Concord NH Rape Case Victim Goes Public

[Ron Bean] Was there anything said that informed the church that Ernie was unfaithful with Tina (and thus guilty of a crime) or was the church left to figure that out? Personally, being familiar with the Granite State mentality, i can’t see a whole church silently accept the presence of a man who would do such a thing with a minor.

I can’t imagine that an entire congregation in what seems to be an ultra-conservative church would allow a rapist to remain in a ministry position. While I would accept a man’s repentance and continued attendance at church, my dh and I would raise six kinds of cane if he were to be accepted back into a ministry position. I’m not clear at all about what role this man had in the church after this incident. And I think after 13 years, even people who were there probably aren’t clear either unless someone kept decent records. Who here can describe in detail and with unassailable accuracy any event that took place 13 years ago?

This case is best left to be tried by authorities with access to the police reports and other evidence.

[Ron Bean] It seems that there were two separate church meetings, one in which Ernie confessed to being unfaithful and the second in which Tina’s pregnancy was addressed. Was there anything said that informed the church that Ernie was unfaithful with Tina (and thus guilty of a crime) or was the church left to figure that out? Personally, being familiar with the Granite State mentality, i can’t see a whole church silently accept the presence of a man who would do such a thing with a minor.

Actually, both incidents were dealt with in the same meeting, and nothing was said that led people to believe that the two situations were related. In fact, many who were in attendance at the meeting have said they were totally unaware of the relationship between the two. One person in attendance remarked how a significantly larger crowd went to Ernie & his family to express whatever than went to Tina.

…many who were in attendance at the meeting have said they were totally unaware of the relationship between the two. One person in attendance remarked how a significantly larger crowd went to Ernie & his family to express whatever than went to Tina.

Do these people have any evidence to support their assertions? I gotta’ tell you all- I really, really have a strong aversion to hearsay.

[Susan R] I can’t imagine that an entire congregation in what seems to be an ultra-conservative church would allow a rapist to remain in a ministry position. While I would accept a man’s repentance and continued attendance at church, my dh and I would raise six kinds of cane if he were to be accepted back into a ministry position. I’m not clear at all about what role this man had in the church after this incident.

The problem, of course, is that the church as a whole had no idea Ernie the confessed adulterer was, in fact, the rapist of a minor. From Chuck’s comment in his interview that “not a few” were puzzled by the non-arrest, however, there must’ve been “not a few” who knew the connection. Of course, that group would include the deacons and their wives as well as the pastoral staff and their wives, so that would be at least a couple dozen people.

Regarding his roles in the church? People who were there at least until the time Ernie finally left several years later (after yet another affair and subsequent divorce) report that he was involved in musical groups and ushering/greeting. Some recall his involvement in youth events, although I would seriously hope not in an official “sponsor” or leadership role.

it could be verified that the leadership, who knew of the details of this man’s criminal behavior, did not require any sort of church discipline (for example, our church would at least remove him from membership and service for a period of ‘probation’) then I’d say they were way out of line. As in they should be drop-kicked all the way to Nebraska out of line. But I don’t know who knew what and when, what the time frame was between events and then this man’s “continued involvement”. It’s all so vague and non-specific.

What we can do to benefit from this is to consider how we might treat a similar circumstance. How much info should remain private, and who should know what? Is complete transparency essential… but then what if the victim feels like their privacy and dignity is being violated in having to experience a criminal trial and a church ‘trial’? How does a church attempt to protect/restore the victim and require repentance from the perpetrator?

I forget- were charges ever filed against this guy?

One thing I do feel comfortable saying- regardless of why this girl was asked to stand in front of the congregation, my dh and I would not allow this with any of our kids.. It would be sufficient for the pastor or my dh to give folks the heads up on the situation without having the child stand in front of everyone. That action, IMO, was NOT necessary no matter what the purpose.

[Susan R] were charges ever filed against this guy?

I asked the Concord paper to request a copy of the police report. Here is their response (Note … I deleted the email address - but a fully copy was provided to the moderation team)

Hi Mr. Peet,

I did ask the Concord police for the report from 1997, but they say the case is now active again and since it’s part of an ongoing investigation and prosecution, it can’t be released. They’ve also refused to release the reports to the Associated Press.

We’re definitely pursuing this dimension of the story as we move forward.

Thanks! Have a great day.

-Ben

–
Ben Leubsdorf
Reporter
Concord Monitor
[phone number redacted]
xxxxxxxxx@cmonitor.com

–— Original Message –—
From: “James R Peet”
To: xxxxxxxx@cmonitor.com, xxxxxxx@cmonitor.com
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 2:07:41 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Have you researched the Police report in the Tina Anderson case?

It seems that a police report would be publicly available that would clear up the time line as to when the rape was reported

Thanks

would be nice to see your paper publish it

[Susan R]

…many who were in attendance at the meeting have said they were totally unaware of the relationship between the two. One person in attendance remarked how a significantly larger crowd went to Ernie & his family to express whatever than went to Tina.

Do these people have any evidence to support their assertions? I gotta’ tell you all- I really, really have a strong aversion to hearsay.

Other than being in attendance, seeing with their own eyes, hearing with their own ears—which is what would be expressed on a witness stand in a trial—like what kind of evidence? A video or audio recording? Would be nice, but I wouldn’t expect that to be forthcoming.

Look, two days ago, after several days of this story circulating all over the place, Chuck was given the opportunity to explain what took place that night. One of the basic gripes everywhere this story comes up is that there was no indication in the meeting that Tina was PG because she was raped by Ernie. In his radio interview, Chuck easily could have laid that to rest, but didn’t. Instead, he explained that Tina was brought before the church because, in his words, she was a girl “with child” out of wedlock who needed the love and commitment of the church. No mention that she was in that condition because a church member more than twice her age had raped her.

I hear you, Susan, on the “hearsay” problem. But when the same basic thing is being said by numerous individuals, each providing additional, unique-to-their-experience details, plus you read & hear Chuck’s version of events, my conclusion is that the eyewitnesses are providing a pretty accurate picture of what transpired within the church and its meeting. Chuck certainly has said nothing that indicates they’re in error. Have you noticed that the only thing Chuck’s really defending himself over is the charge of a cover-up or the obstruction of justice? I don’t have a problem believing him that there was no attempt to cover the crime by hiding Tina until she could be whisked out of NH & sequestered in CO. I can certainly understand how the handling of this case makes those charges easy to level, though. As far as I’m concerned, I’m perfectly content to let that part of this debacle be investigated & determined by the legal authorities.

I’m interested in this case from a “pastoral theology” perspective. In other words, how did the pastor handle the case with the two parties involved and why? What can I perceive were his underlying beliefs about guilt/innocence…the consequences the parties should face…the nature of repentance…the process of forgiveness/reconciliation/restoration? How did he handle it within his church 13 years ago, and why did he do what he did? How is he responding now as his actions are being publicly scrutinized? As a pastor, I am learning a great deal.

it could be verified that the leadership, who knew of the details of this man’s criminal behavior, did not require any sort of church discipline (for example, our church would at least remove him from membership and service for a period of ‘probation’) then I’d say they were way out of line. As in they should be drop-kicked all the way to Nebraska out of line. But I don’t know who knew what and when, what the time frame was between events and then this man’s “continued involvement”. It’s all so vague and non-specific

Chuck stated in his radio interview that the reason he had Tina go public with her pregnancy and (separately) Ernie admit to the congregation that he had been unfaithful to his marital vows was that he expected Ernie’s arrest to be imminent. In other words, Chuck knew the full details of the crime. Ernie’s “discipline” was to stand before the congregation and confess that he had been unfaithful to his wife & ask for their forgiveness (again, no mention of having raped Tina). Then a vote was taken, either to forgive him or remove him from membership. Motion to forgive?…second?…all in favor say “aye”…motion carried…”You’re forgiven, brother.” Then came the hugs, handshakes, “God bless you”s and let’s move on from here.

The problem, Bro. Bryan, is that there are people telling completely contradictory stories who claim that they were there and saw it all with their own two eyes and heard it with their own two ears. I posted earlier that eye witness testimony is often highly suspect, and after 13 years, I’d treat all of it with the same skepticism as a biography by Paris Hilton. Not that these aren’t good people recalling what they believe are accurate portrayals of the events that took place to the best of their ability, but 13 years???

Edited to add:
I wonder how it was handled had anything to do with the investigation being open? People are often counseled not to discuss the details of an ongoing investigation… so if Mr. Phelps thought this man was going to be arrested… perhaps he was leaving it up to the legal system? But that still stinks, because as a parent I’d feel that I had a right to know that a man was accused of raping a young woman.

I think we are all learning a great deal here, and may humility and circumspection reign supreme. My heart goes out to all the people directly involved.

You’ve read people claim that the connection between these two incidents was publicly issued—that the Pastor made it clear that Ernie Willis raped Tina Anderson & got her pregnant? If so, I’d be interested in reading those sources. I’ve been following this in a bunch of places & read responses from both haters and defenders of TBC, and found no one who will make that claim.

there are people telling completely contradictory stories who claim that they were there and saw it all with their own two eyes and heard it with their own two ears.

In all my reading I must have missed the contradictory stories from those people. Could someone please tell me where I could read them. (IOW, what Bryan just posted.)

[BryanBice] You’ve read people claim that the connection between these two incidents was publicly issued—that the Pastor made it clear that Ernie Willis raped Tina Anderson & got her pregnant? If so, I’d be interested in reading those sources. I’ve been following this in a bunch of places & read responses from both haters and defenders of TBC, and found no one who will make that claim.

I can’t track all this stuff down- there are posts all over the internet about this case espousing all manner of theories and sequences of events. I’ve heard everything from- Tina was presented to the church as a seducing little tramp and Ernie her hapless victim- to- the facts were presented, Tina was embraced by the church, and Pastor Phelps’ help with relocation was compliance with the wishes of the mom. The truth is probably somewhere near the middle. It usually is.

What does stick out to me is that the police did not pursue this case. That is not something the church can be held accountable for on any planet.

[BryanBice] Tina Anderson’s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDVveQP0KKM

Chuck Phelps: http://www.wkxl1450.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&…

I’m just curious here. Chuck states that the public treatment of Tina and Ernie had a three-fold purpose. First, to quell rumors. Second, to demonstrate loving care for Tina. Third, to prepare the congregation for the bombshell of Ernie’s impending arrest. Do these stated reasons raise any questions in anyone else’s mind?

Doesn’t each stated purpose raise some rather significant questions?

1) Talk about rumors! If, as was expected, Ernie was arrested a few days after the public church action and the story hit the TV & print media, wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that the church’s handling of the situation would create all kinds of “tongue wagging” throughout the congregation? And how would the community respond when people got wind of how the church handled the situation—humiliating the victim and “forgiving” the perpetrator? Chuck was apparently concerned simply with rumors about Tina’s pregnancy. But wouldn’t all rumors be quelled more effectively by simply telling the truth? Why could the church not simply have been informed that Tina was raped and is pregnant with the rapist’s child?

2) Was this really a way to demonstrate loving commitment for a pregnant 15-yr-old rape victim? Expel her from school…have her lead the congregation to believe that her pregnancy was due to immorality on her part…help arrange for her to be removed from all family and friends…? Seems the much more loving thing to do would be to share with the congregation that “one of our members and school students, Tina Anderson, has recently been raped by a man from our church and as a result is now carrying his baby. In spite of being encouraged to do so, she refuses to abort this child, but is determined to bring the baby to term. We as a church family need to do all we can to help her and her mom throughout this difficult period. At times this may seem awkward, because she will remain a student in our school—but she needs the support and care of everyone in her church and school family! Let’s determine to be ministers of God’s grace and do so.” By the way, it seems very clear that one of the huge contributing factors in all of this is the conclusion that Tina would not be permitted to remain in the school because of her pregnancy.

3) How did the public church action in any way prepare the congregation for “that troublesome day when that headline would break”? Imagine that you were a church member, led to believe that Ernie had merely been unfaithful to his wife, was repentant for that transgression & sought your forgiveness. When the vote to forgive or dismiss was called, you voted to forgive him and retain him as a member of the church. You would leave the meeting, saddened by the moral lapses of these two unrelated incidents, but feeling pretty good about extending forgiveness to repentant sinners. Then, two days later, the Concord Monitor leads with the headline “TBC Deacon Arrested for Rape.” And you remember that last Sunday night you shook Ernie’s hand, offered him forgiveness, and told him you’d be praying for him—just after you voted to retain him as a member of the church. And now you discover the truth from the newspaper. I don’t know about you, but I’d be pretty ticked.

1. Report incident to police almost immediately
2. Have perpetrator and victim stand in front of a congregation (hundreds?) and talk about the situation (true, by some accounts, this “open talk” was not completely open on the right points, but still… if you want to cover it up, bad idea to have any “up front” stuff at all!)
3. Allow (encourage?) the victim to be in the church again in future visits
4. Keep the perpetrator around (vs. making him disappear also, which would be a much more effective cover up strategy. See, I aced Coverups 101, which is required for all Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Pastors. … note to the irony-challenged: this is irony)

Edit: Bryan, do we know that she was “expelled” from the school? A plausible case can be spun here that that the actions taken were not very effective for the goals Phelps has expressed, but I also find it quite plausible that they could have been effective. We still don’t know what Tina was required to say, if anything, and her pregnancy guaranteed that there would be rumors. So if you act preemptively you get to shape to a degree what kind of rumors. If you actually come out with all of it, there is nothing to rumor about. Doesn’t sound like that happened, but I can’t claim to know that either. We also don’t know what the guy really said or was expected to say either.

Maybe it would help to summarize what the many sides of the story agree on. Those would be the only things we really “know.” I don’t have time to do that though. I suspect it will be clear soon enough. There are detectives being paid to do that sort of thing. (Though it sure sounds like they should have done it 13 yrs ago. But I’m not going to pass judgment on the police just yet either)

do we know that she was “expelled” from the school?

What we do know is that she was a student in the school when she became pregnant; but then when she disclosed her pregnancy, she had two options: public school and home school. Expelled? I believe what I read was, “not allowed to continue as a student.”

they could have been effective

I would be interested in knowing how they could’ve been effective.