Presumption of Innocence

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[jeromydaviddarling]

I'm not ignoring your posts, you've made yourself a hard person to ignore.

You and I have met, and talked, about a decade ago. And I've sat through quite a few of your dad's sermons and talked to him personally as well. Still, I don't expect you to trust me or take my advice.

You are exacerbating the situation by attacking, attacking, attacking. The intensity of this forum has exploded since you brought your whirlwind in - before you rolled in most participants would be very happy to quietly wait for the outcome of an independent investigation. Log off, take a break, bless your parents, and let the investigation run its course.

I know you don't want to "live in a world where a man and a church is forced to Launch a paid investigation to exonerate a man" but we do, just like we live in a world where sexual harassment, abuse of power, and spiritual abuse are things we all have to deal with. We don't get to choose what world we live in and you aren't going to change that with your anger and outbursts.

1. We've always had sexual abuse and harassment, we've also always had laws, the perception of Innocence, two sides of the story, etc etc etc. We also have the Bible as our guide for how to deal with these situations.

2. Suzanne has openly mocked  the investigation as have most of her supporters. So why should I wait for the investigation they've already decided his one-sided and phony to announce the exact same thing that I already know?

3.  I know you know me. In fact I know most of the people on this board know me. That's what is so painful. None of you have the courage to call me on the phone, send me an email or offer to sit down and talk to me face to face.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Then why wait, why not contact an attorney about slander right now?  There has been so much in writing by now it should be a slam dunk. 

[Digital Lynch Mob]

It is a slam dunk

[UffDa]

Digital Lynch Mob,
I’m wondering if you’d consider changing or altering your user name in consideration of US history and lynch mobs. Just seeing the name brings a repulsion to my soul.

[omelianchuk]

Just so we are clear, this was directed at you as much as anyone else on here. You have presumed Suzanne's guilt as a false accuser and liar. That is also wrong. Hold your judgments on her and Mark both until the facts are aired.

I've been lurking for awhile. I was a Rocker for seven years from 2000 to 2007, and I remember the van Dyckes and their trip to Berlin and their subsequent departure. As far as I can say, Mark is a good and decent man, and I am disposed to side with him, but that is neither here nor there.

I'm posting because the claim about the Presumption of Innocence being applicable to the accuser is actually a misunderstanding of the principle [EDIT: I realize the point in the quote is that accused is being judged unfairly; maybe (liar might be too harsh), maybe not (false accuser fits if you believe Mark to be innocent)]. As the Wiki link says (which was provided), the burden of proof is on the one who declares (Suzanne) not on the one who denies (Mark). As I see it, since she has intended to try her case in the court of public opinion and has used social media to "expose" Mark and Evergreen's indiscretions, all she would have to do to clearly meet the burden is post the letter indicating that Evergreen's leadership offered her money in exchange for her silence. She has not done that, and it seems cannot (and not for legal reasons -- it appears that she doesn't have the letter). This does not make Mark "innocent" nor does it make Suzanne "guilty" -- it means that all she has against him is her word, which is not enough to give her rights to rectifying justice (Mark's firing, a public apology, etc.). Now we might trust Suzanne over Mark or we might not. We might think that her allegations (and those of others) are credible or we might think they aren't. Usually, these cases come down to a matter of trust (see Anita Hill v. Clarence Thomas for a nice case study of this phenomenon). Nonetheless, in the absence of non-testimonial evidence, defenders of Mark are not required to explain why she is making these accusations; while it would be satisfying to have one, they are within their rights to say "I don't know," which perhaps may be the wisest thing they can do at this point.

An aside: I've heard complaints about the Presumption of Innocence from advocates of abuse victims, usually from feminist circles, because it privileges the abuser and places the burden on the already-disempowered. Along with that, and the statistical fact that more often than not accusers are telling the truth, they advocate a Presumption of Trust in the accuser. While I appreciate their points, trust is something no one is entitled to just because they occupy the position of accuser. The dynamics of trust don't follow the impersonal finding of statistics; rather, they follow the personal connection to the parties involved.

[iamnotafraid]

Just so we are clear, this was directed at you as much as anyone else on here. You have presumed Suzanne's guilt as a false accuser and liar. That is also wrong. Hold your judgments on her and Mark both until the facts are aired.

I've been lurking for awhile. I was a Rocker for seven years from 2000 to 2007, and I remember the van Dyckes and their trip to Berlin and their subsequent departure. As far as I can say, Mark is a good and decent man, and I am disposed to side with him, but that is neither here nor there.

I'm posting because the claim about the Presumption of Innocence being applicable to the accuser is actually a misunderstanding of the principle [EDIT: I realize the point in the quote is that accused is being judged unfairly; maybe (liar might be to harsh), maybe not (false accuser fits if you believe Mark to be innocent)]. As the Wiki link says (which was provided), the burden of proof is on the one who declares (Suzanne) not on the one who denies (Mark). As I see it, since she has intended to try her case in the court of public opinion and has used social media to "expose" Mark and Evergreen's indiscretions, all she would have to do to clearly meet the burden is post the letter indicating that Evergreen's leadership, offered her money in exchange for her silence. She has not done that, and it seems cannot (and not for legal reasons -- it appears that she doesn't have the letter). This does not make Mark "innocent" nor does it make Suzanne "guilty" -- it means that all she has against him is her word, which is not enough to give her rights to rectifying justice (Mark's firing, a public apology, etc.). Now we might trust Suzanne over Mark or we might not. We might think that her allegations (and those of others) are credible or we might think they aren't. Usually, these cases come down to a matter of trust (see Anita Hill v. Clarence Thomas for a nice case study of this phenomenon). Nonetheless, in the absence of non-testimonial evidence, defenders of Mark are not required to explain why she is making these accusations; while it be satisfying to have one, they are within their rights to say "I don't know," which perhaps may be the wisest thing they can do at this point.

An aside: I've heard complaints about the presumption of innocence from advocates of abuse victims, usually from feminist circles, because it privileges the abuser and places the burden on the already-disempowered. Along with that, and the statistical fact that more often than not accusers are telling the truth, they advocate a Presumption of Trust in the accuser. While I appreciate their points, trust is something no one is entitled to just because they occupy the position of accuser. The dynamics of trust don't follow the impersonal finding of statistics; rather, they follow the personal connection to the parties involved.

Fascinating information. Impressed.

[jeromydaviddarling]

Just so we are clear, this was directed at you as much as anyone else on here. You have presumed Suzanne's guilt as a false accuser and liar. That is also wrong. Hold your judgments on her and Mark both until the facts are aired.

I've been lurking for awhile. I was a Rocker for seven years from 2000 to 2007, and I remember the van Dyckes and their trip to Berlin and their subsequent departure. As far as I can say, Mark is a good and decent man, and I am disposed to side with him, but that is neither here nor there.

I'm posting because the claim about the Presumption of Innocence being applicable to the accuser is actually a misunderstanding of the principle [EDIT: I realize the point in the quote is that accused is being judged unfairly; maybe (liar might be too harsh), maybe not (false accuser fits if you believe Mark to be innocent)]. As the Wiki link says (which was provided), the burden of proof is on the one who declares (Suzanne) not on the one who denies (Mark). As I see it, since she has intended to try her case in the court of public opinion and has used social media to "expose" Mark and Evergreen's indiscretions, all she would have to do to clearly meet the burden is post the letter indicating that Evergreen's leadership offered her money in exchange for her silence. She has not done that, and it seems cannot (and not for legal reasons -- it appears that she doesn't have the letter). This does not make Mark "innocent" nor does it make Suzanne "guilty" -- it means that all she has against him is her word, which is not enough to give her rights to rectifying justice (Mark's firing, a public apology, etc.). Now we might trust Suzanne over Mark or we might not. We might think that her allegations (and those of others) are credible or we might think they aren't. Usually, these cases come down to a matter of trust (see Anita Hill v. Clarence Thomas for a nice case study of this phenomenon). Nonetheless, in the absence of non-testimonial evidence, defenders of Mark are not required to explain why she is making these accusations; while it would be satisfying to have one, they are within their rights to say "I don't know," which perhaps may be the wisest thing they can do at this point.

An aside: I've heard complaints about the Presumption of Innocence from advocates of abuse victims, usually from feminist circles, because it privileges the abuser and places the burden on the already-disempowered. Along with that, and the statistical fact that more often than not accusers are telling the truth, they advocate a Presumption of Trust in the accuser. While I appreciate their points, trust is something no one is entitled to just because they occupy the position of accuser. The dynamics of trust don't follow the impersonal finding of statistics; rather, they follow the personal connection to the parties involved.

Wow...brilliant words O.

[omelianchuk]

Thanks, Jeromy. 

[araignee19]

Alright, correct me if I'm wrong (anyone with an actual law degree here? Your thoughts would be appreciated), but I don't actually think the presumption of innocence applies to a non-criminal case such as the current situation with Suzanne and Mark. If you want to get all technical about it who presumption of innocence should and should not apply to, there is no guarantee of presumption of innocence for Mark either. Presumption of innocence applies in criminal cases to protect people from punishment without proof of guilt. It doesn't apply in cases of public opinion. The public is free to think whatever they want about him and judge his guilt or innocence as they see fit. So internet: Have at him! Technically.

But can we all agree here that we would like to be held to a higher standard than technical law definitions? Can we all agree that we should just find the truth? Can we all agree we want to hear both sides? My point with this thread was not to argue legal definition and who should get what treatment. My point is I think both sides are being a bit too quick to jump to conclusions. Patience is a virtue. Let's see where the investigation leads, and then re-evaluate.

As Linda recently asked:
 

Can we all agree that if Suzanne is not telling the truth, and/or making up victims (as some have suggested) she should face consequences?
Likewise, can we all agree that if Mark D has engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior, he should face consequences?
Are we all in agreement on this?

I would like to put out a renewed call for everyone to wait. Wait for Suzanne or the others to make another move. Wait for whatever form of investigation is ongoing to finish (heck, maybe it will surprise both sides what the investigation finds?). Wait to form your final judgment until all the parties have had their say. If no more information ever comes out, I for one do think that is on the accusers. Suzanne claimed to have actual evidence beyond a story, so let's see it before we form our final opinions. If she never does bring any further evidence forward (and I fully think it may still be coming), then we have to drop the accusations against Mark. I think that is the ethical thing to do. 

In the meantime, focus on already available facts, discuss some theology, debate the interpretation of a Bible passage, criticize public statements and teachings all you want. But please stop the personal attacks towards any of the Darlings, other Evergreen supporters, anonymous ex-GCx people on this forum, and the accusers.