I've researched a lot of topics concerning WT history but I have to admit that the pedophile thing hasn't been one of them. However, check this out... I grew up with a guy I'll call "Dudley". According to an elder "Dudley" molested a younger guy in the congregation named "Tom". Years later, "Dudley" is in a congregation with my in-laws. "Dudley" and his wife want to be really close with my in-laws. My in-laws have a male child. I warn my in-laws about what I remember hearing about "Dudley". They are grateful I warn them. However they raise the question to me, "Why is Dudley still in good standing?" I didn't have an answer then. But I think I'm starting to formulate one now. You guys have more knowledge of the pedophile thing. Why do you think Dudley is still in good standing if the elders knew what he did? Help me flesh this out further in my mind.
Pieces of the puzzle from a pedophile's past
by JimmyPage 5 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
LtCmd.Lore
To remove him would be as good as an admition that they knew what he did. If he was ever convicted the authorities could rightly ask why the elders didn't turn him in dispite the fact that they knew what he did. So they don't do anything at all, thus preventing themselves from being liable.
For example, did you know that if you have a "Beware of Dog" sign, you are MORE likely to get sued? It's true, because putting up the sign is as good as an admission that you KNOW your dog is dangerous and yet you don't do anything to stop it.
If your dog is REALLY dangerous, then the correct course of action is to have it put down. And if the man is really a pedophile, the correct course of action is to turn him in.
-
MissingLink
He's in good standing because his numbers are good. That's all that matters.
-
AndersonsInfo
Dudley is in "good standing" because he denied Tom's allegation and Tom did not have "two witnesses" to the molestation event to backup his accusation. Consequently, the elders demanded that Tom not tell anybody about being molested by Dudley or he would be disfellowshipped for slander. The elders followed the Watchtower's policy to a tee. However, note that although Dudley might be a capable, intelligent man, why is he not being used as a servant in the congregation, although there is a shortage of men? That's usually a sure clue that he's marked by the elders for a reason which is connected with an accusation of molestation, etc. Barbara
-
crazyblondeb
Dudley is in "good standing" because he denied Tom's allegation and Tom did not have "two witnesses" to the molestation event to backup his accusation. Consequently, the elders demanded that Tom not tell anybody about being molested by Dudley or he would be disfellowshipped for slander. The elders followed the Watchtower's policy to a tee. However, note that although Dudley might be a capable, intelligent man, why is he not being used as a servant in the congregation, although there is a shortage of men? That's usually a sure clue that he's marked by the elders for a reason which is connected with an accusation of molestation, etc. Barbara
bingo!!!!!
Which is why, my stepdad, who molested me, is not only in good standing, but either an elder or ms.
They protected him soooooo much. He, at one point confessed to doing this in front of one of my little sisters, during an elder's meeting with her. Many years after the fact. EVERYONE protected him........
Thanks Barbara, for everything u have done!!
shelley
-
jamiebowers
Think about the latest case in the news coming out of Murietta, CA. The two little girls who were molested by their jw friend's father told their mother what happened. The mother told the elders, and a jc was formed. The pervert confessed to the elders. Did the mother or the elders go to the police? No, one of the girl's teachers reported a suspicison when she was asked by the mother to keep the pervert away from her kids. Was the pervert even df'd? I haven't read anywhere that said he was, but instead the elders were complicit with the pervert's defense attorney when trying to claim clergy privilege. And when forced to testify, it sounded halted and hesitant to me. Read an excerpt of their testimony and see what you think:
Despite the defense's contention that the elders' statements are confidential and protected by the penitent-clergy privilege, the two men testified that during a religious inquiry in 2006, defendant Gilbert Simental said he touched the two sisters in a sexual manner. "I believe he stated that there were two separate occasions when he touched her on her body when she was sleeping," elder Andrew Sinay testified, referring to the younger girl. "He found her to have the covers pulled down and he went to cover her up. Apparently temptation struck at that moment and that's when he touched her."
Sinay and John Vaughn, a former elder, were given immunity by the district attorney's office, shielding them from any potential prosecution as a result of their testimony about Simental's statements, prosecutor Burke Strunsky said in court before either man testified. In his testimony, Sinay said he did not remember there being many differences between the two incidents involving the younger girl. The incident with the older girl was different because she was awake and resisted, Sinay said. "She basically told him not to do that and I believe he continued momentarily," Sinay testified. Prosecutor Strunsky asked Sinay about Simental's demeanor at the time. "It was extremely difficult for him," Sinay said. "Did he appear to be crying?" Strunsky asked. "Yes, initially, I believe," Sinay said. Clark questioned Sinay about his memory of the meetings he had with Simental. "Part of your job is to forget," Clark asked. "EvenGod does that," Sinay replied. "Is it fair to say you don't have a good recollection of what exactly Mr. Simental told you?" Clark asked. "I have a general memory. ... So no, I don't," Sinay replied. Unclear About Details Vaughn recalled that Simental admitted touching each girl only on one occasion. "Are you really able to recall the details?" Clark asked Vaughn. "I'm a little bit nervous ... and I want to be honest about the circumstances," Vaughn said. Vaughn said he remembered Simental telling him that he touched both girls once. "But you're not sure?" Clark said. "I just assured you it was one time," Vaughn said. Vaughn agreed that he did not remember the exact details of what Simental told him. During questioning by Strunsky, Vaughn said it was unclear why Simental touched the girls. "I think I remember him saying he did not know why he did it," Vaughn said. "But that he did admit that he did do it." Before the jury was brought into the courtroom, Sinay took the stand and made a statement to the court. He said it is not the practice of the Jehovah's Witnesses to cover up child maltreatment.
Apparently temptation struck at that moment and that's when he touched her." (when he was looking at an 8 or 9 year old girl?). "It was extremely difficult for him," (I wonder why he didn't have a comment about how difficult it was for those poor little girls). Vaughn agreed that he did not remember the exact details of what Simental told him
(give me a breakâexactly how forgettable is a confession to child molestation?).