Tina Anderson, Chuck Phelps Take Stand in Willis Trial

Susan,

What I have decided specifically is this. I will not go to an FBF meeting while he is still in leadership (nor anywhere he preaches for that matter). If my children end up at a college where he preaches, I will not allow them to sit in chapel that day. If/when he repents, I will obviously change that. I am not going to secondary separate from others at this pont though. :)

[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.

It doesn’t matter if she was fifteen or sixteen. Phelps’ first call should have been to the police so that they can sort it out. Phelps isn’t a lawyer or a judge - he’s a pastor. His legal responsibility is to report it, which he says he did. Any pastor worth their salt ought to know to call the cops when there is confession of sex with a minor by an adult.

In regards to her age - I believe that Tina was attacked by Willis at fifteen, but gave birth to the child at sixteen. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Is there any evidence that he only made one call to the cops? I keep hearing that there’s only one call placed to the NHPD (made as statement of fact), but I seem to recall that Phelps claimed he made several.

What action do “we” take, we who do not have regular or even occasional contact with Phelps? Simple. We take a page from this very trial and make noise - lots of noise - to those who *can* hold him accountable. It’s all fine and well to say, “well, the people who know him and work with him should hold him accountable,” but who does that include? His congregation and his ministry friends. I would hope his congregation could make an issue out of it but having traveled extensively throughout Fundamentalism and having seen a great many of those congregations, I very much doubt that will happen. Congregations are not encouraged to hold their pastors really, truly accountable. Hopefully he has at least one ministry friend who will prevail upon him, but whether you call it a “network,” a “notwork,” or a “circle” the point is that most of the Fundamentalist “fellowships” are little more than back-slapping good-ol’-boy clubs. So the way I see it, the way to get things done is, indeed, to talk on the internet. Talk over email. Call. Fax. Write letters. There’s no such thing as a pastor’s “boss” in Fundamentalism but there political power players, and if enough people bug them enough times it may become impolitic to keep him or his church in any position of importance, and without that umbrella of “importance” it should be far easier to see justice done. Call it the “Luke 18” approach. So who are the judges that need to be bugged? Start with John Vaughan, Kevin Schall, and Gordon Dickson, Phelps’ fellow board members at the FBFI. Reach out to his former college and seminary professors and mentors. Find out who’s head of the deacon board at Colonial Hills and call him. If enough people start calling for a proper reckoning and accountability over this matter, someone will take notice - either Phelps or another mover/shaker in the IFB world - and things will happen.

[rogercarlson] Susan,

What I have decided specifically is this. I will not go to an FBF meeting while he is still in leadership (nor anywhere he preaches for that matter). If my children end up at a college where he preaches, I will not allow them to sit in chapel that day. If/when he repents, I will obviously change that. I am not going to secondary separate from others at this pont though. :)

I’m of the same mind. And I’m also doing what I can to make pastors in our area aware of this case, and not just for general information’s sake. If they are members of the FBF or go to their conferences, then perhaps a certain amount of applied pressure (I hate the word ‘boycott’, but it probably applies to an extent) will help the powers-that-be take this problem seriously. But I’m not very knowledgeable about conferences and associations, as I tend to avoid them. I think I’m allergic. :p

Hopefully he has at least one ministry friend who will prevail upon him, but whether you call it a “network,” a “notwork,” or a “circle” the point is that most of the Fundamentalist “fellowships” are little more than back-slapping good-ol’-boy clubs.

That’s a broad indictment of a large number of people.

If calls for accountability are made by people with a humble attitude using reasonable language, then progress might be made. But the hyperbole and hysteria I’ve seen undermines credibility and results in the message being ignored. Then all the squeeing about cover-ups and insensitive, immoral leadership can escalate, and nothing is accomplished. If the true purpose is for the benefit of victims- past, present, and potential- then methods should be taken into account and communications about this done properly.

[mounty] What action do “we” take, we who do not have regular or even occasional contact with Phelps? Simple. We take a page from this very trial and make noise - lots of noise - to those who *can* hold him accountable. It’s all fine and well to say, “well, the people who know him and work with him should hold him accountable,” but who does that include? His congregation and his ministry friends. I would hope his congregation could make an issue out of it but having traveled extensively throughout Fundamentalism and having seen a great many of those congregations, I very much doubt that will happen. Congregations are not encouraged to hold their pastors really, truly accountable. Hopefully he has at least one ministry friend who will prevail upon him, but whether you call it a “network,” a “notwork,” or a “circle” the point is that most of the Fundamentalist “fellowships” are little more than back-slapping good-ol’-boy clubs. So the way I see it, the way to get things done is, indeed, to talk on the internet. Talk over email. Call. Fax. Write letters. There’s no such thing as a pastor’s “boss” in Fundamentalism but there political power players, and if enough people bug them enough times it may become impolitic to keep him or his church in any position of importance, and without that umbrella of “importance” it should be far easier to see justice done. Call it the “Luke 18” approach. So who are the judges that need to be bugged? Start with John Vaughan, Kevin Schall, and Gordon Dickson, Phelps’ fellow board members at the FBFI. Reach out to his former college and seminary professors and mentors. Find out who’s head of the deacon board at Colonial Hills and call him. If enough people start calling for a proper reckoning and accountability over this matter, someone will take notice - either Phelps or another mover/shaker in the IFB world - and things will happen.

Tom-

Generally, I’d agree with you. But what do you do in a situation where:

1. All we had (at the beginning) was he said, she said
2. “Reporters” on the internet saying things…I could start a blog saying my name is Christie and I was attacked by you. How do we verify that?
3. The person who makes the accusation later is found to be lying? Or the people pushing the claim are lying? http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2FAB%2F20110531%2…] I saw this earlier today :

A few hours later, police showed up at the store and started asking questions of Peters’ boss. Peters soon was in a room with police who said they had to take him in for questioning.

“It was quite embarrassing,” he said.

It wasn’t until he got to the police office when Det. Dana Jones told him he’d been accused of rape.

He was shocked. He had no criminal record - not even a speeding ticket — and a work history of more than 25 years. He offered his DNA and to take a polygraph, which police arranged.

His company suspended him and he had no idea why he’d been accused.

“For three days, I was suspended and was looking at rape charges,” Peters said.

“I was absolutely devastated. I was sick for three weeks. I couldn’t sleep. I didn’t eat. It was something you don’t even discuss.”

During Peters’ questioning, Jones pushed him. She quickly became suspicious of the allegations and pushed for St. Charles also to be aggressively questioned.

On March 15, St. Charles admitted she made the story up.

“It was terrible. I’m glad she was so tough,” Peters said of Jones.

Susan,

I stand by my comments about the FBFI and other “fellowships,” with the understanding that it’s not a broad indictment of the individuals in that group. Individuals are smart; people are generally dumb. What I mean is that while there are probably good men in all these fellowships, my experience is that when they all get together as a group, the group tends to do nearly nothing of any significance. Everyone’s so conciliatory and mindful of the almighty concept of “independent” that all they can muster are non-binding resolutions. I’ve been there. I’ve heard the “debate” over these resolutions. After three FBFI meetings, including one at Trinity a few years back, I’m firmly convinced the group will continue to be corporately anemic without a lot of pressure behind them. And I’m not arguing that we should all be shrill and conspiratorial. There’s a difference between “strongly-worded” and “shrill.” Being “shrill” is just an emotional outburst; writing a “strongly-worded” letter is the product of knowing the facts or details and using logic to make a point. The court has placed its stamp of approval on the facts given from Tina’s side of the story. Where Phelps’ facts differ from hers they should at the very least be considered suspect. And I think with that kind of official validation we can proceed to make a logical case that Phelps’ mishandling was egregious enough to warrant his removal from public office on the grounds that he is ill-equipped to handle this kind of situation and therefore cannot be trusted to do so in the future.

Jay,

Court cases are designed to settle the “he said/she said” question. The court has ruled: “she” said the truth, and “he” did not. Her story met the burden of proof and is now considered the official record. While there’s a place to ask these kinds of hypothetical questions - and it’s good that we ask them, because we should be prepared ahead of time for a wide variety of situations - the facts in this case have been established, at least judicially, and in light of those facts I make my suggestion above.

[Greg Linscott] Still, consensual or not, the law was broken. Statutory rape is still a criminal offense (even though a jury deemed it was otherwise). Once Phelps reported it, the PD should have pursued and investigated it to find out the details. As others have pointed out, there is certainly evidence to conclude that, at the very least, Phelps demonstrated errors in judgment- I am not disputing that. I am observing that those errors should have been overcome much sooner if law enforcement had done their job properly.

The jury did not deem it otherwise—it found him guilty of both statutory and forcible rape. It’s a little complicated because Willis did plead to the one charge where there was DNA. The jury also convicted on a fifth alternative charge.

The officer in question has retired, so I am guessing there won’t be an official investigation for fault on the PD end. I guess what you’re missing is the whole conclusion of the trial testimony itself. The officer had a mom who would not cooperate, insisting that the daughter did not want to be contacted (not true, the daughter would have spoken with the police if the mom had given her contact info) and he said under oath that he responded to the DCYF referral by attempting to contact Chuck Phelps and that Phelps did not return his call. The mom, under oath on the stand, stonewalled the prosecutor to even admit her daughter was 15 for a portion of the summer. She kept insisting she was 16—correcting the prosecutor. It was painful to watch.

A report was not filed with the police. If Chuck made the call as he asserts, he would have been given information for how to file a report. He did not file a report. This was made clear at trial.

Chris Leaf (the mom) kept asserting on the stand that the officer knew where to find her because he had contact with her through her husband’s child sexual assault conviction. But she resisted answering prosecution questions, giving combative answers. For instance, when asked if she told the police where her daughter was, her answer was “they didn’t ask.” It took many, many questions for the prosecutor to get her to reveal that for any question she was asked, she just kept saying her daughter didn’t want to talk to police.

As someone that sat through the trial, I would actually say the mother bears the most responsibility for obstruction. That is my opinion after hours and hours of testimony over the course of a week.

That said, I also sat there stunned and grieved to hear that my former boss and pastor did so little to protect the young girls in the congregation after Willis said more than once that he was the aggressor. Since there was testimony indicating Willis’ movement and activity in the church was not restricted and a clear open message about what really happened was not given to the congregation, I am glad I was not a parent with young daughters attending Trinity at the time.

[Susan R] 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.

Except that in this case, his opinion influenced his action/lack of action, and that *was* evidence at the trial.

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

Except that if he made the call as he asserts, he was told he would need to file a written report which he did not do. Since there is no recording of the call and the law was clear at the time, if he shifts blame to the police for not sending him a paper, it was still a responsibility he knew he had, by his own testimony.

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.

Agreed. http://www.netgrace.org offers such training and resources. Liberty University is one of only three law schools that offers specific training to law students on the complexities of dealing with child sexual assault. G.R.A.C.E. is housed on their campus.

The purpose of Chuck Phelps testimony was to give supporting evidence for why Tina did not come forward sooner than when the police contacted her in the spring of 2010. Once the transcripts are released, everyone will have a clearer picture of why the prosecution asked what it did.

LJ Moody, I appreciate your willingness to post and bring clarification to the testimony. Thank you for taking time to do so.

[Susan R] 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.

I thought I had read all the discussions about this issue, but I don’t remember seeing an accusation that Chuck Phelps acted with malice.

Based only on the testimony at trial I can say that no such accusation could be made with merit. Chuck testified that he did what he did because:
1. he believed Ernie
2. he thought Ernie’s family was more at risk from fallout than Tina
*there is at least one other reason that came out in discovery but did not end up getting made public at trial. It could have been a part of a rebuttal witness testimony but was deemed not needed for the case by the prosecution. Two witnesses that confronted Chuck Phelps after the church discipline/confession/compassion session both said they were told that Tina was young and would be able to get over it. Ernie had a family that needed to be protected. This does not meet the legal or moral standard of malice.

Based only on the testimony at trial I can also say that the accusation that Chuck did what he did out of ignorance is also without merit. Chuck simply believed he was doing the best thing. He knew he was supposed to file a written report and he did not do it.

Chuck has said on his own website he would not have a young girl come before the congregation like that now. It seems that if that is the case, he should have had no problem apologizing to Tina for at least that one thing alone.

[Jay C.] In regards to her age - I believe that Tina was attacked by Willis at fifteen, but gave birth to the child at sixteen. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Is there any evidence that he only made one call to the cops? I keep hearing that there’s only one call placed to the NHPD (made as statement of fact), but I seem to recall that Phelps claimed he made several.

Jay, you are correct according to the testimony and documents placed in evidence at the trial. She was 15 when raped and 16 when she gave birth.

On the witness stand, Chuck did testify to one call. The Concord Police do not have a record of the call. However, at the time (and still to this day), a call is not enough to report. A written report is required. Chuck said he was told papers for him to fill out would be sent but he did not get them. By his testimony he knew he was supposed to fill out a written report and he did not do it. Concord Police also testified that a written report was never made.

[Jay C.] Generally, I’d agree with you. But what do you do in a situation where:

1. All we had (at the beginning) was he said, she said
2. “Reporters” on the internet saying things…I could start a blog saying my name is Christie and I was attacked by you. How do we verify that?
3. The person who makes the accusation later is found to be lying? Or the people pushing the claim are lying?

Jay,
I do not understand your illustration. It seemed at first that you are talking about the Anderson/Willis situation, but then you threw in #3. Tina wasn’t found to be lying. The 12 jurors unanimously found that Tina was telling the truth after seeing all the evidence and hearing all the testimony. They found Ernie Willis guilty on all four counts (plus he claimed guilt on the one count he pled to).

Can you please clarify? I find your statement very confusing and do not want to assume motive on your part.

Thanks,
Laurie Moody