Mr. Wilson’s Handling of the Wight Case
Main Problems

• Mr. Wilson’s insistence on the existence of, and especially the relevance of, a secret, parent-approved courtship between Natalie and Mr. Wight as a mitigating factor in Mr. Wight’s culpability.
• Mr. Wilson’s claims that what occurred between Mr. Wight and Natalie was “emotionally consensual” implies that Natalie was a willing participant and that it therefore could not have been abuse. (Email Exchange with Mr. Wilson, #58 & #60)
• Mr. Wilson’s behavior toward the Greenfield & Petersen families in a variety of public venues.
• Mr. Wilson’s near-complete omission of Mr. Wight’s personal and legal history after Natalie’s case, which contrasts heavily with his frequent retelling of the Greenfield family’s dissolution following the news of Natalie’s abuse.

Mr. Wilson’s response has been strange and incredibly difficult to pin down. Because Natalie is now an adult and has been very public about her abuse and the way it was handled by Mr. Wilson and Christ Church, much more has been publicly written about Mr. Wight’s case than Mr. Sitler’s case. Most of it has been ugly and often contradictory, which makes it difficult to neatly distill…

…B. Despite the fact that even Mr. Wilson concedes that Gary and Pat Greenfield had no idea what Mr. Wight was doing to their daughter and were devastated by the news when it came out (HOH Meeting Transcript 10/27/15) and despite the fact that Overview and Analysis of the Wight Case with Supporting Documentation legally his line of reasoning is inadmissible and irrelevant, he constantly brings up a parent-approved relationship as a mitigating factor in Mr. Wight’s crimes.

Here is what Mr. Wilson wrote to Officer Green:

“One other thing regrettably needs to be noted. In the meeting, we took care to have Jamin acknowledge that no matter what circumstances actually set up the temptation, the crime, the sin, and the deception were his responsibility alone. Blame-shifting on his part would be utterly inappropriate, and we had Jamin acknowledge that he was in no position to absolve himself by pointing fingers at others. Having said this, I can observe what Jamin should not. In
our meeting the Greenfields (who had no idea of the sexual behavior occurring between Jamin and Natalie) acknowledged their sin and folly in helping to set the situation up. They did this by inviting Jamin to move in with them, encouraging and permitting a relationship between Jamin and Natalie, while keeping that relationship secret from the broader community. They thought (and were led to believe by Jamin) that the relationship was sexually pure, but they did know it was a relationship between a man in his mid-twenties and their fourteen-year-old daughter, and they helped to create the climate of secrecy. At the same time, their folly (as Pat Greenfield has aptly pointed out) was not a felony. It is not a crime to be foolish, while it is a crime to do what Jamin did. I agree with this completely, and in describing this aspect of the situation I do not believe it absolves Jamin of any responsibility for his behavior. But it does explain what kind of criminal behavior it was. For example, I do not believe that this situation in any way paints Jamin as a sexual predator. In all my years as a pastor, I don’t believe that I have ever seen such a level of parental foolishness as what the Greenfields did in this.”

2. Natalie’s “Emotional Consent.”

Mr. Wilson refers to Mr. Wight’s crime as “sexual behavior” and as Mr. Wight and Natalie being “in a relationship” which implies a sort of consent from both parties (Doug Wilson’s Reluctant Response, HOH Meeting Transcript). He also describes Natalie – at 14-years old – as “emotionally consensual” (see #58 in the email run below, from Email Exchange With Mr. Wilson). As discussed in the supporting documentation section of the Wight Sex Abuse Case Facts, the idea of Natalie’s consent being relevant is legally invalid, yet Mr. Wilson constantly frames his writings that way and sometimes is even more explicit.

Considering that Natalie’s account is corroborated by Mr. Wight’s signed confession and that Mr. Wilson himself describes Mr. Wight’s behavior as statutory rape, Mr. Wilson’s claim that 14-year old Natalie was in some measure consenting to her own abuse betrays Mr. Wilson’s incredible lack of understanding of the dynamics of abuse. In the exchange below, he also inexplicably compares Natalie’s culpability to Mr. Sitler’s because she was roughly the same age when Mr. Wight began abusing her as Mr. Sitler was when he began abusing others. The difference should be obvious–Natalie was a victim; Mr. Sitler was a perpetrator. Mr. Wilson completely ignores the fact that abuse is typically done by people with greater power by virtue of their age, maturity, education, position, societal standing, etc. upon those with lesser power and again demonstrates his complete inability to grasp the relevant facts of the situation even ten years later (by contrast, the type of coercion done by people in lesser positions to those in greater positions usually takes the blackmail/entrapment track, which no one claims occurred here). Here is Mr. Wilson’s explanation of the issue from the email exchange I had with him (beginning with email “#54” on page 155).

Rachel Shubin: Do you believe Natalie’s account of her abuse?

Doug Wilson: No, although I do believe parts of it. In some key respects, however, I know that she is not telling the story accurately. What happened was this – a plea arrangement was settled, in which neither side told their version of the story in open court. That was the deal. Now, a decade later, Natalie is telling her version only, with no possibility of cross-examination, no hearing of both sides, with no examination of her journals/diaries, no clamor for Jamin to tell his version, and a broad willingness on the part of Mr. Internet to attack anyone who is aware of how problematic this all is as a defender of rape and/or rapists.

And, incidentally, this is not to say that I believe Jamin’s version either. Anything that either of them says would need to be corroborated.

RS: Why do you think Jamin should have been charged with Rape and Lewd Conduct if you don’t believe that’s what he did?

DW: I believe in age of consent laws, and that is what he did. Statutory rape. And his behavior, on everyone’s account, was lewd conduct.

RS: Then what is it about Natalie’s account that you don’t believe?

DW: I don’t think it would be prudent to get into that. Sorry.

RS: …From what I can tell and what you have said in the past, all of what Jamin did sexually with Natalie was beyond the knowledge of the parents, correct? Natalie has said that she was aware of no “parent-approved” relationship or secret courtship. So, three questions:

1. How can Natalie have been part of a courtship she was unaware existed?

2. Please define the particulars of what you understand the relationship to have been (What were the parameters? How long did the parent approved relationship/secret courtship last?)

3. Since you were not one of the primary parties involved in the relationship (those being Jamin, Natalie, and Gary and Pat), how did you find out about the courtship?

DW: Natalie could not have been in a relationship that she was unaware existed. But at least one of the parties (Jamin) says that she was very aware of it. This is why Natalie should open her journals up (if she wants the whole story told) and that would probably establish who is telling the truth at this point.

According to one source, the parameters were things like hand-holding, sitting together, etc. I am unsure how long the approved relationship existed. I believe I found out about the courtship when the thing blew up, but do not know exactly.

…RS: Have you read her journals? You’ve said that you have access to them.

DW: It is possible that I saw some back in the day, but don’t recall distinctly. I said that I had access to them because Jamin’s attorney has copies, and I thought the review committee might ask to see them. After I said that I discovered that the court seal applies not only to the copies at the courthouse, but also to any copies that Jamin’s attorney has (I presume because they were part of the plea arrangement). If we had had copies from back in the day, I don’t think the court seal would apply, but I don’t believe we do.^*

Read more»

Rachel Shubin | “Analyzing Douglas Wilson’s Handling of the Steven Sitler and Jamin Wight Cases,” pp. 40–45.

EDITOR’S NOTE

^*On the question of the diary see the this correspondence. Contrast the statement above with this quotation from DW’s email of 9/28/2015 to (then) Natalie:

Here is my belated response on your question about documentation. Basically, we have our file in the church office on the situation, which contains things like Jamin’s letters of confession, our communications with your father beyond what you posted, etc. We also have the official court transcript of everything related to Jamin’s case and trial, and which contains some significant and relevant information that you are leaving out of your public account. And last, we have access to the love letters/journals that you wrote that the court reviewed and then sealed.

RESOURCES

• It Can Be Difficult But We Need To Open Our Eyes And Pay Attention To The Facts
• Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
• Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
• The Heidelblog Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Resources
• The Ecumenical Creeds
• The Reformed Confessions
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
• Why I Am A Christian
• What Must A Christian Believe?
• Heidelblog Contributors
• Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

Post authored by:

• Heidelblog

  

  The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.

  More by Heidelblog ›