The Willis Family: Rape Charges Part 2

[Palimpsest]

6 minutes ago, Blup said:

Does this answer your questions?

Yes, partly.  Thanks.    I also asked why you were so interested in this particular case because you seem to be rather aggressively (or perhaps desperately) seeking for information to "prove" Toby Willis is innocent.

So you would consider yourself a Willis Family Band fan?  

Just a clarification in case you need it - We are not a fan forum for reality TV shows whether they are Duggar, Bates, or Willis.  We are critical of them all - and the fact that they use their shows to proselytize.

 FJ's primary function is to discuss the evils of Fundamentalism.  The Willis Family, and especially Toby Willis's Patriarchal attitudes, fall under Christian Fundamentalist belief system we are here to criticize.  Sadly, we have also observed far too may cases of the sexual abuse of minors coming out of this belief system.  

So you aren't going to find many fans of the show here.  You are not going to find many of us sympathizing if Toby Willis goes down over this one.  Unfortunately, it is all too believable.

 

 

 

[Blup]

19 minutes ago, SweetLaurel said:

Lunch break - no court information yet???

Nothing new, only the time: 1 PM. If my world clock is correct that is about 40 minutes from now

[Blup]

9 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

Yes, partly.  Thanks.    I also asked why you were so interested in this particular case because you seem to be rather aggressively (or perhaps desperately) seeking for information to "prove" Toby Willis is innocent.

If he's guilty, fine by me. I'm just baffled by the general assumption he is guilty. I admit there are some strong pointers against him (especially his wife's statement). And may be the other reason is that over here we don't have a jury system. How can anyone has a fair trial if he is already convicted?

17 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

 FJ's primary function is to discuss the evils of Fundamentalism.  The Willis Family, and especially Toby Willis's Patriarchal attitudes, fall under Christian Fundamentalist belief system we are here to criticize.  Sadly, we have also observed far too may cases of the sexual abuse of minors coming out of this belief system.

I understood the primary goal of this forum and that it isn't a forum for fans. But I thought just because you are against fundamentalism, you are open minded. But I guess I was wrong. I've seen posts which are in the same league as fundamentalism but then the other end of the spectrum. Don't know what is worst. I think I'll leave because both ways are wrong...

 

[Lurky]

@Blup But surely can you see how saying "we should assume he's innocent" is directly saying "we should assume the person who says they're the victim is lying", and why that makes a lot of people very, very uncomfortable?

I don't know where you live, but here in the UK, which is also Europe, we don't live in a culture where rape victims are unanimously believed and supported, and going to court is an easy thing, or something undertaken lightly - quite the opposite.  Even where a rapist is found guilty, court is super-traumatic for victims, and that's the least-worst scenario.  So having someone say "rape of a child isn't always that bad", like the lawyer you linked to is doing, and saying we should definitely assume there is no victim here, is going to rile a lot of people up.

You're baffled by the assumption he's guilty - I'm baffled by the assumptions there is no victim, and this is a plot by an unscrupulous liar.

[SweetLaurel]

7 minutes ago, Lurky said:

@Blup

You're baffled by the assumption he's guilty - I'm baffled by the assumptions there is no victim, and this is a plot by an unscrupulous liar.

I just want to know if any of the family was in court and what happened.  Yes.   I have no life...  

[Palimpsest]

Update from the court - the preliminary hearing has been postponed until October 5th.  The investigation is active and ongoing.  Willis's lawyer has requested a specific judge.

We will see.

12 minutes ago, Blup said:

If he's guilty, fine by me. I'm just baffled by the general assumption he is guilty. I admit there are some strong pointers against him (especially his wife's statement). And may be the other reason is that over here we don't have a jury system. How can anyone has a fair trial if he is already convicted?

Some European countries have moved away from the jury system but I thought most had retained it for serious crimes.  A bench trial or a semi-professional jury may or may not be fairer - a debatable point.

Freedom of the press and too much information getting spread about does, I think, get in the way getting a "fair trial" sometimes and there is a danger of prejudicing a potential jury.  Perhaps the US should adopt the UK system of gagging the press - but it will be a very uphill battle!

Sometimes in high profile cases finding a jury that hasn't made up its mind is difficult - unless they have been living  under rocks (see Casey Anthony case.)  However, you were the one demanding that the press publish more information the other day and, again, your sympathies appeared to be with the alleged criminal .

Quote

I understood the primary goal of this forum and that it isn't a forum for fans. But I thought just because you are against fundamentalism, you are open minded. But I guess I was wrong. I've seen posts which are in the same league as fundamentalism but then the other end of the spectrum. Don't know what is worst. I think I'll leave because both ways are wrong...

Well now you are just being rude probably because we aren't agreeing with you.

Stay or leave, your decision.

[SweetLaurel]

So is he in jail till Oct then? 

Was any family in court or do we know? 

 

[Tiny Bubbles]

"Open-minded"???

 I'm on team victim. 

[Palimpsest]

5 minutes ago, SweetLaurel said:

So is he in jail till Oct then? 

 

"No bond was set" so, yes.  It is a very brief story.  http://www.newschannel5.com/news/local-news/toby-willis-due-in-cheatham-county-court

[SweetLaurel]

Oh wow - he was not allowed to go near his children or his wife...  I hadn't heard that before.   That puts a whole new spin on things in my mind.     I'm not sure why because any rape is horrifying - but that makes things so much more...I don't know the word or the emotion - horrendous, icky, unimaginable....those poor kids.  And it seems he was heading to them when he was arrested.     Can't imagine what Brenda is going through.   They don't even have a house to retreat to.  

[Palimpsest]

8 minutes ago, Tiny Bubbles said:

"Open-minded"???

 I'm on team victim. 

We all are - with the exception of Blup who doesn't think we are being fair to poor Toby. 

I still want to know the details of the charges.  

[hoipolloi]

1 hour ago, Blup said:

I understood the primary goal of this forum and that it isn't a forum for fans. But I thought just because you are against fundamentalism, you are open minded. But I guess I was wrong. I've seen posts which are in the same league as fundamentalism but then the other end of the spectrum. Don't know what is worst. I think I'll leave because both ways are wrong...

Being open-minded does not mean giving people, including you, a free pass to say what they like without pushback.

The attorney's commentary you linked to is pretty clearly anti-victim. Most of us here don't agree with that AT ALL, which does not make us close-minded. 

 

[DaisyD]

@Blup In this country people are only "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" in the eyes of the law. Any citizen is allowed to make up their own minds about any of it. This goes both ways and has no effect on the outcome (providing the jury is unbiased). The fact that I firmly believe that OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife and a waiter who happened to be there means absolutely nothing in the eyes of the law. My opinion is only my opinion. Outside of the courtroom it's freedom of speech. 

[MyMilkshake]

3 hours ago, daisyd681 said:

Just because something doesn't leave bruises doesn't mean it wasn't violent. Since it takes the psyche infinitely longer to heal from violence than the body, emotional violence is far more damaging. 

Yes, and in cases involving a relative or someone else you should be able to trust, the feelings of betrayal are often huge.

My head nearly fell off reading that "It might not be as bad as you're thinking when you read 'child rape'". wtf, NO. There are NO not-so-bad instances of child rape.  A "milder' version of sexual assault on a child?  NO, I DON'T AGREE. 

[Grimalkin]

      I have to believe, or I sincerely hope, that when dealing with a high profile person they would dot their I's and cross their T's before arresting him. I am sure they treaded carefully. Nobody wants to look like a fool.

[MorningMist]

This debate over innocent until proven guilty actually made me go look for something one of the Willis Fan accounts I follow posted recently. It really resinated with me as I'd never been able to explain how I felt about the matter, especially those involving the harm of another being.

Someone sent them a message saying Innocent until proven guilty and they replied with this:

Quote

The only way I can think about putting it is like this. (Purely hypothetical).

Say your parent or someone told you that this one normal-looking alleyway in your town that you used to go down all the time was suddenly where a well known murder hangs out. They haven’t given you any empirical evidence supporting that, you’ve just been told that it is the truth. While, you are not sure whether it’s true or not, until you know for certain empirically that alley way is clear from all potentially dangerous people, you will not go down there. 

So, I am not saying that Toby - the alleyway in this hypothetical story - is guilty of his crimes (although I will admit it isn’t looking good) but I can’t continue posting normally about him as I can’t post about him without thinking about his arrest or his potential crimes. Neither can I start throwing around insults at him about him being a rapist and all when I haven’t seen details of this yet. If this was theft or something it would be a different story but we are talking about harm towards another human, a child!

 

[Palimpsest]

1 hour ago, hoipolloi said:

The attorney's commentary you linked to is pretty clearly anti-victim. Most of us here don't agree with that AT ALL, which does not make us close-minded. 

That was a defense attorney who seems to specialize in domestic violence, adult rape, and child rape cases.  Her job is to attack witnesses.  I cynically wonder whether she wants to be retained for this case although she seems to practice in CA.  Perhaps she wants to consult.

Defense attorneys are an integral part of the process - and if I think the defendant is innocent I can definitely get behind them grilling witnesses.  

I'm not sure whether we have any defense attorneys on FJ who can share their thoughts about how they see their jobs.  The two defense attorneys I've known well enough to ask say that they can mentally distance themselves to argue the law, even when they think their client is despicable.  They make the prosecutors prove the case.  I'm not sure how they can do it sometimes, but if I was wrongly accused of something I'd want them on my side.

 

[EmmieJ]

4 hours ago, daisyd681 said:

Just so you know, I can't think of one show that portrays anything customary. In general, they are on TV because they are different from the mainstream. That's what makes them interesting to watch.

Important point.  Please do not think that the way the Duggars live, or the Willis family -- is the cultural norm for the United States.  They are very much in the minority.  Most people aren't still stuck in thinking that men are superior to women, that women should defer to their husbands in all things, that children should be discouraged from attaining a higher education, or that the primary goal of every woman should be to marry and have as many children as possible, and homeschool them all. 

1 hour ago, MyMilkshake said:

Yes, and in cases involving a relative or someone else you should be able to trust, the feelings of betrayal are often huge.

My head nearly fell off reading that "It might not be as bad as you're thinking when you read 'child rape'". wtf, NO. There are NO not-so-bad instances of child rape.  A "milder' version of sexual assault on a child?  NO, I DON'T AGREE.

This, times infinity.  Blows my mind that some people claim they cannot understand this point. 

[MorningMist]

3 hours ago, MyMilkshake said:

Yes, and in cases involving a relative or someone else you should be able to trust, the feelings of betrayal are often huge.

My head nearly fell off reading that "It might not be as bad as you're thinking when you read 'child rape'". wtf, NO. There are NO not-so-bad instances of child rape.  A "milder' version of sexual assault on a child?  NO, I DON'T AGREE. 

Playing devil's advocate here. 

Is it possible that some people are classing things like an consensual affair with a 17 year old under the same umbrella as rape of a child? I know a lot of people would consider this a lighter offence than a forceful rape of a child. I believe in the previous thread, someone said in their state they were charge as the same?

(Maybe I'm being naive, I just can't see how someone could believe that so are looking for explanations...)

[Palimpsest]

51 minutes ago, MorningMist said:

Playing devil's advocate here. 

Is it possible that some people are classing things like an consensual affair with a 17 year old under the same umbrella as rape of a child? I know a lot of people would consider this a lighter offence than a forceful rape of a child. I believe in the previous thread, someone said in their state they were charge as the same?

(Maybe I'm being naive, I just can't see how someone could believe that so are looking for explanations...)

No.  In this case there really isn't any excuse for anyone to conflate child rape with a consensual relationship with a seventeen year old.

If they have been even half-way following the story, that is. 

The charge is rape (which in TN is apparently any sexual contact that may or may not include PIV) of a CHILD and a RELATIVE between the ages of 9 and 12 .

So no way can that be consensual.

[Coy Koi]

14 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

No.  In this case there really isn't any excuse for anyone to conflate child rape with a consensual relationship with a seventeen year old.

If they have been even half-way following the story, that is. 

The charge is rape (which in TN is apparently any sexual contact that may or may not include PIV) of a CHILD and a RELATIVE between the ages of 9 and 12 .

So no way can that be consensual.

Just to clarify, TN law defines it as sexual penetration, so no, not necessarily PIV, but not all sexual contact either.

The statute:

Quote

 

39-13-522. Rape of a child

(a) Rape of a child is the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or the defendant by a victim, if the victim is more than three (3) years of age but less than thirteen (13) years of age.

 

 

[snarkopolis]

3 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

That was a defense attorney who seems to specialize in domestic violence, adult rape, and child rape cases.  Her job is to attack witnesses.  I cynically wonder whether she wants to be retained for this case although she seems to practice in CA.  Perhaps she wants to consult.

Defense attorneys are an integral part of the process - and if I think the defendant is innocent I can definitely get behind them grilling witnesses.  

I'm not sure whether we have any defense attorneys on FJ who can share their thoughts about how they see their jobs.  The two defense attorneys I've known well enough to ask say that they can mentally distance themselves to argue the law, even when they think their client is despicable.  They make the prosecutors prove the case.  I'm not sure how they can do it sometimes, but if I was wrongly accused of something I'd want them on my side.

 

The job of a defense attorney is to make the prosecution prove their case. It is not whether the defendant did it or not but whether the prosecutor can prove they did it. Whether you like or dislike your client (defendant or victim) is irrelevant. You don't ask doctors to like their patients, why do you presume lawyers like their clients? We are about the law and proofs. It cannot be personal.

[Grimalkin]

22 minutes ago, snarkopolis said:

The job of a defense attorney is to make the prosecution prove their case. It is not whether the defendant did it or not but whether the prosecutor can prove they did it. Whether you like or dislike your client (defendant or victim) is irrelevant. You don't ask doctors to like their patients, why do you presume lawyers like their clients? We are about the law and proofs. It cannot be personal.

      How did her statement differ?

Not everyone can stomach being a defense attorney. If a person says they were raped it's a defense attorney's job to make prosecutors prove it, it's kind of hard not to get the victim involved, and cause further pain.

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

14 hours ago, MorningMist said:

Playing devil's advocate here. 

Is it possible that some people are classing things like an consensual affair with a 17 year old under the same umbrella as rape of a child? I know a lot of people would consider this a lighter offence than a forceful rape of a child. I believe in the previous thread, someone said in their state they were charge as the same?

(Maybe I'm being naive, I just can't see how someone could believe that so are looking for explanations...)

A 17 year old wouldn't be classified as a child under the law.  A minor yes, not a child under this law where it's 12 and under.  

I don't think anyone is equating the two scenarios nor does any reasonable person I know want people on the sex offender registry for having sex with someone nearly of age especially when they are close to the same age.  Turning 18 a couple of months before your gf doesn't make you a sexual predator.  

But IMO and thankfully in the eyes of the law there is no possibility of consent with someone 12 or under - so no gray area.  

[Front Hugging Fiend]

22 hours ago, Tiny Bubbles said:

"Open-minded"???

 I'm on team victim. 

Agreed.

I'm piping up to say that yes, it is possible to have liked some Willis Clan songs but to still be vehemently against the accused and 100% on team victim.

It's possible to separate your anger and disgust at such a heinous crime from your previous experiences having heard a song once and going, 'that's not bad.'

It's also possible to have a gut feeling that someone is guilty whilst also desperately hoping that they're innocent. No one on this forum actually WANTS there to be a victim or a crime like this. But we do have opinions and we do have instincts, and we should feel safe discussing those feelings or opinions.

It's also very possible to feel sympathy for Brenda and the kids in this situation whilst also acknowledging the extremely problematic behaviours or values they uphold. Human empathy is not A or B.  

As such, I feel like I count as open-minded. I can acknowledge the talent some of the kids have whilst also acknowledging the dangerous elements of their upbringing and loudly speaking out in support of the victim. THAT's what open-minded is.

15 hours ago, Grimalkin said:

      How did her statement differ?

Not everyone can stomach being a defense attorney. If a person says they were raped it's a defense attorney's job to make prosecutors prove it, it's kind of hard not to get the victim involved, and cause further pain.

 

It's so shitty. I mean, I know this is how the system works, but god... at what cost to the victim? And how does a defense attorney sleep at night if they've knowingly been defending a guilty person?