JW molester in the news

by silentlambs 15 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  silentlambs

  . http://www.bergen.com/page.php?level_3_id=7&page=3284376

  A West Milford man pleaded guilty to child endangerment offenses Friday for sexual encounters he had with two teenage girls he met through his membership at the Jehovah's Witnesses temple in town.

  Tom Blankenship, 23, had been befriended by an elder at the church and was often invited over for meals and visits, said Joseph Del Russo, Passaic County chief assistant prosecutor.

  From the fall of 1998 through April 2000, Blankenship had sexual relations with one of the elder's relatives, a 17-year-old girl. He had similar sexual contact with another relative, a 14-year-old girl, from June 2001 through Feb. 21, Del Russo said.

  Although there was no physical force used in the incidents, Blankenship was charged with multiple sexual assault charges because of the victims' ages. The incidents sometimes took place when Blankenship was over for visits, other times when he sneaked into the house late at night, Del Russo said.

  The church elder contacted police Feb. 27 and Blankenship was arrested March 3 and charged with sexual assault, criminal sexual contact, and child endangerment offenses.

  He pleaded guilty to two of the child endangerment offenses and will face a probationary sentence with up to 364 days in the county jail. Had he been convicted at trial, Blankenship faced up to 10 years behind bars.

  - Jennifer V. Hughes
• 

  Imbue

  Please... when I was 17 I had a boyfriend that age. The 14 yr old is a problem but a 17 yr old and 23 yr old is not unusual.

  Crazy is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
• 

  Reborn2002

  I am inclined to agree with lmbue here.

  Depending on the state this case has taken place in.. age varies when determining what qualifies as consent or not.

  In Illinois for example, a 17 year old girl is perfectly legal. This was clarified in light of the R. Kelly sex scandal and blasted all over the Chicago newspapers.

  A 17 year old girl and a 23 year old male is quite common. I have seen that in JW-congregations when I was an active JW as well as in the general public. Normally I am the first one in line to cast stones at the JW, but that age difference is nothing shocking, nor would it normally be considered immoral or illegal.

  However, the 14 year old is an entirely different matter. THAT is an issue which deserves further investigation. If he was 22 or 23 at the time, and she was 14.. then he should DEFINITELY be prosecuted for molestation, statutory rape, and whatever other criminal charges are applicable.

  It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion.
  WT 11/15/1963 page 688 paragraph 3
• 

  BluesBrother

  Please note that the article does not sat whether or not the perpetrator was a fully baptised member of the cong, and it was the elder that turned him in .
• 

  anewperson

  Yes, point is at least one more elder has chosen to do the right thing by turning in a pedophile. May more and more do the same. May all ignore the Watchtower dictators on this. Thanks, Bill and silentlambs.org.
• 

  Francois

  Uuuum, lessee, 23 minus 17 is (borrows one from the tens place), um, is, is SIX!! And I'm 14 years older than my wife. The older you are, the less it seems to matter.

  And you're right, the age of consent differs in various states. Used to be, only a couple hundred years ago, girls were married just as soon as they reached puberty. And a woman who had reached 21 years of age and was single was regarded as an old lady spinster.

  In Polynesia, girls were expected to produce at least one child prior to marriage to prove they were fertile. No child, no prospects of marriage.

  Don't know how I got off on that tangent, but there it is.

  Francois
• 

  Bodhisattva

  Well, Francois, it would certainly matter if you married when you were 28. Here in Pennsylvania, the 17 year old would not have been a problem, legally. Sensibly, I think, Pennsylvania also does not criminalize sex between someone of at least 14 with someone no more than 4 years older; kids are going to have sex, so the best public policy is to prevent them being taken advantage of by older people, whereas someone who just was their age is less likely to victimize them.

  These are formative years, but for the J.W., there is little in the way of a right-of-passage. It's not as though they should aspire to move out of the parental home to a college dorm; even getting a full-time job is seen as a failure to more straight to pioneering. Meanwhile, those who like this young man do move out are socially stunted, because they really only have the other single "young people" in the congregation to associate with - most of whom are married or gone by 18 or so. This 23 year old may have been no more mature than a 17 or 18 year old.

  Nonetheless he should have paid attention to the laws of Caesar, even if he was going to break the less than reasonable laws of Brooklyn. The 14 year old was too much, and without that he may not have even been prosecuted; and as for the 17 year old, he should have waited - until she was 18, or until he could get a hotel room across the border in Pennsylvania.

  The god of the dolphins has flippers.

  Should be "rites of passage"
• 

  silentlambs

  I find it absolutely stunning the stupidity manifested by some who post on this board. First "Tom" was described as a member:

  "A West Milford man pleaded guilty to child endangerment offenses Friday for sexual encounters he had with two teenage girls he met through his membership at the Jehovah's Witnesses temple in town."

  The term "his membership" certainly implies baptism. Second, how old were the girls when this man committed child molestation? Well today they were 17 and 14. The molestation started on the 17 year old in 1998. Anyone care to do the math? 2002-1998=4 then take 17 and subtract 4 and what do you have?????? The age of 13 do any of you great defenders see a problem with that? Then the 14 year old was molested in 2001. 2002-2001=1 take 14 and subtract 1 and what do you have???? Once again the age of 13. It seems Brother Blankinship likes little 13 year old girls to seduce so then he can train them and and use them for his selfish purposes. I did not notice any comment about marriage.

  Do any of you math majors see any problem with the molestation of two 13 year girls by a 19-20 year old? I believe just about any State will find that to be a crime even though there is only six years differance between ages. Think before you defend the crime of child molestation.

  Finally, it was mentioned that an elder turned the man in. Which elder do you think it was?

  "From the fall of 1998 through April 2000, Blankenship had sexual relations with one of the elder's relatives, a 17-year-old girl. He had similar sexual contact with another relative, a 14-year-old girl, from June 2001 through Feb. 21, Del Russo said."

  The elder whose relatives were being molested. Yes, when it affected his family personally he turned the man in. What do you think he would have done if WT legal had said to leave it in Jehovah's hands with someone else's child? You see New Jersey is not a reporting State.

  "The church elder contacted police Feb. 27 and Blankenship was arrested March 3 and charged with sexual assault, criminal sexual contact, and child endangerment offenses."

  In conclusion, this man molested two 13 years olds and continued to do so for several years. What happened to this serial child molester?

  "He pleaded guilty to two of the child endangerment offenses and will face a probationary sentence with up to 364 days in the county jail. Had he been convicted at trial, Blankenship faced up to 10 years behind bars."

  Probation and less than a year in county jail with time off for good behavior. Does that seem like a fair sentence to you? What if it was your 13 year old daughter?
• 

  plmkrzy

  The 14 year old is a bit much.

  There was a young girl who had been chasing my son for over a year,obsesivly. She lied about her age, said she was 17. I found out later she was only 14 and went through the roof just a bit. I had to contact her parents not to mention had the principal call her and tell her to stop attempting to see my son. It was the only way at the time to stop her. She was insistant on being his girlfriend. And no one was going to stop her. What a mess it was for awhile.

  anewperson
  [[Yes, point is at least one more elder has chosen to do the right thing by turning in a pedophile. May more and more do the same.]]
  
  Well you've done it. I'm shocked.
  Even though you do have a history of trying to make me mizzerable,
  I must find the strength to pat you on the back, lighty, for making some sense and sounding rational in a reply.

  http://ourworld.cs.com/pwmkwzy/home.html
• 

  Simon

  When I first read it, it sounded like it was a 17 and 14 year old. Here in the UK the age of consent is 16 so '17' didn't sound too bad.

  Obviously, if it's 17 now and started 4 years previously then that is a different kettle of fish completely.

  Good that the guy got turned in - perhaps many more have been spared his attention?