Britain | Jehovah's Witnesses hushed up child sex scandal | July 16, 2013

by jwleaks 172 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • Prime
    Prime

    They resisted for two years.
    Are you ignorant of the facts or are you a liar?

    I did say this earlier;

    "How is it that the elders for three years refused to cooperate with the police? All the police can do in respects to this matter is ask the elders to make a statement. Whether they choose to make a statement or not, this conversation would take place over the course of a few minutes, not a few years."

    If there was any legal objection presented to being called to testify in court, it's because the law is not black and white pertaining to penitential communications in the U.K., as it is in the United States. This is likely because the U.K. doesn't have any reporting laws. There are consequences if anyone does not fulfill a legal obligation, even if it's a small fine for failing to appear for jury duty. If the elders were in no way penalized by the legal system, they fulfilled their legal obligation, pure and simple.

    It would be more constructive for you to write a letter to the governor of California and like states pertaining to this matter and voice your complaints, than to complain about Jehovah's Witnesses. They're a minute fraction of the problem if you believe there is one. In the U.S., the law is black and white and because of their confession protocols, Christendom's churches don't even have to report a matter, let alone testify. Because of the protocols and tenets of JWs involving a "third person," they would have to testify under California law.

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=01001-02000&file=1030-1034

    CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 1030-1034

    1030. As used in this article, a "member of the clergy" means a priest, minister, religious practitioner, or similar functionary of a church or of a religious denomination or religious organization.

    1031. As used in this article, "penitent" means a person who has made a penitential communication to a member of the clergy.

    1032. As used in this article, "penitential communication" means a communication made in confidence, in the presence of no third person so far as the penitent is aware, to a member of the clergy who, in the course of the discipline or practice of the clergy member's church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications and, under the discipline or tenets of his or her church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret.

  • cofty
    cofty
    they fulfilled their legal obligation, pure and simple.

    They did their upmost to avoid fulfiling their simple moral duty until threatened by a judge.

    They are moral retards as are you.

  • besty
    besty

    @prime

    If there was any legal objection presented to being called to testify in court

    You and I both know that lawyers can prolong and prevaricate in court using many devices and tactics to keep their client out of the witness box.

    The question here is why was the Watchtower prepared to devote legal counsel expenses to a case involving a disfellowshipped child molestor - remember he had been reproved and disfellowshipped way before 'the months of legal wrangling' - just to be clear this wrangling was the Watchtower legal team and the Crown Prosecution, NOT the local elders and the local police.

    Why?

    I put it to you it was because the Watchtower was caught in a murky spiral of its own making, with each mistep compounding the previous one.

    Mistake 1 - at the confessional meeting (under instruction from the WTS undoubtedly) 'going to the police was not discussed as an option' - if you were the Watchtower would you want your agents admitting this in open court?

    Mistake 2 - the elders (under instruction from the WTS undoubtedly) refused to cooperate with the police investigation for a period covering several years - if you were the Watchtower would you want your agents admitting this in open court?

    Mistake 3 - the elders (under instruction from the WTS undoubtedly) refused to comply with a Witness Summons, until the Judge made it clear there was a possible contempt charge if they didn't (read jailtime and criminal record). Faced with a criminal record for attempting to protect a child abuser, they complied. Finally.

    Why did the Watchtower allow this situation go from bad to worse, ending up with their name in the press <again> for trying to cover up child abuse?

    Why?

  • nugget
    nugget

    In the UK laws and procedures have been put in place in an effort to protect children from sexual predators. In most settings people who come in contact with children are obliged to complete a CRB check and organisations and schools have to have polices for safeguarding children. The society will say that they don't need these checks or policies because children are in the care of parents but this is simply untrue.

    There are occasions when children are separated from parents on the service where a mother may be obliged to share her children amongst other publishers because there are too many to go on the door with her and her partner. Young teens may go on the service alone at weekends because their parents do service during the week or there is an unbelieving husband who objects to their spouse going out on the doors at the weekend. Spiritual widows are encouraged to get a mature brother to study with their sons alone and the list goes on. Children are vulnerable and yet the society sticks to their rights and the sensitivity of the perpetrator without giving any thought to the victim.

    These men followed instruction what a shame their instructions lacked any moral fibre or selfless appreciation of what it was like to be a victim. If the society is not prepared to follow guidance set up to protect children then it should be because they can offer something better not because they have too much to hide.

  • DATA-DOG
    DATA-DOG

    PRIME said, " The victim in this case was not a child. This is par for the course when a victim tells something to an elder. Victims come forward as adults about abuse that occurred years ago."

    Your point?... You seem to think that the time at which the crime is reported should somehow absolve responsibility for the Elders or the WTBTS. You apparently do not understand the nature of abuse, or the cycle of loathing and guilt that it causes the victim. Some never live long enough to resolve their issues because they take their own lives. Then those adults brave enough to face the situation are further victimized by cold, legalistic abusers. The WTBTS tries to make things all better by love bombing the victim. The reason for the "love" is to cover over the fact that a terrible crime took place. Something so wrong that the victim must suppress it or they cannot survive the ordeal. Then the WTBTS specifically casts doubt upon the credibility of those memories. Notice in the following article that the subheading " Did it really happen" could have been entirely merged with the preceding paragraph. Frank Fitzpatrick's story could easily have been include without the WTBTS slyly creating a loop-hole for dismissing abuse.

    "Repressed Memories"

    In recent years some have been "brokenhearted" for reasons that others find difficult to understand. They are adults who, on the basis of what have been described as "repressed memories," say that they were sexually abused when they were children. Some have no thought of having been molested until, unexpectedly, they experience flashbacks and "memories" of an adult (or adults) abusing them when they were young. Do any in the Christian congregation have such disturbing thoughts? In a few lands, yes, and these dedicated ones may experience deep distress, anger, guilt, shame, or loneliness. Like David they may feel isolated from God and cry out: "Why, O Jehovah, do you keep standing afar off? Why do you keep yourself hid in times of distress?"-Psalm 10:1.Many aspects of these "memories" are not well understood by mental-health professionals. Still, such "memories" can affect the spirituality of dedicated Christians. So we look with confidence to God's Word for guidance in handling them. The Bible provides "discernment in all things." (2 Timothy 2:7; 3:16) It also helps all concerned to put faith in Jehovah, "the Father of tender mercies and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our tribulation."-2 Corinthians 1:3, 4.

    Did It Really Happen?

    In the world, there is much controversy as to what these "memories" are and to what extent they represent things that actually happened. Jehovah's Witnesses are "no part of the world" and take no part in this controversy. (John 17:16) According to published reports, "memories" have sometimes proved to be accurate. For example, after insurance adjuster Frank Fitzpatrick "remembered" being molested by a certain priest, almost one hundred others came forward to claim that they too had been abused by the same priest. The priest reportedly admitted to the abuse. It is noteworthy, however, that a number of individuals have been unable to corroborate their "memories." Some afflicted in this way have had vivid recollections of a certain individual committing abuse or of the abuse being committed in a specific place. Later, though, legitimate evidence to the contrary made it clear that these "remembered" details could not be true.

    Shepherd The Flock Book:

    The following questions should be answered with regardto the accuser: (1) What is the level of maturityof the child or youth? (2) Is he (or she) describing conduct that one his age would not normally know about? (3) Is the child or his parents known to be serious,mature? (4) Is his memory consistent, or is it intermittent, or does it involve repressed memories?(w95 11/1 pp. 25-26) (5) What is the reputation ofthe parents? (6) Are they spiritually and emotionally mature? After carefully considering the matter, the branch office will then give you direction as to what information about the allegation should be shared, if any, with the elders of the new congregation.

    Also, " The victim in this case was not a child."

    1) " Jehovah Witness ministerial servant Gordon Leighton admitted sexually abusing a child when he was confronted by his church elders, a court heard. "

    2) "Leighton, who has since been expelled from the church at Lambton Kingdom Hall in Washington, denied two charges of indecency with a child and seven of indecent assault. He was yesterday found guilty of two charges of indecency with a child and six of indecent assault.

    He abused a child. The abused came forward later, as an adult. A horrible crime was committed against a child, end of story. I have to agree with Cofty on this one, " They are moral retards as are you." Yes, in the true sense of the word, YOU are morally retarded. The growth of your moral center has been retarded by WTBTS legalism. It's sad and deplorable, and sooner or later you will reap the consequences. It may be happening already.

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    @Prime - you're talking besides the point:

    The WTBTS claims that they are THE moral authority on EVERYTHING and that THIS WORLD is a worse place than what they offer. They claim to be MORALLY SUPERIOR. The Laws of Caesar they claim are MORALLY INFERIOR since they originate with Satan and when the law allows for IMMORAL people to get away with their crimes, they decry it in their publications.

    Then why does the WTBTS/Elders who are MORALLY SUPERIOR not do the MORALLY CORRECT thing and report to the "Superior Authorities" any IMMORAL act that THIS WORLD believes is IMMORAL especially when it involves CHILDREN.

    This world coming forth from Satan believes that RAPING CHILDREN is IMMORAL and sometimes these Worldly Laws do not do enough to protect these innocent children from harm. Everyone believes that mandatory reporting is MORE MORAL than non-mandatory reporting. Why does the WTBTS not follow the MOST MORAL OF ALL THE WORLDLY LAWS and report to the authorities, if not contribute greatly to prosecuting these monsters regardless of what the LOCAL LAWS say? You would think that if they really had the best interest of these children in mind, they would not just turn over evidence but also help with the prosecution of the perpetrators and recovery of these victims.

    Your line of reasoning is the same as the WTBTS - cover your asses and do the least that's required of us legally, try to cover it up as quick as possible. It has been proven that child abusers CAN NOT be rehabilitated. Why would the WTBTS protect their confessions at all?

  • cantleave
    cantleave

    Great point Anony Mous.

  • cofty
    cofty
    It has been proven that child abusers CAN NOT be rehabilitated - Anony Mous

    This cannot be stressed often enough.

    A pedophile can be helped to prevent acting out his/her attraction to children but it needs professional therapy, ongoing supervision and the person needs to want the help.

    If a child molester won't even admit what they have done they are a time-bomb that will harm other children.

    This is why stupid ignorant men shouldn't have the assumed authority that elders give themselves.

  • Prime
    Prime
    You and I both know that lawyers can prolong and prevaricate in court using many devices and tactics to keep their client out of the witness box.
    The question here is why was the Watchtower prepared to devote legal counsel expenses to a case involving a disfellowshipped child molestor - remember he had been reproved and disfellowshipped way before 'the months of legal wrangling' - just to be clear this wrangling was the Watchtower legal team and the Crown Prosecution, NOT the local elders and the local police.
    Why?
    I put it to you it was because the Watchtower was caught in a murky spiral of its own making, with each mistep compounding the previous one.
    Mistake 1 - at the confessional meeting (under instruction from the WTS undoubtedly) 'going to the police was not discussed as an option' - if you were the Watchtower would you want your agents admitting this in open court?
    Mistake 2 - the elders (under instruction from the WTS undoubtedly) refused to cooperate with the police investigation for a period covering several years - if you were the Watchtower would you want your agents admitting this in open court?
    Mistake 3 - the elders (under instruction from the WTS undoubtedly) refused to comply with a Witness Summons, until the Judge made it clear there was a possible contempt charge if they didn't (read jailtime and criminal record). Faced with a criminal record for attempting to protect a child abuser, they complied. Finally.
    Why did the Watchtower allow this situation go from bad to worse, ending up with their name in the press <again> for trying to cover up child abuse?
    Why?

    "Why" did this member of the congregation inform the elders of what this man did in the first place?

    So the elders could address the matter as a congregation and take whatever action was appropriate. As for what was stated earlier;

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/190604/DFES-04320-2006-ChildAbuse.pdf

    "What to do if you’re worried a child is being abused"

    The reason there's no guidelines that instruct a person what to do if an adult comes to you about abuse that occurred years ago, is because this is not something a person necessarily has to concern their mind with. Not from a legal standpoint anyway.

    If it's up to this adult victim to press charges, why should anyone else pursue the matter for them? It's not practical to do so. You may have an opinion as to how another adult should respond to this matter, but whether another person decides to get involved or not, they will not be held accountable for not getting involved. There's no conspiracy or cover up because the elders allowed the adult victim to criminally prosecute her assailant. There was no initial "misstep."

    The only organizations that have ever been criticized for their stance on police involvement, are organizations that host activities where children are under the care of the organization and separated from their parents when a child was sexually assaulted.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/boy-scouts-leader-reassures-parents-perversion-files-reveal-sex-abuse-cover-ups-article-1.1162246

    No organization is held accountable for their response to any crime involving their overall church membership or any incident outside the perimeters of their facilities, officials and sponsored activities. If the man was ever a ministerial servant (official) he was stripped of his position and excommunicated. No one is criticized because they didn't act as an adult's spokesmen (informing the police even though there's no liability issues) or whether they testified in court to a confession (unless they ignored a court order or perjured themselves).

    If Jehovah's Witnesses are held to account for something no one else is held responsible for, it will be rejected by anyone who's aware of liability issues and society's overall response to this sort of thing.

  • cofty
    cofty

    The child rapist confessed to elders.

    The child rapist denied his crime to the police.

    The child rapist was an ongoing danger to other children.

    The police asked for the elder's help to convict the child rapist.

    The elders refused to help for amost 2 years until threatened by a judge.

    What part of that don't you get?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit