How not to handle an abuse investigation

Justin Holcomb tends to cite bogus figures when it comes to cases of sexual assault, but I find myself in agreement with him on how some are treating a certain case - even somewhat in agreement with Rachel Held Evans as well. Here's some comments cited in a Christianity Today article by a child-abuse investigator named Boz Tchividjian (who has investigated similar cases for several Christian organizations in addition to having been employed in a related capacity by the state of Florida):

Quite frankly, any time a Christian institution responds or defends its behavior as it relates to sexual abuse allegations with quoting laws and hiding behind constitutions, it causes me concern ... An authentic, gospel-centered response to sexual abuse disclosures within an institution is to be transparent and to be vulnerable.

This is in response to the legal defence strategy of Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) in a lawsuit alleging coverup of sexual abuse in the organization. Basically the legal strategy rested on a combination of claiming protection for freedom of religion under the first amendment to the US constitution and under statute of limitations issues. This defence strategy seems ethically questionable even if valid from a legal standpoint.

Following dismissal of the civil lawsuit proceeding in this case, a few statements were released to which Boz Tchividjian also responded. e.g. there was the The Gospel Coalition statement about which Boz Tchividjian notes:

The statement by the members of the Gospel Coalition says the following as it relates to the statute of limitations and the dismissal of the case:
So the entire legal strategy was dependent on a conspiracy theory that was more hearsay than anything like reasonable demonstration of culpability. As to the specific matter of C. J. participating in some massive cover-up, the legal evidence was so paltry (more like non-existent) that the judge did not think a trial was even warranted. Does this sound like a statement that even appears to make an effort to be objective?

At best that statement seems misleading, and at worst it's an outright lie. On the issue of consistency Boz Tchividjian later notes:

Many of these men have not hesitated to write (or tweet) on the Penn State horrors, homosexuals in the Boy Scouts, and universal healthcare, but have been conspicuously quiet on this issue. And when they finally speak, what is omitted speaks more than what is said.

Here, for example, is Albert Mohler speaking about the Penn State sex abuse scandal. It does seem like rather partial behaviour on the part of those making the statements. It's somewhat natural to want to defend your friends - with the primary one defended in these statements being a friend of the their authors. However, the denomination's legal defence strategy has seemed quite dubious from an ethical standpoint.

The statute of limitations seems like a necessary feature for legal systems to help defend against false accusations. Any system needs to balance the innocent being punished and the guilty going free - you can expect both to happen in pretty much any legal system. To maintain that balance the statute of limitations seems worth retaining despite it possibly meaning some of the guilty go free. Yet, resting a case on that and "freedom of religion" without addressing the remainder of the case seems like a rather slimy defence strategy. It's also worth noting that the statute of limitations seems to only apply to civil claims rather than criminal ones and so far at least one person has been arrested and charged in connection to the evidence gathered as part of the building of the civil lawsuit. Apparently the statue of limitations issue also didn't affect a few of the plaintiffs but, as the alleged crimes in those instances occurred in another state, those plaintiffs were informed they had to file charges there. Of course, the dismissal of the civil lawsuit is also under appeal. We'll have to see what transpires.