Friday, January 12, 2018

Jules Woodson Sexual Assault Analyzed

Is Jules Woodson truthful in her claim of being sexually assaulted by Andy Savage?

Sexual assault is an intrusive and trauma producing event.  Unprocessed, the damage can be life long.   The consequence of sexual assault can range from depression, anxiety, substance abuse, suicidal ideation,   all the way to suicide and suppressed immune systems with a body's inability to fight disease.  

The language of sexual assault indicates this. 

In Statement Analysis, most readers are familiar with the pronoun "we" in a statement. 

Pronouns are used by us millions of times.  We do not stop to think, "Hmm, should I use "we" or should I use "I"", we intuitively know what is accurate. 

In sexual assault cases, we focus upon pronouns. 

The victim will distance herself from the perpetrator once the assault has taken place.  Where we see the word "we", which indicates unity and cooperation (closeness), after the reported assault, indicates deception. 

Victims do not unite themselves, linguistically, with their abuser.  On this blog there are many examples of both reliable and deceptive statements. 

"We drove to the woods.  He raped me, and then we drove back" is deceptive.  

Once raped, the victim is hit was the intrusive, traumatic assault in the most sensitive and tender of her body.  It is, in a sense, the worst "violation" possible.  Here is what a reliable statement looks like:  

"We drove to the woods.  He raped me.  He drove me to my house and I called police..."

In one of the Bill Cosby victim's analysis, we followed the "linguistic disposition" of the victim towards Cosby.  It began with glowing, positive language, but once he sexually assaulted her, she linguistically, without planning, relegated him to "him" or "Cosby" as disgust was evident in her mind, as she worked from memory. 

There is no unity between a victim and a sexual assaulter. 

We use several exercises to show that pronouns are 100% accurate in detecting deception, with seminar participants.  We begin by actually claiming that pronouns pre date speech!

Little children use the possessive pronoun ''my" instinctively with their hands, even before they can say "my."  

They are used in Sexual Assault cases routinely but are invaluable for all analysis.  One study estimates that 80% of cold case files contain a "confession by pronoun."  

Here is the statement of  Jules Woodson against Andy Savage. She was high school senior, and he was a college student.  She is writing as an adult, looking back over what happened under the headline of reporting a sexual assault, inspired by Hollywood's #metoo popular wave. 

One evening, in the early Spring of 1998, I was hanging out with my youth minister, Andy Savage, at my church, Woodlands Parkway Baptist Church located at 10801 Falconwing Drive. I was 17 years old at the time and a senior at The Woodlands High School. There had been multiple kids there at the church after school, but as the night got later I was the only student left, alone in the church with Andy. I did not have a vehicle at the church, so Andy offered to take me home to my Mom's house.

It is interesting to note the complete social introduction.  It is also interesting to consider that she used the title, "minister" rather than what is commonly used, "youth pastor." The linguistic disposition towards him is both positive, yet formal.  

A positive linguistic disposition is not a signal of deception when it occurs before the assault. 

It was dark outside. As he was driving me towards my home, he passed the turn he should have made to go to my house. I asked him where he was going. I don't remember his exact response, but it was something along the lines of ‘you'll see’ or ‘it's a surprise.’ I know for sure he did not tell me where he was taking me. I remember feeling special and excited, as in my mind, he obviously wanted to spend more time with me before taking me home. I assumed we were going to get ice cream.

Here she gives indication of going into experiential memory.  It is acceptable to struggle with some detail, especially given the years that have passed.  Although we do not like to see someone report what they "do not remember" in an open statement, we note that she "rebuts" this with the word, "but" and gives a general description.  

This is likely to be reliable. 

She includes her emotions.  This should not be considered "artificial placement" due to the lengthy passage of time.  

We note her feeling of being "special" and "excited", with "special" as an indication of one unique, or separate from others. 

She is consistent: 

He turned onto a dirt road and continued to drive. There were trees all around. I could not see the main road anymore, from which he turned from. I asked what was back here. He told me they were building a church. I thought, maybe that’s what this was about, maybe he has some secret to tell me, like perhaps he was moving to another church.

Him telling a "secret to tell me" affirms the use of the word "special" as congruent. This is to continue  to consistently report reliably. 

We reached a dead end and he turned the truck around before putting it in park. We were stopped, and he turned the headlights off. 

The use of the pronoun "we" is appropriate (congruent) with the language of unity.  She felt special, privileged and was with someone she has a very close relationship with (via complete social introduction).  

It is interesting here, however, to note the detail.  

She includes the unnecessary language of "turned the headlights off."

It is up to her what to include and what to leave out:  it is impossible for anyone to tell us everything; it would never end.  The subject must, by necessity, edit her account. 

Therefore, what is included is most important to her.  If it is important to her, it is important to us.


Many years of research has shown that "lights" in a statement when unnecessary are often indications of sexual activity (including sexual thought/sexual environment/etc).  They are in criminal and civil statements, and can often help guide us to learn more about what happened.  

Lights turning "on" is sometimes equated with energy and a positive sexual experience.  Lights going "off" when added unnecessarily to a statement, often indicate that the author/writer/subject is looking back and thinking of the sexual experience as negative. 

In such context, we look not for criminal activity, but particularly for humiliation. 

Humiliation is a powerful element in human nature.  It is said to be the number one trigger for various responses, including criminal or revenge.  

We find "lights off" in some false rape allegations where the accuser, once caught lying, admitted feeling humiliated or "left" by the accused.  

Remember, this is an adult woman looking back and giving us linguistic indication that she is, thus far, working from experiential memory of what happened. 

Objection:  But isn't she giving a lot of "proofs" that she is truthful, with need to persuade, with such additional details?  Isn't this under the category of "Need to Persuade"?

Answer:  Likely.  She does likely feel concern that she may not be believed.  Many victims do.  Thus far, however, the structure of the sentences, even though they are not necessary, appear truthfully constructed. 

To this point, she is truthful. 

Here is where the event begins:  

Suddenly, Andy unzipped his jeans and pulled out his penis. He asked me to suck it. I was scared and embarrassed, but I did it. I remember feeling that this must mean that Andy loved me. He then asked me to unbutton my shirt. I did. He started touching me over my bra and then lifted my bra up and began touching my breasts.

She is reliably recounting what happened.  There are indicators of some missing information, but it is likely what she may struggle to remember.  

She reported what "began" without conclusion. 

The inclusion of emotion, mimicking artificial editing is to be discounted due to the lengthy passage of time.  She has long processed this information and it would be artificial to eject it. 

Note communicative language is key in sexual assault allegations : Twice she used "asked" here. 
He did not "tell" her, instruct her, nor even demand.  

After what I believe to have been about 5 minutes of this going on, 

She reported the beginning of some sexual contact but not completion. Regarding oral sex she used reliable past tense language and short descriptions. This is very unlike the lengthier (and unnecessary) descriptions of the drive.  

It is reliable. 

It also warrants exploration in conjunction with the darkness of the woods and the turning off of the car headlights in her language. 

he suddenly stopped, got out of the truck and ran around the back and to my side before falling to his knees. I quickly buttoned my shirt back up and got out of the truck. 

Reliable to this point. 

Now I was terrified and ashamed. 

If this statement was given to police 24 hours after the alleged assault, this type of emotion would be indicative of deception.  It is not.  Again, this is due to the two decades of processing time. 

She introduces "terrified" into the account. We need to see what he did that terrified her in order to believe her.  "Shame" is consistent with humiliation (see lights off above). 

What would cause "terror" sine he "asked" and "she did"? in her language?

This is the first element of incongruous language.  This status will change if we see behavior that is terror arousing.  What did the alleged attacker then do?

I remember him pleading, while he was on his knees with his hands up on his head, ‘Oh my god, oh my god. What have I done? Oh my god, I'm so sorry. 

It is interesting to note that when she wrote "god", she used the lower case "g" here.  Later, regarding self, she changes it to the upper case "G."

One should consider the emotional trail and follow it, and ask about the possibility of humiliation. 

You can't tell anyone Jules, please. You have to take this to the grave with you.’  ''

The attacker had "asked", and she "did" it and now he is reduced to a pathetic pleading college student on his knees. 

This is not consistent with "terror." However, emotions are complex and I would not conclude deception indicated on this single point.  There is the incongruence of "asking", but is there more to help us draw a conclusion?  

He said that several times. My fear and shame quickly turned to anger

She saw him "on his knees" begging her, while she felt "terror and shame" and it now turns to contempt.  


This is another element of incongruence in her account. 

She now holds him in contempt.  He appeared to be held in high esteem (the unusual complete social introduction) and now he is contemptibly crawling on the ground. 

This increases the humiliation in her: 

I had just been manipulated and used. I swore to him I wouldn't tell anyone just to get him to stop. 

She reports no sympathy for him (contempt) and reports why she swore to him: J jut to make him stop his graveling on the ground, pleading with her.  

The complete social introduction with the unusual "minister", (along with the possessive pronoun, "my") is reversed.  What was "special" and "exciting" has turned to a despicable, contemptible "nobody" on the ground crying. 

It is no wonder she felt anger. 

It is no wonder that she included "he turned off the lights" in her statement.

She is angry. 

Yet, we find the answer to the Analytical Question in the moment afterward.  

She got out of the truck and went to the pathetic spectacle of a young man and swore she would not tell anyone just to shut him up.  

How does the alleged sexual assault victim view her alleged assailant?

Our answer concludes the analysis:  

We both got back in the truck. 

She looks back, almost 20 years later and tells us:

the sexual contact was exactly as described:  consensual. 

Victims of sexual assault do not assimilate themselves with the assailant.  

As he drove me home, I don’t remember there being any conversation. I was in shock.

The shock may be "what a loser he turned out to be" in context. 

As soon as I got home, I went straight to bed. I couldn't fall asleep fast enough. Please God, let this all be a bad dream, I thought. Yet the hurt I was beginning to feel soon snapped me back into reality. This was no bad dream, this was a living nightmare. The secret quickly began to eat away at my soul. I couldn't concentrate at school. I couldn't think about anything else. The fear, shame, anger and hurt consumed me. As embarrassing as it would be for me to tell all the ‘dirty’ details of this horrible secret, I had no other choice. What happened to me was not right nor had it been my fault. I had to report this. Little did I know, the very people I was about to entrust to protect me and help me would not only victimize me all over again but would also engage in a cover up to protect my abuser and the image of the church.

Larry Cotton was the Associate Pastor of Woodlands Parkway Baptist Church at the time. Steve Bradley was the head pastor. I mustered up the courage to go tell them what happened. For some reason, Steve wasn’t available, so I only spoke with Larry. I remember asking him if I could speak privately with him and he said yes. I started out by saying something awful had happened to me. I was already crying. Somehow, I felt brave enough to tell Larry every detail of what had happened with Andy. I was mortified but I thought I was doing the right thing as both Larry and Steve were over Andy in the church and I was way too embarrassed and scared to tell anyone else, especially my own parents.

Just as I had finished telling my story

"my story" should not be considered deceptive due to the years of processing. 

Next note: 

Larry immediately spoke up and asked me to clarify. He said something to the effect of, ‘So you’re telling me you participated?’ 

She was asked if she was consensual. We look for her to issue a Reliable Denial in an assault case. 

Just as a victim will not allow for "we" to enter the language right after the assault, so it is that the trauma of a sexual assault is so acute that firmness in defense is often seen in not only a reliable denial, but short sentences. 

Remember:  short sentences are more likely to be reliable than lengthy ones.  Note her short description of the sexual contact is reliable on its structure.  

Will she deny consensual contact?  

The person, "Larry" was right to ask about the assault.  If she is inconsistent or even deceptive, he must ask.  If there has been an assault, he must call police. 

What does she respond with?

I remember feeling like my heart had just sunk to the floor.  What was he asking? More importantly, what was he trying to imply? 

She not only avoids issuing the denial, but responds with questions. This is deceptively avoiding the truth. 

She then explores her emotions:  

This wave of shame came over me, greater than I had ever felt before.

Was this shame of being asked if she participated more than the "terror" and "shame" she felt while being "sexually assaulted"?

She is deceptive. 

 I had just gotten done telling him everything that Andy, my youth pastor, asked me to do.

Note the complete social introduction repeated with now the less formal status . This is to convince that the assault exists due to disparity rather than coercion or force. 

She now reports what she did not do.  This is also an indicator of deception in context: 

 I didn't say that I screamed no, jumped out of the car and ran into the dark forest because I hadn't

This is fascinating. She feels the need to not only report what she did not do, but explain why she did not lie. 

This is consistent with one familiar with lying as she has the "need to assert."

I told him that Andy had asked me to perform oral sex and unbutton my shirt and I did. 

She "told" him what she did not "tell" Andy.  Note the communicative language.  

She now uses highly emotional language consistent with manipulation, including hyperbole: 

Every ounce of courage I had gathered, to walk in there and tell Larry the truth about what had happened to me, left in an instant. Not only did I suddenly feel this immense guilt for doing what Andy had asked me to do but I also started to feel that this was my fault somehow because I didn't stop him.

She did not "stop him" because it was consensual.  He let her down but there may be yet another reason for the humiliation. 

As you might imagine, I was beyond overwhelmed at the myriad of emotions I was feeling. I remember Larry telling me that he would have to share with Steve all that I had told him. I asked what was going to happen next and he said that him and Steve would be talking to Andy and that the church would be handling the situation. He told me not to speak with Andy and said that he would be telling Andy not to speak with me as well. 

She did not report a crime and indicates that this was handled properly.  

Through the tears, I told him that I was too embarrassed to tell my Mom what had happened. He said not to worry, that they would talk to my Mother as well. 

Follow her and believe her:  she "told" (one way communication, strong) that she was too embarrassed to even tell her own mother.  

Now note the choice of wording:  

He then told me not mention anything that had happened to anyone else. 

Larry did not tell her to "not tell anyone" but only affirmed her own wording. She used the word "mention" to someone who was too embarrassed to even tell her own mother.  This is an appropriate response.  Should she "mention" to others, it could reach her mother.  

Yet, she now goes back, after reporting what he said, to classifying it as according to her narrative:  

 It was very clear to me that I was not to say a word to anyone.

Deception Indicated

Here she continues with the emotional appeal and wishes the audience to believe the church coerced her silence.  

She is lying. 

She has a priority that includes attacking the church. 

As days passed I remember feeling more and more hopeless. I was confused as it seemed that Andy got to go about his day to day life, within the church and outside of it, as though nothing had ever happened. In fact, he led a 2-day event at the church, known as True Love Waits, promoting sexual purity not only in abstinence from intercourse before marriage but also abstinence in any physical contact, actions and thoughts which might lead to sexual arousal. The irony had not been lost on me. Yet, here I was sinking deeper and deeper into this pit of depression. 

She will continue to manipulate by changing the language of "mention" (casual, in passing) to:

I had no where to go, no one to talk to. After all, I was given one job by the person I had sought help from (Larry,) and that was to keep my mouth shut.

Not long after, I was meeting at the church with my all female discipleship group. I hadn’t had much interest in even being at church since everything that had happened but, deep down, I think I was just seeking some sort of solace in my faith for all the pain and hurt I was going through. Something came over me that night. I remember feeling disgusted and frustrated. What happened to me was not right! Why were my pastors not listening?

The need to persuade, 20 years later, via punctuation.  
Note the question is posed after reporting how she was listened to and she was questioned.  

The humiliation is evident. 

As if a final breath of courage filled my lungs, I opened my mouth and began to share some of what had happened to me. Looking back now, I know without a doubt, it was a cry for help. Tears ran down my cheeks. I remember feeling a slight sense of relief as this was no longer just a secret between myself, Andy, Larry and Steve. However, I too remember feeling as though I had just played my last card. I knew I had broken the rules of silence and that there would be consequences to my actions.

Word got back to Larry and Steve, almost immediately, that I had shared some things with my discipleship group. Now they had to do something. The youth group had a ski trip coming up and they announced to the families that Andy would not be going. Rumors were starting to spread that something had happened between myself and Andy. People thought/assumed that we had exchanged an ‘innocent’ kiss. The church, however, never came out with an official statement addressing what had happened and/or what was being done about it. Instead, they held a going away reception for Andy at the church in which he was allowed to simply say that he had made a poor decision and that it was time for him to move on from our church. Many people came to love on him, support him and say their goodbyes. There were hugs shared and tears shed. No one truly knew why he was leaving except myself, Andy, Larry and Steve. The gossip amongst my church family only continued to flourish. No one could imagine Andy doing anything bad or immoral, much less illegal, and so, it somehow became my fault that Andy was leaving.

I couldn’t have been more grateful that it was the spring of my senior year as all I wanted to do was to leave town and get away from everything and everyone. I had basically shut down.  I felt so alone. It wasn’t until much later that I would realize that no matter how far away I moved nor how much I tried to move on with my life, that I could never truly escape what had happened to me. For example, when I found out that the church had contacted my parents, years later, and asked their permission to bring Andy back on staff, it brought back a whirlwind of emotions. Of course, my parents said NO, but even learning of this was traumatizing. I am a grown woman now and although it’s been almost 20 years since everything happened, it still affects me to this day.  There are triggers that take me back to that night, there are nightmares that haunt my dreams.

My hope in finally coming forward with my story is not only that I can begin to get closure and healing for all that has happened to me, but more so, that my story might have a positive impact on others and effect positive change in how these types of situations are handled within the church.

To anyone who has suffered from sexual abuse in the church and the subsequent cover up and pressure to remain silent, I want you to know that it is not your fault. Most importantly, I want you to know that you are not alone.

Analysis Conclusion:  Deception Indicated.

She was not sexually assaulted by him; it was consensual.  As a 37 year old adult looking back, she believes it was consensual, now, in her recall.  She is deceptively calling it "assault."  The motive is in her language. 

Here, the subject gave an interesting interview:  VIDEO

The motive (s) for reporting is that the subject has some personal issues, and likely has experienced some things, unrelated to this event, which have left her vulnerable and in need.  She shows a linguistic priority of being recognized for attention, which is why #metoo is likely what caused her to come forward.  The video should affirm, for most, why she gave so much detail to the "me too" celebrity wave. 

Testing the Form 

The form of the statement is interesting as the "introduction" is short, but the event is very short, whereas it should have used 50% or more of the statement. Reliable statements mimic reality:

what happened before is generally about 25% of the words.  This sets the scenario. 

the event, especially assault, is about 50% of the words, sometimes more. 

What happened after the assault, such as calling 911, or going home, is usually 25% of the words. 

The 25/50/25 ratio is a measurement for reliability.  It is not conclusive on its own, but another factor in determining deception or veracity. 

How does Jules Woodson account test?

1916 words total 

We seek anything close to 25/50/25 breakdown. 

Before "that night" begins, she uses 95 words.   5% 

The night of the assault has 414 words.  50% of 1916 would be lost 958 words.  

She uses only about 20% for the "event" in her story. 

After the event:  1407 words which is almost 75% of her account. 

This is extreme. It is "Unreliable On Form

The 75% dedication to post event is where we find our motive for reporting this. 

It is here that we see her dedication to a cause.  This is consistent with the rest of the analysis.  

She was not sexually assaulted.  

She is doing this from the motive of an acute need to be recognized as part of those who have received recognition in Hollywood.  

The subject's need for relevancy is acute. 

Although beyond the scope of this article, analysts who study the statement are likely to draw a conclusion about what caused the humiliation of the subject.  

In light of "turned lights off", and the accused's reaction to her sexually, including her view of contempt, they are likely to learn more about the event and the subject, herself.  

The language indicates familiarity with emotional manipulation.  

She does not do genuine victims of sexual assault any service by joining the #metoo movement. 

False claims of sexual assault inevitably have an impact upon society.  

For another example of this, see the two statements made very close to one another. 

Kristina Cohen reliably reported rape.  Right afterwards, a failed actress, in "support" of Kristina, followed suit with a deceptive account, accusing the same perpetrator. 

It can cause the public to doubt genuine victims, which only adds to their suffering. 

Both statements are analyzed and are valuable to compare. 

Please note that pronouns are used to solve cases.  Although I have not seen this, the only possible exception of the use of the word "we"  is a grown woman who was sexually assaulted by her own father, who has been in treatment for many years, has reunited with him, and struggles to recall what happened, in childhood. 

For training in detecting deception, go to 


Anonymous said...

I also believe that it was consensual. But was she under the age of consent? And did he commit a misdemeanor by using his ministerial position to groom and then coerce her into consenting?

rob said...

I think a 17 year old girl, probably a jr or sr in high school would probably be allowed to date a college student. I know I did at that age, and my family approved.
To me, this is a common case of a girl, or woman, who is wanting something from a relationship, that doesn't get it, and then feels she was done wrong.
At no point does she say no, I want to go home, I don't do that, stop, nothing. He asks her and she complies. That is consent. He didn't force her, push her head down, threaten her, nothing. She probably left out of the story that some heavy kissing and such first took place. In fact, he had a worse guilty reaction than she did, which is where the problem comes from. Instead of, her being able to boast, oh I have a new college boyfriend, he's OMG, forgive me for doing wrong.
No question who the better person here is.
I think this happens often, and parents need to make it known to their sons that, especially in the current environment, even if the girl consents, later it's her word against yours.

Anonymous said...

First of all, it seems consensual. She says she thought he loved her. I believe she has left out her real feelings as far as how they ended up in the woods. To me, the biggest problem, is would the church not have a policy preventing pastors from dating members...especially youth pastors and youth members? If they did, then they should have fired him. If they didn't, it sounds like they did what they should have...he left.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Remember, this is entirely her perspective.

The allegation is not exploitation via disparity in age/sophistication.
The allegation is not inappropriate sexual contact. (dads would fume!)

The allegation is she was sexually assaulted, just like the #metoo crowd.

Her own words show: she does not believe she was sexually assaulted.

This is why her main focus is attention seeking.

Anyone dare to tread into the "humiliation" factor in her language?


Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous said...
First of all, it seems consensual. She says she thought he loved her. I believe she has left out her real feelings as far as how they ended up in the woods. To me, the biggest problem, is would the church not have a policy preventing pastors from dating members...especially youth pastors and youth members? If they did, then they should have fired him. If they didn't, it sounds like they did what they should have...he left.
January 12, 2018 at 1:00 PM

The "youth pastor" for most churches is not an ordained or formal, paid position. (I have personal opinions on this, wondering if it is an artificial demarcation)

He was a college kid with a high school senior.

The disparity exists naturally: he is older, he is not in high school, and he is someone to be looked up to by her, for spiritual guidance.

He exploited this position for sex. This is something kids do. It is wrong, but not criminal.

The "crusaders" are those who, often themselves victimized, dedicate themselves to attacking the church. They seek to find "other victims" which can be both noble, and it can be a witch hunt.

Some project themselves and their own experiences into statements (formal training disciplines work well to remove) so that they can become a "disinterested scientist" to learn the truth from deception.

The video is only a few minutes but fascinating.

She devoted 75% of her words to the "post event" for a good reason. She longs to be #metoo.

This is interesting because we all want to be recognized, relevant and part of things.

It is human nature.

It is why politicians seek to make ;people a member of "this" so that the politician can get them to stand against "that" and vote for him or her.

She attempts the same in her statement.

She is good at emotional manipulation.

On my Facebook page is a video of a pastor accused of being caught by one of his kids smooching with the church secretary.

He is deceptive about it.

Putting these two cases next to each other is fascinating.


Buckley said...

Enlightening- thank you!

Buckley said...

Anyone dare to tread into the "humiliation" factor in her language?


Veracity? Check. Motive? Check.

Nope, done.

Buckley said...

Famous last words! I do want to add something:

I did a readability check of the text. The intro and event, to "I had to report this." is on a fourth grade level. The text after that starting with the sentence "Little did I know, the very people I was about to entrust to protect me and help me would not only victimize me all over again but would also engage in a cover up to protect my abuser and the image of the church."

is on a seventh grade level.

It's a pretty large sample for reliability purposes so a three-grade level difference is significant.

It might relate to differences in veracity, but more likely indicates either a different (more educated person) wrote it or significantly edited it.

Dawnabelle said...

I have so much to learn. Did I think she was truthful because of my filters? Yes. I think so. I still look back and feel that I participated in my abuse. I still struggle with the line between abuse and the responsibility I have in choosing to stay in the cycle.

Peregrine said...

The UK Independent website reports that Andy Savage recently received a standing ovation at this church, however his upcoming book, "The Ridiculously Good Marriage", has been cancelled by a Christian publishing house following Ms. Woodson's allegations:

Buckley said...

indicates either a different (more educated person) wrote it or significantly edited it.

By "it," I mean the second part relating to the church officials and the alleged "cover up."

But I am a robot! said...

Peter, pronouns are very telling in SA, especially the use or avoidance of "we" with an alleged attacker after a reported sexual assault.

But such a deeply painful, traumatic life-altering event, it's already happened when the victim gives a statement -- even going back verbally, it happened; how can they think of "we" even at that point?

Even the previous kind behavior would feel like part of the violation, for setting up the opportunity for physical assault.

As to placement of emotions, she uses a lot of it manipulatively, but I would think she did immediately feel humiliation and was painfully aware of it at the time.
This wouldn't have the adrenalin rush of physical combat, enormous fear in a fight-or-flight, life-at-risk situation, especially in the, er, limp aftermath.

Peter, is there enough of Pastor Andy's tear-streaked Jim Bakker, anguished meltdown of repentence to analyze if he actually felt a shred of remorse, or if it was all a calculated part of his manipulation, and a well-honed, oft-repeated one with a long trail of grooming targets before and after Jules?

When she first used the complete social introduction I thought it might in this context be part of her statement, but she continued to grant him that respect and importance.

I wonder if in her mind, god in her quoting his meltdown is part of the betrayal and humiliation she felt, and God is the one she trusts and follows?

Anonymous said...

This is off topic, but I really would like for someone to do stamens analysis on the teacher from Louisiana who commented about the superintendent getting a raise, when she says teacher haven’t gotten a raise in 10years. Then she was arrested (during a board meeting) and the Superintendent gets threatened, and no one S pressing charges.

Seems like lots of missing info, but I know there’s more to it. He said/she said, and then being arrested for speaking at a board meeting??

Aren’t you supposed to discuss things at a board meeting? When and where are the “rules”?

For some reason this has me 😤

But I am a robot! said...

Thanks, Peter, this was my point yesterday but you worded it more clearly -- he behaved horribly, but did not assault her.

My comment yesterday about the age/sophistication disparity was adding to the other commenter's point about the difference in how males and females are perceived/treated regarding similar sexual behavior.

Here, it highlights our point: reprensible pig, yes; sexual assault, no.

Anonymous said...

I don't think she's too humiliated or she'd never told it again...especially to a male pastor.

My opinion is she enjoys the "dirty little secrets" and her whole life is wrapped up in them.

You'll find many a church women like that and learn there's a bit of fairy tale land going on between their ears.

Buckley said...

Here's a statement from the board president:

Fontana said the teacher arrested after Monday's meeting was not following the rules of board meeting procedure.

"If a teacher has the authority to send a student, who is acting up and she can't control, out of the classroom to the principal's office, under our policy we have the same rules," Fontana said. "We have certain rules: three-minute speech, it has to be civilized, it can't get off target, it has to be related to the issue before the board. That's not what was happening last night.
"The marshal did his job. He went over there to settle it down. He couldn't settle it down. She's the one who made the choice to continue speaking," Fontana said. "He was taking her out. He wasn't arresting her. He was escorting her out, telling her don't come back tonight. It escalated out in the hall and she ended up getting arrested. "He did exactly what he was hired to do. He followed the procedures completely. She's the one who made the choices that got her arrested "

Fontana said he had to lock down the school board office Tuesday because of death threats. He said he had called police, the sheriff's office and the FBI about the threats.

"I told my staff not to answer the phone unless they knew who it was. My staff was scared to death, because they got a call that a man said he was on his way to the school board office, making threats," Fontana said.

But I am a robot! said...

Random Anonymous No. 147633686-Q, schoolboard meetings and city/county council meetings are required by law to be recorded.
At minimum there will be audiotape; these days, likely video footage, so there is public record somewhere.

Check the school district's site for board and meeting information.

rob said...

Peter, she is humiliated because she gave a guy a BJ , then he acted he had committed a sin, and wanted forgiveness.
All of the people on here that act like no young male wants sexual attention from a female or visa versa, are kidding themselves. It's human nature.

But I am a robot! said...

And most government entities in the USA follow what's called Robert's Rules of Order, a little book that dictates everything from who can speak when, to how to introduce motions, moves and new topics.

By now it's probably posted online somewhere.

Buckley said...

Here's the video, incident starts a little after 6 minutes in:

Buckley said...

"We have certain rules: three-minute speech, it has to be civilized, it can't get off target, it has to be related to the issue before the board. That's not what was happening last night."

He lists rules that might need to be enforced but instead of stating which one(s) she broke, he reports in the negative what wasn't happening.

"It escalated out in the hall and she ended up getting arrested."

I would have expected "She escalated it out in the hall and he arrested her." "It" escalated implies either shared responsibility for escalating it or hiding who escalated it. "She ended up getting arrested" hides who is doing the arresting.

ima.grandma said...

Humiliation is an important theme in the psychological functioning of individuals following sexual abuse, perceived or actual. It's often associated to the shame-anger link.

Humiliation is thought to include a perception that one is being degraded, demeaned or ridiculed at the hands of another individual. Ms. Woodson likely “felt belittled or slandered", lowered in her own eyes and the eyes of others. For humiliation to be felt by Ms. Woodson, she experiences herself in a negative light while concurrently holding a negative attribution of blame to Mr. Savage.

Shame and humiliation are associated with concealment unlike anger. Her anger propelled her to disclose her story at this opportunistic time of #metoo.

LuciaD said...

No woman wants to be treated like "a dirty little secret". If a guy she thinks she has a loving relationship with won't go public with it, it's going to make her feel humiliated. That was one of the few reasons I felt a tiny bit sorry for Jodi Arias. She truly was Travis' dirty little secret. One of the few truths told by her defense team.

Sarah said...

It's still assault. He was in a position of power and influence over her. She was vulnerable and had disclosed to him prior sexual abuse and about her parent's divorce. Giving her special attention was nothing short of grooming, and he was caught alone with her previously tickling her but nothing was done. She may have been head over heels for him. It doesn't matter. She wasn't expecting a sexual encounter and justified it and him in her head by thinking that it must be love. She was also afraid, and in the middle of nowhere (abduction). His apology was nothing short of manipulation. And saying "take it to your grave" is a threat. The pastor's daughter in his next church said he would have never been hired had they known about this incident, and that Andy came onto her as well when she was 16. So, regardless of what Jules' motivation was in speaking up, he is still a predator and unfit for ministry.

Anonymous said...

Welll.........if the church family wanted to lift her up, perhaps the focus should be upon forgiveness and not sexual assault as it seems he already begged forgiveness and she refused. It appears as if she also refused to forgive herself. If you can't forgive yourself, you can't forgive others.

I disagree with those on here pretending she should continue the status quo. It is clear after watching the video that she is emotionally immature.

ima.grandma said...

Ms. Woodson's reporting of the "assault" led to public exposure to church members (even if her name and details weren't publicly announced, she knew and so did Mr. Savage). The humiliation is shown in her language through the mentioning of her perceptions of gossiping and rumors in front of others, particularly peers. This where she begins to blame the church. The element of humiliation can be quite profound. Accompanied with feelings of vulnerability and helplessness, the humiliation caused her to feel exposed in a painfully diminished way.

Hey Jude said...

I know it’s not meant to be funny, but - picturing the scene as Andy leapt out of the vehicle, and fell to his knees begging God for forgiveness, is amusing, to me. He could have found a less dramatic, more diplomatic way to let her know that he wasn’t really interested in dating her. She must have felt humiliated - as if she had defiled the youth pastor. If it wasn’t for his public statements, in which he took responsibility, I would wonder more if Jules, rather than Andy, had been the instigator.

I don’t think they would have married - she more than failed the purity test. I think by his reaction, that either she had tempted and manipulated him to his point of least resistance, which truly he believed wrong and did not want to continue in, or that he had also abandoned other girls while they were similarly undressed, as a means of more or less guaranteeing their silence. What would getting out of the vehicle, and falling to his knees, seemed to have said to her - get thee behind me, Satan, evil temptress, daughter of Eve? It’s comical to me, even if it shouldn’t be.


I don't feel sorry for Jodi Arias, mainly because she is evil, sadistic, and by her conduct, a generally terrifying individual. She could have made the decision to walk away from Travis when it became clear he would not acknowledge her, but she chose to slaughter him. Knowing he disliked to be seen naked in the shower, she set about attacking him while he was naked in the shower, wanting him to be discovered that way. She took pleasure in informing the court, post-sentencing, that Travis had still been alive after she slit his throat. Murdering Travis was not enough, she also made sure to cause further anguish to those he loved by volunteering that extra information.


I don't feel sorry for Jules M either.

ima.grandma said...

Peter, you are correct

After many years of treatment, therapy, education and deep introspection; I have forgiven my father. My shame and rage have dissipated. Our large family has suffered in many ways including the tragic unexpected deaths of my brothers and young nephew. I no longer want my father to continue to suffer. My parents are at an advanced age and I do not want to be left with regrets. My sisters weren't ready to speak and I feel guilty in asking them for support, both verbally and in physical presence. 

My pain remains.

But I am a robot! said...

Hey, Jude, excellent insight as always, and thanks for reassuring me I'm not the only demented soul who snorted at RandyAndy's Oscar-caliber, tear-streaked Jim Bakker meltdown of repentence.

They manipulated each other to get to this encounter -- him grooming an easy mark for adulation and oral sex; her hooking an impressive fish, the sophisticated college man, into fairytale instant love.

But his act at the end just reads as so phony, over the top and manipulative, and the deity-invoking "remorse" and plea to not be held accountable is calculating and predatory.

I would suspect a long list of targets before and after Jules.
One of Peter's favorite points of emphasis is the vast difference between accepting responsibilty/accountability, and simply claiming it while dismissing and minimizing the offense.

Here, he claims he's remorseful and responsible; yet she can't ever tell anyone what happened because he'd face consequences?
So to avoid having to pay for his terrible sin, she must take it to her grave?! Not his grave, not even their graves, but hers alone.

She got used; he was obviously manipulating her with his ludicrous antics, that's why the immediate anger, hurt and shame.

To clarify, it wasn't assault and she has much of her own manipulation and avoidance of taking responsibility.
But this was absolute calculated manipulation, not repentence, remorse or even regret. I picture dupers' delight as he climbed back in the truck, not gratitude or even concern of any consequences.

Anonymous said...

Her feelings of what constituted love needs to be explored prior to her saving the public from the throes of the evil church members.

Ima...I think you have issues that makes you want to keep others down like this woman.

But I am a robot! said...

How is anything ima.grandma posted anywhere on this blog even remotely bent toward keeping others down or any other negative intent?!

Seriously, this absolutely defies logic!

LuciaD said...

I said a tiny bit sorry for JA, who is heinous and right where she deserves to be. But Travis did treat her poorly, he behaved dishonorably. Both can be true.

Buckley said...

What an awful thing to say, Anon!

Agreed about "defies logic" robot. On occasion, here and in other places online, things are said that make me think "You've got to be kidding!" Similar to your sense of "defies logic." I think we should trust our instincts as to the veracity of statements like this. Do you ever think "Why would someone say that? It makes commentators here look stupid and mean!" Again, sometimes first instincts are spot on.

I certainly hope that post is deleted.

Anonymous said...

It sounds like Ima was a victim of incest after reading the latest posts. That is a far stretch from what the woman mentioned on this blog post reports. It's not even in the same ball field.

She's (the accuser Jules) like the commercial where the orchestra is playing and all of a sudden a man comes out with a triangle solo.It's silly, but forgivable. She can, or should have already, heal and move on; incest is different.

Don't attempt to pull everyone into that same category to get a group therapy session going. It isn't healthy.

Hey Jude said...

Thanks, But I am a robot! - I'm also glad it is not only me who had that reaction. I do still sometimes get to thinking - same with Davey Blackburn's manipulative ways - it looks very bad,, but a pastor can't be *that* disingenuous, surely? The problem has to be with me - and I'm sure it is, some of the time. A big problem seems to be that in the US it is very easy for anyone to call themselves 'pastor' and to set up a church in which they do not have to be accountable, or very accountable.

Lucia - yes, both can be true.

LuciaD said...

I really think some of the posts to the blog are only to stir the mud. I try to ignore them

LuciaD said...

Oh Ima. You have friends here who believe you. Sometimes family can’t be the main support. It is so complicated. I know I value your comments and insight here. I hope we here can be some comfort.

Alex said...

I think the accusers' humiliation began when she didn't get the reaction she expected. Instead of praising her and professing undying love he categorized the contact as sinful. Hence, the change in her perception and description of him.


But I am a robot! said...

Hey Jude, a genuine, sincere pastor can't be that disingenuous, but for a fraudulant predator it's natural.

The question here is whether RandyAndy was a young, horny college kid who abused his position of trust one time, then immediately and profoundly regretted it, or a manipulative predator whose anguished pleas are centered only on himself and his need for her silence?

I think he absolutely crossed over with that pathetic display, that it is a planned and likely favorite part of his whole perverted routine.

And yes; pretty much anyone here can declare themselves a church, start preaching whatever gospel they think will fill the baskets, and qualify for tax exemptions while doing so.

Obviously there are many who sincerely believe in their teachings, follow them in action as well, and truly try to help the community.
But yes, there are some evil, scamming predators misusing it to their own advantage through financial fraud, sexual abuse or both.

Does the UK have laws about what legally constitutes a church? What if any benefits to the formal legal status?

PS: I would like my comma back that YOU took from me incorrectly placed in your name last post.
I feel you took advantage of me while a certain favorite song was in my mental jukebox distracting me and I can't edit to take back my stolen comma!

I bet you've got a drawer full of them stockpiled from all over after all of these years from us victims.

Hey Jude said...



There you go. :)


I don't know if he did the same thing before, but in view of his now being a pastor at a mega-church, where - from the few I have tuned in to - manipulation appears to be a general philosophy, he maybe began young to set his various stage performances. He said, in his statement, that never had such an incident occurred before or since. So - 'never' is not reliable. He has a wife and five kids - she didn't have to tell the world via FB, about the sins of his youth.

Tania Cadogan said...

She felt humiliated and then angry because she had visions of daring a college guy who was part of her church and followed the same religion with the same beliefs.
She saw something further, she saw a relationship,status with her friends and perhaps within her church.
At 17 she was probably imagining marriage.
She was in love with him, a first love perhaps and she felt all grown up.
This is why it was consensual.

She would possibly have gone the whole way if he had asked.
He realized what he was doing was wrong (religious beliefs if nothing else, how do they promote purity and abstention?) and stopped.
He then got out the car and apologized, not to her but to god.
Her love of someone who appeared saintly, faithful to god was shattered.
She saw not a faithful god fearing youth pastor, she saw a normal college student man grovelling out and crying for forgiveness from his god NOT her.
She felt anger that he wasn't anything special, he wasn't what she thought he was he was a horny male who stopped before he went too far.
God came (no pun intended) before her.
Her illusions were shattered she felt fooled, she felt possibly used although i wonder who was using who.

Like any vengeful woman she wanted retribution.
She reported him which was right and the church also did what was right based on her claims, they could see it was consensual not an assault and knew no crime had been committed despite what she likely said.
They wanted her to keep quiet whilst the church dealt with it and talked to her mother possibly knowing that should she speak out and claim it to be an assault when it wasn't she would end up in court testifying and having it tossed out.

He left the church which is what she wanted but it wasn't enough, she wanted more and in her mind, over the years he has become the big bad guy and she the chaste innocent victim of his rampant desires.
She couldn't get him them so she is getting him now.

I would be interested to see if she is with the same church or went to a different church if at all.
What her relationships were like with men in the interfering years.
She has let this perceived crime rule her life denying that it was consensual.
I suspect had it gone all the way and he had then got out the truck and begged forgiveness from god, he would have been facing rape charges.
She needs to understand the kissing(which she did not mention) was consensual as was the heavy petting.
At that age hormones are running wild and girls and boys will experiment and do dumb stuff.

She needs help, until she gets it and accepts she was doing what they both wanted consensually she will be bitter and twisted and a risk to others if they upset her especially males

Trigger said...

I also believe that this sexual encounter was consensual. Jules felt love, Andy felt lust. When she got that clarified in her own mind, Jules felt used, manipulated, and then forgotten.

Pastor Andy set aside caution and integrity, by his errant departure from his values to ensure that they had a private liaison together. He then added the burden of "silence" for himself and her by means of emotional pleading. He was professing remorse, not the expected words of love.

I agree she acted in anger when she reported this.

Hey Jude said...

PS, Robot - I don't know much about what legally constitutes a church in the U.K - I looked it up, and discovered that, as in the US, anyone can start a church if they have £28 to register it, but also if they don't. :-). So, it turns out that, not for the first time, I I don't know what I am talking about, because there could be hundreds of Resonate-type horrors meeting in school gymnasiums, for all I know.

Hey Jude said...

Even if he didn't have a wife and five kids, she still wouldn't have had to tell the world, via FB, about the sins of his youth - I think she was vindictive.

Tania, I agree with a lot of what you say.

Buckley said...

I think you all are giving her too much credit. The vindictiveness is not her own. Read at the blog below and pay special attention to what "Darcy" does. And note all the people working to "out" churches for cover ups, and how some are connected to going after the church Andy Savage is connected to. Jules is complicit, but is being used by a group with an agenda:

Buckley said...

Does this tell us she was at her alleged assaulter's "going away" party:

Instead, they held a going away reception for Andy at the church in which he was allowed to simply say that he had made a poor decision and that it was time for him to move on from our church. Many people came to love on him, support him and say their goodbyes. There were hugs shared and tears shed. No one truly knew why he was leaving except myself, Andy, Larry and Steve.

Anonymous said...

Child rapists should be given the death penalty. I would gladly pull the electric chair switch myself & I would not lose a second of sleep over it.

Anonymous said...

I tried to read some of that link you provided in which judas/Darcy does good for all the disciples. However, I started to get the same queezy feeling I got after the first paragraph of Jules "story." I'm not willing to reread it as often as I did Jule's version as it just isn't worth it.

What did stand out was Jules was not one of the "popular" students that hung out at the church and all of a sudden she was popular at the youth group. C'mon! Get your story straight for once gals!

Sounds like a lot of vindictiveness and usury of others is in motion here.

They don't want to trigger harmful emotions of victims, yet they actively seek this former church member out to participate in their strange games?

Tania Cadogan said...

A pastor at a mega-church in Tennessee who drove a teenage girl into the woods and sexually assaulted her has said he doesn't think he did anything wrong because she was 'flirtatious'.

Andy Savage, the Teaching Pastor at Highpoint church in Memphis, got a round of applause from his congregation when he came clean about the incident more than two decades ago.

Savage revealed that he was driving the 17-year-old girl home when he took a detour into a wooded area, pulled down his pants and asked her to perform oral sex on him, which she did, before fondling her breasts.

Speaking about the incident on the Ben Ferguson Radio Show, the now-married pastor said: ‘I do not believe I broke the law.'

Savage admitted it was wrong, but said the victim, Jules Woodson, consented.

‘The atmosphere was very flirtatious,’ he said.

‘That flirtatious environment continued to move forward, which led to us making out, some heavy petting. It was a very mutual, spontaneous, physical moment and our hormones were obviously very much in that moment and she performed oral sex.’

He said he told church leaders what happened and no one called the police.

Andy Smith, a spokesman for Woodson, said Savage's radio interview made him sick.

‘That entire radio show was a total re-victimization, pointing the blame on a then teenage girl who he said was a willing participant,’ Smith said. ‘He was an adult and he was a pastor and he was in a place of trust.’

Shortly after the radio interview, the lead pastor at Highpoint announced that Savage would be placed on leave, effective immediately.

Chris Conlee went on to say that the church is standing by Savage's side.

‘Please know that we support Andy as a leader of our church, but we also understand this has been a difficult season not only for Andy and his family, but for our congregation as well,' he wrote in a message posted to the church's website.

Conlee also said that a third-party organization has been hired to audit the church as well as Savage's ministry.

'We want to maintain trust in both Andy and our church leadership that we are not only doing things right, but we are doing right things. To that end, we are engaging a qualified, independent, third party organization to do a full audit of our church processes and Andy’s ministry,' the message read. ‘While the audit is being completed, we will continue to support Andy and his family.’

The church has not said whether the leave will be paid.

The 42-year-old pastor's troubled past came to light last week after a woman posted a lengthy message on WatchKeep saying Savage sexually assaulted her in 1998 after he offered to drive her home from church.

At the time, Savage was a 22-year-old college student and youth minister at Woodlands Parkway Baptist Church in Texas.

She was a 17-year-old high school senior and member of his youth ministry.

Woodson said Savage turned down a deserted road, unzipped his pants, took his penis out, and asked her for oral sex.

She said Savage told her he had a surprise for her before he drove past her house to the wooded area.

'I remember feeling special and excited,' she wrote. 'I assumed we were going to get ice cream.'

Instead, she said, he turned off the car's lights and asked her to perform oral sex on him.

'I was scared and embarrassed, but I did it. I remember feeling that this must mean that Andy loved me,' she posted.

She also said that Savage asked her to unbutton her shirt and then touched her breasts.

Tania Cadogan said...


Following the incident, Savage asked Woodson to keep what happened a secret and took her home.

Woodson wrote that she told church leaders what happened, and she was seemingly dismissed.

'Not only did I suddenly feel this immense guilt for doing what Andy had asked me to do but I also started to feel that this was my fault somehow because I didn't stop him,' she wrote.

During Sunday's service at Highpoint Church, which was shared on the church's YouTube page, Savage apologized for 'any painful memories' or 'fresh wounds' the incident caused.

'I am sorry and I humbly ask for your forgiveness, I love you all very much,' he said, to which the audience stood up and roared in applause.

Woodson told the New York Times she found the apology 'disgusting' and said the incident was never properly handled.

Anonymous said...

Oh my gosh, for the love of all that's freaking fracking holy. Don't freaking tell me that a 22 year old man having a consensual sexual encounter with a 17 year old girl is abuse. She was abso'f'c'ing lutely able to give consent and she isn't a victim. She wasn't raped. I was raped. People like her make me want to punch them in the d'amn throat because they cause more damage than they could ever know. do you want to know why people aren't believed and rapists go free and why people that are true victims don't tell? Because of b*llsh*t like this and the idifrickinodic metoo crap that has Hollyweird running around acting like they're are brave bloody warriors when they bloody well knew what they were getting into and they were willing to play the game, take off their clothes, and screw whoever they needed to in order to get paid.

ima.grandma said...

Anonymous said isn't healthy.

No, it isn't healthy for me or for Peter's blog. I've been back and forth all night trying to decide whether or not to delete my off-topic comments in the last two posts. I don't want to contaminate the comment section or the blog. I will avoid including personal experiences in future posts. I am embarrassed but I am not ashamed. I fear if I do delete my comments, it sends the message: "Do not speak out; there will be a backlash you are not prepared for and the shame will intensify." I realize this blog isn't the appropriate forum; it's too late to take it back. I've learned a valuable lesson.

Gratitude for the kind comments.

But I am a robot! said...

ima.grandma, the related personal experiences can be hugely insightful and helpful as to why and how various posters draw the conclusions they do and how to learn from each others' progress and mistakes.

In such a deeply personal, life-altering, complex, poorly understood topic as sexual assault, where Peter cautions so many of the usual expecteds vs. unexpecteds do not apply, it's also very insightful as to the mindsets of alleged victims.

Obviously, the last thing we want is to traumatize a real victim all over again because he or she went outside the expected.

However, you are important, too, and nothing is worth adding to your pain or slowing your healing.

I can assure you it's helped some people, and helped some to help others, so you did make a difference and I hope it at least sparked some healing and progress for you as well.

Meanwhile, although it does add to the discussion and insight, if deleting it helps you feel better please do so knowing you've already met the purpose of (bravely) reaching out and helping others, although you'd have the absolute right to do so solely for your own mental health.

John Mc Gowan said...

After the pronoun "We" was used after the alledged "sexual assault". I was reading to see if she employed the word "Left".

Anonymous said...

I bravely threaded into the comment section of the Wart blog and found a common grain of thought: remove and persecute any and everyone that ever made a mistake regardless of time, territory, or rationale. Make them unemployed until they think and work for vicious useless blog owners like themselves for the common good and mental health of all.

It's the equivalent of "Don't Start Me to Lyin'"

To think someone would actively search another out and rip the scab off a wound for her own agenda and helping little children and preventing serial killers from taking over the church is also provokes the need for projectile vomiting.

mom2many said...

OT: Michael Wolff sat down with Katy Tur to discuss his book on the Trump administration, Fire and Fury.
My transcript:
[8:25]KT: Tom Barrack is saying that he's misquoted. Uh, Katie Walsh is saying she's misquoted. Are, are they all lying?
MW: Ye- They are all lying. I mean, they are all, you know, they're in a situation, I mean, in a situation now where Donald Trump has come to think that this book is a mortal threat. I don't, I don't know if it is or it isn't, but he certainly feels that way. And he is making demands on, everybody. Um, you know, I know, I hear, uh, through the grapevine, you know, that Katie Walsh's job is, is, um, is at issue now, and, which I, I, I regret, um, and even that, she's not really saying that I misquoted her, she's saying that s-, sp-, she was quoting, some- something like, she was quoting Steve Bannon who said he's a child.
KT: Huh.
MW: Everybody says he's a child, in fact. Uh, so, We're, We're having... Pe-people are, are scrambling and they are panicked, which I absolutely understand. Nobody saw this book coming. Nobody saw that it would be as, as big as it seems to be. And, um, um and everybody is caught, a deer caught in the headlights.
KT: You have tapes, are you going to release the tapes?
MW: N-, I'm going to do, you know I have what every journalist ha-, I work like, like every journalist. I have tapes, I have notes, um...
KT: But if people are questioning it, why not produce the evidence (MW: Right), like here's, here's what it is.
MW: (crosstalking) Because, because that's not what, what jour-, I'm not in your business. I, my evidence is the book. Read the book. If it makes sense to you, if it strikes a ch- If it rings true, it is true.
KT: Here's the thing about the book, a-and I read it, I, I, I, a lot of the stuff did read as, it felt, did feel true, there were a lot of factual errors as well, we're living in a time with, with this president where everybody's worried,
MW: (crosstalking) But let's go to factual errors, I-I, you know, y-you know, you get pinned on this, cause everybody's looking at ...
KT: (crosstalking) But here's the thing about factual errors, and I, I wrote a book about Donald Trump, so I, so it's (MW: Mike Berman, mixed up with Mark Berman, or vice-a-versa), I understand that, but, but CNN was not the one who released the, the dossier...
MW: (crosstalking) That is absolutely, completely untrue! (KT: Buzzfeed released the dossier) No, no, CNN (KT: CNN reported on it, but did not release it.) CNN was, CNN was first on that story.
KT: They reported on it, but they didn't release the whole dossier.
[part 1/2]

mom2many said...

MW: (crosstalking) Okay, okay, we're talking about a (KT: But that's my point, that's my point), this is a, but that's my point. We're ta- that's the level we're talking at here.
KT: I understand that, but um, as somebody who wrote a book about Donald Trump, I was really cautious that every single fact in there was correct because I didn't want anybody to say, your book isn't true because look at this tiny little thing, so did you have a fact-checker go through it, to make sure that you corr-
MW: (crosstalking) I, yes, I, I absolutely had, I actually, three fact-checkers, but, this is, I, listen, I stand by (KT: Why not, why, then why open yourself up, is my question. I mean, I understand...) right, lookit, as a, as an, as I say, yeah, th-, the, the so-called errors that you're talking about are, are, the k- the kind of miniscule errors, that first thing, I think you're going to find in any book, including yours. Um, I am up to a particular kind of scrutiny, because I am threatening the President of the United States. Um, and um, you know, bring it on, is what I say.
KT: I, b-, I understand that and I appreciate that, and that's, and this book is very compelling, and there's a lot of it that reads true, that feels true, but we're living in a time right now where everybody's so anxious about this President, they're so anxious about what he's going to do next. Uh, Why not make it abundantly clear where you heard stories, when, where your attribution is, in order for people to kinda feel some comfort in trusting everything you write?
MW: (crosstalking) Because, because, first thing, first thing, yeah. First thing, um I think it is actually if you read the book, I think it is abundantly clear, and you just have to... (KT[whining]: But there are, but there are) you just have to read the book. When someo- when an author writes a book, it's a, that's a, that's a, (chuckle), that's a very (KT: it's a huge thing) s-significant thing. Here's the evidence, it's the book. (KT: I,) Read the book.
KT: I agree, and you should read the book, 100 percent.
MW: But this idea that, that, so um, let's, let's go, dra- and address the idea of tapes. I have everything that I do, has been, has been, has been, s-, mm, mm, mm, s-specifically, closely sourced. That's what we do. We take notes. Would you show, you're a reporter, would you open your notes to the world? Um, that's, you know, there's, you know, it's called "work product." (KT: Mm) Um, and then, and that turns into a book. If I were in the television business, and that's what we do, cameras, um, audio, um that's one thing. I'm a writer, I'm literally a writer. This is a v- incredibly, this is a, a written stor- I've told a story. (KT: You're) And, you know, just read it. If, if you (KT: There's ) if you think it's (KT: There's one, there's) if you think it's, if you don't think it's true, which, which 35 percent of the country is not going to think it's true. That Donald Trump. 35 percent. They're not going to buy this.
[part 2/2]

Anonymous said...

She was LEFT, ALONE in the church with Andy one dark night.

John Mc Gowan said...

AnonymousJanuary 13, 2018 at 11:03 AM
She was LEFT, ALONE in the church with Andy one dark night.

Thank you, anon, i missed that.
This is why collective analysis is vital.


Anonymous said...

Not a child rapist. For the love of God, 17 isn't an innocent child and 22 - 17 isn't perversion. It wasn't even effing illegal

Trigger said...

After reading about this story, coupled with Jules reaction to Andy's public confession and apology, I am concerned that Jules' is being exploited by a group of people who have a hidden agenda. Are they making her feel "special" in the media to get her co-operation in making public her accusations of sexual assault?

What is the real story behind all this media attention? Is this another attempt by the media to scapegoat someone? or to compile a list of reasons to change the legal definition of sexual assault as it is written currently? or to install a time limit on these types of accusations to protect real predators?

Buckley said...

Trigger- I don't think their agenda is "hidden" at all, they're quite up front about it: stop sexual abuse and cover up in churches. With Jules' "case" they openly share issues with covering up abuse at Savage's church (or a church that merged with his). Someone in that mix thought about what happened with Andy decades earlier, knew it had something to do with Jules and sought her and the story out in order to go after Andy and that specific church, though they've aligned with other groups that have a more widespread agenda after churches with histories of abuse and cover up.

My theory is that some of these people wrote part of Jules' statement, specifically about the alleged cover up. I think this can be seen in word choice that seems perfect to make a case against the church in Texas, including its street address, as well as the fact that the sophistication of the sentences in that part of the statement are much greater, a sign that someone else wrote or heavily edited it.

Trigger said...

Thanks for the clarity Buckley.

Off topic...Stormy Daniels' letter of denial... did she write it or did someone else write it and have her sign it?

ima.grandma said...

Note the image on Mr. Savage's book cover.

Anonymous said...

When they find sexual abuse, they should expose it and hold the people that exploited others responsible; this instance doens't fit that criteria but merely point people towards their blog for an all out wailing wall of troubles unearthed in a Pandora's box fashion.

This reminds me of a time a neighbor complained someone called the cops on him one Halloween. He'd put on a hockey mask and would hide behind a bush and when the children would arrive, he'd jump out and fire up his chain saw.

As he wailed to me, I asked him, "Have you considered that you may be an idiot? It's not an accusation as I'm not saying you are or are's just a theory to consider."

John Mc Gowan said...

ima.grandma wrote,January 13, 2018 at 12:49 PM

Note the image on Mr. Savage's book cover.


Has that image be redacted, or is it original?



ima.grandma said...

Hi John

I'm not sure. I first saw it yesterday on the link from NBC directed to Amy Smith's Watch Keep. 
It is displayed on her blog:
I was reading a different article his morning that listed a link directed to the Amazon site but I can't find it now. If I do, I'll let you know.

Buckley said...

Trigger- Re: Stormy Daniels

Here's the statement if anybody wants to have a crack at it:

“I recently became aware that certain news outlets are alleging that I had a sexual and/or romantic affair with Donald Trump many, many, many years ago,” Clifford writes in the letter, which Cohen provided to news outlets, including The Daily Caller.

“I am stating with complete clarity that this is absolutely false,” she continued, adding that she considered Trump to be “gracious, professional and a complete gentleman.”

“Rumors that I have received hush money from Donald Trump are completely false,” she wrote.

“If indeed I did have a relationship with Donald Trump, trust me, you wouldn’t be reading about it in the news, you would be reading about it in my book. But the fact of the matter is, these stories are not true.”

ima.grandma said...

John, I'm pretty sure it came from an offshoot from this link. This article describes step by step process as to how the Jules story disclosure began and evolved.

ima.grandma said...

Here it is:

John Mc Gowan said...

Thank you

I hope you're doing well

ima.grandma said...

You too John. I've been missing your body language analysis, especially on the "Paul Black" posts.

Here is another article that shows the same book cover, listing it as a screen shot from Savage's YouTube video.

ima.grandma said...

Correction to above: it's not a screen shot from Savage but from the publisher.

(Photo: Bethany House; Screenshot via YouTube)Embattled teaching pastor at the popular Highpoint Church Memphis in Tennessee, Andy Savage, 42, and the COVER ARTfor his canceled book that was slated for July 2018, "The Ridiculously Good Marriage."

John Mc Gowan said...

Where's the Paul Black vt?
I can't find it

Habundia said...

a job as a pastor is one of the many jobs (teachers, coaches, social workers, doctors and many more), where it is easy to get access to young people who have issues and are vulnerable a great place for predators......especially if it's that easy to become one. Although i don't see this incident as a sexual assault in the meaning of this term, i do think this person crossed lines. "Because she was 'flirtious'?", isn't that victim blaming? What DECENT person would take a girl to the woods to then ask her to give him a blowjob (out of the blue), because she was flirtious?
Thats just madness!
What he did is absolutely wrong and abusive, but it wasn't a sexual assault, it could have ruined her vision of men in general (or maybe that's just my personal experience with men who use and abuse) and maybe specific those in church, but it has nothing to do with the trauma caused by sexual assault.

Ima.....I am sorry you had to experienced that trauma and I wish you a peacefull life beyond the trauma. I will never forgive those who victimized me, therapy has done nothing for me, ive forgiven myself for not being able to stand up to the abuse (for me that's enough)......i can only wish those who victimized me will meet Karma! I have no mercy for them.

ima.grandma said...
See the very end of Peter's article. It's a hyperlink named LINK.

RE: ice cream cone on book cover, the image wants me to re-read some of the comments talking about agendas for several players in the saga. Timing now seems suspect.

Buckley said...

Ima- the timing of Jules' statement or the placement of "I assumed we were going for ice cream." in the statement?

ima.grandma said...

BOTH. I wanted to add that but I'm trying to be so careful in what I post.

I do believe that was the true intended cover art of the book. I'm fairly successful in searching Google. Almost all links found for this book are suddenly now removed. I did find this one:

I went into obsessive mode after reading:

I began to research all the players and found too many circumstances which caused me to rethink in a very different way.

Buckley said...

Yeah, I was suspect of the placement of it before, it seemed too perfect to make her seem innocent, while there's uncertainty about what he's doing in the paragraph, and kind of weak verbs, that statement, even though "assumed" isn't the strongest, it's not like "I think I remember we might be going..." I don't see that she uses the verb "assumed" anywhere else in the statement.

Then again, maybe "going for ice cream" is part of his "seduction" MO.

Buckley said...

I didn't say that well:

For all the uncertainty and lack of memory in the rest of the paragraph, "assumed" seems pretty strong and out of place there.

ima.grandma said...

Yes Buckley, the statement seemed so odd with no explanation of why she assumed this. She went into so much detail throughout the story, telling us her inner thoughts explaining why she was thinking what she was. Perhaps the ice cream statement was the real kicker in exacting revenge. Result: his book is now canceled.

Habundia, thank you so much.

General P. Malaise said...

"I assumed we were going to get ice cream."

"Andy unzipped his jeans and pulled out his penis. He asked me to suck it. I was scared and embarrassed, but I did it"

".....I opened my mouth and began to share"

I wonder if Jules had actually initiated the oral sex.

Anonymous said...

Gonna give it a go at the humiliation factor. I found this:

Savage told Ferguson that the day after the incident he made a “partial confession” to Woodlands Park Baptist Church Associate Pastor Larry Cotton, telling him only that he had kissed Woodson.

Read more here:

She poured her heart out and confessed her dirty secret to the pastor and he lied to cover his own azz. She spent Sr. year dazed, confused, depressed and feeling guilty. He went on to teach "True Love Waits" and stood tall to be loved on the church family members.

The only kissed part wasn't a gossip...he actually said it.

The humiliation isn't lost.

Tania Cadogan said...

I also wonder if she was concerned about her reputation in school and this explains her anger.

She puts out and word gets out in someway and she is then labelled a slut.
Her, a good christian girl who has probably spoken out proudly of being such, has spoken out about staying pure and chaste, saving herself for the right man, perhaps even to calling out others who have made out heavily or slept with someone.
Some christians can be very vocal and quite mean on calling out 'perceived sinners' being holier than thou, i'm going to heaven and your going to hell type of things.
Then she herself makes out with the at the moment love of her life and have him reject her and beg forgiveness from god which would in her mind paint her as a temptress, a harlot, a threat to a godly man that he needs to beg forgiveness from god because of what they consensually did.

She then becomes the butt of the comments, she is then no better than anyone else, she is the same as those girls she may have called out as sluts, harlots.

he left the church after she reported him and she was pissed he faced no punishment either legally or from the church elders since no crime had been committed.
The congregations probably had a good idea of ehat happened and perhaps even an idea of with whom.
Her standing in the church in her mind was also ruined,she would be painted as a slut if not openly then in people's minds.
Even if this were not the case, her own guilt makes her feel like this, everyone would be whispering behind her back.
I wonder if she stayed with that church or went elsewhere?

Years down the line he is a successful megachurch pastor with the staus and money that comes with it.
He is also married with children.
In her mind it should have been her up there with him, it is what she envisioned all those years back, probably her first love, her first boyfriend with all the dreams that come with it at that age.

She has anger at him, anger at his church for letting him become pastor, even anger at his wife for being where she should have been.

This is not aimed at only getting back at him and hurting him, it is anger at his church and his family.
This has stewed for a very long time affecting her life in many ways, perceiving a crime where there was not crime, corrupting her soul.

Once the #metoo broke with all the accusations of rape,sexual assault,sexual harrassment and other claims some truthful some deceptive, she felt she now had the non judgemental support of other genuine victims and women in general to speak up and tell her 'story' with little fear of being called out on it, knowing many would claim any denial of the true facts was to be expected by an abusive male, a man who could not be trusted, in fact all men who cannot be trusted.

Even though she told us it was consensual, she cannot bring herself to admit it was so and lays all the blame on him and paints herself as the innocent virginal victim.

My concern is if what he says is true and there was no crime as it was consensual (as in her own words) would she harm herself on learning that once again there is to be no punishment?
What if he remains as pastor with his church and nothing changes, what would or could she do?

if he leaves voluntarily or otherwise, i suspect she would continue to hound him, every job he got she would repeat her story.
She wants him a broken man.

God may forgive him, she won't

LuciaD said...

Her saying "suddenly" he unzipped his pants indicates she is withholding info at that point. My guess she is leaving out consensual kissing and petting. She was into it.

ima.grandma said...

I love your summary statement Hobs.
God may forgive him, she won't.

I read the #churchtoo hashtag was created two months ago. Once you figure in the timeline presented by Darcy and "others"... Well, too plus too equals four.

I'd be interested in reading an analysis of Andy's statement:

As a college student on staff at a church in Texas more than 20 years ago, I regretfully had a sexual incident with a female high school senior in the church. I apologized and sought forgiveness from her, her parents, her discipleship group, the church staff, and the church leadership, who informed the congregation. In agreement with wise counsel, I took every step to respond in a biblical way.

I resigned from ministry and moved back home to Memphis. I accepted full responsibility for my actions. I was and remain very remorseful for the incident and deeply regret the pain I caused her and her family, as well as the pain I caused the church and God’s Kingdom.

There has never been another situation remotely similar in my life before or after that occurrence. The incident happened before Amanda and I were engaged and I shared every aspect of this situation with her before I asked her to marry me. I further disclosed this incident to Chris Conlee before coming on staff at Highpoint and have shared with key leaders throughout my tenure.

This incident was dealt with in Texas 20 years ago, but in the last few days has been presented to a wider audience. I was wrong and I accepted responsibility for my actions. I was sorry then and remain so today. Again, I sincerely ask for forgiveness from her and pray for God’s continued healing for everyone involved.

 A Word from Chris Conlee

This information is not new to me or to our leadership. As one of my closest friends and partners in ministry, I can assure you that I have total confidence in the redemptive process Andy went through under his leadership in Texas. In addition, for more than 16 years, I have watched Andy strive to live a godly life and proactively share what he has learned to help others.

On behalf of the elders, pastors, staff, and Trustees of Highpoint, I want to affirm that we are 100% committed to Andy, Amanda, and their family and his continued ministry at Highpoint Church. We ask for your prayers and support for all involved.

Anonymous said...

She felt special and attractive to him, and likely knew she had an element of power over him due to his sexual attraction to her. That made her feel like a woman, and then in the middle of this exciting and consensual encounter, he all of the sudden begs her not to talk about it and lament the mistake he made. In doing this he rejected her, and in rejecting her, he negated her. She's no longer special. She then feels disdain for him and is embarrassed. In fact it almost seems she is ashamed of him.

Anonymous said...

There again, every time a member of this/that congregation speaks, my head starts to spin.

Break it down:
As a college student on staff at a church in Texas more than 20 years ago, I regretfully had a sexual incident with a female high school senior in the church. I apologized and sought forgiveness from her, her parents, her discipleship group, the church staff, and the church leadership, who informed the congregation. In agreement with wise counsel, I took every step to respond in a biblical way.

1)He was a member of staff (paid somehow I'd assume and given lodging)
2)I apolgized (We weren't there to pick up on nuances that she deemed sliding across the dirt on his knees with his hands on his head like he were Chuck Berry or something)
3)He sought forgiveness form the leadership, her parents and discipleship group and the church staff (Okay, according to her that's a big ole NO!)
4)He responded in a biblical way????? (note on capital "B", which makes me wonder why he'd reduce the sexual encounter to mere kissing when confronted by church staff and by his own admission...the lies aren't lost to even the Lost)
5)EVERY STEP....Okay, just what exactly would a Christian leader spell that out to be?

Nope...he started duping and lying at age of 22 in his role in the church, odds are he's still at it and only better.

Buckley said...

Andy Savage's admission and request for forgiveness is considerably better and more sincere than any of the recent ones we've heard from the Hollywood/D.C. crowd, though admittedly, it's a low bar.

ima.grandma said...

Andy's own hypocritical words of August 2015

Sign #4: Overlooking the red flags of someone’s past

“It’s no big deal.” 

“That was a long time ago."

“He’s changed."

I’ve heard nearly every excuse in the book from love-blind men and women trying their best to dismiss the red flags of someone’s past. Now, I’m all for forgiveness, redemption and true change. However, love-blind people don’t wait for proof. That’s the problem. If you see red flags in someone’s past, don't dismiss them, don’t make light of them . 

Sign #5: Excusing obvious bad behavior

There is no good reason to allow obvious bad behavior to go unchecked in a relationship. Love-blind people are suckers for being taken advantage of by bad behavior. The last thing love-blind people do is confront negative issues. However, bad behavior NEEDS appropriate consequences to incite change, if change is possible. It is never a good idea to let obvious bad behavior to be swept under the rug. I’m not concerned about the occasional misstep. I’m concerned about the deep character flaws behind ongoing disrespect, critical spirit, profanity, pornography/sexual addiction, substance abuse, deception/lying, and all forms of physical, emotional, verbal and sexual abuse

General P. Malaise said...


"he suddenly stopped, got out of the truck and ran around the back and to my side before falling to his knees. I quickly buttoned my shirt back up and got out of the truck."

"Now I was terrified and ashamed."

"I remember him pleading, while he was on his knees with his hands up on his head, ‘Oh my god, oh my god. What have I done? Oh my god, I'm so sorry."

these lines tell us what she is concerned about, she is setting up the reason she made the complaint. it is at this point she is realizing she is being rejected. it is flowing out as we see it solidify in her next sentences.

"My fear and shame quickly turned to anger."

"I had just been manipulated and used."

there is no talk about the sexual component let alone any assault.
her not being able to damage Andy further by reporting him adds to her humiliation as we see more words are spent post event. for her the event is the rejection and the fact that Andy is not punished enough and this event carries through the rest of the narrative.

"As days passed I remember feeling more and more hopeless. I was confused as it seemed that Andy got to go about his day to day life."

what punishment would be enough for her to overcome her rejection?

" Something came over me that night. I remember feeling disgusted and frustrated. What happened to me was not right! Why were my pastors not listening?! "

this is the second rejection in her reality. the entire narrative is her sense of humiliation first from Andy's physical rejection and then the perceived rejection of the church leaders as they did not ascribe a suitable (to her) punishment to Andy. she is willing to metaphorically burn up the life of Andy, burn down the church and even immolate herself to assuage her humiliation.

LuciaD said...

Spot on. What amazes me is her anger at 17 has lasted so long she still wants revenge 20 years later! When she knows it was consensual! That's a special kind of hate.

Hey Jude said...

Anon and John McGowan:

Principle: The word “left” when used as a connecting verb, is an indication of missing information.

When the word “left” is used as a connecting verb, connecting one place to another, there’s always a missing story. When it is not used as a connecting verb, it is not to be highlighted. For example, “I left a message on her voicemail” would not be highlighted for sensitivity. Only when the word “left” is used to connect one place to another, is it to be considered sensitive to the subject.


'There had been multiple kids there at the church after school, but as the night got later I was the only student left, alone in the church with Andy. I did not have a vehicle at the church, so Andy offered to take me home to my Mom's house.'

'left' is not used as a connecting verb there - it is used as in 'my pen was the only one left on the table'. I think you wouldn't highlight it.

Lars Bak said...


"he suddenly stopped, got out of the truck and ran around the back and to my side before falling to his knees. I quickly buttoned my shirt back up and got out of the truck."

This is the second time she uses "suddenly" (withholding information). Wouldn't it be highly, highly unwxpected if he didn't ejaculate? That's what can frighten an unexperienced young girl and make her feel used. And it can also explain Andy's strong remorse. Doesn't the church teach that semen goes one place only and for one purpose only? He has sinned big time.

Lars Bak said...

It might appear that there will be more to this story.

In this article:

- it is stated:

The legal age of consent in Texas is 17. But Texas Law also identifies as assault an encounter that involves "a clergyman who causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person's emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman's professional character as spiritual adviser.

There is no statute of limitation for prosecution of sexual assault under this circumstance. Under Texas law, a sexual assault is typically a second degree felony. It carries a sentence of two to 20 years in a state prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000.

It seems that Ms. Woodson formally has a legal claim against Mr. Savage in spite of the consensus here that it was a consensual incident (which I share).

The article further states:

Woodson said if nothing else comes from her story, "I want other victims of sexual abuse, especially within the church, to know that they're not alone and to know that they have a voice."

Does the “if” suggest that she is in the process of taking further action – she has recently spoken to the police?

Lars Bak said...

Well - she tried (attempted and failed):

Anonymous said...

- Willow -

In all this is a tragedy on many levels. So much you all have already written here that not many angles are untouched.

Is it enough for Andy, 22, to have got an implied technical consent from Jules, 17?
What kind of consent was it? Based on which kind of information?

A rule of thumb says that a proper consent to sexual intimacy cannot be given if the giver does not understand what it is that she is consenting with.
Or, if the giver does not feel safe to say no and leave the place (fear).
Or, if the other party is a spiritual leader with authority over the consent-giver (pressure).
Or, if on top of all this the other party has insinuated that a real relationship could ensue (grooming by Andy), and that they are not a predator exploiting a female.

Had the 22 year old been open about his plan to make out this particular way with Jules beforehand, she could have been able to make a more informed choice to participate or not. The tragedy could have been avoided, maybe, altogether.

The info from Andy to Jules should have been given at safe surroundings with safe people preferably near by, from where Jules could have easily and safely gone home by herself after deciding "no".

- Andy should have verbalized that he hopes that she will assist his self-pleasuring by her mouth.

- He could also have given the important info that he is not available for a relationship with her. At least this is not in his plans at the moment.

- A point of importance would have been to inform her beforehand that this encounter would not be mutual pleasuring.

- Instead he, Andy, planned to take care of his own needs with her compliant facilitation and cut himself out of the situation right after. At least this was a likely possibility.

- Andy may have been inexperienced and ignorant. But if he was honest, as he likes to portray himself, he could have told her in advance precisely that.

Had she, Jules, got this info from Andy at a safe place without any pressure, able to pose Andy further clarifying questions, she could have taken the matter in consideration better.

Hey Jude said...

Well, how do you know Jules didn't rape Andy? There's quite a bit of missing information there.


Just being annoying - she did say he asked her and that he got it out himself.


What was the surprise, though - that he was going to jump out of the truck and fall to his knees asking God's forgiveness? I suppose that would have been a bit of a surprise. Ice-cream is not a surprise though - ice-cream is just ice-cream.

Anonymous said...

General M,
I disagree with almost all that you wrote.

At first blush, her story makes no sense. After attempting to put myself in her shoes, it's easier to see how this was larger than life to her at the time and left a lifelong scar.

She was in high school; her senior year. Her parents were divorcing;home life wasn't good. Her church family turned on her too. Her world came crumbling down when her life should have been getting off to a good start.

No, her story doesn't compare with many we've heard and read about, but the scarring left behind is still there.

Was what happened a crime? Doubtful.

Does it have to be?

Perhaps her cause could use a little work, but the pain is still felt.

Filing a report with missing and exploited children would be humiliating in and of itself...there again, she's surrounding herself with the wrong people.Once again, her "abuser" gets applauded and she gets relegated to the deep dark abyss...surrounding herself with the wrong people.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
General M,
Perhaps her cause could use a little work, but the pain is still felt.

what is her cause? what caused her pain? she is telling us and I don't think it was the sexual part that is either the cause nor the reason for her "pain".

in my opinion it is the rejection she feels. humiliation. now after so much time passed and Andy is successful (or was) her humiliation is ramped up. plus there is the possibility that there may be a $ angle.

Lars Bak said...


Even today - after twenty years - she can't brung herself to say in her statement that she was assaulted. She only does that outside of the statement which may indicate "lawsuit on it's way".

She frames the sentence "I didn't stop him", she says a lot about how she thought and how she felt - can we ask Andy to be a mindreader. Nowhere does she mention that he put pressure on her.

Anonymous said...

Her "cause" is sexual abusers in the church. The fallacy of that is, by her own admission, she participated. Their ages were close. She thought they had a relationship.

He lied about what happened after she told every detail. He went on to teach classes to singles...that's the cause!

The church should have had a young married couple leading that youth group as they are more prone to trouble and need both male and female leadership.Nothing got done until she confessed to her female discipleship group. I'm guessing it was led by a woman. too.

Her anger, as I see it, is at the men (associate pastor and main pastor)who believed him over her for whatever reason.He went on to prosper in the Christian world and she was left behind...similar to real life situations outside the church. Her situation is based on humiliation and power control of the church that keeps perpetuating the same culture of shame.

Her story isn't the same as what happened in Alabama or even close to the media hysteria of's different, but has it's place.

Habundia said...

General lol, She got her ice cream didnt she? Hahaha, sorry had to make that comment.

Still i have difficulties with this, maybe its because of my own experience in life (it probably is), but i think men get away too easy when they use and abuse wonen (i am not saying woman dont use and abuse men, they should be held accountable the same), it doesnt make their actions anything less abusive when they appologize. The fact he said "there has never happened anything like that before or after", would that not be deceptive? Or did they ask him if something similar ever had happened before or after?

Being sorry (in the midst of the act) for having "consensual" sex, would be called abuse in my dictonairy. It isnt an assault though, but it is a form of mental abuse, make someone think they are special while in fact they only wanted to get rid of their seemen to then appologize for having done so.....this kind of abuse can cause lifelong trauma too (although absolutely not compareble with sexual abuse trauma, dont get me wrong), it surely can cause psychological issues.

So i do think her complaint is legit, it isnt what #metoo stands for.

Anonymous said...

Not. Even. Close. To assault and this bs crap of trying to manipulate the facts to make it look like assault is a slap in the face to real victims.

LuciaD said...

What is it you believe Andy lied about? Sounded to me like he's admitted to a consensual sexual encounter with her.

Nic said...

Peter said,
She now reports what she did not do. This is also an indicator of deception in context:

I didn't say that I screamed no, jumped out of the car and ran into the dark forest because I hadn't.

This is fascinating. She feels the need to not only report what she did not do, but explain why she did not lie.

This is consistent with one familiar with lying as she has the "need to assert."

This is really interesting analysis!!

John Mc Gowan said...

I assumed we were going to get ice cream.

Why would she "assume" they were going for "ice cream"?
Had they done this ("ice cream") befor?
What is her deffinition of "ice cream"

Anonymous said...

Location, imo, is the mainstay of this not so drama...well, er, drama.

Houston is like LA or New York city. She lived on the outskirts. He was a youth pastor there. Now he is pastor of a church in an area more like Detroit...Memphis. The state is also known for capturing some of the most notorious child abusers on earth. It's also the vicinity of which West Of Memphis was filmed.

The lying in the media isn't lost on even the Lost. The link below states he admits to sexual assault; no such event ever occurred.

Savage lied, Woodson lied, the pastors lied, the bloggers are currently in the process of lying. It's like a snowball headed towards hell!

But I am a robot! said...

Quoting Willow:
Or, if on top of all this the other party has insinuated that a real relationship could ensue (grooming by Andy), and that they are not a predator exploiting a female.
This does not even come close to nonconsensual under the law! There are a lot of reprehensible ways people treat one another that, while disgusting, do not fall under criminal behavior.

And they shouldn't -- can you imagine the courts-clogging disaster of trying to codify every individual's personal definition of love, relationship, committment, future, etc., etc.?

Victims of actual sexual assault and other predatory behavior would wait 50 years for their day in court.

Hey Jude and Habundia, innocent little "Cherry" Garcia got her ice cream, all right...

And to clarify, she was an active participant from arranging the ride home to enjoying the physical contact -- the manipulation and humiliation began with his anguished Jim Bakker skit immediately after.

Bob Seger sums up this one best:

I used her; she used me
Neither one cared -- we were gettin' our share

We weren't in love, oh no, far from it
We weren't searching for some pie in the sky or something.

We were just young and restless and bored.

Everybody scored.

Habundia said...

But I am a robot! said...

General P. Malaise, this:

"he suddenly stopped, got out of the truck and ran around the back and to my side before falling to his knees..."

Is what instantly told me it's a calculated act and not being suddenly overcome with remorse.

Had he sincerely felt that, he'd have toppled out of the truck onto his knees, not rushed around to her side, arms on head, to give her an unobstructed view of his theatrics.

Add to that his priority of swearing her to silence, and his wording that (to save his own pathetic butt) she must take it to her own grave, not his or even their graves.

But I am a robot! said...

YES!!! Not to pick on anyone, as my SA knowledge is minimal; this one just gets me as the non-connecting verb use doesn't match the concept or logic of the missed time.

Anonymous said...

Her terror most likely lay in the fact he abruptly exited the truck and took off running.

Someone from SE Texas who is in their teens might expect a grotesque oversized male with a potatoe sack pulled over his head wielding an axe or something...not a hysterical male that she admired.

But I am a robot! said...

Thanks, Willow, for trying to clarify which Anonymous posts are you.

Just friendly fyi, if you choose Name/URL from the dropdown list, second from bottom, you need only type in your name and leave blank the URL space and it'll be bolded at the top of your post with no need to remember to add it each time.
(it will even offer it to click on and auto-fill in when you select the posting option after that.)

Adding it to the post your way clarifies you for us just fine; this just makes it easier for you. :^D

Anonymous said...


I went on a date with Aziz Ansari. It turned into the worst night of my life

Exclusive -- A young photographer told the comedian: ‘I want to make sure you're aware so maybe the next girl doesn't have to cry on the ride home’

Nic said...

tania said,
He then got out the car and apologized, not to her but to god.

Bingo. He “marked her” and played on her intense crush compounded by raging hormones and puppy love fantasy to get a blow job. She was just a challenge to him. Interesting considering his aspirations (to plant/grow a church I think it’s called.)

They should have fired him. Her parents, upon finding out what happened, should have insisted that he be immediately dismissed. You have to wonder, if the parents wouldn’t advocate on behalf of their daughter in this situation, what other times in her life were they “absent” on issues concerning her.

I though it weird that she would go to the party - or her parents if they were informed what happened beforehand, which if I understand correctly, they were.

Nic said...

Blogger Buckley said...
Does this tell us she was at her alleged assaulter's "going away" party:

Re my comment above. My impression is she was there. And I'm ASSuming so were her parents (being that they were and still are part of the congregation.)

For example, when I found out that the church had contacted my parents, years later, and asked their permission to bring Andy back on staff, it brought back a whirlwind of emotions. Of course, my parents said NO, but even learning of this was traumatizing.”

Why the need to persuade? She said she found out, not i.e., that her parents called to tell her. What would be more traumatizing, her parents saying yes initially, (not much of a leap if they went to his send off party and were "loving on him"); or "no", right out of the gate.

ima.grandma said...

Andy posted this two days after Jules sent the email to him asking "do you remember?" The ice cream book image is posted here.

If you haven’t heard, I’ve written a book. It’s called, The Ridiculously Good Marriage. The book releases nationwide on July 3, 2018. If you want to check it out, you can see it here and even pre-order it. Honestly, pre-ordering the book would be one of the best ways you could show your support for me and the long term reach of the book. But most importantly, I want to offer you practical ways to experience what I’ve written about. So, here are 5 ways to make your marriage Ridiculously Good in 2018.

Andy Savage, Pastor of Relevant Environments 
“The Smoke and Soul guy.” 

Andy was born and raised in Memphis and calls his hometown “the best place on earth”. Andy’s unique nickname, “the Smoke and Soul guy”was given to him by his good friend David Edwards to describe Andy’s passion and giftedness to create Relevant Environments by building creative context or “smoke” (the cool stuff you see on the surface; backdrops, lighting, video, marketing, etc.) to communicate Biblical truths that bring genuine life change or “soul” (the behind the scenes work of leading leaders, vision casting and creative planning). You will find Andy working on the three major “Foyers” of Highpoint; Sunday service, Kidcity and The Loop.

Anonymous said...

2 questions
Is "statement analysis" admissible in court?
Why not "analyze" Savage's statements?

Here's my wild guess: You find people deceptive when it fits your ideological (I.e., Trumpish) beliefs. And that's why none of this nonsense is admissible in court.

Alex said...

If the Pastor climaxed then got out of the truck and apologized, then his histrionics would be suspect. However, if he stopped her before he climaxed then that shows a man with remorse and self control.


Anonymous said...

I will attempt to answer Anon @5:36 questions while Peter and his ilk fume a while.

Here goes:
1)Statement analysis is NOT admissible in court; neither are polygraph tests-they are tools to be used in determining truth.

2)Your wild guess doesn't hold water but enough to take a sip from. The Last Supper is being served from both the Left and the Right. Expect some elbowing and water being spilled on to your robes from here on out.

Lilstr said...

What I look at here is what would be expected vs the unexpected. If in those years going out for ice cream was what dates did in a small town (no pun intended) it sounds plausible in a naive way.

But what strikes me as most compelling is what did not happen. The kiss.

Had he driven her to her mom's, parked on the driveway and tried for a kiss, the encounter would have been completely different.

She would have been able to/could have easily consented or not, gotten out of the car or not; being safely near her home.

What the (albeit one-sided) account describes are damning:
-it was premeditated
-the car was turned around in a dead end, ready to scram
-it had elements to scare the other person, in the woods, in an unknown place, headlights turned off
-it was for self-pleasure only (again, no mutual kiss)
-it was sexual and not romantic
-I agree with the other poster that stated "you'll take this to your grave" is a threat!

The "we" after the incident does baffle in the SA sense. So my only explanation is the difference in age/sex and expectations. If she was an unexperienced young 17-year old woman as she portrays herself, hanging out and trying to get his attention, her expectations of it being romantic are there. His expectations seem to be for self-gratification and sexual. If my hypothesis is true, pleasing him, doing what he asked for are confused with "this is what I need to do to get his love". It may be naive but it's plausible for a young woman to think this way.
This may be why some here think it was "consensual" and others not. IMO someone that has not had a relationship this notion is not clear. I don't think she knew what "it" was. You cannot consent to something you don't know. And confusing romance and sex could give off this grey, unclear area.

I still think she's confused about the two. The apparent clues she gives to her wanting to sue the church or hop on the bandwagon may be a way to ease her humiliation wounds, but it will never ease the fact that he "used" her. And being singled out as "the one" albeit for sex, may be why she still uses "we" in a romantic sense.

Anonymous said...

That "wart blog" is involved in teaching churches now though they admit they are amatuerish mere bloggers that mainstream media called upon for data and photos. Here's a topic header on one post:

A tutorial for churches on what not to do when something like this happens to your church: Looking at the Highpoint Church service on Sunday 1/7/18.

Soooooooooooo, and then, therefore, hence and their problems with people preaching against criticism...they beotch constantly!

After reading some of it, and it's hard, it feels like web slueths members with their non nonsensical rhetoric that ties to nothing.

BAsed out of North Carolina (at least that's where the phone number is routed through) they seamlessly and flawlessly tracked down a woman once based on the outskirts of Houston after a major movement they finally were able to enter, be it the most feeble attempt at helping sexual abuse survivors known to man/womankind...they got national recognition for complete idiocy!

Mobbing in the church and unsolicited advice from morons. That's the Internet age.

ima.grandma said...

I assumed we were going to get ice cream.
He turned onto a dirt road and continued to drive. 

I'm also originally from a very rural small town. The town's sole source of so-called fast food; hamburgers and ice cream, etc. was a Dairy Hut located down from Main Street (practically the only street except for the residential area). My question: wouldn't she be aware that ice cream vendors are not located on dirt roads? 

Continuing on through her narrative, she does not mention at what point she realized they weren't going for ice cream. I don't know why it was important enough to include her assumption in her opening portion and not mention it again.

The word "kiss" wasn't referred to in her statement. Since she informed the church leaders what happened the evening in question, wouldn't they remember "kissing" wasn't part of her "confession" and further question Andy once they listened to his version of events?

Buckley said...

Incidentally, one of the two "bloggers" who is part of the group promoting Jules' story and fighting abuse and cover up in churches is Amy Smith of Watch Keep. She posted here a lot in the Davey Blackburn threads, as one trying to expose his strange behavior.

But I am a robot! said...

From ima.grandma's quote of Andy shilling his now-canceled book:
Honestly, pre-ordering the book would be one of the best ways you could show your support for me and the long term reach of the book.

Whaaaa??!!? For the sweet love of freshly roasted coffee, does this man have a molecule of restraint, shame or self-respect?

"Honestly, just send me money, only money, and lots of it!"

Give him credit for his blunt honesty here, and bonus points for the rare proper, truthful use of the term "Honestly, ..."

As to the ice cream issue, I think it's a version of artificially placed emotions with a bit of narrative building.

Ice cream sounds so carefree and innocent and sweet, a stark contrast to the exploitative older man and his base desires that confronted her in the woods instead of a double scoop of sugar, cream and fruit.

Jokes and puns aside, I think she did choose it as her impression of what she'd expected instead because of the obvious phallic connotation; she wants us to believe she was picturing ice cream cone while in stark contrast, he had the same visual, much different er... cone.

Lilstr said...

That's exactly my point. The fact that the words "kiss" or "kissing" is missing points to a more despicable unfolding of events. It points to a premeditated abuse of an enamored, inexperienced woman, away in the woods for self-gratification.

Anonymous said...

Here's the deal:
Why waste all that time and energy trying to expose Davy Blackburn's strange behavior when he himself did that for the whole world to see?!!

Did he commit a crime? No. Did he murder his wife? No. Did he hire someone to murder her for him? No. Were they there when he found his murdered wife? No.

The same with the Wart bloggers.
Was Jules sexually assaulted? No. Was there spiritual abuse? Maybe...I'm teetering towards yes, but stay at maybe as I wasn't there.
They cite male abuses that occurred in London in the 50s and claim to be fighting church abuse in the USA. It makes my head spin! Why not cite USA cases and their involvement there? And, within the generation that someone Jules' age can relate to?
One claims to be a victim of church abuse, but I couldn't find that testimony on the blog as it wasn't obvious. Why? One has aspirations of being a writer for spiritual purposes; one came to know the Lord during Star Trek. Again, my head is spinning.

Maybe I'm just not smart enough to get it!

Anonymous said...

If only Davey himself would issue reliable denials to all of the above...

Anonymous said...

One thing I think is worth mentioning is the fact that Highpoint Church posted the Commercial Appeal as three times in a roll one of the best places to work in Memphis. They came out this morning with lies about one of their pastors. Wonder it that'll change their view, or promote them more?

It's about art and promotion; spiritual matters come last. Abuse in whatever form will bite the dust as they race for ratings and capitalize off the doomdom of others.

LuciaD said...

Lilstr @9:23 the word kissing is being withheld , deceptively, by Jules. I am quite certain there was consensual making out prior to Andy unzipping his pants. Her words indicate she has left things out, lying by omission.

ima.grandma said...

"There was just this big cover up, and I felt so much pressure to come forward," Woodson said.

This statement is telling. 

Jules is being used as an operative to unite these movements ~ #metoo and #churchtoo ~ seeking to bring all Christian denominations, news organizations and victims into a universal conglomerate to bring attention to the cause of fighting sexual abuse.

habundia said...

@alex A man with self control would not take a 17 year old to the woods to have sexual interaction to then stop and have remorse....doesnt matter if he had climaxed or not

Habundia said...

"I'm also originally from a very rural small town. The town's sole source of so-called fast food; hamburgers and ice cream, etc. was a Dairy Hut located down from Main Street (practically the only street except for the residential area). My question: wouldn't she be aware that ice cream vendors are not located on dirt roads?"

She (and him) were the only left on a party after everyone had left and she had no drive home.
How did she come to the party? Was she brought by her parents? Did she walk? Did she come with friends? She doesnt mention any of that. It doesnt seem like she was with someone else to that party. So how would she have go home if she didnt had gone with Andy? Did they made an appointment earlier that evening to go for a 'ride' together? Or did she stayed with hopes he would bring her home?

What time was it when the party was over? Because I live in a small town where after 10 pm you will not be able to get any icecream anywhere (only from your home freeze i guess), so did they go early in the evening that it would have been possible to get ice cream? Or would the time they left the venue (after everyone had gone and they were the only two people left) be to late to even think of getting ice cream?

Habundia said...

"She introduces "terrified" into the account. We need to see what he did that terrified her in order to believe her."

Could it be that someone suddenly stopping from the sexual act they are in and running around the car be a reason to become 'terrified'? Not knowing what will happen next can cause anxciety.....although 'becoming terrified' is a step 'further' then anxciety.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

I was hoping that readers would focus on her change of demeanor from anticipation and excitement to contempt.

She held him in contempt.

One analyst wrote to me exploring the realty that at that point, where she promised just to shut him up, she was in control over him.

I will see if I still have her email and post it. It was excellent insight.


Habundia said...


"He has now told reporters: "I am not a racist. I'm the least racist person you have ever interviewed."

Trumps respons to his comments during a meeting last friday.

So he is a racist? Only the 'least' racist person (the interviewer ever have interviewed) So he knows what persons the interviewer has interviewed during his work as interviewer/reporter?

Does the fact he did not stop his statement after 'I am not a racist', made his statement deceptive? If he would only have said 'I am not a racist', would it then have been a truthfull statement?

Anonymous said...

Does the fact he did not stop his statement after 'I am not a racist', made his statement deceptive? If he would only have said 'I am not a racist', would it then have been a truthfull statement?

I don't think it makes him a racist. He qualifies it weakening the statement.

But I am a robot! said...

Habundia, I think even if it could pass, the added, "That, I can tell you." weakened it to mush. It's like Paul Black's adding "I told..." to his lies to bury them in technical truth.

"I can tell you" any words I'm capable of forming. "I can tell you" that I'm the first 51-year-old, disabled female to start at middle linebacker in the Superbowl.

But I am a robot! said...

ugh, apparently I can't tell you -- it's Super Bowl! aaaagh

Anonymous said...

Trump is not a racist, and Jules is not a victim.

Anonymous said...

Her behavior alone states that this wasn't an isolated incident. Still, she was 17.
He was her "youth minister."

The fact he lied to the church is telling. The first church he lied by reducing what had been done and already said by her that had been done. He went to his second church by lying by omission. He finally "fessed up" when he gets to Highpoint-or so he claims.

The first church wanted him back after the lie. Highpoint still wants him after he admitted he lied and continued to reduce her claims.

Why she'd do what she claimed she did is unfathomable; that needs to be explored. Not to blame her, but to up and do such a thing on mere request is odd.

For him to request such a thing considering his position in the such is banishment worthy, imo.

By most accounts written by American bloggers and the way the media is covering it, the subject is hard to understand.

Here's a link to a Netherlands blog that asserts what takes so long to get to via American sources (perhaps the BS sifter slows me down asking why is this an issue?):

Statement Analysis Blog said...

We look for racism in the language.

If POTUS is a racist, he will reveal this in the language and in his subsequent behavior.


Habundia said...

Thanks anonymous for that link.

"Here is the email that Jules sent to Andy Savage, Teaching Pastor of Highpoint Memphis.

——– Original message ——–

From: Jules Woodson

Date: 12/1/17 9:21 AM (GMT-07:00)


Subject: Do you remember?

Do you remember that night that you were supposed to drive me home from church and instead drove me to a deserted back road and sexually assaulted me?

Do you remember how you acted like you loved me and cared about me in order for me to cooperate in such acts, only to run out of the vehicle later and fall to your knees begging for forgiveness and for me not to tell anyone what had just happened?


This side gives some more information. It seems like him taken her for a ride and asking her to give him a blowjob, wasnt the first time he acted inappropiate with her (if the story is true that is)

At the same time i wonder..........
"Over time, Jules began to confide in him. She was going through some difficult trials. Her parents had recently gone through a divorce. Also, she once attended a party and became the subject of unwanted forced sexual activity. It so disturbed her that she confided in Andy because she trusted him as her pastor."

So if she had earlier experience of 'unwanted force sexual activity' why isnt she menioning this in her claim #metoo? Why would her experience with this pastor be the only story to tell and open up with if she had experienced earlier unwanted 'forced sexual activity?
Why does she not tell this?
Did she wrote that person an e-mail too (the one who had 'unwanted forced sexual activity' with her)?
Why does she call it 'unwanted forced sexual activity'? While the experience she had with Andy is called 'molestation'? What is the difference?
What has happened before what is called 'unwanted forced sexual activity'?

"Why she'd do what she claimed she did is unfathomable; that needs to be explored. Not to blame her, but to up and do such a thing on mere request is odd.

Except if you were forced that is............she didn't say she was forced though.

"I was scared and embarrassed"
I know when i was a teenager and had sexual interactions (the boy wanting me to give him a blowjob) with a boy (for the first time) could 'scare me and embarrasse me', not because the situation was abusive or i didn't want it, but because it was new and i was shy and insecure. She does not tell what exactly made her scared or feel embarrassed, so it could be because of shyness or insecurity.

But I am a robot! said...

Oh, the irony! His now-cancelled book has an image of an ice cream cone on the cover, incl a disturbingly Caucasian-flesh colored scoop lower front.

But I am a robot! said...

Forgot link:

Anonymous said...

With a cherry on top?

John Mc Gowan said...

But I am a robot!January 15, 2018 at 1:36 PM
Oh, the irony! His now-cancelled book has an image of an ice cream cone on the cover, incl a disturbingly Caucasian-flesh colored scoop lower front.


I assumed we were going to get ice cream.

Words don't come from a vacuum.

Had she read his book.
Was she aware of it?
Had she seen the cover
before reporting the alledged assault.?

ima.grandma said...

John: Had she seen the cover before reporting the alledged assault.? I believe she did. I also believe one of her supporting cast showed it to her.

Another point:

Andy Savage interview: the following shows the edited portions removed from the released transcript: 

BF: “All right, welcome back, it is the Ben Ferguson Show, um, Andy Savage, Highpoint Church, who is on with me today, um, and we are talking about, um, this issue, where a young girl in Texas, 17 at the time, um, has come out and said that 1) the church didn’t handle this correctly... ”

AS: “Um, uh, Ben, I did resign, um, when this happened. Twenty years ago, I resigned my position, I stepped away from ministry completely, for a season, um, and I engaged a redemptive process in my life. Uh, I maintained relationships, uh, with key pastors and counselors in my life, I maintained relationships with, uh, transparency, and uh, openness with people, uh, that uh, were trustworthy leaders in my life, uh, and I have rebuilt a life where I have changed, um, to the degree that the lessons I learned through this experience, um, allow me to help people in a way, um, that I-I never would have any other-other way.”

BF: “A lot of people are saying the only reason why you’ve been able to help people, and again, I say this bluntly, because I think it’s important, because you didn’t fully disclose this to the membership at Germantown [Baptist Church] when you were there, the membership at Highpoint [Church] when you were there. That this has been somewhat omitted from your ministry. Is that, is that a fair, way to put it, because a lot of people found out about this, that there was even an incident in Texas, because of a newspaper article, or they came to church on Sunday morning.”

AS: “I have, uh, over the years, been very willing to share, um ...”

AS: “As opportunity would, uh, would deem helpful. Um, uh, but, but no, I did not, uh, broadcast this information to the entire congregation.”

BF: “Are you sorry for that, to, to the, to – and I say this, forget everybody else, I’m talking about the people at the church, are you sorry that you didn’t be more transparent? Do you feel like you misled them by, by not broadcasting this, as part of your story?”

AS: “No, I believe I was honest and transparent with the leadership at Highpoint, um, and I think that was, uh, the right place for that information to exist.”

BF: “Let’s talk about the-the real issue, and that is, there are um, people that have started petitions to get you to force you out, to resign. Um, there are people that think that honestly you should be dead, uh, milder than that, there are people think you should be in jail. Um, if I was sitting in, y’know, in the chair you’re in right now, I think there’s a large part of me that would think, ‘Why don’t I just resign, and just go away?’ Um have you thought about resigning in the last week since all this became so public, where it’s on the front pages of literally every newspaper in the country?”

AS: “Yes. On several occasions in the last few days, I have wanted to quit.”

BF: ‘Have you offered your resignation?”

AS: “I did.”

BF: “When?”

AS: “On, uh, Sunday [January 7, 2018], I offered to Chris [Conlee] that I would resign, if that was in the best interest of our church”

BF: “What did he say to you then? I mean, because most people would think that it was a ‘no brainer’ um, you have all this turmoil, and you’re resigning. Yes, I’ll take that resignation and run with it.”

AS: “That would certainly be the easy thing to do. I cannot speak for him. I can speak about him. Uh, Chris [Conlee] and the leadership at our church, uh, believe, uh, what we have said, since we started the church, we believe in a perfect place for imperfect people. Um, we believe, that, um...”

Read more at:
FYI: there's been a twitter war going on between Ben Ferguson and Amy Smith. My money's on Amy.

Lilstr said...

Ok, I see your point.

But wouldn't she have said:

And suddenly....
instead of

to indicate an omission in her story?

I guess I'm new at SA and I'm trying to figure out clue words to detect omission.

Anonymous said...

John McGowan, I also wondered about her saying she assumed they were going for ice cream. On my very first reading, I was like, why would you assume that? Driving down a dirt road, must be ice cream time!


Anonymous said...

My understanding was that the book wouldn't be available for sale until July 3, 2018.

Are you certain that the ice cream cover was original or did someone hack the site and place it there?

It is odd coloring for ice cream. Especially the grey one. What's up with that?

I could see vanilla, chocolate, strawberry or pistachio on a different background; that cover is gross!

And the analogy to "Ridiculously Good Marriage" isn't conveyed. Ridiculous, on the other hand, is.

Something like that may be better on a dating manual as they feel the need to publish or perish.

Hafta wonder if they still regard the Bible as any source of information inside the church nowadays or not. Plain cover. Odd words. You get my drift.

John Mc Gowan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Mc Gowan said...

It's interesting that she said she assumed and not that they agreed to go for "ice cream" or if it was even mentioned.

By saying this, it can not be refuted because it's what she assumed and not what was discussed.

But I am a robot! said...

Savage is an outgoing corporate climber whose enthusiasm and ease in front of everyone from small groups to large crowds, as well as his ability to sway them to his point of view, has brought a lot of money for him and his churches.

Look at the number of ums, uhs, self-edits, stutters and rambling in just the few paragraphs ima.grandma kindly posted -- I stopped counting around 20.

Expected vs unexpected.

Good point, John. It's sort of another version of tacking on an "As I told..." to bury a lie in technical truth.

habundia said...

There isnt anything mentioned about the conversation during the ride from church to the moment they arrived at the woods. Except for the question to where they were going.

Anonymous said...

I agree. I have witnessed the antics of so called female 'children' from the online activity of my child's peers. These aren't (for the most part), innocent young girls, I think they could teach boys a thing or two.
As here I think they have a problem when they perceive they've been scorned. That's what happened here.
It didn't go from 0-60 in 10 seconds.
I always wanted a son. Now I'm kinda glad I haven't got one. I'd be terrified every time he went out.

Anonymous said...

Also Anon

Jules referred to a previous sexual assault(?)
[I’m unclear about what happened in that incident.]

I’m wondering to what extent the long-term effects of abuse influence
the feelings Jules’ expresses in her statement.

Did she ever talk about or get help for the previous encounter?
Has she experienced abuse as a child?

I’m no expert on dissociation.

My understanding is:

deep, real feelings/reactions from past abuse can surface during (or be triggered by)
non-abusive situations.

Iow, the feelings/reactions are very real, but are not really about the non-abusive situation or person

Dissociation is an essential consideration in abuse cases.

Without improved, solid, grounded understanding of the complexities of abuse, survivors will suffer from ensuing emotional “witch hunts” based on false allegations.

Mike Dammann said...

The emotional rollercoaster is key here. Within a few minutes she went from feeling special and excited to being completely rejected. He begged for forgiveness but what exactly was her state of emotions at the time he went out of the truck and right before?
As for "take it to your grave as someone here interpreted as a potential threat... In other circumstances I would agree. But not in a begging situation. And she didn't indicate feeling threatened.

As for her being under 18... From above comments I take it there was no law against it in that state?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Anonymous said...

This incident really sounds like it was consensual...inasmuch as a youth pastor / youth group participant can be considered consensual. He was 22 she was 17. Andy S. has stated in other interviews that there was kissing and heavy petting involved leading up to the oral sex, which he asked Jules to perform. Jules leaves this out of her narrative and actually makes the event sound like more of an assault. Sad story. Hopefully, both will find forgiveness and the Peace of God. It sounds like Jules is being coached and groomed for a coming financial lawsuit against both churches where Andy S. has served. Will be interesting to see how both participants represent themselves under oath in a court of law...if this story progresses to that point.

Anonymous said...

Jules' statement, "Do you remember how you acted like you loved me and cared about me in order for me to cooperate in such acts...." is most telling.
1. She asks if he remembers telling her he loved her, not if he remembers "assaulting" her and ruining her life for the past 7300 days. This shows, to me at least, that she is still resentful that he did not love her, that he lied to her so she would "cooperate in such acts".
2. The fact that she used the word "cooperate" proves she was not assaulted. Did she scream, try to scratch him, hit him, run off into the woods? NO!
3. The video of her watching Andy speaking to the church where she cringes and sobs..........A PATHETIC, STAGED CIRCUS orchestrated to obtain sympathy and outrage for her.
4. Why doesn't she ask God for forgiveness for her stupidity in believing he loved her?
5. She should be mad at herself for believing his lie about loving her; yet to say you've suffered for 20 years with these feelings? I don't believe it. One article said she was "using her maiden name". Maybe she went through a divorce, just like her parents, and she views herself as a failure. Just my humble two cents.