Tina Anderson, Chuck Phelps Take Stand in Willis Trial

I don’t buy the argument that because someone was once victimized that they are excused in any way from attempting to victimize others. I know many victims of brutal abuse IRL who are living joyful, victorious lives, that do not give in to anger, spite, and vindictive behaviors. I certainly agree that name calling and personal attacks do not help in providing useful information or furthering the conversation or fostering understanding. Please let me know if I ever stoop to such levels.

Also, “sympathy” as I used the term is an affinity, association, or relationship between persons wherein what affects one similarly affects the other; an inclination to think or feel alike; feelings of loyalty. Compassion is an awareness of another’s distress together with a desire to alleviate it. I can feel compassion for someone without feeling sympathy.

BTW, the threats were reported to my local branch of the FBI.

I hope Pastor Phelps is held accountable for his actions by those directly involved who know him and his ministry personally. Internet lynch mobs are not a Biblical means of handling church discipline, any more than hauling a little girl before the church was appropriate.

I was at the trial and am open to accepting questions and/or giving observations if anyone posting here is interested. I have not seen anyone posting here that attended the trial. I offer this only in the interest of truth.

I attended Trinity from June 86 through June 93. My husband began attending in summer of 85 and was on staff from August 85 until we moved to another state in 1993. I posted some comments on Bob Bixby’s blog and interacted with a few of you here: http://bobbixby.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/a-former-ifb-trinity-insider-c… That post on Bixby’s blog indicates how I knew Tina and her family.

I do have one matter where I would offer a correction. For Pat Payette: there were others at the trial from Trinity you would know. They likely also have observations they could share with you (Lon Siel, Michah Shaw, Peter Whitehouse). Peter was only there for the first half of Chuck Phelp’s testimony, but Lon and Micah appeared to be there most of the time that whole week. I did speak to Peter by phone and ask for his impression of Chuck’s testimony. I think you should hear it from him instead of second hand through me since you do not know me.

My observation was that Chuck Phelps was not answering the questions as asked by the prosecution. He frequently gave very long answers to yes/no questions without actually answering the question. Whatever frustration you picked up on from the WMUR live news feed or the Concord Monitor live blogging, wasn’t that the prosecutor would not let Chuck Phelps answer—it was that he wasn’t answering.

For instance, when the prosecutor asked if Linda Phelps asked Tina if she “liked” what Willis did, Chuck cried and said that was so out of character for his loving wife (still not answering the question). When the prosecutor asked if Chuck said Tina was lucky not to live in OT times when people were stoned, Chuck said we’re all lucky not to be living in those times (again—not an answer).

Pat, you mentioned “disgruntled” former members in one of your posts on this topics. I asked the former members of Trinity at the trial to support Tina—easily a dozen or more—about you since you came after I left Trinity. None of them had anything at all unkind to say about you. I just wanted you to know that from my perspective, these people had a principled disagreement with Chuck Phelps and how he handled the situation between Tina and Willis. Several of them confronted Chuck and Linda one on one—to their faces—about the situation. By their own testimony, they were given the same answer. That answer is one that ended up coming out on the witness stand—Chuck and Linda were more concerned about the effects of the fallout on Willis and his family than he was on Tina.

Please do not misrepresent their concerns as those of disgruntled former members. They tried to approach the situation with Chuck and Linda back in 1997 and did not receive any kind of willingness at all to revisit the decisions made, nor were they permitted to know where Tina was or to communicate with her. There were very loving families that wanted to help Tina and they were not permitted to do so.

When Tina came back from CO in 1998, Sue Cappucci helped her with completing her homeschooling. Sue and her husband Jeff state that the details Tina gave Detective DeAngelis in the spring of 2010 when he called her, unsolicited, to ask if she would be willing to talk about what happened and cooperate with an investigation, were exactly the same as those Tina gave them back in 1998. Sue remembers vividly an essay Tina wrote back then telling the story of what happened.

I encourage you to get the transcript as soon as it is available. I plan to do so.

I have finally found time to read through all of the WMUR live feed comments. I did not see any substantial factual errors in them related to testimony. The only thing I noticed is that one of the comments asking about the teal color many of the supporters of Tina were wearing—the reporter said rape survivor instead of rape awareness. That said, there were two of us that answered the question: I said rape awareness, and other supporter that was herself a survivor of childhood rape answered rape survivor. That is a pretty small difference, but I note it here for full disclosure. I have not read the Concord Monitor live blog comments yet.

Laurie Moody

I have bided my time on this issue until the verdict was rendered while seeing some here do somersaults in the face of pretty substantial evidence to seemingly go beyond giving Phelps the benefit of the doubt in this sad affair. But instead of speaking out many have chosen silence. That silence is deafening. What will be your response? Will the various fundamentalist conferences and congresses gather to pass resolutions now on this issue like they have on Billy Graham or Rick Warren, CCM, and separation? After all, this is an issue that may actually result in changes instead of tilting at windmills outside of the movement. It is time to stand with good men like Michael Durning and say enough to the culture of abuse that has and is occurring in the movement due IMO to the nature of Baptist autonomy. I’m all for the latter but if you are to speak against others you are against than it’s high time you shine the light in your houses. Granted, abuse takes place in every form of institution but some more than others. And whether you like it or not, Catholicism and IFB’s share much alike in the guilt category that keeps victims quiet. Sites like SI make me hopeful at times for a return to “thinking fundamentalism”. Don’t lose this opportunity.

John

Greg, I’m sure that the level of outrage would be far less. However, since we are playing “whatif?”, a better question might be, what if the girl involved had been Dr. Phelps’ own daughter (heaven forbid) Would only a single phone call had been made to the police?

I agree … it was strange to me that law enforcement’s role in all of this did not become a bigger part of the trial. I was also surprised at the degree to which the prosecution was able to pursue Phelp’s testimony, without the defense stepping in to object. The defense allowed this case to be more about IFB than about Mr. Willis.

[Greg Linscott] I am not defending how Chuck Phelps handled this. I am wondering, however- if the Concord PD had run with the ball like they should have when this was initially reported, would Chuck still be vilified as being part of the “culture of cover-up” like he is by many? If today’s verdict had been arrived at in a matter of days or months after the crime was committed rather than 14 years later, would there still be the level of outrage directed toward him that there appears to be today?

According to the Concord PD testimony during the trial (including cross-examination by the defense attorney), the incident was NOT reported as rape by Chuck Phelps. Detective Gagnon’s testimony of his conversation with Chris Leaf was consistent with this also. According to his own testimony on the stand, Chuck believed Willis’ later explanation that it was consensual, in spite of Willis’ first statement that he was the aggressor. On the stand, Chuck said that Willis seemed to stand more to lose and so he believed Willis.

Also, according to the testimony of multiple witnesses, Tina was not asked if it was rape or if she consented.

I observed David Gibbs III talking with Chris and Dan Leaf in the Hampton Inn the morning Chris Leaf’s testimony began. Another witness to their conversation took notes because Chris was speaking loudly and was easily overheard. Chris would not say on the stand that she refused to give info to the police, but by her own testimony, she stonewalled them. When you see her testimony in the transcript, I think you will find it startling and very disturbing. It confirms exactly what I said about my own experience and conversations with her on Bob Bixby’s blog.

In his testimony on the stand, Detective Gagnon clearly stated that he got a report from DCYF, that the word rape was not used, that he then followed up with Chris Leaf. He said Chuck Phelps did not return his call.

Obviously this is a matter of Chuck Phelps saying the police did not call him back and Det. Gagnon saying he did call Chuck and got no response. With the word rape not being used and no cooperation, Gagnon tabled the investigation. Was that wrong? If Chuck Phelps did not believe by his own testimony it was forcible rape, then I am not so sure the majority of blame can fall to Det. Gagnon.

Pat Payette said earlier that the defense was not objecting—interrupting the flow of the prosecution’s story. I don’t know where you got that impression, Pat. Even the media in the room spoke of how unusual the frequent side bars with the attorneys were. The defense attorney that sat to Ernie’s right side (not Brown) objected a lot. She had thick heels on her shoes and her steps up to the judge were very loud (old building). I don’t know that Ernie will get an appeal based on bad defense attorneys.

Here’s the crux of how the jury made the decision based on the law as the judge decided it. Which witnesses were most credible? No corroboration is required by NH state law since in a sexual assault, there are usually only two people present. However, in this case there was quite a bit of corroboration that Tina’s story was consistent, save a lack of clear memory on timeline only.

Ernie’s testimony (literally): I sensed she was open to my advances and asked her if she would like to go inside and participate in sexual intercourse with me. Ernie said Tina said yes to his question.

There was no testimony at all from Ernie for how he went from the person of power—the employer—to the person she wanted to have a sexual encounter with. The prosecutor kept at Ernie and his testimony remained the same (except that now he was claiming only one incident). The jury didn’t believe that a 15 year old girl that looked like a little girl still, never wore tight clothing, but instead wore long dresses, skirts, and was taught that even holding hands was wrong (this testimony corroborated by other witnesses) just didn’t believe that Ernie said “want to have sexual intercourse” and she said yes.

Since Chuck Phelps was not on trial, the jury did not have to decide if his actions obstructed justice. Those who were in the courtroom and those who read the testimony can decide that for themselves.

[Joshua Caucutt] I agree … it was strange to me that law enforcement’s role in all of this did not become a bigger part of the trial. I was also surprised at the degree to which the prosecution was able to pursue Phelp’s testimony, without the defense stepping in to object. The defense allowed this case to be more about IFB than about Mr. Willis.

Joshua, the defense would have been the beneficiary if Chuck Phelps’ notes had been excluded from evidence because of privilege. The defense position from opening arguments to closing was that Tina’s memory changed because of how she was treated by the church and her prior abuse from her stepfather. From an observer’s position inside the courtroom, it appeared that there was a lot more activity from the defense AFTER Chuck’s notes were admitted and he said Ernie’s first admission was that he was the aggressor. I could be wrong because the defense didn’t say it in open court, but from opening statements, cross examination and other statements, it appeared the defense expected Chuck to be more helpful to Ernie’s defense.

I addressed the belief that the defense didn’t do much objecting in my post above. The live blogs just didn’t report it all. We did a lot of sitting and waiting inside the courtroom on the objections and requests to approach the judge. There were also several hearings outside the presence of the jury. Those of us that came in support of Tina were instructed by the prosecutor not to text, e-mail or post any specific exchanges from the courtroom until after the verdict so we did not risk causing a mistrial.

[LJ Moody] Obviously this is a matter of Chuck Phelps saying the police did not call him back and Det. Gagnon saying he did call Chuck and got no response. With the word rape not being used and no cooperation, Gagnon tabled the investigation. Was that wrong? If Chuck Phelps did not believe by his own testimony it was forcible rape, then I am not so sure the majority of blame can fall to Det. Gagnon.

Did he or did he not know Tina’s age? The statutory rape aspect of the case should have been sufficient for him to be much more aggressive. Why would he need any contact with Pastor Phelps to continue the investigation? At this point, Tina was still in New Hampshire. He clearly dropped the ball, regardless of any excuses he tries to make.

[Don Johnson]

[LJ Moody] Obviously this is a matter of Chuck Phelps saying the police did not call him back and Det. Gagnon saying he did call Chuck and got no response. With the word rape not being used and no cooperation, Gagnon tabled the investigation. Was that wrong? If Chuck Phelps did not believe by his own testimony it was forcible rape, then I am not so sure the majority of blame can fall to Det. Gagnon.

Did he or did he not know Tina’s age? The statutory rape aspect of the case should have been sufficient for him to be much more aggressive. Why would he need any contact with Pastor Phelps to continue the investigation? At this point, Tina was still in New Hampshire. He clearly dropped the ball, regardless of any excuses he tries to make.

I have wondered this same thing and my own conclusion has been that we may never know that. On Chuck’s own site didn’t he say she was 16 and then later 15? She was 16 when she came to him, but 15 when it happened. Who knows what age was given to the police when the info was given to them. Unless specifically asked how old she was when it took place, I can see how easy it would have been to give the age of 16. Just from the very little I know, it seems like only an initial brief report was given. Not a detailed one. So I do wonder if they never really knew that she was 15.

So while I do think that the police department dropped the ball, they may not have even known they were holding it.

Pastor Phelps made some VERY serious errors. He choose to believe a pedophile/predator. A man who even (basically) said he was the predator. Phelps also has a TERRIBLE view of consensual sex. A view (at least that seems clear from his notes) that lends itself to covering up terrible crimes.

I’m thankful for the first hand testimony here. But it just seems to confirm that Phelps was not completely honest, that he had little compassion for the victim, and his main concern was the pedophile. It will be interesting to see how the IFB ‘world’ responds to Phelps, if he is still asked to travel and speak and be involved with organizations and such.

I don’t know him,. He may very well be a godly man. And I pray that he sees the wrong he did and is humble enough to truly repent. But if he continues to stand by what he did, I will be disappointed to see him continue in his ministries.

Criminal laws deal with the legality of sexual acts. Statutory rape laws assume that all sexual
activities involving individuals below a certain age are coercive. This is true even if both parties
believe their participation is voluntary. Generally, statutory rape laws define the age below
which an individual is legally incapable of consenting to sexual activity.

I don’t want to confuse anyone http://www.hhs.gov/opa/pubs/statutory-rape-state-laws.pdf] with facts here, but it doesn’t matter if Pastor Phelps thought Tina Anderson was the reincarnation of Marilyn Monroe- his opinion is not evidence, and would not be considered as evidence. Could we please bury that horse? It’s not only dead, it’s worm food.

It is also worth noting that laws vary from state to state. Don’t assume you know the legal definition of statutory rape- some states don’t even use that term at all, or it is buried deep within the code.

The paragraphs below refer to a chart in the document I linked above, found here-http://www.hhs.gov/opa/pubs/statutory-rape-state-laws.pdf (Page 7)

*Age differential. A number of state codes specify age ranges outside of which parties
cannot consent to sex. In State B, sex with an individual under 16 years of age is illegal if the
other party is four or more years older. Thus, sexual relations between a 15-year-old and an
18-year-old would be legal, while the same relationship between a 15-year-old and a 21-
year old would not.
*Minimum age of victim. Some state codes define the age below which an individual cannot
legally engage in sexual activities, regardless of the age of the other party. For example, in
State C, the age of consent is 16, but under certain circumstances—that is, the defendant is
no more than four years older and under age 19—individuals who are at least 13 years of
age can legally engage in sexual activities. It is illegal to engage in sexual activities with
someone under 13 years of age under all circumstances.
*Minimum age of defendant. Some states define the age below which an individual cannot
be prosecuted for having sex with a minor. In State D, sexual activity with someone below
the age of consent is only illegal if the defendant is at least 18 years of age.
Thus, in order to understand a specific state’s laws, one must look to see which of these
elements is included.

State civil codes spell out reporting requirements. They detail who must report (i.e., mandated
reporters) and where reports must be made (generally child protective services, law
enforcement, or both). In almost all states, the reporting requirements related to statutory rape
are found in the section of the civil code that describes child abuse reporting. As such, the
requirement to report statutory rape is generally dictated by states’ definition of child abuse—
which varies substantially by state. Statutory rape is not always a reportable offense.
A primary factor in determining whether statutory rape is child abuse is the relationship between
the victim and the defendant. In roughly one-third of state codes, statutory rape is only considered
child abuse—and therefore a reportable offense—if it is perpetrated or allowed by a person
responsible for the care of the child.

It would be a good thing to review the laws in your state. If they do not provide enough protection for young people against child predation, start writing letters and making phone calls. We can talk about this until our fingers fall off, but there are things we can DO.

To varying degrees of specificity, all state statutes provide mandated reporters with instructions
for the reporting process. States generally require that mandated reporters notify the
appropriate authorities within one to three days of encountering a case of suspected abuse.

Mandated reporters can usually make an initial report orally, via telephone. Approximately
two-thirds of states require mandated reporters to follow their initial report with a more
detailed written report.

Did Pastor Phelps meet these requirements? Assuming the laws have not changed significantly since the initial incident, it seems he did.

State Response
Each state summary highlights the required response of the state and local agencies that receive
reports of suspected child abuse. State statutes vary in the level of detail they provide.
Generally they include requirements addressing which entities, if any, the agency receiving the
initial report must notify, the timeframe for this notification, and the requirements for
investigating reported abuse.
States have two primary objectives when responding to allegations of child abuse: (1) ensuring
the health, safety, and well-being of the child in question, taking the necessary steps to prevent
further harm and (2) conducting an investigation to determine if the reported abuse constitutes
a criminal act and, when appropriate, prosecuting offenders.
In most states, the responsibility for the initial investigation of reported child abuse falls to law
enforcement, the state agency responsible for child protective services, or some combination of
the two.

I know many of us have read those cute little detective stories, where the cat-sitter or the caterer or the little old lady down the street investigate and solve the crime, but those stories are found in the Fiction section of the library for a reason.

Since laws do vary from state to state, it behooves church leadership to get accurate information specifically about their state, and not rely on the vague information received on the news, or Wikipedia, or an internet forum.

Many states provide training courses for volunteers to become certified rape counselors. Folks in church leadership/staff positions could benefit from such training.

I agree there is merit to the speculation that if the police had fully investigated this case when it was reported, much of this conversation would not be taking place. But as events stand, I think we all agree that Pastor Phelps could have attempted to light a fire under the police (although we do not know if that would have had an effect), and he should not have brought Tina before the church at all. His conduct both at the time and in the current situation should be evaluated by those directly involved and by ministers who have an actual relationship with him and his church.

Greg,

Even if the police dropped the ball, to me that still does not mitigate Phelps’ actions. His testimony has some very disturbing elements. His testimony was very slick, but not very direct. His testimony indicated that he had a higher view of Willis than Anderson.

Susan,

I don’t agree that his conduct should only be evaluated by those close to him. He is a leader in the FBF, he is on the board of a Christian College, and preaches at other Christian colleges. By Laurie’s post above and the livewire (and transcripts yet to be released), there were some inconsistancies in his testimony. I think that is a problem. If we are going to seperate over music, then these issues at the very least need to be looked at. Obviously, the people close to him should be asking these questions and I hope they are. I will now say, yet again, that had Chuck Phelps immediately made a clear statement similar to ABWE’s this would not have blown to what it did.

[rogercarlson]
Susan,

I don’t agree that his conduct should only be evaluated by those close to him. He is a leader in the FBF, he is on the board of a Christian College, and preaches at other Christian colleges. By Laurie’s post above and the livewire (and transcripts yet to be released), there were some inconsistancies in his testimony. I think that is a problem. If we are going to seperate over music, then these issues at the very least need to be looked at. Obviously, the people close to him should be asking these questions and I hope they are. I will now say, yet again, that had Chuck Phelps immediately made a clear statement similar to ABWE’s this would not have blown to what it did.

Those who have a relationship with Pastor Phelps on some level- members of the same association, for instance, or those who cooperate with him in ministry efforts- are the only ones who are going to be ‘separating’ from him in reality. And they are the ones who are best able to interact, counsel, correct, and hold him responsible for his conduct. This topic (of enacting church discipline) is being discussed elsewhere on SI- and one of the aspects constantly brought forward is ’ how do you separate from someone with whom you have no relationship?’.

I agree that the information we have about how the situation was handled clearly indicates that some action should be taken- but again- who is best equipped to take action but those with whom he is associated and cooperates with in his ministry? I mean, what ‘action’ are you going to take? KWIM? Talking on the internet is not action.

If we are going to seperate over music…

I’ll leave the answer to that to whomever the “we” is…

Edited to add:

Even if the police dropped the ball, to me that still does not mitigate Phelps’ actions. His testimony has some very disturbing elements. His testimony was very slick, but not very direct. His testimony indicated that he had a higher view of Willis than Anderson.

I don’t think anyone is trying to ‘mitigate’ Pastor Phelps’ handling of the incident. But- he reported the incident to police. His view of the situation is not evidence of anything and did not impact law enforcement’s ability to investigate. If they had investigated the charges immediately, it would not be a cold case and it is possible that there would be actual physical evidence available. Instead, it’s years later with alot of “he said, she said” going on. The police are responsible for the fact that delaying the investigation seriously diminished the legal system’s ability to enact justice quickly and effectively. Attempting to lay this at Pastor Phelps’ doorstep is ridiculous. Hold him accountable for what he actually did- I think there’s plenty there to deal with.

I think one of the speculations/accusations that needs to be proven is that Pastor Phelps acted out of malice and not ignorance. We know so much more about child sexual molestation today than we did ten years ago, and we are viewing this case with hindsight that is more informed of these issues. Let’s just keep that in mind during this virtual autopsy.