Tina Anderson, Chuck Phelps Take Stand in Willis Trial

Details in the http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/258876/victim-testifies-to-sexual-... ]Concord Monitor

Monitor reporter Maddie Hanna is also tweeting from the trial http://twitter.com/#!/maddiehanna ]here

WMUR-TV is providing live updates http://livewire.wmur.com/Event/Trial_Of_Ernest_Willis_Continues ]here

UPDATE (1:30 EDT)- Chuck Phelps is taking the stand. Live updates at the links above.

2:50 PM EDT- Video footage from WMUR http://youtu.be/RJrebgIKGZI ]here

60077 reads

There are 218 Comments

Jay's picture

Alex Guggenheim wrote:
Leah Hayes wrote:
The standard under which Ernie Willis was convicted--AND THE CONVICTION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS TRUTH-- was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Truth that he was convicted or that truth that he is guilty of the charges?

Remember, this is a legal rendering not necessarily a factual one. Yes, the case is argued based on what is believed to be factual (and other kinds) of evidence. But the rendering by the jury is a legal one, not necessarily a factual one (it may be but jury renderings themselves are legal determinations and must be spoken of as those).

As well, if you are suggesting that a jury's decision (or a judge's) is to be treated as a factual adjudication then poor O.J. Simpson suffered for many years at the hands of a public unwilling to accept the truth.


Alex,

I'm sorry, but that's just the craziest thing I've ever heard on this subject. Willis was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment ]indicted - formally accused of criminal activity - on four charges. They were:

* 1st count - http://www.ageofconsent.com/newhampshire.htm aggravated felonious sexual assault
* 2nd count - http://www.ageofconsent.com/newhampshire.htm aggravated felonious sexual assault
* 3rd count - http://www.ageofconsent.com/newhampshire.htm aggravated felonious sexual assault
* 4th count - http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/632-A/632-A-3.htm felonious sexual assualt

Willis was found guilty of all four charges.

You can disagree with Leah, or me, or believe what Phelps has said - that's your right. However, to try and split the hairs between 'legal' and 'factual' is to seek for a third option that simply doesn't exist anymore. Tina's claim had enough evidence behind it to put Willis away for what should be the rest of his life, and that's a fact.

As for OJ - there was a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury, so he walked. I don't like that either, but that's the way the law works in our country.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Leah Hayes's picture

John 10:12-13 ESV He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

I am so grateful that the fate of my soul, Tina's soul, your soul and that of all mankind do not rest with the hirling. The rest in Jesus the Good Shepherd. Tina clearly had hirlings to flee when the wolves came for her. Jesus did not flee and did not forget her cause. We know and serve the living God who is able to see--the God who is able to hear--the God who is able to act.

Not everyone who suffers abuse on this earth will see justice like Tina did. There are many who will read this who time for earthly justice is beyond the statute of limitations, or your perp is dead, or you don't even know who they are. The Good Shepherd has not forgot you or your pain. If possible pursue legal means here on this earth. Our hope does not end with or is limited to the justice system.

Rev 21:4-9 ESV He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." And he who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." Also he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true." And he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death." Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, "Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb."

Dear one Jesus is coming. Not only is He coming, but He is coming with a specific purpose to wipe away your tears. He is coming for justice and that justice includes your tears, your hurts, and all your pain and suffering. Behold, those who have accepted Jesus are His bride. Jesus is not one to let messing with His bride to go on without a direct response from Him. Men on earth will fail you, the Man Jesus, He is not like other men. He is and there is no one like Him. He is coming dear one--coming for you--coming specifically to take care of your tears.

Leah Hayes's picture

Jay C. wrote:
Alex,

I'm sorry, but that's just the craziest thing I've ever heard on this subject. Willis was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment ]indicted - formally accused of criminal activity - on four charges. They were:

* 1st count - http://www.ageofconsent.com/newhampshire.htm aggravated felonious sexual assault
* 2nd count - http://www.ageofconsent.com/newhampshire.htm aggravated felonious sexual assault
* 3rd count - http://www.ageofconsent.com/newhampshire.htm aggravated felonious sexual assault
* 4th count - http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXII/632-A/632-A-3.htm felonious sexual assualt

Willis was found guilty of all four charges.

You can disagree with Leah, or me, or believe what Phelps has said - that's your right. However, to try and split the hairs between 'legal' and 'factual' is to seek for a third option that simply doesn't exist anymore. Tina's claim had enough evidence behind it to put Willis away for what should be the rest of his life, and that's a fact.

As for OJ - there was a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury, so he walked. I don't like that either, but that's the way the law works in our country.


DITTO DITTO DITTO DITTO DITTO
That post Jay is worth repeating!

Jmeyering's picture

Alex Guggenheim wrote:
Leah Hayes wrote:
The standard under which Ernie Willis was convicted--AND THE CONVICTION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS TRUTH-- was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Truth that he was convicted or that truth that he is guilty of the charges?

Remember, this is a legal rendering not necessarily a factual one. Yes, the case is argued based on what is believed to be factual (and other kinds) of evidence. But the rendering by the jury is a legal one, not necessarily a factual one (it may be but jury renderings themselves are legal determinations and must be spoken of as those).

As well, if you are suggesting that a jury's decision (or a judge's) is to be treated as a factual adjudication then poor O.J. Simpson suffered for many years at the hands of a public unwilling to accept the truth.

This honestly makes me sick. It destroys the entire fabric of the legal system. On top of that, in regards to the OJ reference, it sounds good but there is a difference between not guilty and guilty verdicts.

A Guilty verdict in cases like this and OJ's means there is a preponderance of evidence to convict. In other words. The jurors have no doubt.

A non guilty verdict simply means there was non a preponderance of evidence to convict. A person cannot be convicted even if say 75% of the evidence is against them, legally there is room to question non-convictions under certain circumstances. Guilty convictions are another matter altogether.

L Strickler's picture

It behooves us to remember that all children - even teens older than consent laws require - need to be protected by their parents and by their spiritual leaders. Sometimes teens are preyed upon, as in this case. Sometimes they need to be protected from themselves. A mature body does not mean a mature mind. Even if a teen is an instigator of sin, an adult can not use that as an excuse for corrupt actions. In a culture seeking to devour our children, let us - the body of Christ - protect and "suffer" them to come to the Saviour.

L Strickler

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Leah, (and whomever else appears to have issues),

Apparently the context of legal decisions vs that which is fact to synonymous to you. Understand, a legal decision can be either factually correct or factually incorrect. It is simply a legal decision. And I am not arguing that this case and its legal findings are not fact, I am arguing your (Leah's) incorrect assumption that a jury's rendering ,which is a legal truth, should be viewed as a default factual truth. They are not one in the same. They may be, often they are and in this case they may be but I am not arguing one way or the other specifically about the case. I am only pointing out the erroneous posture of your (Leah's) statement which reflects the view that a jury's finding should be viewed as synonymous with fact. And this simply is not an absolute to which one may hold.

Legal renderings hope to be factual but by virtue of their being a legal rendering does not assume it to be doubtlessly factual. It simply is binding by law. Again, it could be and in this case may be but your (Leah's) statement reflects an assumption that is based on a fallacious parallel. Legal renderings are not necessarily factual renderings though they hope to be based in fact. And again, how loudly and clearly I can say this, I do not know, but this is my point and my only point which is, again, that your statement which I quoted appears to contain (I still did not get an answer to my question so I cannot say for certain in spite of your lengthy post and those of your advocates...imagine that) this assumption and this is a dangerous one to use in the absolute manner reflected by your statement.

Leah Hayes wrote:
The standard under which Ernie Willis was convicted--AND THE CONVICTION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS TRUTH-- was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, for others this does illustrate exactly the kinds of problems that exist in communicating. Here I am addressing the use of terms and context which reflect nothing about supporting anyone or revealing my personal opinion about the case and what do I get? I get a response(s) that ignores my post and projects onto my words a completely different meaning with multiple assumptions. This is a sign of a problem and that problem does not lie with the questions I asked or observations I made, rather with the one demonstrating the inability or refusal to listen to others and respond to their words instead of being led about by non sequiturs (in noting this it is a risk to respond knowing what I already know from the first response but I believe the best so I am giving it another shot)..

If you respond again with assumptions about my views of the case which I have not revealed then I will simply have to ignore you all together and will just bow out of the topic since the case and the issue is not what sparked my interest, rather the absolute statement you made which is often quite injuriously in our society today. However, if you can answer my question then maybe we can have a bit more dialogue and if you are interested in my opinion about the case and ask what it might be then maybe we can talk even beyond that. But I do not have a great deal to say about the case, again because it simply is not that provocative for me, personally.

Now let me illustrate my point about facts and legal adjudications. Now and then we read about a man or woman found guilty of murder when in fact he or she did not murder anyone. We all know of these cases. But the preponderance of the evidence convinced the jury that this person is guilty.

He or she is guilty, legally, but simply because there is a legal rendering does not allow us to assume this is, in fact, true merely by the legal rendering itself (and that is how your [Leah's ] statement was constructed). We certainly respect the finding of the jury (or judge) and of course it is binding and our course with that person is with this legal determination as overriding until more discovery can be made but still, the one does not equal the other. And like the person found guilty of murder but in fact did not murder anyone and later (after more discovery and the introduction of facts) this person is absolved of the crime, while he or she had been adjudicated guilty, the fact was he or she never murdered anyone. The legal rendering of guilty of murder and the fact that they really did not murder anyone were not the same. So it is not always the case therfore your (Leah's) statement which reflects this kind of absolutism, is fallacious (again if this is what you are alluding to).

Now the best you one may state is "he or she is guilty and this is the truth as the facts exists", but no such statement was made. And I have found that people that do not want to properly qualify their strong statements often refuse to do so because they are controlled by their own biases and what they want to be true without any interruption to their beliefs while protesting the biases of others. I certainly hope this is not the case.

****AGAIN, none of this is a reflection of my personal opinion of the case or whether the facts line up with the jury's verdict. I haven't said a word about that and have not revealed a single bit about that to anyone so any responses by anyone toward me thinking that they are warranted to address me on the issue as if I have revealed this are incorrect and operating on assumptions, assumptions of which they have no business making.

Thank you and enjoy your flight. Smile

Jmeyering's picture

So you're dealing entirely in hypotheticals? If so, no one could have ascertained that from your original post, in a thread where people are discussing attribution of guilt we can only assume that your statement pertains to the matter at hand. If could have prefaced your statement with "Hypothetically..." it may have made your intentions clear but the way you worded your response indicated that you did not accept the jury's findings as truth.

That being said I completely disagree with you, I'm not going to live my life wondering and worrying if a jury made the right decision, Its our responsibility as citizens of a society to accept their verdicts as the truth of the matter because you me nor anyone but those involved were actually there.

A Jury unanimously decided that based on the evidence provided they believed the prosecution to be telling the truth in this case. Now unless there is some other evidence presented in the future I will side with the court of law.

Larry's picture

Moderator

Quote:
This honestly makes me sick. It destroys the entire fabric of the legal system. On top of that, in regards to the OJ reference, it sounds good but there is a difference between not guilty and guilty verdicts.

A Guilty verdict in cases like this and OJ's means there is a preponderance of evidence to convict. In other words. The jurors have no doubt.

A non guilty verdict simply means there was non a preponderance of evidence to convict. A person cannot be convicted even if say 75% of the evidence is against them, legally there is room to question non-convictions under certain circumstances. Guilty convictions are another matter altogether.

Just a few points of clarification since this post is almost totally incorrect.

In a criminal trial, the standard for a guilty verdict is " http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt ]beyond reasonable doubt ," A civil trial uses the standard of " http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/preponderance+of+the+evidence ]preponderance of the evidence ." Read the definitions because there are some important distinctions.

In criminal trials, the verdict is based on "evidence presented" (read the definition). Remember that evidence rules are fairly strict (which is why in this trial you had a number of sidebars, in chambers, and even courtroom discussions with the jury absent). So in some cases, not all the evidence is given for various reasons. Just recently, in Detroit, a http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/26_Years_After_Wrongful_Convicti... ]man was released after 26 years in prison for a rape he did not commit. In that trial, there was key evidence that was omitted. I am not in the least suggesting anything of the sort in this case. Merely pointing out that juries sometimes do not have all the evidence for various reasons.

The statement that "the jurors have no doubt" is also incorrect. It means that they believe the evidence points to guilt beyond reasonable doubt (not "no" doubt); for them there is no reasonable alternative based on the evidence presented.

A guilty verdict (or an acquittal) typically requires unanimity. It has nothing to do with a percentage of the evidence (as the post seems to suggest). It has to do with the percentage of the jury. It has to be 100% either way. One person on the jury can prevent a guilty verdict, and one person can prevent an acquittal. In such cases, a hung jury or mistrial is declared. If the jury acquits, the accused cannot be retried no matter what. If the jury is hung, the accused can be retried.

I am not sure what it means that "there is a difference between the guilty and not guilty verdicts." In legal terms, there is a huge difference, in that when guilty, the defendant is punished and when no guilty he goes free. But in both cases, it requires unanimity.

Jmeyering's picture

Larry wrote:
Quote:
This honestly makes me sick. It destroys the entire fabric of the legal system. On top of that, in regards to the OJ reference, it sounds good but there is a difference between not guilty and guilty verdicts.

A Guilty verdict in cases like this and OJ's means there is a preponderance of evidence to convict. In other words. The jurors have no doubt.

A non guilty verdict simply means there was non a preponderance of evidence to convict. A person cannot be convicted even if say 75% of the evidence is against them, legally there is room to question non-convictions under certain circumstances. Guilty convictions are another matter altogether.

Just a few points of clarification since this post is almost totally incorrect.

In a criminal trial, the standard for a guilty verdict is " http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt ]beyond reasonable doubt ," A civil trial uses the standard of " http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/preponderance+of+the+evidence ]preponderance of the evidence ." Read the definitions because there are some important distinctions.

In criminal trials, the verdict is based on "evidence presented" (read the definition). Remember that evidence rules are fairly strict (which is why in this trial you had a number of sidebars, in chambers, and even courtroom discussions with the jury absent). So in some cases, not all the evidence is given for various reasons. Just recently, in Detroit, a http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/26_Years_After_Wrongful_Convicti... ]man was released after 26 years in prison for a rape he did not commit. In that trial, there was key evidence that was omitted. I am not in the least suggesting anything of the sort in this case. Merely pointing out that juries sometimes do not have all the evidence for various reasons.

The statement that "the jurors have no doubt" is also incorrect. It means that they believe the evidence points to guilt beyond reasonable doubt (not "no" doubt); for them there is no reasonable alternative based on the evidence presented.

A guilty verdict (or an acquittal) typically requires unanimity. It has nothing to do with a percentage of the evidence (as the post seems to suggest). It has to do with the percentage of the jury. It has to be 100% either way. One person on the jury can prevent a guilty verdict, and one person can prevent an acquittal. In such cases, a hung jury or mistrial is declared. If the jury acquits, the accused cannot be retried no matter what. If the jury is hung, the accused can be retried.

I am not sure what it means that "there is a difference between the guilty and not guilty verdicts." In legal terms, there is a huge difference, in that when guilty, the defendant is punished and when no guilty he goes free. But in both cases, it requires unanimity.

Correct, I was backward on preponderance...been a while since Law 1. I understand its not a percentage game, but that the only way I know to express it. I'm in accounting so I basically think only percentages. If a jury is leaning 75% guilty on an individual but doesn't consider that enough to establish "beyond reasonable doubt" he could still be declared "not guilty".

Anyway, this guy is smarter than me in law, believe him.

Leah Hayes's picture

Alex Guggenheim wrote:

****AGAIN, none of this is a reflection of my personal opinion of the case or whether the facts line up with the jury's verdict. I haven't said a word about that and have not revealed a single bit about that to anyone so any responses by anyone toward me thinking that they are warranted to address me on the issue as if I have revealed this are incorrect and operating on assumptions, assumptions of which they have no business making.

Thank you and enjoy your flight. Smile

OK, I am on the plane and buckled in. I have my pretzels and cranberry juice-- no ice-- and my own water bottle to water it down after I drink a little. Would you care to speak to the specifics of this case involving Ernest Willis and the force-able rape of Tina Dooley Anderson when she was 15 years old?

It is a long flight, so we have time Alex for you to weigh in on the conduct of Pastor Dr. Charles Phelps. What do you think of his conduct at the time? What do you think of his conduct with regard to his website? What do you think of his conduct giving testimony on the stand during the trial specificly of the rape trial involviing Ernest Willis and the crime against Tina Dooley Anderson when she was a 15 year old child? I am not going to use the word alleged crime because the court has declared a crime has been committed and ruled on 4 counts to that effect. In addition, Ernest Willis pleaded guilty to once of the charges--so either by his own admission or by verdict of the jury--he is guilty of various things.

You have finished the safety demonstration and we all know you put the oxygen mask on ourselves first and then to assist those seated near us who may need help. Please expound and what your thoughts are specifically on the Willis trial. We can open another thread for OJ if you want to break that down more.

Alex Guggenheim's picture

What do I think about his conduct is too vague. I may answer something you do not have in mind. If you have some very specific questions, Leah, I will be glad to address them as thoroughly as possible. But again, instead of answering something you do not have in mind, specifically, tell me specifically what conduct you have in mind and I will respond.

Alex

Leah Hayes's picture

Alex Guggenheim wrote:
What do I think about his conduct is too vague. I may answer something you do not have in mind. If you have some very specific questions, Leah, I will be glad to address them as thoroughly as possible. But again, instead of answering something you do not have in mind, specifically, tell me specifically what conduct you have in mind and I will respond.

Alex

Ok specific question. We will take these one at a time.

Do you agree or disagree with jury verdict that Ernest Willis is guilty of rape by force of Tina Anderson? Yes or No--please don't try to wiggle out of a direct answer.

A simple yes or no will do and we can then move on to the next question.

Mat 5:37 ESV Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.

2Co 1:17 ESV Was I vacillating when I wanted to do this? Do I make my plans according to the flesh, ready to say "Yes, yes" and "No, no" at the same time?
2Co 1:18 As surely as God is faithful, our word to you has not been Yes and No.

James 5:12 ESV But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your "yes" be yes and your "no" be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.

Pro 8:6 ESV Hear, for I will speak noble things, and from my lips will come what is right,
Pro 8:7 for my mouth will utter truth; wickedness is an abomination to my lips.
Pro 8:8 All the words of my mouth are righteous; there is nothing twisted or crooked in them.
Pro 8:9 They are all straight to him who understands, and right to those who find knowledge.

Pro 12:17 ESV Whoever speaks the truth gives honest evidence, but a false witness utters deceit.
Pro 12:18 There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.
Pro 12:19 Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue is but for a moment.
Pro 12:20 Deceit is in the heart of those who devise evil, but those who plan peace have joy.

pastorwesh's picture

Leah,

I wish you would not encourage Alex. While you may want to spend 12 hours on an International-Multi-Continential Flight, I prefer the Concord Jet version.

Alex, you could spare all of us your lengthy response by realizing that not many of us care about your splitting of hairs, much less how you view someone who asserts that the questions of the truthfullness of what happened is now the wrong question to ask in light of the jury's verdict.

Quite frankly, I have read few posts that come across as more prideful and more full of "self" than your posts, Alex. In the posts of yours that I have read over the past year, you seem to be quick to correct, usually in a tone that comes across as condescending. My exhortation to you, brother, is to examine the tone and content of your posts, and work to be "clothed with humility".

By the way, I'm sure there are posts of mine that could have been better worded...if you notice areas that I can improve in the future, I hope that you will help to "sharpen" my iron as well. :o)

Serving the Savior, Pastor Wes Helfenbein 2 Cor. 5:17

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Leah,

When people begin attempting to dictate to me how I will answer a question and what I will say, they are no longer interested in hearing what I have to say. I will answer questions the way I determine I need to. If that is something you cannot tolerate then we cannot have a dialogue.

Okay now that the folly of that has been exposed the last question you can answer is whether or not you are ready to receive my answer in my own words or not. Do you wish to hear what I have to say in my own words? (A simple yes or no will do). Smile

Mat 5:37 ESV Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.

2Co 1:17 ESV Was I vacillating when I wanted to do this? Do I make my plans according to the flesh, ready to say "Yes, yes" and "No, no" at the same time?
2Co 1:18 As surely as God is faithful, our word to you has not been Yes and No.

James 5:12 ESV But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your "yes" be yes and your "no" be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.

Leah Hayes's picture

Alex Guggenheim wrote:
Leah,

When people begin attempting to dictate to me how I will answer a question and what I will say, they are no longer interested in hearing what I have to say. I will answer questions the way I determine I need to. If that is something you cannot tolerate then we cannot have a dialogue.

Okay now that the folly of that has been exposed the last question you can answer is whether or not you are ready to receive my answer in my own words or not. Do you wish to hear what I have to say in my own words? (A simple yes or no will do). Smile

Yes

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

Leah is talking about a particular case, and Alex is talking legal words and phrases and meanings in general. This is not going to be productive unless folks are addressing what the other is actually saying.

Alex Guggenheim's picture

pastorwesh wrote:
Leah,

I wish you would not encourage Alex. While you may want to spend 12 hours on an International-Multi-Continential Flight, I prefer the Concord Jet version.

Alex, you could spare all of us your lengthy response by realizing that not many of us care about your splitting of hairs, much less how you view someone who asserts that the questions of the truthfullness of what happened is now the wrong question to ask in light of the jury's verdict.

Quite frankly, I have read few posts that come across as more prideful and more full of "self" than your posts, Alex. In the posts of yours that I have read over the past year, you seem to be quick to correct, usually in a tone that comes across as condescending. My exhortation to you, brother, is to examine the tone and content of your posts, and work to be "clothed with humility".

By the way, I'm sure there are posts of mine that could have been better worded...if you notice areas that I can improve in the future, I hope that you will help to "sharpen" my iron as well. :o)

Tone? I did not know there was an audible version of my posts available (I am indebted to Bob T for this rhetorical instrument).

Hmmm, let me see, Wes is concerned that I am quick to correct, full of self and needing to be clothed in humility while correcting me himself. "Now see here, brother, let me correct you in your correcting of others!" LOL. Okay

By the way, who is the "us" in the spare "us your lengthy response". Were you voted, hired or asked to represent a group of which I am not aware or is this a self-appointed role? Because if I respond to this post it is incumbent I know to whom I am speaking. So is it just you or are there others reading your monitor for whom you are speaking?

As to noticing areas in which you can improve, well yea Wes, right here with this personal post, stop it. It is inappropriate, out of bounds, unwarranted, arrogant, disruptive and irrelevant to the topic. If you do not have anything to add to the topic but only have personal comments then you are out of bounds with regard to SI and need to get back on topic. And the only reason I am responding is because you solicited my opinion.

At this point, I will not communicate with you in this thread unless it has to do with the topic or an actual rebuttal to content.

Alex

Leah Hayes's picture

OK let me rewind. My statement was specifically related to the Willis rape trial and the verdict. The thread is about the Willis rape trial. Specifically about the guilty verdict in the Willis rape trial and only the Willis rape trial--not case law in general. This is a specific case with a specific outcome. And each of us have specific thoughts related to the specific case of the Ernest Willis rape trial.

So I asked Alex and will ask again do you agree or disagree with the guilty verdict in the case? You asked me to ask you a specific question so that you could answer that and not some other question. I am being as specific as I know how to be and asking you to comment on the specific case of the Ernest Willis rape trail.

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Quote:
Do you agree or disagree with jury verdict that Ernest Willis is guilty of rape by force of Tina Anderson?

I was not at the trial therefore I do not have the facts before me in order to compare and render a personal opinion as to whether or not I believe the jury was right or wrong in their determination. That would be required.

However, I am confident that the jury's determination of guilt on the four counts was not based on hearsay but on testimony presented as truthful, on facts and on all other evidence. Hence I do not question its legality in the least.

However and again, not having been at the trial I cannot make a personal comparison of my own opinion with that of the jury's.

Greg Long's picture

pastorwesh wrote:
Leah,

I wish you would not encourage Alex. While you may want to spend 12 hours on an International-Multi-Continential Flight, I prefer the Concord Jet version.

Alex, you could spare all of us your lengthy response by realizing that not many of us care about your splitting of hairs, much less how you view someone who asserts that the questions of the truthfullness of what happened is now the wrong question to ask in light of the jury's verdict.

Quite frankly, I have read few posts that come across as more prideful and more full of "self" than your posts, Alex. In the posts of yours that I have read over the past year, you seem to be quick to correct, usually in a tone that comes across as condescending. My exhortation to you, brother, is to examine the tone and content of your posts, and work to be "clothed with humility".

By the way, I'm sure there are posts of mine that could have been better worded...if you notice areas that I can improve in the future, I hope that you will help to "sharpen" my iron as well. :o)

Pastor Wesh, I completely agree.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Jmeyering's picture

Susan R wrote:
Leah is talking about a particular case, and Alex is talking legal words and phrases and meanings in general. This is not going to be productive unless folks are addressing what the other is actually saying.

I agree. I think if any are interested in debating that interesting facet of the legal system there are plenty of legal forums where that would be better suited. This thread is devoted to this SPECIFIC case and verdict and as Jay C. intimated in post #92 right after the verdict was handed down we should let the jury's decision to stand as truth here.

Greg Long's picture

So if you don't know, Alex, then there really was no need for you to post, now was there?

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Greg Long wrote:
So if you don't know, Alex, then there really was no need for you to post, now was there?
But there must be a need for your snideness, right? LOL.

I realize reading through a thread is hard but if you read through the thread your question will be answered. However, since I am in a giving mood the answer is yes, there is a need. I was asked a question and being the thoughtful person I endeavor to be I answered it.
I must say your suggestion to engage in rudeness and not answer is surprising.

Now, children, if we are all through with personal and snide comments toward Alex, let's get back on topic with a smile. Smile

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Jmeyering wrote:
Susan R wrote:
Leah is talking about a particular case, and Alex is talking legal words and phrases and meanings in general. This is not going to be productive unless folks are addressing what the other is actually saying.

I agree. I think if any are interested in debating that interesting facet of the legal system there are plenty of legal forums where that would be better suited. This thread is devoted to this SPECIFIC case and verdict and as Jay C. intimated in post #92 right after the verdict was handed down we should let the jury's decision to stand as truth here.

So a legal rendering is being discussed but we shouldn't discuss legal language? Am I reading this right? Am I in the Twilight Zone?

pastorwesh's picture

I guess you have the answer to your question...at current count the "us" is: 1) Myself, 2) Susan, 3) Jeff. Can I take your comments as a "motion from the floor" to nominate me as the President of the UWWRNHFAOTI (Us who would rather not hear from Alex on this issue) Club? If you make the motion, maybe Susan or Jeff could 2nd it, then all we need is a quorum!

As far as adding to the discussion...if you would read all the comments made thus far (before assuming I've not made any), you would realize that I have added to the topic, and am therefore not in violation or "out of bounds" in regard to any SI policies.

My post was not a "personal" post. It was a public post in response to your "public" posts, which are often extremely long, conceited, overbearing, condescending, and redundant.

I have yet to see you take correction well, nor have a seen any correcting rebukes help temper your prideful tone (yes, I said tone-some of us hear better than others). As far as your opinion goes, you are entitled to it...even if it is the wrong one.

You can view this as a rebuttal to "content" if you so choose (wouldn't want to dictate anything to you).

Serving the Savior, Pastor Wes Helfenbein 2 Cor. 5:17

Greg Long's picture

Alex, while I completely agree with Pastor Wesh's sentiments, my particular post was argumentative and unhelpful and for that I apologize.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Jmeyering's picture

Alex Guggenheim wrote:
Jmeyering wrote:
Susan R wrote:
Leah is talking about a particular case, and Alex is talking legal words and phrases and meanings in general. This is not going to be productive unless folks are addressing what the other is actually saying.

I agree. I think if any are interested in debating that interesting facet of the legal system there are plenty of legal forums where that would be better suited. This thread is devoted to this SPECIFIC case and verdict and as Jay C. intimated in post #92 right after the verdict was handed down we should let the jury's decision to stand as truth here.

So a legal rendering is being discussed but we shouldn't discuss legal language? Am I reading this right? Am I in the Twilight Zone?

Lets be honest here, the topic of this thread has not been on the "legal rendering" if you look you will see that the topic of discussion was Pastor Phelps responsibility/actions in all of this, not whether we believe Tina. Time for that has long past and everyone has generally concluded that.

So yes IMO discussion regarding who we should believe and whether the jury was correct are better fit somewhere else.

Alex Guggenheim's picture

Well okay, that is your opinion, fine. Of course it is my opinion that statements such as the one I quoted and addressed required an inclusion of legal terms and meanings and their relationship to reality and facts as we state them. So we disagree.

So now go tell Leah you think she shouldn't be asking me my opinion of the jury's decisions since it doesn't fit with your view of the thread. LOL.

JasonR's picture

Greg Long wrote:
pastorwesh wrote:
Leah,

I wish you would not encourage Alex. While you may want to spend 12 hours on an International-Multi-Continential Flight, I prefer the Concord Jet version.

Alex, you could spare all of us your lengthy response by realizing that not many of us care about your splitting of hairs, much less how you view someone who asserts that the questions of the truthfullness of what happened is now the wrong question to ask in light of the jury's verdict.

Quite frankly, I have read few posts that come across as more prideful and more full of "self" than your posts, Alex. In the posts of yours that I have read over the past year, you seem to be quick to correct, usually in a tone that comes across as condescending. My exhortation to you, brother, is to examine the tone and content of your posts, and work to be "clothed with humility".

By the way, I'm sure there are posts of mine that could have been better worded...if you notice areas that I can improve in the future, I hope that you will help to "sharpen" my iron as well. :o)

Pastor Wesh, I completely agree.

Moderators, are you actually going to allow this unwarranted attack on Alex's character?

I am in law school, and what Alex said was perfectly spot on. Leah said we must assume that Ernest Willis was guilty because he was convicted by a jury. I don't know if Ernest Willis forced Tina to have sex with him or not. He was convicted by a jury that heard a lot of evidence that I did not, so if he was not guilty, he can use other legal channels to challenge the verdict. I do know what he did was wrong, REGARDLESS.

It seems to me that some of you are using bully tactics rather than addressing the points Alex actually made. There is no reason why your conversation with him has to be adversarial. I doubt he is actually on a different side than you.

Pages