I didn’t put a lot of thought into this rebuttal. I didn’t need to. To quote Gary North, this is a “quickie.”
Wilson realizes the heat he is taking with having Randy Booth (CREC, Covenant Media Foundation) run the investigation. It’s like when the Mafia gets involved in football games. The game might be fun to watch, but no one doubts the outcome. Wilson writes,
The purpose of a judicial process is not, in the first place, to side with the victim. The point of judicial process is to determine, carefully and without jumping to conclusions, who the victim is.
That is very true. But that’s not the whole case. We are not saying you can’t have a trial to prove your innocence (tall order though it be). We are saying you can’t have your lieutenant run the thing.
As is the case with many of Wilson’s deflections, he tells a story that doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the issue. Unless you look closer, then he is actually shaming anyone who criticizes him. Let’s take a look.
If one of your kids runs in from the backyard with a tale of woe, saying that her brother hit her on the head with a stick, this is certainly grounds for an indictment. Mom really should inquire. But in the course of the trial, what if she discovers that he did so because she had been poking him with that same stick for the previous half an hour?
This isn’t that hard to decipher. Is he really saying he is justified in what he did because Natalie G. described some of the sex acts Wilson’s student made her perform? I don’t see any other line of reasoning possible.