Would elders cover up for a murderer?

by JeffT 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  JeffT

  I'm doing some noodling around with ideas for the rewrite of my novel (way behind schedule as I'm back to work part time). The religion involved is a fictional creation, but based on JW's and similar groups. The basic set up is a reranged killer knocking off people he thinks are God's enemies so God can start Armageddon and bring in Paradise.

  So the question, if such a thing were happening around JW's and the elders had an idea who was doing it, would they cover it up? They obviously don't have direct knowledge, but would they hold back to "keep Jehovah's name clean?" This seems to be what they did with pedophiles for a long time, and maybe still do. Your thoughts on the subject would be much appreciated.

  PS: what would Bethel do if they got wind of it?
• 

  Theocratic Sedition

  PS: what would Bethel do if they got wind of it?

  Before or after the Conti case?
• 

  sir82

  I'd like to think most elders would have enough of their moral compass left to not cover such an act over.

  However, I'm pretty sure there would a not insignificant number of elders who actually would engage in a cover-up. I can think of more than a handful of such ones right off the top of my head.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Yes there was a case in Florida or somewhere in the US where elders covered for a murderer who confessed and was "repentant". That was good enough for them, so no need to involve the police over the matter. There are documents online somewhere because I remember reading it. I hope someone else remembers this story and where to find it. They are a law unto themselves these bunch of crazies.
• 

  Giordano

  What might be interesting is to explore the tension this might create within the Elders or perhaps just one Elder who is suspicious but is warned off by the Circuit or District official of your made up religion. The door to door ministry would be the perfect way to judge his or her victims.
• 

  cedars

  Simple answer - some would, some wouldn't. If an entire body of elders can feel compelled to stand up to the Society over something as innocuous as a Kingdom Hall refurb (i.e. Menlo Park), then you can bet there are elders out there who would refuse to be complicit in an offense as serious as covering over a murder. However, there are always those pitbull elders who will serve the Society without question however dubious (or illegal) is the task they are assigned. I like to think these latter ones are in the minority.

  Cedars
• 

  RubaDub

  Before or after the Conti case?

  Theocratic Sedition hit the nail on the head.

  Before, if "a number of years had passed" and the person was, in their opinion "spiritually progressing" I don't think it would have been reported by a significant number of BOE's.

  However, now, with the Conti case, if the BOE knew there was a person guilty of murder, he/she would be toast.

  Rub a Dub
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  Before, if "a number of years had passed" and the person was, in their opinion "spiritually progressing" I don't think it would have been reported by a significant number of BOE's.

  However, now, with the Conti case, if the BOE knew there was a person guilty of murder, he/she would be toast.

  Not so fast!

  The diff here is that there is NO LAW mandating reporting of murder, as there is child endangerment.

  Very likely, the WTS would consider that the confession is privileged information under "clergy penitent privilege".

  Doc
• 

  RubaDub

  Very likely, the WTS would consider that the confession is privileged information under "clergy penitent privilege".

  Desirous ...

  I'm not a lawyer but wasn't one of the issues brought up in the Conti case that the Elder loses the "clergy penitent privledge" when they get other people involved (Legal Dept in Brooklyn) ?

  I just think that if there is any doubt now, that the person gets thrown under the bus (or the organizational chariott).

  Rub a Dub
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  RUB: I understand that has been an issue in Calif courts. I would suspect it could be corrected by only asking "hypothetical" questions to the Service Dept or Legal Dept (without mention of any names). It also seems to me that if the Congo actually paid a fee to the attorney, this would give them attorney/client privilege and not be breaking the clergy/penitent privilege. That may not be the case with the Service Dept. as that person has no legal standing. Any report to the WTS on the DFing or reproof of the wrongdoer would have to be just a generic "fornication/pornea" and not state that a minor was involved (at least in writing).

  Still, the difference is there is no LAW mandating you snitch on a murderer, as there is on a child molester. If an Elder (or anyone) knows YOU murdered your wife, no one is breaking the law by not reporting such. Happens all the time where citizens are fearful of "getting involved".

  If that Elder was subpoenaed about the testimony of the murderer, it would be on his shoulders to speak or maintain confidentiality if the court denied the clergy/penitent privilege. Even newspaper reports have gone to jail for contempt of court to protect their sources. I suspect a good Elder would do the same for the sake of the Organization. Persecution at its best.

  Doc