SJC Preliminary ruling in Herron case

Status
Not open for further replies.

Edward

Puritanboard Commissioner

Preliminary ruling (subject to post trial briefing and a final determination) - Not guilty on all charges.

Quick takeaway - the presbytery comes out looking really bad as to how they handled things throughout the process. Some of the Central Illinois presbyters appear to be deserving of discipline.

I found the discussion of Charge 4 particularly interesting in its discussion on when litigation is appropriate against fellow believers. Folks here not particularly interested in intramural PCA politics might find meat for discussion on that point alone (starts on page 15). Please recall that a PB brother was involved in the process, and may not be in a position to defend or discuss things at this stage of the proceedings.
 
I agree that the CIP created a fair bit of the confusion. I wonder where and how the leak occurred of executive session minutes. The two women who were the alleged victims should not have spread their accusations all over social media. Tapping into the MeToo movement was not ultimately wise, however much sympathy they may have gained by doing so. From what I can see, the SJC ruled correctly here.
 
That was long; I assume the accusers were eventually made known? But on what biblical basis is it right to accuse and not identify who you are to the accused? How is reconciliation even possible? I did read that at some point the accusers refused to consider reconciliation.
 
That was long; I assume the accusers were eventually made known? But on what biblical basis is it right to accuse and not identify who you are to the accused? How is reconciliation even possible? I did read that at some point the accusers refused to consider reconciliation.
They were, which made their initial refusal look even worse. These women were not interested in reconciliation.
 
That was long;
The transcript was 1,966 pages; they did a good job of boiling things down. I'm not volunteering to read the transcript. The 620 pages of depositions probably has some interesting things but I'd only want to look at those in electronic format.

I'll be shocked if the various bloggers and Youtube warriors who took up arms bother to apologize and set the record straight.
 
I for one am GLAD he filed civil suit against these accusers. In today's world the charges they leveled against him are career-ending and life destroying. God forbid they should get away scot free.
 
So did the women make everything up? I only recall seeing this last year on the Roys site. Guess I really need to stop trusting these "discernment" sites.
 
So did the women make everything up?


From the findings of fact:
39 Where unambiguous digital or documentary evidence existed, however, it strongly supported
40 the arguments of the Accused, providing objective proof against these specific allegations of
41 sin. This fact affected the Panel’s assessment of the credibility to ascribe to testimony for
42 which there was no tangible evidence or for which there were no third-party witnesses. After
43 carefully examining all the evidence, The Panel unanimously agreed that the prosecution did
44 not meet its burden of proof in this case.

emphasis supplied.

It does appear that they may have overstated their case in their social media campaign. If I have misunderstood things, I'd be happy to review the two deposition transcripts if their attorneys forward them to me; and if they choose to do so, I would appreciate it if they would flag appropriate portions to my attention.

And I'd qualify my response to add that just because a burden of proof isn't met, doesn't mean that there is no evidence whatsoever, so I'd probably answer your question as asked, with a "no".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top