ALF,
"I did not read in your post that you conclude that Rutherford did in fact have a mistress, given your lack of substantive evidence."
Yes you did. You specifically cited the underwear as my only basis for attempting to prove that Rutherford had a mistress. Your claim is what it is ... you said it ... and now you are making a shoddy attempt to deny it. Sorry, I don't buy your BS. Can I prove Rutherford had a mistress? No ... I believe the possibility exist ... and I am relying on what Larc, Berta's nephew, had to say given this is talked about in his family.
However by citing Larc's info and posting them with your comments, shows that you imply it and as such feel this is simply shoddy baseless research and commentary.
The post was not shoddy research ... it is a testimony by Larc, a person who would certainly have a basis for knowing the facts. Do I suggest the possibility that Berta was Rutherford's mistress? Of course. Yet, the post was stated in question format ... and the question is still to be answered. My post is not intended to be proof positive, or anything that would hold up to an evidenciary review ... it is intended to do exactly what it did ... report a story in connection with a question ... and it ends with the "continuation" to tell more of the story. Subsequent comments by others suggest that there are other sources which acknowledge that Rutherford had a mistress.
It all sounds to me like you are just picking a fight that does not need to be fought. Your writing style reminds me of someone I know ... and will be calling ... I am not about to be caught in a humor prank as was Dave aka Seven006. ... Nope, not right now ...
The information I provided proved that Berta was not alone residing with Rutherford, rather there is substantial information indicating that Rutherford maintained a staff with him on a continual basis.
The information you provided proves nothing other than you provided information ... it was of less quality because what you stated is weak ... let's examine it:
"The post seemed to imply that only Rutherford and his dietician were amongst the Beth-Sarim residents."
No, the post never stated that in any way ... that is your own read over and your own implication ... and you know it.
"However, it has been well-documented that Beth-Sarim had many regular visitors, and a staff that lived with Rutherford."
Yes, anyone could have many visitors to their home where they live with their wife, or girfriend, or Gay lover ... visitors are meaningless to the issue, and demonstrate how strained your illogic is in human behavior.
"No mention is given of the Balko family, with their two children who maintained the grounds and had dinner at Beth-Sarim on a regular basis."
So what ... any other family working in or around Beth Sarim was not my objective .. and while the visitors and house guests slept, Rutherford could have been bouncing the bed with Berta in between the sheets ... who knows ... and my post and subsequent comments have allowed for the fact that Berta and Joseph did nothing ... Joey could have been too good for giving into the flesh ... and it is possible that when he was at the burlesque act in Germany, he blindfolded himself so he would not see all that evil flesh. Yes, Berta may not have sexually serviced Joseph Rutherford ... the story is what I relate ... but I cannot change the story from what Larc wrote just so I can please your desire for sensationalism ... Larc is the one you need to question as the source of the story about his aunt.
"Dan Sydlik mentioned meeting Rutherford at Beth-Sarim in the 6/1/85 Watchtower. Sandra Cowen, a JW in San Diego mentioned going to Beth Sarim often and mentions that there were full-time servants (WT, 3/1/92). The May 27, 1942 Consolation also discusses that a staff was maintained at Beth-Sarim. This is not to mention of William Heath, who was Rutherford's secretary before his death and stayed at the residence along with his wife. I also interviewed a James Smitha back in 1995, who was a bethelite from 1934-1936, and discussed spending several days with Rutherford and his staff at Beth-Sarim back in 1933."
I did not yet check your above cited references, but I don't recall the Society ever openly mentioning Beth Sarim in 1980 vintage Watchtower articles ... not until the "Proclaimers" book gave a gloss-over account. As I stated above, visitors at the Beth Sarim residence prove nothing one way or the other. Servants in a mansion likely live in servant quarters, etc. So, who really knows ... we will see what the Moyle Trial has to say.
Now, with all these regular visitors, including the San Diego witnesses, Knorr, and others visiting regularly, and the full-time staff at the residence. Also, the fact that for 12 years he only spent his winters there, you think he was able sneek around with his dietician?
First, Berta traveled with the Judge ... and she went with him on European trips and other places around the world ... so, perhaps they were able to sneak in quickies in their little room on their long trip across the Atlantic ...or maybe in the back of the greyhound bus between San Diego and New York. Opps, they took trains back then. Come on ... what are you really fighting about here?
Second, the Judge did not have to sneak ... he only had to command ... and anyone who knew anything about Joseph (Judge-for-a-day) Rutherford knows well that the Judge did what the Judge wanted to do ... and no one had better question him ... as Watchtower attorney, Olin Moyle discoverd ... and was confirmed to me in my interview with Olin Moyle's grand-daughter.
This proves that Berta in all likelihood could not have had an affair with Rutherford. Also, the issue of favortism was shown to be meaningless. All additional information was simply provided to correct your inaccurate statements.
You have proven nothing one way or the other ... you have made counter-claims without any proof ... so what ... again as you seem to avoid like the plague, I clearly left my post to be concluded with the documented evidence in court records to tell the rest of the story ... soooo ... maybe my suggestion is inaccurate, in which case I will draw the conclusion as you have done. Unlike you, however, I will be using proven evidence. AND maybe, just maybe, the conclusion that Berta Teel Peale was Rutherford's honey-pie is true ... stay tuned.
"Hope this helps."
Not really, but thanks for trying. - Jim Whitney
