I have an issue with this comment
Lastly, Rose Ball was NOT an orphan as Rutherford and the WTS later claimed in the 1975 Yearbook. The divorce trial states that Russell told Rose she could take his name, yet she declined. Russell then tells us why: "She said the only reason she didn't do that she was afraid if her father heard of it he would think she had lost her respect for him."
I don't know that this would actually meanher father was still alive. I could be a phrase similar to "My father would turn over in his grave if..." or "My father would... if he were still alive"Aside from this in the court testimony Maria was asked point blank if she thought her husbnad was guilty of adultery and her clear response was "No."Another point that I think might be important was that children were viewed very differently than they are now. They were put to work much earlier. Childhood as we know it did not exist at that time.But this whole issue of sexual misconduct bothers me. Sexuality at that time was seriously repressed. People did not talk about sexual matters. Freud had given a lecture in 1897 about what he found were cases of sexual abuse. He had been working at the Saltpeterie where he had seen first had (during autopies) the battered, raped and killed bodies of children. He had also seen numerous young women in his private practice who were telling him about being sexually abused. He believed them. In 1897 he gave his speech and was practically run out of the medical prefession. apparently these young women were often the daughters of his medical colleagues. His lecture didn't go over too well.This was the atmosphere at the time. So here we are about the same time period with a girl/woman supposedly claiming that CTR was acting inappropriately. It just seems very odd to me that she would have made these accusations. In an atmosphere of rigid sexual repression she may not have even known how to deal with this or even what to call it if it has indeed happened. I would think also that if something serious had happened she would most likely be scared to say anything. The usual reaction of a child who was being abused would be fear of telling because she might lose her home, her benefactor (CTR) would be angry with her, it might cause trouble between CTR and his wife plus she would be branded as "spoiled". It just doesn't seem realistic that she would run to his wife and strait-out say he was being abusive.On the other hand if she did go against all the norms of the times and did go to Maria it would be extremely common for the wife to either not believe her or just tell her to stay away from him. Neither of these would be helpful to Rose which would also be a reason why she would not tell. People KNOW when they won't be helped. So they stay quiet.One other issue that seems to keep popping up is the possibility the CTR was impotent. That could explain the lack of sexual relations between CTR and his wife. But that does not necessarily mean he was not interested in sex. WARNING - GRAPHIC SEXUAL INFO.Getting a little personal and intimate here but when I was 10-11 yrs old I lived with my father and brother in a boarding house. We called the couple Uncle Bill and Auntie Vi. Well Uncle Bill was impotent. He never got hard enough to have been able to perform intercourse. But he would regularly get me to masterbate him when no one else was around. Regardless of how long I did what I was told he never got hard. But he sure was interested. Impotence does not equal lack of interest.