Tina Anderson, Chuck Phelps Take Stand in Willis Trial

[Jay C.]
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.

[DavidO]

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 …

[Jay C.] 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.

[Micheledo M] 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-t…)

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.

[Brent Marshall] 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.

[Jay C.]

[Micheledo M] 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-t…)

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.

[Mike Harding] 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).

[Gabe Franklin] 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.