What does any of that have to do with this thread?
I feel I need to make a clarification. I said Champ claims innocence. That was an assumption I made based on what I was told that an Eastern(?) person from Missouri said. He told my son that the charges were brought by a disgruntled family who left Grays Prarie and that the charges were not true. He did say that Champ had engaged in improper conduct with his sister in his younger years and folks felt that had been cleared.mike wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 5:06 pmNot knowing more than what's public, that's where I am as well.Signtist wrote: ↑Fri Sep 09, 2022 3:16 pmI guess I assume the chances of him being guilty are pretty high. If a jury looked at the evidence and agreed, it's more likely he's guilty than that he is framed. I also assume that any man capable of molesting (at least) 2 little girls, will have zero compulsion about lying.
Does anyone know what issue(s) this family identified as the source of their disgruntlement? Was sexual abuse indicated?the charges were brought by a disgruntled family who left Grays Prarie
Because those are things the leftist liberal crowd (including The Innocence Project) is constantly pushing.
Well, the Bible teaches that rapists, murderers, and others should be executed. I generally agree with that.And in any event, elimination of the death penalty is not a liberal position. It is both an ethical position, a civilized position, and a Christian position. Plenty of conservatives oppose the death penalty both on ethical grounds and Christian grounds. Or do you think that unrepentant rapists like Stanley Champ should be executed? Is that your argument?
I want to go on record as saying that I was simply sharing a few general observations about packed court rooms, and I should not have made those comments in this thread until I knew whether they applied in this situation.Ernie wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 3:38 pmGood questions. I should think about this more...ken_sylvania wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 8:12 am In cases here the perpetrator is/was a church member, don't you think sometimes the other church people are attending the court sessions so that they can see for themselves what is happening as well as get accurate information directly?
I think if someone I knew was going to be in court for something like this I would likely attend - not in hopes of influencing anything one way or the other, but just to find out the facts truly are. So that I wouldn't be at the mercy of people saying "he never did this" when in fact the person had, for instance, confessed to the facts in court.
Does attendance at the trial necessarily denote support for one party or the other?
In the instant case, suppose the church people believed that Gerald was guilty and deserved punishment (I have no information whether they did or didn't). How should they indicate this by their court attendance practices so as not to be mistaken for "supporting him" or "hoping he gets a lighter sentence"?
Not sure what you mean by supporting him. Had the Greys Prairie congregation or the EPMC group indicated some kind of widespread belief that Champ is innocent?cooper wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 6:32 pm Recently, I heard that Champ was innocent, so I did a Google search and found this thread from 2022. I also learned Champ appealed the conviction and back in May a higher court upheld his life sentence. https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/fift ... 50-cr.html.
Reading the decision was a painful read. It is explicit and disturbing. I hesitate to read these things, but when they are denied I think it's important to know the truth. I'm not God, I don't know all things, but the charges against him seem solid. I don't know anything about the victim. It's very possible she is not living an upright life, but that does not make Champ innocent.
In 2016, he was confronted by a sister and Trudy Metzger. On tape, he admitted to inappropriately touching his infant daughters.
In 2019, he received a phone call from the victim in this case. On the first phone call, he declined to give an answer to why he had committed these illegal and immoral acts. He wanted legal and church advice before he commented. The second phone call he denied the allegations.
I was unaware of the Trudy Metzger connection before. I know her work and do not believe she is dishonest. I do not think she is the person to investigate these things, but I don't think that makes her an untrustworthy witness. It seems likely Champ learned something about the legal system and the legal consequences of sex abuse in 2016. Again, I don't know all things but to me this makes me to be skeptical of his insistence of innocence.
According to the materials contained in the appeal decision above, he was 17 years older than the sister and abused her in early childhood and early adolescence. He was not a young teenager when these actions occurred. My understanding is he and the church do not dispute at least some of the accusations of his sister. Perhaps the church has access to information that supports his innocence in these specific current allegations that Champ disputes. I think it's doubtful but I'm trying not to overstate. But I don't think these earlier illegal and immoral acts were taken seriously by the church. In light of these, supporting Champ is disappointing. Perhaps his church has changed their position.