Sorry for hassling you Lady Lee. I do appreciate your hard work too.
Chain of correspondence with Society regarding pedophilia
by cedars 43 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
sizemik
The re-opening of this thread is very appropriate . . . I believe recent threads have been a good learning exercise for those who wish to be educated by them, as the comments here reflect. That's important.
Any critique of the OP has been balanced and reasonable IMO . . . unsubstantiated claims are just that . . . labelling them questionable is fine without the need for wild speculation on the motives and state of mind of the author.
Thank you Lady Lee . . . this board is greatly benefitted by your reasonableness and input.
-
wannabefree
yourmomma ... can I offer you a piece of gum?
-
james_woods
wannabefree - that was in completely bad taste, and of course it was also off topic.
-
cedars
I would just like to express my surprise and disappointment at how much controversy this thread has provoked, despite my efforts at writing a carefully-worded and (in my opinion) "bullet-proof" disclaimer in the OP. I never claimed that these letters offered proof of anything, and in fact I clearly stated that the only thing that could be said with any certainty was that they were exchanged with the Society some time between 1997 and 2004 over the issue of child abuse.
I feel that many have not only ignored the OP in leaping to press the "sensationalist" button - they have also ignored the letters themselves. I am told the author was a devout Witness right up to his death, hence the reason these letters have only recently been released. At no point does the AUTHOR HIMSELF accuse the Society of orchestrating the deaths of "informants". He merely stated that he was "puzzled" that there had been a spate of car accidents in quick succession in which three individuals who had helped his family in their struggles against pedophiles had been killed or seriously injured - all amidst an atmosphere of threats and intimidation. He then notes that a private investigator with thirty years' experience had told him that the accidents were no coincidence. Arguably, the insinuation is there - but the author himself stops short of making a direct accusation against the Society, and merely passes on what a third party has told him. The reader is left to form his or her own opinion. I personally believe that, if these events truly took place, the deaths/injuries must have been a coincidence. I would maintain that assumption unless someone could show me evidence to the contrary.
I fail to understand why people would read the letters and then complain about their lack of authenticity when such shortcomings were clearly and unequivocally pointed out in the OP.
One poster has gone so far as to suggest that NO information should be posted unless it can be authenticated. This is really an issue for the moderators and site owner, and not me. If the posting guidelines suggested that no third party material should be posted or referenced that cannot be verified, then I would abide by this decision. However, I would regret the fact that the site has yielded to such draconian sensibilities.
We are all adults and should be able to think for ourselves and reach our own conclusions regarding material that is anonymous or otherwise unverifiable. To censor such material would be a regrettable backwards step, and would tarnish the usefulness of this forum as a resource for enquiring minds. The main thing is to clearly indicate wherever such material can be verified or not, which has been done in the OP. I therefore don't see where the problem lies.
Cedars
-
james_woods
Well, I have never suggested that nothing should be posted without authentication.
What I was saying was simply that the claims of three deaths by car sabotage is certainly sensationalistic and a serious charge. That should not have been done without at least some believable evidence - it can only weaken the legitimate charges of child molestation otherwise.
I fail to understand why people would read the letters and then complain about their lack of authenticity when such shortcomings were clearly and unequivocally pointed out in the OP.
I don't get that either - I was not criticical of the OP - just about the claim of car sabotage (which, as you say, like all the rest of the letters is not verifiable).
We are really on the same side, Cedars - but with somewhat different viewpoints on the details.
-
BluesBrother
Thanks, Cedars..
I admit that I cut first to the WTS replies to see what they said. After two letters that merely acknowledged his own, they still failed to give clear answers.
They reassured that they had a policy......... (but what policy?)
They said that each case was advised by Legal Dept, who advised the legal issues of reporting.....Is that enough? what about spiritual issues ? It suggests that they advise the bare minimum to comply with local law.......
-
cedars
Hi james_woods, thanks for that thoughtful response. I'm glad you see nothing wrong with the OP, because I was starting to get really paranoid! I honestly don't think I could have worded it more carefully without hiring a lawyer, and if we start to go down that road, where will it end?!
Please know that I'm not trying to single anyone out for any criticism. However, it bears repeating that the letters themselves don't claim that the car accidents were due to sabotage. If you read the part that mentions these incidents carefully, it mentions vehicles being tampered with at the same time as these other accidents took place. It is left for the reader to reach his or her own conclusions. The author himself doesn't "claim" or point the finger at the Society. He merely passes on what an investigator has told him. Furthermore, the fact that the author was a devout JW right up to his death should make it obvious that he would be extremely reticent to level such serious allegations at the Society. It strikes me that he only mentioned these incidents at all because he was growing increasingly frustrated at the lack of response from the Society to his genuine and respectful questions. People seem to have reached a conclusion about these letters (that they contain accusations) when it is simply not the case.
Cedars
-
steve2
Hi Cedars, I see your point and agree. This is a relevant thread and I appreciate your posting the exchange of correspondence here.
Even before my first response (partly reproduced below) I had a hunch that my questions could be construed as 'critical' of the leter writer or worse. However, I also considered the 'transition' from concerns about child abuse to the revelation that other people's actions had led to the deaths of three people in the last of the author's letters was so unexpected and dramatic that it warranted more information.
The author was clearly a brother in good standing who was rightly concerned about the ongoing safety of children in kingdom halls. He made his points so powerfully. That made his transition to the allegations of vehicle tampering and subsequent deaths all the more noteworthy. My questions were, given this astonishing revelation, is this the first time it was being made public and does anyone else have information on this?
I obviously would need to apologize if my questions have offended anyone; that was never my intention.
On the other hand, in addition to the serious concerns about child abuse within the religion, the letter contains other extremely serious allegations that, to my knowledge, have not previously been aired on this forum. I'm not implying you, Cedars, should have the answers or that even Barbara should.
However, it struck me that the invited conversation in this thread was around the Society's response to a brother's concerns about child abuse - yet the letters also contained other extraordinarily serious allegations. Again, to the best of my knowledge, there has never before been any allegation that other people (witnesses? worldly people?) have resorted to overtly criminal behaviours to apparently keep people such as the letter writer quiet. Here is a reprint of my earlier opening words which read in the above context appear genuinely warranted (I also now grant that the letter writer does not overtly state that JWs were the perpetrators of the tampering - but given he raises it in his letter to the Society, he seems to imply it):
I was astonished to see the letter writing appeared to stop at the author's allegation that (presumably)
fellow Jehovah's witnesses not only tampered
with
his motor vehicle(s), but the tampering resulted in the deaths of three people.
Is this the first time this information is being revealed on a public forum?
Was this ever reported to the police?
-
cedars
Hi steve2, I'm not offended by anything you've written at all, and I'm very grateful to you for considering my remarks above in the spirit in which they were written. I agree that the "accusations" (as you put them) are shocking, and I'm afraid neither Barbara nor I have any answers. Barbara isn't in posession of any further letters from this man, and evidently he took any additional information or evidence to his grave.
I suppose one argument in favor of posting unsubstantiated material on the internet is that, in the future, others who were involved or who know something can be prompted to come forward. We really have no way of knowing at this stage, but it's nice to think that clarification might be forthcoming at some future date, even if it never happens.
Cedars
