The Contrast: Two cases by “S

This post is previously unreleased, and ‘backdated’ to keep it grouped with the rest of the story. To start at the beginning, return to: The Introduction.

Weekly or several times a week, lately, it seems this D & S fiasco resurfaces, and usually with some form of the following:  “You withdrew all of those posts because there was no truth in it, right?”

The answer is a resounding ‘No’. The previous posts, starting with the introduction to this post, are factual and have supporting evidence and documentation. I removed them because I lacked the courage and resilience to keep dealing with the fallout. Not to mention the religious triggers. ”

I spent this past year healing and strengthening, and setting better boundaries regarding how to manage the hundreds of messages that come in with this type of disclosure.

One of the victims  of  the alleged perp asked me to share about this case. I am doing so now. In the D. case, the gentleman also gave me permission to share.


For the following story I use the term ‘alleged perpetrator’ because I only have verbal admission from the alleged perp for some things she was accused of; admission for which a witness present. While evidence is helpful for prosecuting, it is not critical for legitimizing suffering. I will refer to this Alleged Perp as A.P.


In late April 2018 I worked in partnership with S, on a case involving A.P. who had “massaged breasts”, and had given treatments that were completely inappropriate. These treatments involved uncomfortable “massaging” of buttocks, breast ‘examinations’ for lumps, teaching the victim(s) how to massage sore breasts, among other things. When confronted, A.P. stuck to the story that the the ‘breast massages’ were done at the request of the victim(s), and justified the “treatment” as being for the good and health of the victims. This was to make sure there were no breast lumps, keep the muscles healthy etc.

When confronted, which I first did with a witness other than the person with whom I shared the case, A.P. was bewildered, with no clue why I would be there to discuss allegations of abuse. (I had not hinted at the details of those abuses.) I asked a series of questions like, “Did you ever see any of [the alleged victims] naked? Did they ever sleep in your bed? etc, until the truth came out. When all was said and done, there was acknowledgement of the ‘allegations’ but not of the ‘intent’. The actions had been misunderstood.

I met with A.P. again with some support people present for both sides. This included S,  with whom I shared the case and who invited me into it – so technically, they shared with me – and one of their ministry team members. A.P. also had a team of support people. I watched as S stood up for the victim(s). He was firm. He was relatively stoic. It was abuse, he told them, and there was going to be no debate about it; he had seen the aftermath and impact. This wasn’t about determining if it happened. It did. The question was “What are we going to do about it”.

To this, the alleged perpetrator and support team were informed that there was an expectation for A.P. to resign from ministry and never be in such a position again. This was met with, “That won’t be happening” by the support team. I responded with, “I have been told [by victim(s)] that it will be happening, even if it takes a lawsuit to get there.”

When one of the leaders supporting the alleged perpetrator started downplaying the breast touching, A.P. interrupted, saying, “It was wrong!” It took three interruptions for the defending to stop. I thanked A.P. for acknowledging the wrongs.

Nonetheless, full ownership was not taken as to sexual motive, or abusive motive. A.P. maintained the acts were misinterpreted and/or misunderstood. The only evidence I have is that I continue to have ongoing contact with the victim who gave me permission to write this. And I have no doubt that it is true.

In contrast here is a summary of D’s story:

I have hard evidence in my possession that the offender admitted to massaging buttocks, to touching thighs, to groping breasts. These are not accusations; this is the offender’s own admission and account of events (see audio in which he also states having told S what he had done).

It is my understanding that the offender approached S fall 2017, weeping and repentant, and that S believed he was sincere. The offender continued contacting vulnerable women and grooming them (until into the middle of May 2018, for sure), offering them money, telling them how beautiful they are, how deeply he cares about their hearts, and preying on the pain they have suffered and that kind of thing. This grooming included at least one young man with same-sex attraction, who – as a result of the blogs I released – sent me screenshots of a conversation between him and this offender which were questionable at best. (In response to the preceding blogs, respondents wrote and shared screenshots of their conversations. These are not false or hard-to-prove allegations.)

Even if it was ‘only’ the one act of touching breasts – though I have a confession for more – but even if it was only that, should that not be more than enough to be taken seriously?

How does someone who has been in this type of ministry for many years have one case that breaks all the rules? I don’t have an answer to that, and I can’t imagine what the agenda would be driving such a thing.

When I look at the way S defended the victim of A.P.  I see it as almost ‘textbook perfect’. When I contrast with the other perpetrator’s victim(s), where the suffering is downplayed or questioned, I am bewildered.

It forces me to ask the question, What was so different about D’s case and what did S have to lose? And, if nothing, then why this lack of discernment?

Furthermore, in the D. scenario S argued that the victim had said “it’s okay” after the offender apologized (after which D continued hitting up on women). S used that to make a case for doing nothing further with it.

As someone who has worked for years with victims, if an offender asks for forgiveness and the victim responds with “it’s okay”, this doesn’t mean “it’s over”.  It means “I can’t deal with it…. I don’t want to interact with you about it….” And any counselor or mentor who works with victims ought to know that it is likely a serious form of denial and deep buried pain… especially if it is revealed that there was more to the assault than was admitted in the original confession, and/or when it is discovered that the victim is actually struggling with suicidal tendencies or is generally not doing well.

In the case of D’s victim, it meant, “You ‘showed me Jesus’ and ‘cared about my heart’ which helped me heal from past trauma, and then you turned around and sexually assaulted me, leaving me in a place worse than you found me. I can’t be vulnerable with you again”.  So the victim said “it’s okay” because it’s the only way she could handle the trauma.  (And, yes, this is what I gathered from a conversation with the victim about her response to the abuser, an in her documented responses to him. She was sick of him harassing her.)

Having heard her story, and having one of her friends (a young woman) talk to me about watching the traumatic impact the assault had on the victim, I say, as this leader did with the A.P. case, “It is a sexual assault. There is no debate about that. I have seen the aftermath and impact.”

But, unlike the A.P. case in which S believed because he had “seen the aftermath and impact”, in D’s case S heard a confession from D acknowledging an assault took place, and still disregarded the victim.

Furthermore, I have more than enough evidence, which I have told S about. My reason for refusing to give him copies or share with him is because he chose to take some of what I shared with him to D – the offender.  Surely knowing that hard evidence exists, on top of the confession D made to S, should count for at least as much as ‘having seen the aftermath’.

(I have been given permission to “share as needed” some of the evidence I have in order to bring an end to the grooming, and to end the sexual violence against the vulnerable, against women and young people).Therefore, the question isn’t, and never should have been, “Did the perpetrator assault the young women?” It is, and always should have been, “What are we going to do about it?”

Noteworthy is the fact that this victim had nothing to gain by coming forward except peace of mind. The amount of money D dished out for her and those near her gave her every reason to cover up, and no reason to make up such a story. She stood to lose thousands of dollars going forward, if all the money he was throwing her way was going to come to a grinding halt. And it did.


Thoughts regarding the ‘D’ case

  1. S was warned that D was interacting in unhealthy ways with women and girls long before he assaulted the young woman. These warnings came through people who care for S and his wife.

  2. After assaulting the young woman (September 2-3), D went to S (end of September at LOP) “crying and repentant” and S accepted D’s story without reaching out to the victim to hear the other side of the story, or ever once asking how she is. (One later attempt was made after I confronted S about never once having checked up on the victim. He did so (sort of)  which ended with the same condescending and downplaying of the abuse and the victim’s response to it).

  3. No one was warned in spite of the confessed assault  in which D, to my understanding based on what D told me, told S he only touched the girl’s breasts. S said he believes the victim is lying about the rest, or at least parts of the rest of her story.

  4. In spite of knowing that D assaulted a girl, S directed another single woman to D in January 2018.  D ended up spending the night at her house, with no other adults in the house. He only held her in an extended hug, as far as physical touch, and later called her austere. (Evidence of this is also in the documentation).

  5. S continued to align with D, through a bogus confession – which S contacted KK to see if an apology might help lessen the public outrage against D.

  6. We know (and so does KK and RM – top leaders with ASAA – though not endorsed by them, to my knowledge) that S attempted to help D to get access to his under-aged children, with no regard for the trauma to them or their mom, and attempted to draw others into it as well. We know this leader played a role. Mrs. D saw a text from S pop up on her child’s phone, in which S asked for the Mr. D’s phone number. S later sent this to a woman he tried to recruit to go speak with Mrs. D. to let D have access to his minor children.

Proverbs 31:8  
“Open your mouth for those who cannot speak, for the rights of all who are destitute.”

As always…

~ T ~

© Trudy Metzger 2018