under cross examination. But even so, a lot of people are indeed convicted of sexual assault in varying degrees on such levels of evidence.

It also should be noted that not filing charges does not prove that the assault never happened. It proves that the accuser felt that the cost of going forward was higher than the cost of not doing so.

Bert Perry wrote: Let's turn it on its head; when the accused was questioned, what evidence did he provide that the encounter was consensual? Keep in mind here that sexual assault cases are notorious for being he said/she said, and hence it often turns on how one or both parties do under cross examination. But even so, a lot of people are indeed convicted of sexual assault in varying degrees on such levels of evidence.

Don't know the evidence he provided, but it was more than what was presented by the accuser (i.e. nothing). Further, he should be assumed innocent unless proven guilty, not the other way around. She needs more evidence than just her accusation.

Bert Perry wrote: It also should be noted that not filing charges does not prove that the assault never happened.

So, what corroborating evidence are you using to confirm that this person is a rape victim, other than her accusation? A lack of charges does not prove an assault never happened; however, it should give one pause before labelling the accused a rapist on social media. That could lead to a lawsuit for defamation.

If you're going to say that the accused gave more evidence, out with it. There are some cases elsewhere where the communication between accuser and accused demostrates a continued relationship, for example.

And again, the accusation needs to be taken seriously as evidence. One common error in cases like this--and a big reason that victims don't press charges--is to assume that you've got to have a ton of other corroborating evidence besides the initial claims. It's a harder case to prove, but it's very often sufficient.

The reason is simple; in criminal cases, the defense lawyer tries his best, in general, to keep his client off the witness stand, because a lot of defendants break down under cross examination.

I found this footnote in the legal doc to be interesting:

To be clear, it is undisputed that Roe has made these assertions and allegations about Doe’s purported sexual assaults and other physically violent behavior. Defendants do not concede that Doe engaged in the conduct recounted by Roe. This lawsuit was filed years after the events occurred, and apparently months after Doe passed away, so Doe himself could not respond to Roe’s allegations or otherwise provide evidence.

Yet, the accused is still to be considered a rapist just because the accuser made an allegation with no corroborating evidence.

Sorry, Bert. If she refused to go to the police and can't corroborate her accusation that "she was repeatedly subjected to violent sexual assaults perpetrated by another SWBTS student," and the court dismisses her negligence and gross negligence claims against Patterson and SWBTS, there's not much to stand on.

You need to move on to your next "victim."

Bert Perry wrote: And again, the accusation needs to be taken seriously as evidence.

In what parallel universe version of the U.S. is an accusation considered to be evidence itself?

It's called eyewitness testimony, Dave. Courts use it every day, and it's particularly important in cases of sexual assault because most people don't have sex in front of other people.

Tom; so you're conceding that you do not have any examples of contrary evidence from the accused? Really, it's not uncommon for sexual assault victims to not come forward until later, especially since it's so common for the rest of the world to blame the victim.

Should the accusation of rape by Potipher's wife have been considered evidence that Joseph was guilty? As we know, her accusations were wrongfully considered evidence, but they were lies, and a great injustice ensued.