by Kiwi 46 Replies latest jw friends
In my files somewhere I have a copy of an obituary for Leo Greenlees as it appeared in a local paper where he died. I will try and find it and post it word for word.
I do remember it specifically saying.....he was loved by all those he touched!.....
I'll bet he was! Hey, I'm not making this up, this is what it actually said!
Outaservice (but still counting my time!)
Hi waiting:
You make some good observations, but I want to say that I think you're being
too picky about "burden of evidence" for the purposes of this board. An
online discussion forum like this is not a courtroom. It's a bunch of
people discussing issues important to them. As such, it no more requires
courtroom-style of proof for people's contentions than does cocktail party
conversation -- unless a poster specifically claims to be posting that
style of proof. Context generally makes it evident what kind of 'proof'
is being talked about. Think about online conversations about O.J.'s
guilt as opposed to proof necessary to convict him in court and you'll
see what I'm getting at.
: Thanks for qualifying your statement. I appreciate it, as I'm sure
Farkel does.
To be picky, I think it should have been obvious that when I said
"because that's how molesters operate", that was shorthand for "because
that's how almost all molesters operate, as demonstrated by statistics".
Had I said, "because that's how all molesters operate", you'd have a
better point. If someone said, "it's not likely that we caught this
burglar on his first attempt at burglary, because that's how criminals
operate", I think you wouldn't object.
You've seen enough of my posts by now that you should know that when I
really want to be precise, that's what I am, and when the context of
the post indicates that a less formal treatment is needed, I'm sloppier
with my language because that makes it less wordy and easier to read.
Clearly, molesters have to start somewhere, and on their first foray
into pedophilia they have not yet established a track record. Obviously
I could not have been including such people in my statement.
Farkel clearly understood my intent.
...Greenlees' behavior. One man complained that he found Greenlees: I'm sure there must be more to these accounts than is given here.
alone with his 8-year-old son with his hand on the kid's knee -- entirely
inappropriate touching. Another complained to me of inappropriate touching
of him and his brother when they were perhaps ten years old.
Of course. I was given only the person's account, so there's more than
what he posted to whatever place I got the information from. And of course,
what you read here was only a brief summary of that. You'll have to judge
for yourself the worth of what these people said, when you read the stuff
I'll post fairly soon.
Again, I'm not trying to prove anything in this set of posts, only to lay
out briefly what I have been told and what I believe are relevant facts
and stories. Details will come when I finish reorganizing my material. But
even then, it should be obvious that there can never be "proof" that would
satisfy everyone. If the boy (by now about 27) himself posted his
accusations on this board, skeptics would tear him to shreds. You know how
it works. "How do we know you're who you say you are?" "How can you prove
that Greenlees molested you?" "Why should be believe you? You're probably
just a disgruntled ex-JW!" Etc. etc. etc.
: The first does not constitute molestation, imho.
I never said it did. It does constitute inappropriate touching. The fact
that the boy's father became upset implies that he found the situation
inappropriate. The fact that this spurred him on to find out other things
about the JW organization and to quit indicates how upset he was. For you
to imply that this was perhaps a product of the man's imagination is to
imply that he's paranoid. Given that several stories like this have
surfaced, I don't think so.
: Without the particulars of what is *inappropriate touching*, the other
: cannot be commented on either, at least by me.
Right.
Given the above, the probability that Greenlees got caught on his: Stories, accounts, truths, proven truths are all different things - which
first foray into pedophilia is zero.
Right. But generalities like this are meaningless. Wait until you see the
actual emails from people before you so generalize.
: The probability of Greenlees is probably closer to 95%.
How did you determine that number?
: Zero, to the common man/woman, is perceived an absolute
Right, but here again you're being too picky, given that I'm obviously not
going for absolute precision of language here. Perhaps I should have said,
"the probability that Greenlees got caught on his first foray into
pedophilia is practically indistinguishable from zero."
: - molesters, unless proven, still have the probability factor of the
: unknown.
The fact is that for all practical purposes, certain Watchtower mucky-mucks
have as much as admitted to me in private that the Governing Body heard
the proof from the boy and his parents, and that's why they booted the
molester out of Bethel. JT's comments about what happened when Greenlees'
removal from Bethel was announced at the Bethel breakfast tables are
perfectly consistent with that. They're not consistent with much else.
Why do you think a GB member would be summarily booted out of Bethel
without a word about why to the rank & file Bethelites? Certainly not for
reasons like they did with Ray Franz, where his "apostasy" quickly became
"known" all over Bethel. They wanted to make an example of Franz. They
wanted to forget all about Greenlees, since it's obvious to everyone
that child molestation is wrong.
Now, these GB members are certainly not going to admit having heard anything
like this in public, since to do so would be to admit that they failed to
disfellowship a proven child molester, and someone guilty of "fornication".
They also failed to report the rape of a minor -- the crime of statutory
rape -- to authorities. For them to admit covering up this crime would
put them at risk of being criminally charged, as well as being disgraced
in the JW community and being booted out of Bethel.
: Memory, even by several persons, is still considered by many professionals
: to not be absolute in truth or error.
True, but so what? The fact that the man was booted out is proof that the
Governing Body considered his conduct atrocious. Their actions provide
solid evidence that the other complainants have valid complaints. The
fact that several have complained about the exact same thing makes it
more solid.
: Even if it is the truth, not necessarily proveable.
So what? This is not a courtroom.
Perhaps it's time for me to post once again a list of online: I would look forward to reading your list.
comments I've accumulated over the years.
It'll take some time, as I have new information and I need to reorganize
it completely. In case you're wondering, I'm posting this from a computer
at work and I have no access to my home computer where all the information
is stored.
Were a Governing Body member subpoenaed in court to testify about: I agree with your speculation on the GB's actions. However, it would seem
Greenlees, they would almost certainly try to invoke ecclesiastical privilege
in order to avoid testifying. They might even have to invoke the Fifth
Amendment so as to avoid incriminating themselves in a cover-up of
molestation or of failure to obey state reporting laws.
He resided in New York, but I don't know where the molestations took place.
: But molesting one boy does not make a long term child molester. He: No, the other stories don't prove it - at least not here.
could have been long term, but not necessarily. - waitingRight, but the other stories that surfaced over the years proves that he was.- A
lanF
They prove it sufficiently for my purposes -- which are not the purposes
of a courtroom. It's like the difference between burdens of proof for
criminal as opposed to civil charges. Proof for the latter is less
stringent, and rightly so. Proof for the purposes of a discussion board
like this is quite subjective, and so what constitutes "proof" (or perhaps
'weight of evidence') for one person does not for another.
: The other stories lend credibility to your charges. I don't necessarily
: disagree with you - only on your absoluteness.
Perhaps now you can understand that my "absoluteness" is relative.
Believe me, if you could hear the emotion in the voices of people who are
outraged by how the Society handled the Greenlees case -- from their own
personal experience -- you'd understand fully.
: I've found little in life that is absolute - especially when dealing with
: perceptions of *inappropriate actions* and memories, whether of children,
: adults, or the memories of adults who are remembering events of decades ago.
True enough, and that would be particularly relevant to our discussion if
we didn't have the knowledge that Greenlees was booted out of Bethel for
doing something vile, that several people have testified as to why he was
booted out, and several have given personal experiences that are consistent
with Greenlees' being a long-term child molester.
: Don't get me wrong - if Greenlees did molest young boys - then let the
: facts come out. But facts, along with the truth, are hard to come by,
: particularily when dealing with memories. It may all be true, but
: unproveable. Thus, the little word - alledged - comes into play.
You're absolutely right. In my coming posting about this stuff, I'll be
careful to use "alleged".
: You've been at this longer than I have - at least in the WTBTS arena - I
: bow to your prowness on gathering information.
Yes, I have many and varied sources.
: However, I've dealt intimately with molesters my whole life, approximately
: a half dozen of them. They are the same, and quite varied at the same time.
: Much too easy to lump them and the way they operate - as dangerous as
: lumping victims/survivors into truth sayers or liars.
Perhaps, but I think you'll agree that molesters rarely perform only one
act of molestation. Just like with any other criminal activity, acts
after the first become easier. Has that not been your experience?
I'm also very curious as to why you're taking such issue with what I've
said. What do you know that I don't?
: Most likely, the true picture lies somewhere within those parameters.
Please speculate.
: I, like many others, look forward to the Dateline program.
I think it's going to be smashing. :-)
AlanF
Looks like Leo G, like many other elders, got caught
Sticking His Watchtower Weenie In All The Wong Places
and Fredhall looks on him as a Hero
Hey Prozac,
The only heros I have is Jehovah and Jesus. It is to bad you can't say that for yourself.
Fredhall sed:
The only heros I have is Jehovah and Jesus. It is to bad you can't say that for yourself.
Freddie, if the only Role Models you have is joe-Of-The-WT and jeez-Of-The-WT, you are in sorry shape!
Haven't you read your Kult's "Proclaimers" book?
They list MANY Watchtower "Heroes"... like Erich Frost. (snicker!)
Fred, did TR do justice to your likeness?
Did your Mummy use your fav cocoa cup when she served you the other nite? I saw the 'F' monogram on it. Do you ever look at Net Porn on your computer in your bed with that lites out late at nite... porn sites like * http://www.watchtower.org ?
Probably redundant, but do we have a date for the Dateline program yet?
TW
STOP THE PRESSES!!!
Folks, I just received the following email from an ex-JW in France. If you would like to be put in touch with him, please contact me privately.....
====================================
About the Governing Body member story (Greenlees), I can personaly testify of his child abuse. In the early 1980s he went to Malta with a member of the Canadian Bethel (Ralph Brodie) and as we were coming out of the Kingdom hall he didn't stop rubbing his hands from my head till my buttocks (I was about 8 years old). I wonder what he would did if we were alone together!!!
Jim, do you know something about Ralph Brodie, as I don't think Greenlees choose him by hazard?
=====================================
Anyone know anything about this Brodie fellow?
To Jim:
This is one of the people who wrote me privately about this some months ago.
Finally we hear from someone who was "inappropriately touched" by Greenlees, in a public forum. Are you naysayers listening?
AlanF
Hey Alan,
My point was never to say that the man was/was not guilty of child molestation. It was to pinpoint you to back up your statements - or to qualify them until you presented more of your information. Farkel may know you well; I, however, do not. I have to depend on your words.
People here, and I guess most everywhere, are quick to jump to conclusions - myself included sometimes. In the realm of sexual child abuse, conclusions are - many times - drawn from inconclusive accounts. Remember the McMartin Child Care Center case in California about a decade ago? Lives were ruined because of msrepresentations. Was it *all* lies and misrepresentations? Who knows. Who cares? The kids who might have been abused but who were lost in the shuffle. Were there any? We'll never know. But it seems that gross misrepresentation happened, and the McMartin family was ruined if memory serves correctly. Whatever was the truth - it was mismanaged.
You have a reputation as authorative, and well deserved. When you speak of inside knowledge, but at the same time speak in generalizations, imho, it takes away from your credibility. That's why I'm nickpicking. I've heard and read people who don't have any experience or knowledge of child sexual abuse make excessive generalities about victims/perpertrators/their families. Some of these persons are on this forum or H20. It hurts the victims/survivors' credibility. It hurts the complete arguement against child molesters. Remember Friend starting that thread here about what was child molestation? His was a hard argument to disprove. You made a fine post - and part of your point was the fact that the elders didn't know exactly what sexual child abuse consisted of. "Digital penetration" was the point. Say specifically what happened to the child - not generalities. Why? One reason is that the average person doesn't understand - or want to understand - what sexual child abuse consist of. It's much easier to refer to the molester's actions as "unpleasantness" etc. (I'm paraphrasing btw.)
Sexual child abuse is too important to be lost because the opponents pick apart the good arguments of the victims because the victims didn't mount their argument effectively. I only nickpicked at you because you're more than capable of conversing with me about it - and not attacking me as a person.
As for this forum not being a courtroom - correct. But for many persons, myself included, there's more thinking happening on these forums & the web than has happened for jw decades for some of us. Our words can be important, particularily when dealing with these types of subjects.
Any good attorney can pick generalizations apart. Perhaps just playing the Devil's Advocate with you? Perhaps realize the harm that can be done with unqualified statements when presented to the police or authorities.
waiting
Ralph Brodie is still a member of the Bethel Family in Canada.
He vowed singleness early on in his JW career. He claims to be of the anointed class.
He is a charactor and a half. For the most part he is a angry old man who carries much bitterness. He has been the mailman at Bethel for many years and looked to with humour as opposed to much respect.
I knew him well and was one fo the few younger bethelites he befriended. "Can't be bothered with most of those upstarts". He regularly stopped by my desk for coffee.
I never saw any indication of homosexual leanings. As an avowed homophobe while a JW I would certainly pick up on "weird" vibes as I did from some others there. I can say with much certainty, he did not lean towards men sexually and he disliked (annoyed by) children so there wasn't much affection there either.
Last I heard he was still alive and the housekeepers still cleaning the olive oil off the wall that he used to keep his hair greased properly.... shudder.
As a general comment I must say that specualtion and rumour are wonderful tools of those on a witch hunt. Many of these accused are either dead or near death. They certainly are not going to be coming online to disprove the allegations.
I guess I just find the innuendo and witch hunt tactics distasteful. Perhaps it is because I knew most of the people personally that it bothers me more than if you spoke of complete strangers. It is easy to hate an enemy you have never seen.
Kismet
