“As result of a plea bargain, a jury trial for Jamin was avoided, along with a lot of embarrassment for everybody.” Douglas Wilson

Previously we saw that on August 15, 2005, Pastor Doug Wilson of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, met with Jamin Wight, Dr. Peter Leithart, and Natalie Greenfield’s parents to discuss Mr. Wight’s lewd & lascivious conduct against their daughter. Mr. Wight was 24-years old when he began molesting Natalie. She was 14-years old. According to the police report, Jamin Wight swore an oath before God that his written confession was accurate & true, and Mr. Wight swore that he would own responsibility for his crimes. Two hours after the meeting ended, Natalie filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Wight. She cited his sworn oath as proof that the crimes took place. The Moscow Police Department interviewed the five eyewitnesses to establish the veracity of Natalie’s testimony:

• Gary & Patricia Greenfield
• Dr. Peter Leithart
• Douglas Wilson
• Jamin Wight

Everyone agreed. Natalie Greenfield told the truth.

As for Doug Wilson, the man who presumably administered the oath, he has only mentioned this historic event once in public — namely, in a letter to the Moscow Police Department, which he wrote after the MPD asked him for a written statement.¹ This is it:

“The first thing we did was place Jamin under oath, and when he was under oath before God, we asked him if the written confession he had provided to the Greenfields some months ago was a true and accurate account. He replied that it was. . .” (Douglas Wilson, Letter to Officer Casey Green, page 1, August 22, 2005)

From that day forward we have no record of Doug Wilson citing Jamin Wight’s sworn confession of guilt under oath or referencing the meeting where he gave it. As noted, it was meaningless to Mr. Wilson, though he has never said why.

But Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson recognized the forensic value of Jamin Wight’s oath combined with his written confession and his verbal admissions to the MPD. Therefore he subpoenaed two of the eyewitnesses to testify in court — Gregory Dickison,² attorney at law, and Dr. Peter Leithart. There is no record that the Court subpoenaed Douglas Wilson. In the least we know that the State served notice to Mr. Wilson via the State’s Motions in Limine and 404(b) Notice:

For an order allowing the testimony of Douglas Wilson and Peter Leithart regarding statements made by the defendant in their presence during a meeting on August 15, 2005, which meeting was also attended by the victim’s parents, Gary and Patricia Greenfield. Although Mr. Wilson serves as pastor in Christ Church, which the victim and her family attend and defendant formerly attended, and Dr. Leithart serves as pastor of Trinity Reformed Church, which the defendant attends, the State respectfully submits that the August 15, 2005, meeting was not a “confidential communication” within the meaning of I.R.E. 505 in that the conversations in that meeting were not intended to remain private and, in fact, were part of an ongoing dialogue and discussion between the defendant and the victim’s parents which included an earlier meeting in December, 2005, where the victim’s attorney, Greg Dickison, was also present. (State’s Motions in Limine and 404(b) Notice, pages 3–4)

Doug Wilson was the State’s star witness. He was an eyewitness. He likely administered the oath. And the State planned to call him if this case went to trial. Then Mr. Wilson would have had to tell the whole truth regarding Jamin Wight’s sworn confession of guilt. Reading between the lines, Doug Wilson didn’t want to testify against his ministerial student. Presumably he didn’t want to create an undeniable record (audio recording & written transcript) of him bearing witness against Mr. Wight in defense of Natalie Greenfield. (Remember that Mr. Wilson chose his side in this dispute. He sat on the perpetrator’s side of the courtroom as opposed to the victim’s.) So he claimed that Mr. Wight’s sworn oath was part of a “confidential communication.” But the State knew otherwise: “the conversations in that meeting were not intended to remain private and, in fact, were part of an ongoing dialogue and discussion between the defendant and the victim’s parents. . .”

Further, Doug Wilson knew that if he took the witness stand, he could not control the questions and the State would control his answers. The prosecutor sent that signal as well:

Prohibiting the defendant from offering evidence of or arguing either express or implied consent of the victim or her parents. It is well settled in the State of Idaho that consent is not a defense to the crimes of Sexual Abuse of a child Under the Age of Sixteen (Idaho Code 18-1506) or Lewd and Lascivious Conduct with a Child Under Sixteen Years of Age (Idaho Code 18-1508) State v. Oar, 129 Idaho 337 (1996). (State’s Motions in Limine and 404(b) Notice, page 1)

This restriction meant Doug Wilson could not argue that Natalie consented to her abuse, contra the arguments he makes now. He could not appeal to a 14-year old’s private diary to defend his student’s lewd & lascivious acts. And he could not blame-shift responsibility for Jamin Wight’s crimes onto Gary & Patricia Greenfield, because of a “secret courtship.” If Doug Wilson had taken the stand, he would have lost control of the narrative.

Three weeks later, on March 8, 2006, Jamin Wight violated the terms of his sworn oath by plea bargaining a deal. He pled guilty to one count of SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF SIXTEEN YEARS, instead of facing all three counts. Mr. Wight had promised to own responsibility for his crimes, in a sworn oath, not bargain his way out of them. Further, the Kirk elders instructed him to do the same: “We have verbally instructed him (and have followed it up with a letter) that he is responsible to own his crime and take full responsibility for the consequences of it.”³ But Jamin Wight eluded facing full accountability for his crimes.

More importantly, Douglas Wilson eluded testifying under oath in a public trial against his pupil. Or as he explained it to Natalie in his blackmail letter, “As result of a plea bargain, a jury trial for Jamin was avoided, along with a lot of embarrassment for everybody.” Embarrassment indeed.

And Doug Wilson lived to lie another day.

---

¹ Officer Casey Green of the Moscow Police Department wrote, “On Tuesday August 16, 2005 at 1049 hours I was at the Anselym [sic] House located at Fifth and Washington speaking to Douglas Wilson. Wilson told me he was present during the meeting at 1000 hours on Monday August 15, 2005 where Wight ‘confessed’ his guilt and swore before god the information he put in his letter was true and accurate. Wilson told me they did not go into specifics about each incident, but spoke in general terms about what happened between Natalie Greenfield and Wight. Wilson told me Gary and Patricia Greenfield, Dr. Peter Leithart and Wight were present at this meeting. I asked Wilson to provide me a written statement about these events. Wilson agreed to do so.” (Supplemental Police Narrative, page 1)
² Gregory Dickison wore several hats at this time: He was legal counsel for Christ Church; he was Douglas Wilson’s personal attorney; and he was legal counsel to the Greenfields. Mr. Dickison was present when Jamin Wight hand-delivered his written confession to Gary Greenfield at his home in February 2005.
³ Letter from the Kirk elders to Jamin Wight, Christ Church Timeline on the Greenfield Situation.