Updated May 30, 2014 by Laurie Moody
Are the transcripts available for the trial?
Yes. All NH courts use AVTranz to provide transcripts. At first we were told the transcripts would be available after Ernie Willis' appeal was decided for about $75. Then we found out that the NH courts moved to using the AVTranz service. It is quite costly to obtain the entire transcript through this service. This blog provides trial notes taken by an attendee of the trial, and we also link to the live blogs from the Concord Monitor and WMUR. There was also considerable press during the trial which is linked on this page if you scroll down to the 2011 News Articles section.
How is Tina now?
Tina blogs about recovery, healing and hope as well as family life here: Glimpses of Hope. She is an amazing wife, mother and friend.
Does Tina know about this blog?
Yes. Her husband, Tim Anderson, is "Tina's Marine" and he blogs here as well. Laurie checks all personal information posts with Tina before posting them. News stories or posts providing resources for survivors or churches are occasionally posted without checking with Tina first, but she has full access to delete anything she desires. Tina's voice was taken from her for far too long. Laurie does not attempt to speak for Tina.
Did Chuck Phelps ever apologize to Tina?
No. As of the last update of this page, three years after Ernie Willis was convicted on all counts including felonious forcible rape, Phelps still hosts documents on his personal web page (drchuckphelps.com) which claim Tina Anderson is not being honest and that her only goal is money. Chuck Phelps is now the senior pastor at Colonial Hills Baptist Church in Indianapolis, IN.
Questions Laurie Moody has answered elsewhere on the web:
After the trial of Ernie Willis was over, I spent many, many hours answering questions in several different places on the internet. Many pastors and other professing Christians had heard about Tina Anderson’s story in the 20/20 program on ABC with Elizabeth Vargas for the first time and then followed the news from the trial of Ernie Willis. Some showed a natural skepticism for whether or not the media had the details correct, and others just decided to stay loyal to their IFB contacts. In most cases, I was treated with kindness and respect.
Yes. All NH courts use AVTranz to provide transcripts. At first we were told the transcripts would be available after Ernie Willis' appeal was decided for about $75. Then we found out that the NH courts moved to using the AVTranz service. It is quite costly to obtain the entire transcript through this service. This blog provides trial notes taken by an attendee of the trial, and we also link to the live blogs from the Concord Monitor and WMUR. There was also considerable press during the trial which is linked on this page if you scroll down to the 2011 News Articles section.
How is Tina now?
Tina blogs about recovery, healing and hope as well as family life here: Glimpses of Hope. She is an amazing wife, mother and friend.
Does Tina know about this blog?
Yes. Her husband, Tim Anderson, is "Tina's Marine" and he blogs here as well. Laurie checks all personal information posts with Tina before posting them. News stories or posts providing resources for survivors or churches are occasionally posted without checking with Tina first, but she has full access to delete anything she desires. Tina's voice was taken from her for far too long. Laurie does not attempt to speak for Tina.
Did Chuck Phelps ever apologize to Tina?
No. As of the last update of this page, three years after Ernie Willis was convicted on all counts including felonious forcible rape, Phelps still hosts documents on his personal web page (drchuckphelps.com) which claim Tina Anderson is not being honest and that her only goal is money. Chuck Phelps is now the senior pastor at Colonial Hills Baptist Church in Indianapolis, IN.
Questions Laurie Moody has answered elsewhere on the web:
After the trial of Ernie Willis was over, I spent many, many hours answering questions in several different places on the internet. Many pastors and other professing Christians had heard about Tina Anderson’s story in the 20/20 program on ABC with Elizabeth Vargas for the first time and then followed the news from the trial of Ernie Willis. Some showed a natural skepticism for whether or not the media had the details correct, and others just decided to stay loyal to their IFB contacts. In most cases, I was treated with kindness and respect.
Out of concern for copying the words of others, I am only putting
my own words here. They are all copied and pasted as originally written, typos
included <cringe>. I wrote these posts giving my best effort to share
information factually and unemotionally. If you want the full context of the
question/answer, please follow the links to the original posts.
Laurie Moody
Laurie Moody
1. In
answer to questions asked at SharperIron after the trial of Ernie Willis I wrote the following posts:
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-comments/.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[Re whether or not Chuck Phelps’ opinion of the situation mattered
because statutory rape was illegal]
Except that in this case, his opinion influenced his action/lack of
action, and that *was* evidence at the trial.
[Re did Chuck Phelps meet legal reporting requirement]
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.
[Re value of people getting trained about abuse issues, reporting, etc]
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.
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.
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.
I apologize if I offended Greg. What I meant was your question focused on
Chuck alone and what he did and did the police bear more blame for the
resolution of this case many years ago. Chuck's less than aggressive pursuit of
action alone is not the only factor to judge police action/lack of action. I
meant to say that the entirety of testimony--especially Chris Leaf's adds to
the big picture for the decision of the detective to table the investigation.
I'm not in any way shape or form attempting to even suggest that Chuck is
lying about making a call. I'm trying to be very specific with my words--only
focusing on what was given as testimony. I do not personally doubt that he made
a call, but what I am trying to add here to the discussion is not my personal
opinion. At least I *think* I'm mostly accomplishing that. I'm trying to focus
on testimony because I was there at the trial.
Does that make sense? I hope that is understandable. Communicating with
gaps in responses via written response creates challenges. I think this would
sound different if we were in a big room together.
[Re did police try to follow up but quit investigation because the victim
could not be located]
Sorry! I missed this last part. The testimony given by Det. Gagnon said
he was following up on a referral from DCYF, which is why he called Chris Leaf
(Tina's mom) and Chuck Phelps. He did not state Chuck made the call or dispute
it. As I understood the testimony, Chuck said he made a call, which was not
disputed. There is no record of a call but it is not disputed. Does that make
sense? I'm trying to stick only to what was said in court. Gagnon said that
Chuck Phelps did not return his call. I will have to defer to the transcript
for how many times Gagnon said he attempted to call Chuck. i think I remember
this question being asked, but I am not sure.
The detective said the matter was dropped because he could not locate the
victim. Chuck and Chris were both asked if they notified police that Tina would
be moved to another state during their testimony. Chuck said no
(paraphrased--it was a longer answer), and Chris gave a non-answer "they
didn't ask."
[Re who wanted Chuck Phelps’ notes excluded at trial]
I'm not entirely sure who was in the chambers with the judge when this
was addressed. I will give you my understanding based on what I saw/heard in
the courtroom.
David Gibbs III was there with his son (guessing 10/11/12 years old).
Gibbs talked with Phelps during a couple of the breaks while Phelps was still
on the stand. Based on his presence in the courtroom until Phelps was done
testifying and what I overheard at one point, I believe Gibbs was acting as
Phelps' attorney. I don't know if that was on his own--or under the auspices of
the CLA.
Chuck said on the stand that Brian Fuller released his notes to the Concord
Police without his permission. He emphasized this point with some strength. He
did not want his notes to be public for the trial. When the judge came back
from considering everything and made his ruling, he spoke directly to Chuck on
the stand and said something along the lines of: I know you were concerned
about saying what was in your notes. The court is compelling you to answer the
questions from the court.
I got the impression that Gibbs spoke on his behalf to say his notes
should be privileged, simply because he was clearly there to protect Phelps'
interest/concerns, but I am not at all sure that is the case. The only one I
know to ask is Wayne Coull (prosecutor) and I am not sure I have standing to
even ask that.
The defense did not want Chuck's notes to be released.
The basic parts of the ruling were that privilege was ignored when Phelps
sent the notes to Fuller and also Chuck's website (drchuckphelps.com) had
released information contained within the notes. The website was a matter of
lengthy discussion during that part of the hearing. The jury was out of the
room for that part until the ruling was made by the judge.
The judge will be issuing that ruling in writing and I assume it will be
a part of the public record for the case. Nothing has been sealed.
I don't know if this answer helps or not. I'm not trying to be indirect,
but I know my initial answer would have been -- both tried to keep the notes
out. But as I thought about it, that was based on courtroom impressions and
what the judge said during his ruling. I really don't know who argued what
outside the courtroom. There were several hearings outside the presence of the
jury but in the courtroom and several more outside the courtroom altogether.
[Re was Chuck Phelps negligent to not file written report]
I'm really trying to avoid giving opinion here. I think it is probably
obvious that I must have felt strongly enough about supporting Tina to drive 16
hours to NH to be there for/with her at the trial. I babysat her--I knew her
from the time she was just a little thing--2 or 3 years old. I said on Bob
Bixby's blog that there were other things I could have said that revealed Chris
Leaf's mindset and way of doing things, but I just didn't think it would be
appropriate to say more than I did. Now that everything is over, I can say that
Sue Cappucci (a witness during the trial) was the one that called to tell me
about the church discipline/confession/compassion session the night it took
place. She knew of my care for both Tina and Tom. After Tina spoke with the
police last spring, she, Tom and I reconnected through facebook. Everything
Tina told me is exactly what Sue told me from both the 1997 church incident,
what her sister Sarah told her, what she said to Chuck and Linda afterwards,
their responses, and what Tina wrote in an essay that Sue graded in 1998 once
Tina returned to NH. My own experiences at Trinity Baptist Concord, while a
member led me to find everything within the full realm of believability. Also,
I grew up in a Hyles' style IFB church. Nothing that was done or said as a part
of this whole situation surprised me. I had witnessed other public church
discipline/confession/compassion meetings exactly like the one Tina described
and others gave testimony about at Trinity while a member and at every other
church I attended within fundamentalism.
I had always heard such services referred to as church discipline. Other
witnesses did as well, but one of them said he thought of it as a
"confession" session because no one was voted off church membership
during that meeting. On the witness stand, Chuck referred to it as a chance to
show compassion--neither discipline or confession. Given that the note Tina was
helped to write by a church leader at the time, included terms such as asking
forgiveness from God and the church, I don't think anyone really believed that
the purpose of the meeting was to offer compassion since a child was obviously
going to be born.
I did have that in my notes about Lt. Cross, but didn't mention it here
because I didn't know who it was. I did not remember that name as coming from
Chuck's notes. I just want to reiterate that I'm trying to stay focused only on
what I remember from court. My niece is transcribing her notes--probably 20
handwritten pages. I have some notes too. My main purpose in being there was to
give physical/emotional/spiritual support to Tina. It was easier to leave most
of the note taking to others.
Leah, you asked about the transcript. Sue Cappucci plans to get a copy as
soon as they are available. I will scan them and publish them online. Even though
tone cannot be discernible from the written transcript, it is still the best
record of what was said in the courtroom.
There was a very long interview recording played during the trial--the
defense fought its admission very strongly. That was the recording of the
interview between Det. DeAngelis and Ernie Willis when he was first called in
for questioning in 2010. I do not know if the recording will be transcribed for
the record or not (in the transcripts).
If it is possible to get an audio recording, it might be worth it for
some of you. Then you can try to ascertain tone.
[Question asked if Chuck Phelps tried to communicate with Tina at the
trial.]
I can answer this question with an unequivocal no. I was with her the
entire time Chuck Phelps was on the stand. He did not approach her, speak to
her or even make eye contact with her.
[Re if police asked the age of Tina Anderson when Chuck Phelps called to
report]
this was not addressed at trial. I think the best explanation is a
consideration of all the testimony together: Phelps, Leaf and Gagnon, that I
discussed here: http://sharperiron.org/comment/30507#comment-30507
I've read that some have wondered the same thing as you because at
drchuckphelps.com the age given was 16. Given what was said at trial, I am
doubtful it is true. Given Gagnon's own testimony, he seemed pretty clear that
he tabled it due to lack of information about Tina's whereabouts.
2. In
response to a post Bob Bixby wrote on his blog,
I wrote a long post about my knowledge of Tina Anderson, her mom & brother,
and also Trinity Baptist Church based on my personal experiences. Bob ended up
turning my comment into a main post and there was a lot of discussion following
it.
I have some insight on the situation from my own time at Trinity Baptist
Church and also my involvement with Tina and Tom and their mother, Chris. I
first met Tina and Tom while on a visit to Glendale AZ where my dad was
stationed at Luke AFB. My family attended the same IFB church as Chris and the
two children. My mom was a teacher at the Christian School and had both of the
children at one time or another. The name of the church has changed since then
in the aftermath of the pastor’s (James Colyn) conviction for child sexual
assault. He is a registered sex offender in TN the last time I checked.
My mom knew Chris and spent more time with her than I did. I was a
college student at BJU at the time and only home for Christmas and other
breaks. Chris was married to Daniel Leaf–not the father of the two children.
During the time that they were in AZ, Dan was arrested and convicted for child
abuse. You can find his criminal record here:
http://www4.egov.nh.gov/nsor/Display.aspx?offenderID=2522.
I became reacquainted with Chris while Daniel was in prison in AZ. She
moved with Tina and Tom to NH to be near her family. By this time I was married
and attending Trinity Baptist Church. I helped Chris a lot during the time Dan
was imprisoned. I helped her clean her apartment, wash laundry, and also
babysat the children for free. I first offered to take care of them when I
observed their current babysitter (someone who lived near me) was using
physical correction of them that I thought was harsh and inappropriate. I told
Chris about the situation and offered to help. Knowing what I did from my own
interaction with Chris and Daniel in AZ and my mom’s observations, Tina and Tom
needed someone to provide security and love for them.
When Daniel was nearing the time to be released from prison, I spent
quite a bit of time helping Chris get her apartment in order. I had several
lengthy conversations with her about Daniel coming back and whether or not he
could be trusted alone with the children. I wanted her to have a safety plan
and asked her to promise me that she would not allow him to injure them again.
Obviously I did not have the power to enforce such a decision, but Chris knew
that I was volunteering with DCYS in a parenting/mentoring program and that I
was a mandatory reporter if I ever observed any signs of abuse.
(I’m giving this detail for full disclosure lest someone from Trinity
Concord give it in an effort to discredit me) In the summer of 1991, while I
was in Maine visiting a friend, I went to a movie with her and another friend
and also had a wine cooler. I knew that was in violation of my terms of
employment as a part time teacher at Trinity Christian School, but made the
choice to participate anyway. The pastor in Maine at the time, Dave Pennington,
found out and told me he would tell Chuck Phelps if I did not. So, upon my
return to Concord, I told Chuck and he accepted my resignation from the school.
I remained active at the church and spent a short time in counseling with Linda
Phelps and my husband remained on staff at the Christian school.
It was after this point that I saw Tina and Tom less often since I wasn’t
employed at the school anymore, but I did see them at church, and continued my
friendship with Chris. As best as I could tell when I saw them, I did not see
bruises, but I always saw them fully clothed. Chris would not answer my
specific questions about whether or not Daniel ever hit Tina and Tom, but would
just tell me everything was okay. I made a good faith effort to keep an eye on
their welfare.
In the summer of 1993, my husband and I moved to another state for him to
begin work on his doctorate. Just before that move, Daniel was arrested and
convicted of a felonious sexual assault of a young girl (6 years old if memory
serves me correctly) at a McDonald’s restaurant. As you can see from his sexual
offender record linked above, he has several other convictions. At one point
Daniel was also investigated by DCYS for child abuse because of extensive
bruising. The children their injuries were from a belt with metal eyelets/rivets
in it.
Fast forward to the fall of 1997. A friend at Trinity with whom I
remained in contact, called to tell me that Tina had been brought before the
church for discipline (there were several calls over a span of a few days–the
first one came the Sunday night of the church discipline). I use the words
church discipline because they are the words my friend used, and the scenario
was familiar to me because of similar sessions I had witness while at Trinity.
This friend’s sister was a neighbor to Chris and Tina and Tina had told
that neighbor that Ernie Willis had raped her. It wasn’t until after the church
discipline that my friend realized the church was going to take an action with
which she disagreed (sending Tina away and keeping Willis in apparent good
standing). Because of my earlier connection with Chris, Tina and Tom, I wanted
to make contact with the family and offer to help rather than Tina being sent
away to the home of strangers. My friend could not get anyone to tell her where
Tina was taken and I was never able to establish contact with Tina until years
later after the police located her.
I’ve read numerous comments from people that are using Chris as a bolster
for Chuck Phelps’ testimony. I am sad to point out the obvious since her
children still love her, but Chris has on multiple occasions brought a
convicted abuser of her own children (not Daniel’s–he was the stepfather) back
into her home. In addition to that, she knowingly brought a convicted child
sexual offender back into her home and allowed him to be in unsupervised
contact with her children. That is not the decision of a loving, godly woman.
Chris selfishly chose her own satisfaction over her own children’s welfare. How
does that make her a reliable witness in this situation?
Tina and Tom both thrived on the attention they received in our home.
They clearly showed signs of a need for positive attention, affection and a
father figure. I mentioned that I washed laundry often. I offered to do that
because the children’s clothing often smelled. It pains me to have to speak in
this way, but in spite of my own failing the summer of 1991 that caused me to
resign from teaching at the school, I had always been a member in good standing
at Trinity. I loved Tina and Tom. I kept the dress code Trinity required,
followed the music guidelines established in Kurt Woetzel’s class, sang in the
choir, helped in a myriad of ministries. I was the model Christian School
teacher’s wife.
I’m not perfect by any means, but Chris abdicated her own responsibility
as a mother to provide a safe environment for her children. She expressed to me
on more than one occasion that she wanted Daniel back because she “needed” him
and for other reasons that do not seem appropriate for me to repeat. But
clearly–by the simple fact she kept bringing him back into her home, she was
not putting the needs of her children first.
By Tina’s own testimony, Ernie Willis had become a confidante of sorts
–someone she trusted and confided in about the abuse she endured at the hands
of her stepfather. I saw Tina several times upon our return trips to NH to
visit with my husband’s family. She was a sweet, kind girl–thoughtful, quick to
give me a hug when she saw me, excited to see our new baby the year he was
born. She wasn’t a seductive temptress. She wore the standard modest jumpers,
and really, seemed like a late “bloomer” in my opinion.
By her own account, Ernie forced himself when she said no. That is rape.
Before I saw the 20/20 show, I had a conversation with a woman with whom I am
very close. She said to me of her own abuse, “I just wanted to forget it. I
mean–surely it didn’t really happen? Maybe I imagined it.” Those are very
similar words to the ones Tina used in recounting her own experience.
It was not Chuck Phelps’s role to investigate and figure out whether or
not Tina was telling the truth. Why did he allow Ernie to confess to adultery
in front of the church? Phelps has not disputed that fact. The church members
on the 20/20 show all agree what his “charge” was. If Phelps really believed
and reported it as rape, then why did he not take Ernie to the police station?
Those of you that are fathers and pastors–would you have such a man sitting in
your congregation around other young girls? Would you allow two phone calls to
be enough action on your part?
I cannot help but ask those questions. It seems reasonable to conclude
that at that time, Chuck believed what he is saying now–that the sex was
consensual and not rape. Again–it was not his role to decide that back in 1997,
but his action allowing Ernie to remain in the church, knowing he was not
arrested, certainly seems like he was all too willing to assign guilt to Tina.
I’m writing about what I know from my own relationship with Chris, Tina
and Tom because the things I am saying are just not out there anywhere I can
see — at least where pastors and fundamentalists are reading. This for me and
my husband goes well beyond “taking sides” to confessing sin. I failed by not
creating a big stink over this after I got a call from my friend telling me
Tina was sent away. I should have called the police myself. My answer at the
time to my husband was “what can I do?” I was an adult, and I should have tried
harder.
I am not in a fundamentalist church today, because the continual stress
of external “standards” and a rules based church instead of a church where the
gospel message –freedom in Christ was preached–finally led my husband and I to
make a change. My own family has been touched by sexual assault and child abuse
in every single fundamentalist church we attended. Sadly, it was covered up at
each one. In spite of that, and all of my siblings and I treasure a deep and
abiding relationship with God today. We’ve all taken different journeys in our
own healing, but we are whole and happy in our families, all serving God in
different ways.
I guess that last paragraph was for full disclosure too. I’m not holding
anything back. I may not meet your standards for a “good witness.” I am just
appealing to you all to please think about whether or not Tina may read what
you say. David Doran, you may not remember me from all those years ago at BJU,
but I want to thank you for interjecting what feels like a voice of reason over
at Sharper Iron. I have been truly grieved by what I’ve read there. I just can’t
help but think that if it had been a different girl–the daughter of a leader in
the fundamentalist movement–that maybe this would be treated differently. But
you know–if that were the case, she would not have been a perfect victim to be
groomed by a pedophile for rape. If the church in question were anything other
than a big church in the movement (I was there–I know how much of a leader
Trinity is in New England with the Leadership Conference and other things like
the NEACS), say–someone other than Chuck Phelps–would this be handled
differently?
God will get the honor and glory due to His name because He is God. He
doesn’t need ABC to promote Him and His purposes cannot be thwarted by ABC. The
power of the Gospel message cannot be hindered by the sin of men. If that were
the case, the Gospel would have perished long ago. He uses imperfect people all
the time to accomplish His plans. As believers though, we can choose to allow
this 20/20 episode to push us to embrace truth. It can push us to confess,
repent, and restore while making restitution. If Chuck says in his statement,
that he wouldn’t have a young girl come before the body like that now, then why
not simply apologize?
I think we all have to accept responsibility in these matters so such a
thing never happens again. Fortunately, and for our own comfort, Tina says now,
“We made it through and God is good.” Doesn’t it say something that ABC ended
the broadcast with that statement?
No comments:
Post a Comment