My experience with the Bethel Legal Dept. regarding a Ministerial Servant molesting a boy
by BonaFide 59 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
yadda yadda 2
How can anyone honestly believe God is behind an organisation like this.
-
Joe Grundy
Just read through this thread and here's my take on it. Not as a dub or ex-dub (I never was) but as an ex-cop (30 years and far too much experience with abuse cases).
If I've read it right, the JW was somewhat 'mentally challenged' or whatever the current politically-correct term is. Certainly not the sharpest knife in the drawer. So the first question is: why would he be given a position of responsibility in the organisation? I have nothing against those who are 'mentally challenged' but IME most 'worldly churches' would allocate a fairly minor task such as giving out hymn (sorry, song) books and everyone is happy.
Secondly, it sounds as if the Mom already had concerns about her son and perhaps - just perhaps - she was worried that her son had seduced this less than 'firing on all cylinders' JW. Maybe it had happened before.
Thirdly, none of this impacts on or lessens the reaction of WTBTS as reported. 'Dreadful' is my reaction to it - far more concerned with legalistic issues than protecting the vulnerable individuals concerned.
-
-
Bangalore
Yet they claim to be living in a spiritual paradise.
Bangalore
-
aquagirl
In 1976 when i was 16,My then sister in law and I ,met with the elders about my dad beating me up.They wanted details,and asked if he had "raped' me.No,but I showed them scars and bruises,both recent and old.They showed me a bunch of scriptures about 'obediance to ones parents' and sent me on my way,telling me that it would bring 'shame to the organization' if I told anyone else about it.They then told my dad that I had come to them.My dad kicked my ribs in and cracked a few.I also lost a couple of back teeth.Man,he must have really been worried about my soul..That was how much help "the elders' were to me...phokkers..
-
NewChapter
So I take it, that the elders are told to stay anonymous, and therefore, offer absolutely no help in prosecuting a case. Do the minimum---but no more.
Perhaps not with this case (I don't know) but if this is how they handle other cases, they could actually be in a position to help the prosecution if needed---which they can't do because they remain anonymous. But they were advised to do the minimum, and I guess legally that clears them. But morally, they are supposed to be doing all they can to protect the children, and they do the minimum.
The mom is screwed up---feeling bad that her son might have got the MS into trouble. It's insane.
NC
-
blindnomore
NC, that's exactly what they did to us. The elders(we are in a reporting state) reported it to the authority as 'a friend of the father of a child'. They didn't even reveal their cleregy status. After that they claimed in doing their part. Yes, they technically reported.
Only problem is that the authority did not take their tip. The authority dismissed such anonymouse tip with a very little infomation. After that the elders and Circuit Overseer threatened us to mark for quetioning them further. The Circuit Overseer scolded us for being questioning, " I was there when the elders reported it!" I was constantly threatened to be marked for seeking secular justice. I ended up being marked for 3 different times in 2 years.
-
Band on the Run
Without researching it thoroughly, it sounds as though the Bethel legal department engaged in a conspiracy to hinder a criminal investigation. This is the most express account I have read. It goes beyond what is normally reported here. Perhaps he trusted you b/c he knew you as a personal acquaintance.
It seems an awful lot of work for the WT if they have NO legal liability or moral responsibility. After all, this brother was not a Jehovah's Witness, according to the Unthank standards. It is one thing for you to decide not to volunteer information but for a lawyer, who is not your own lawyer, to direct such conduct is very upsetting to me. Ethical and criminal violations may have occurred. I do not know the answer but I do know issues are present..
Is there any corroborating evidence that you may still have? The NY Bar Administration may be interested.
I am not clear how they can give you legal advice concerning a California manner. Unless the lawyer is admitted in CA, it is questionable. This lawyer exposed you to liability.
Do you know his name? PM me. Do you believe they are asking for landline telephones, even pay phones, b/c they like playing James Bond or National Security Council member or they wanted no record of this direction not to be open with the police. According to your statement, they not only told not to be candid, which may be prudent, but to actively falsify information.
I am very outraged. Frankly, I don't know the boundaries but I can't imagine anyone willing to expose themselves to censure or worse. It may be all right in legal terms. Where is the moral ground?
-
Band on the Run
Sorry, I just want to add that when I first starting practicing law it was legal in New York (admittedly, not the general rule) to record landline conversations if one party to the conversation consented. Since I was party, I routinely recorded all conversations, excepting family and close friends. There was no warning bell or beep to inform the person that I was recording them. My friends all did the same.
I do recall that the devices were sold widely and that the general directions warned that it was illegal to do so without warning in most states.