Trudy Metzger/Steve Stutzman

[JohnH]

I don’t think sexual abuse has anything to do with “power abuse”. It’s just sexual abuse, period. People do it because they are perverts and will do it anyway they can get away with it. It’s very similar to dealing with an addict; you trust them as far as you can see them.

Obviously, someone with a lot of power can get away with and engage in a lot more abuse successfully.

[HondurasKeiser]

Jeriah Mast was a good example of this. His problems were well known.

His sins were known by some. His problems were only known by his victims. Since that ordeal, many Anabaptist leaders have now been enlightened and are realizing that repenting of one's sins does not necessarily do away with one's problems.

Are you sure? My understanding is that his preying on young boys was known, but there was a belief him getting married would straighten him out. As opposed to a more sensible policy of “anyone who has a history of preying on young boys isn’t a good candidate for a mission”.

Or marriage

[JohnH]

His sins were known by some. His problems were only known by his victims. Since that ordeal, many Anabaptist leaders have now been enlightened and are realizing that repenting of one's sins does not necessarily do away with one's problems.

Are you sure? My understanding is that his preying on young boys was known, but there was a belief him getting married would straighten him out. As opposed to a more sensible policy of “anyone who has a history of preying on young boys isn’t a good candidate for a mission”.

Or marriage

I agree, but the decision to get married is really just up to the two participants. Whereas ordaining someone or sending out a missionary involved many more people.

[anndet92]

I am extremely disheartened by the comments on this thread that are overly critical of survivors and advocates using social media to warn others of sexual predators.

I am a survivor who has followed Mennonet for years. I watched my own story be dissected in this forum years ago, and for the most part I was reminded why so many survivors simply stay silent.

Most people do not understand the mental hell survivors go through to get to the point of realizing what happened them, let alone go public with it. The way survivors get scrutinized while perps are handed grace, forgiveness and a pat on the back is just insane.

Most survivors on social media telling their stories have already reported to law enforcement. Often, church leaders are aware. Survivors have often tried every other avenue in order to protect kids before they go public.

Survivors are not permitted to stand up in church and tel their stories. (At least not in normal church services). What other avenues is there after we’ve gone to church leaders,only for them to go to the perp and for the perp to claim innocence? Keep in mind that if a person can sexual abuse a child, there’s a good chance they’re already apt at lying! What should survivors do after law enforcement is contacted and the justice system takes ages and even then, only 6% of REPORTED sexual assaults ever end with the perp behind bars?

We are failing abuse survivors and we are not protecting children. And until survivors and advocates are not being tone policed for turning to social media platforms to post EVIDENCE, until we are actually believed instead of criticized, nothing will change.

The social media posts from Bri and Trudy in recent months have well documented evidence attached to them. Steve Stutzman on the other hand, has yet to provide evidence for the things he claims. His story has holes in it. His followers have called survivors “witches,” “Jezebels”, and there has been joking about reporting crimes. Yet I see people here in this forum saying that Trudy should police her “followers”. I saw someone on Trudy’s post call Steve an idiot, and she replied to the comment saying that she does not tolerate name calling on her posts.

If you want to tone police someone, start with the people who are calling survivors horrible names.

I know we all want to protect children.

Please be mindful that we are talking about child sexual abuse. There are people not on this forum who watch your comments. If Mennonet is a broad over view of where Anabaptism is on the issue of child sexual assault, we’ve got a lot of work to do.

If I’ve been too blunt, forgive me. I’m broken for the children.

[JohnH]

Of course, the problem is the rest of us don’t know who is actually a survivor and who isn’t, and you will face the same problem once someone starts making wild accusations that are either impossible to verify or else seem implausible. Investigating these crimes is difficult and mostly relies on things other than an alleged victim’s claim, just as it doesn’t rely on a perpetrator’s confession.

With that said, Trudy is the closest thing I have seen to an impartial investigator who focuses only on verifiable facts. Despite this, she is often accused of not doing so. I find this bothersome, because nobody else in the plain world has really stepped up to the plars.

Victims should be expected to be basket-cases and often have a troubled life - such people are targeted by perpetrators. I would like to see people like Stutzman stop attacking the character of alleged victims.

[ken_sylvania]

I am extremely disheartened by the comments on this thread that are overly critical of survivors and advocates using social media to warn others of sexual predators.

I am a survivor who has followed Mennonet for years. I watched my own story be dissected in this forum years ago, and for the most part I was reminded why so many survivors simply stay silent.

Most people do not understand the mental hell survivors go through to get to the point of realizing what happened them, let alone go public with it. The way survivors get scrutinized while perps are handed grace, forgiveness and a pat on the back is just insane.

Most survivors on social media telling their stories have already reported to law enforcement. Often, church leaders are aware. Survivors have often tried every other avenue in order to protect kids before they go public.

Survivors are not permitted to stand up in church and tel their stories. (At least not in normal church services). What other avenues is there after we’ve gone to church leaders,only for them to go to the perp and for the perp to claim innocence? Keep in mind that if a person can sexual abuse a child, there’s a good chance they’re already apt at lying! What should survivors do after law enforcement is contacted and the justice system takes ages and even then, only 6% of REPORTED sexual assaults ever end with the perp behind bars?

We are failing abuse survivors and we are not protecting children. And until survivors and advocates are not being tone policed for turning to social media platforms to post EVIDENCE, until we are actually believed instead of criticized, nothing will change.

The social media posts from Bri and Trudy in recent months have well documented evidence attached to them. Steve Stutzman on the other hand, has yet to provide evidence for the things he claims. His story has holes in it. His followers have called survivors “witches,” “Jezebels”, and there has been joking about reporting crimes. Yet I see people here in this forum saying that Trudy should police her “followers”. I saw someone on Trudy’s post call Steve an idiot, and she replied to the comment saying that she does not tolerate name calling on her posts.

If you want to tone police someone, start with the people who are calling survivors horrible names.

I know we all want to protect children.

Please be mindful that we are talking about child sexual abuse. There are people not on this forum who watch your comments. If Mennonet is a broad over view of where Anabaptism is on the issue of child sexual assault, we’ve got a lot of work to do.

If I’ve been too blunt, forgive me. I’m broken for the children.

You are not being too blunt.
There are some of us who are appalled at the way Trudy is being talked about, but who are keenly aware of our lack of information about the whole thing, and so we say nothing. I'd like to think that we represent the great majority of onlookers, but I don't know. I hope so.

At any rate, please know that there are at least some of us out here who think that survivors and advocates ought to be given room to tell their stories without the rest of us being critical of their tone.

[R7ehr]

I am extremely disheartened by the comments on this thread that are overly critical of survivors and advocates using social media to warn others of sexual predators.

I am a survivor who has followed Mennonet for years. I watched my own story be dissected in this forum years ago, and for the most part I was reminded why so many survivors simply stay silent.

Most people do not understand the mental hell survivors go through to get to the point of realizing what happened them, let alone go public with it. The way survivors get scrutinized while perps are handed grace, forgiveness and a pat on the back is just insane.

Most survivors on social media telling their stories have already reported to law enforcement. Often, church leaders are aware. Survivors have often tried every other avenue in order to protect kids before they go public.

Survivors are not permitted to stand up in church and tel their stories. (At least not in normal church services). What other avenues is there after we’ve gone to church leaders,only for them to go to the perp and for the perp to claim innocence? Keep in mind that if a person can sexual abuse a child, there’s a good chance they’re already apt at lying! What should survivors do after law enforcement is contacted and the justice system takes ages and even then, only 6% of REPORTED sexual assaults ever end with the perp behind bars?

We are failing abuse survivors and we are not protecting children. And until survivors and advocates are not being tone policed for turning to social media platforms to post EVIDENCE, until we are actually believed instead of criticized, nothing will change.

The social media posts from Bri and Trudy in recent months have well documented evidence attached to them. Steve Stutzman on the other hand, has yet to provide evidence for the things he claims. His story has holes in it. His followers have called survivors “witches,” “Jezebels”, and there has been joking about reporting crimes. Yet I see people here in this forum saying that Trudy should police her “followers”. I saw someone on Trudy’s post call Steve an idiot, and she replied to the comment saying that she does not tolerate name calling on her posts.

If you want to tone police someone, start with the people who are calling survivors horrible names.

I know we all want to protect children.

Please be mindful that we are talking about child sexual abuse. There are people not on this forum who watch your comments. If Mennonet is a broad over view of where Anabaptism is on the issue of child sexual assault, we’ve got a lot of work to do.

If I’ve been too blunt, forgive me. I’m broken for the children.

I don't suppose very many people fabricate out of whole cloth, claims that they were sexually abused. But for sake of education, what would the advocates such as yourself, Trudy, etc, offer as a method or steps to discover the truth in that scenario? I'm just curious. We put people (or they put themselves) into boxes of "advocate", and then we only ever - understandably - hear them advocate for one side. But as truth seekers instead of advocate, what are the tools that the advocates use to seek truth? Obviously they view themselves as both truth seeking and advocate.

In the case of a fabrication, is the SOP of advocates, to simply drop it? They can.

[anndet92]

I am extremely disheartened by the comments on this thread that are overly critical of survivors and advocates using social media to warn others of sexual predators.

I am a survivor who has followed Mennonet for years. I watched my own story be dissected in this forum years ago, and for the most part I was reminded why so many survivors simply stay silent.

Most people do not understand the mental hell survivors go through to get to the point of realizing what happened them, let alone go public with it. The way survivors get scrutinized while perps are handed grace, forgiveness and a pat on the back is just insane.

Most survivors on social media telling their stories have already reported to law enforcement. Often, church leaders are aware. Survivors have often tried every other avenue in order to protect kids before they go public.

Survivors are not permitted to stand up in church and tel their stories. (At least not in normal church services). What other avenues is there after we’ve gone to church leaders,only for them to go to the perp and for the perp to claim innocence? Keep in mind that if a person can sexual abuse a child, there’s a good chance they’re already apt at lying! What should survivors do after law enforcement is contacted and the justice system takes ages and even then, only 6% of REPORTED sexual assaults ever end with the perp behind bars?

We are failing abuse survivors and we are not protecting children. And until survivors and advocates are not being tone policed for turning to social media platforms to post EVIDENCE, until we are actually believed instead of criticized, nothing will change.

The social media posts from Bri and Trudy in recent months have well documented evidence attached to them. Steve Stutzman on the other hand, has yet to provide evidence for the things he claims. His story has holes in it. His followers have called survivors “witches,” “Jezebels”, and there has been joking about reporting crimes. Yet I see people here in this forum saying that Trudy should police her “followers”. I saw someone on Trudy’s post call Steve an idiot, and she replied to the comment saying that she does not tolerate name calling on her posts.

If you want to tone police someone, start with the people who are calling survivors horrible names.

I know we all want to protect children.

Please be mindful that we are talking about child sexual abuse. There are people not on this forum who watch your comments. If Mennonet is a broad over view of where Anabaptism is on the issue of child sexual assault, we’ve got a lot of work to do.

If I’ve been too blunt, forgive me. I’m broken for the children.

You are not being too blunt.
There are some of us who are appalled at the way Trudy is being talked about, but who are keenly aware of our lack of information about the whole thing, and so we say nothing. I'd like to think that we represent the great majority of onlookers, but I don't know. I hope so.

At any rate, please know that there are at least some of us out here who think that survivors and advocates ought to be given room to tell their stories without the rest of us being critical of their tone.

Thank you. I appreciate that, and I hope there are many more people who share your view. I understand that some of the social media posts have been hard to follow, and that people with less info might have a tough time figuring it out what’s going on. I want to extend grace for that.

[anndet92]

I am extremely disheartened by the comments on this thread that are overly critical of survivors and advocates using social media to warn others of sexual predators.

I am a survivor who has followed Mennonet for years. I watched my own story be dissected in this forum years ago, and for the most part I was reminded why so many survivors simply stay silent.

Most people do not understand the mental hell survivors go through to get to the point of realizing what happened them, let alone go public with it. The way survivors get scrutinized while perps are handed grace, forgiveness and a pat on the back is just insane.

Most survivors on social media telling their stories have already reported to law enforcement. Often, church leaders are aware. Survivors have often tried every other avenue in order to protect kids before they go public.

Survivors are not permitted to stand up in church and tel their stories. (At least not in normal church services). What other avenues is there after we’ve gone to church leaders,only for them to go to the perp and for the perp to claim innocence? Keep in mind that if a person can sexual abuse a child, there’s a good chance they’re already apt at lying! What should survivors do after law enforcement is contacted and the justice system takes ages and even then, only 6% of REPORTED sexual assaults ever end with the perp behind bars?

We are failing abuse survivors and we are not protecting children. And until survivors and advocates are not being tone policed for turning to social media platforms to post EVIDENCE, until we are actually believed instead of criticized, nothing will change.

The social media posts from Bri and Trudy in recent months have well documented evidence attached to them. Steve Stutzman on the other hand, has yet to provide evidence for the things he claims. His story has holes in it. His followers have called survivors “witches,” “Jezebels”, and there has been joking about reporting crimes. Yet I see people here in this forum saying that Trudy should police her “followers”. I saw someone on Trudy’s post call Steve an idiot, and she replied to the comment saying that she does not tolerate name calling on her posts.

If you want to tone police someone, start with the people who are calling survivors horrible names.

I know we all want to protect children.

Please be mindful that we are talking about child sexual abuse. There are people not on this forum who watch your comments. If Mennonet is a broad over view of where Anabaptism is on the issue of child sexual assault, we’ve got a lot of work to do.

If I’ve been too blunt, forgive me. I’m broken for the children.

I don't suppose very many people fabricate out of whole cloth, claims that they were sexually abused. But for sake of education, what would the advocates such as yourself, Trudy, etc, offer as a method or steps to discover the truth in that scenario?

This is a great question.

Start with the premise that there are very few false allegations of sexual abuse in Mennonite culture. From a young age, we are taught that lying is wrong.

Even outside of Mennonite culture, the reported allegations that have been proven to be false is 1-2%.

Start there.

Report it, obviously. Let the professionals do their job. Understand that the justice system takes time and there’s corruption there too. Don’t hide behind it. Protect the children. Just because there is not an arrest or a conviction does not mean the crime didn’t happen. Only 6% of reported sexual crimes ever see jail time, and they estimate that only 1/3 of sexual crimes are actually reported. You are much more likely to get away with rape than murder.

Churches need to stop hiding behind a broken justice system. Churches should be safe places for victims and children. This means no perps should be on the premise - convicted or not.

There is so much more that could be said, but this would be a good start.

[Neto]

From the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC)

Scroll down to the video at
https://www.nsvrc.org/

A (rather small sample) study regarding false claims.
https://www.nsvrc.org/resource/false-al ... ted-cases/

ABSTRACT FROM ARTICLE

One of the most controversial disputes affecting the discourse related to violence against women is the dispute about the frequency of false allegations of sexual assault. In an effort to add clarity to the discourse, published research on false allegations is critiqued, and the results of a new study described. All cases (N = 136) of sexual assault reported to a major Northeastern university over a 10-year period are analyzed to determine the percentage of false allegations. Of the 136 cases of sexual assault reported over the 10-year period, 8 (5.9%) are coded as false allegations. These results, taken in the context of an examination of previous research, indicate that the prevalence of false allegations is between 2% and 10%.

A more detailed summary regarding the criteria used by different agencies (such as police vs other advocate type groups):

https://evawintl.org/best_practice_faqs ... ercentage/

What percentage of rape reports are false?

This may seem like a straightforward question, but in fact determining the percentage of false rape reports is complex. In the Online Training Institute (OLTI) module, False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issues to Successfully Investigate Sexual Assault, it is clearly stated that a report of sexual assault can only be determined to be false based on the evidence from a thorough investigation:

The determination that a sexual assault report is false can only be made if the evidence establishes that no crime was completed or attempted. This evidence will only be available after a thorough investigation, not after only a preliminary investigation or initial interview with the victim.

When methodologically rigorous research is conducted based on this definition, estimates for the percentage of false reports converge around 2-8%.

For example, Dr. David Lisak and colleagues analyzed sexual assaults reported to a major Northeastern university over a 10-year period to determine the rate of false reporting. Of the 136 reports taken during that period of time, 8 reports, or 5.9% were found to be false (Lisak, Gardinier, Nicksa, & Cote, 2010).
In a study of sexual assault cases reported to the Los Angeles Police Department in 2008, researchers found that rate of false reports was 4.5% (Spohn, White, & Tellis, 2014).
In a multi-site study of 8 US communities involved in the “Making a Difference” (MAD) Project conducted by EVAWI, data were collected by law enforcement agencies for all sexual assault reports received in an 18-24 month period. Of the 2,059 cases that were included in the study, 140 (7%) were classified as false.
Statistics even appear to converge internationally. In an analysis of 2,643 sexual assault cases reported to British police, 8% were classified by the police department as false reports. Yet when researchers applied the official criteria for establishing a false allegation, this figure dropped to 2%. These criteria specified that there must be either “a clear and credible admission by the complainant” or “strong evidential grounds” (Kelly, Lovett, & Regan, 2005).
In reality, no one knows – and in fact no one can possibly know – exactly how many sexual assault reports are false. However, estimates narrow to the range of 2-8% when they are based on rigorous research of case classifications using specific criteria and incorporating various protections of the reliability and validity of the research.

Kelly, L., Lovett, J., & Regan, L. (2005). A Gap or a Chasm? Attrition in Reported Rape Cases. Home Office Research Study 293. Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

Lisak, D., Gardinier, Nicksa, S.C., & Cote, A.M. (2010). False Allegations of Sexual Assault: An Analysis of Ten Years of Reported Cases. Violence Against Women, 16 (12), 1318-1334.

Spohn, C., White, C., & Tellis, K. (2014). Unfounding Sexual Assault: Examining the Decision to Unfound and Identifying False Reports. Law & Society Review, 48 (1), 161-192.

The following is an interesting read, but too long to quote in its entirety here. I will quote just two short sections:

https://facecampusequality.org/resource ... lt-reports

The only way to identify the guilty while protecting the innocent from the injustices of wrongful allegations is to determine the truth in each case through the rigorous application of due process.

Evidence of Wrongful Sexual Misconduct or Assault Allegations
As stated before, whether wrongful allegations are deliberate, misguided, or misremembered is irrelevant to those accused and innocent. They have been implicated for something they did not do and will suffer the traumatic consequences.

Innocence Project. Numerous innocent people have been wrongfully accused and convicted of crimes and then exonerated based on new evidence, such as DNA. As of 2020, the vast majority of DNA exonerations (about 91%) were for those wrongfully accused and convicted of sexual assault. Although these individuals were innocent of the crime, approximately 25% confessed, and 10% pleaded guilty. Research Resources - Innocence Project INNOCENCE PROJECT: DNA EXONERATIONS, 1989-2014: REVIEW OF DATA AND FINDINGS FROM THE FIRST 25 YEARS

(Emphasis mine. I found this statement to be very surprising. I would never have anticipated a finding along these lines.)