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

Bert Perry wrote: 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.

Eyewitness testimony from the person making the accusation is no more valuable than eyewitness testimony from the accused. Without outside evidence, the accusation is meaningless as evidence, as the above example from Potiphar’s wife shows. Standard jurisprudence does not consider an accusation itself to be evidence. An accusation can be made, but must be backed up by other evidence to be provable. In the absence of physical evidence like DNA, semen, hair, camera footage, etc., there should never be a conviction based on solely the testimony of the accuser.

And then you have cross examination of Potiphar's wife, and then you have the testimony by Joseph himself, and his cross examination.

Well, that's what you do in a U.S. court. In the Egyptian courts, of course, the testimony of nobles was not subject to cross examination or rebuttal unless there was another noble involved.

And Dave, to correct another, egregious and repeated mistake on your part, NO, eyewitness testimony is not meaningless without other evidence. Thousands and thousands of cases are disposed every year based on the same. Most cases with child sexual abuse, for example. It generally does not leave a mark, physical evidence rarely exists, etc..

Bert Perry wrote: And Dave, to correct another, egregious and repeated mistake on your part, NO, eyewitness testimony is not meaningless without other evidence.

You can call it “egregious” if you wish, but you are not understanding what I’m saying. I agree that eyewitness testimony can be evidence. But when both sides are testifying against each other, and there are no other factors involved (which would include the contents of their testimony of course) that would tip the balance of believability to one side or the other (and making an accusation does NOT tip the balance of believability in the favor of the accuser), the tie should go to the accused.

While U.S. law is not specifically based on the Bible, that’s also why the Mosaic law required two to testify against for conviction when other evidence was not available. That didn’t make the testimony of either man meaningless, but without the testimony of the other, it did not outweigh the testimony of the accused.

I’ve only served on a jury once, and it ended in a mistrial, but I can tell you that if it had come to it, there would have had to be more evidence than an accusation from the victim for me to have voted for conviction. At the time the mistrial was declared, I was convinced from the way the defendant acted while listening to the proceedings that he was guilty, but I also realized that up to that point, the prosecution had not made its case, and if called upon to vote for a verdict, I would have gone with “not guilty.”

I Timothy 6:19 emphasizes the importance of having 2-3 witnesses for an accusation against an elder. This shows the special care that should be taken when such accusations are brought, but we should not assume that only elders are entitled to such protection. Deuteronomy 19:15 does not limit this principle to just elders. The Apostle Paul appeals to this principle in II Corinthians 13:1, before making it clear that he will not ignore sin.

There are times when someone brings an accusation of sin and their accusation is the only evidence. We need to be very careful in such situations. Years ago (at the height of the "me too" movement) my wife and I made the decision that we did not have to believe all women (or men) but that if someone said they were in danger, it was our duty to help them get to safety regardless of how much evidence we had. In other words, we would be willing to act on an accusation alone in order to help someone get to someplace where they felt safe. Without other information we would have to be very careful not to say that we knew the accused was guilty. When someone feels unsafe, our job is not to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused, but to help the person making the accusation get to safety. Once they are safe, then if more information comes to light, the church may be in a place to act (if the accused is outside the church there is no place for the church to act). Of course when helping someone in such a situation, there must be communication with law enforcement throughout the entire process. There are times when law enforcement will be able to immediately step in, but there are other times when they will not show up until a crime as been committed. That is why if someone asks for assistance to get to a safe place, persons other than law enforcement may have to step in to help them. Even then, make sure that law enforcement is aware of what you are doing and have them ready in case they are needed.

Those of us in churches need to be aware that these situations could come up, because when people are in trouble they often turn to the church for help. I recommend having a plan in place and being prepared to face accusations from the accused if you help the accuser.

Clear evidence shows Dr. Paige Patterson did exactly what he was supposed to do when this woman made her accusations of rape. Against her wishes, Patterson immediately called the police. When I first read of this, I looked forward to hearing how the court case played out. But she never pressed charges, except later, against Patterson and SWBTS. Patterson strongly encouraged her to press charges and take it to trial, but she refused.

During this time, if Patterson tried to defend himself, or anyone sought to ask reasonable questions about the accuser, they were condemned for victim shaming. After all, we were admonished to believe all women.

The “break her down” comment perhaps could have been worded better, but frankly, she should have been questioned more about her accusations. Both sides need to be heard and questioned.

Patterson, and now this judge, and others had legitimate doubts about her story, her actions, her accusations. Do just a little research, and you will find many, many cases where people have been falsely accused. And, as has been noted above, you can begin with Potiphar’s wife falsely accusing Joseph. That is a very reasonable incident to consider.

A lot of people owe a big apology to Dr. Paige Patterson. Sadly, it will probably not happen.

http://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2022/02/judge-righteously.html

David R. Brumbelow

Bert Perry wrote: 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.

Bert, I do not personally have any examples of contrary evidence from the accused. I'm not involved with the case, so why would I? The accused is now deceased.

What I do maintain is the presumption of innocence for the accused. A presumption of innocence means that the accused is assumed to be innocent until he has been proven guilty. This is one of the most basic requirements of a fair trial.

And, those are my final thoughts on this situation.

Keep in mind, David, that this is merely an exoneration with the case of one of those who complained about Patterson. It has no bearing on his gloating about a woman getting the snot beaten out of her (two black eyes) as an example of his marital counseling, about his comments about a woman who was "built", about his financial mismanagement and near-idolatry at SWBTS, and about other sexual assault cases under his tenure that included Patterson releasing Title IX documents without authorization to possess them, and without permission from those involved to release them.

You want to defend that record, be my guest, but I'll abstain. BTW, you still endorsing the "ministry" of Paul Pressler? Rachael Denhollander links some very interesting court documents about that case.