Convicted paedophile allowed to grill his victims at Jehovah's Witness meeting

by Sapphy 74 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Teary Oberon

  "It does not mean that there is consistancy between how Rose was dealt with and how others are dealt with in JC situations."

  Perhaps because these types of situtations are rarely cookie cutter, and this case in particular was very odd.

  I can certainly see why serious questions might be raised by the elders. Please allow me to play Devil's Advocate and speak from the perspective of the Defense for a moment.

  1) Rose never admitted guilt at any point. He maintained his innocence from the beginning to the end.

  2) Jane Doe 0 had already made apparently false accusations against Rose in the past, so her involvement in this new case and her behind the scenes coordination with the other women should be a giant red flag.

  3) Rose's behavior around the family of Jane Doe 1 is not consistent with someone who knows that they have abused the family's daughter. Jane Doe 1 was 20-21 years old (a full grown adult) when Rose went to her father seeking a character reference (according to Cedars), and also according to Cedars, she had at that point already gone and given the police a written statement of her alleged past abuse. So if Rose really was guilty of abusing Jane Doe 1, why exactly would he go to her father of all people when he knows that his now adult victim would be right there and that she may have told her father about the abuse at any time? It reeks of irrationality and absurdity. Unless of course, Rose himself didn’t think he was talking to a victim’s father at all. Rose himself might not have known anything about Jane Doe 1’s allegations of abuse until Jane Doe 1 told him during court proceedings. Rose might have assumed that this man he was seeking a reference from was just another friend and that there was nothing special or significant about his daughter at all. His actions make sense as an innocent man, but they make no sense at all as a guilty man.

  4) Jane Doe 2 was apparently quite the wild child even before she brought accusations against Rose. The rumors include drinking, drugs and pre-marital sex. The sources also mention Rose himself, when he was still an elder and some time before the sexual assault allegations, sitting on a Judicial Committee to investigage Jane Doe 2's behavior. This would provide interesting motivation for revenge if Jane Doe 2 decided to hold a grudge from those meetings. Remember too that she was the one who made the first written statements to police and started the ball rolling.

  "the rules only allow for a face to face with a single witness."

  I think that you are making an unjustified leap of logic. The Shepherd book recommends a meeting because an accuser and the accused if the accused denies the allegations made against him, but it does not expressly forbid meetings between more than two people.

  " There were three."

  There were two, because Jane Doe 0's testimony should not have carried any weight at that point.
• 

  Hairtrigger

  Teary Oberon,

  This debate gets more interesting by the hour. Will it be possible to post the site where we can look at the information that you present about this case? That would make this whole thing a little clearer. I for one know the little that I do from the MEN article and what you have posted thus far.

  Thanks for some very lucid rationale on this debate.
• 

  Teary Oberon

  http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/jail-jehovahs-witness-elder-jonathan-6258814

  http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/convicted-paedophile-jonathan-rose-grilled-7151197

  http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/jonathan-rose-the-pedophile-elder-who-won-the-support-of-a-congregation

  http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/piling-on-the-torment-new-moston-elders-allow-pedophile-rose-to-quiz-victims

  Though keep in mind that I always try to seperate out the opinions, assumptions, and contradictions from neutral and undisputed facts. I ignore most of Cedar's opinion writing, value judgements and interpretation of events, and just focus mainly on the occurence of the event itself. For instance:

  "In the third and final meeting Rose was invited to the proceedings and given the opportunity to question the women “in detail” without any of the usual measures used in court to prevent witnesses being bullied."

  The only thing that matters in this statement is: "In the third and final meeting Rose was invited" telling us that the first two meetings were probably just the women. If Cedar's source is to be believed, then that is a neutral fact that we can add to our list. The rest of the statement is irrelevant hearsay and value judgment which adds little to the discussion.
• 

  LisaRose

  . I ignore most of Cedar's opinion writing, value judgements and interpretation of events, and just focus mainly on the occurence of the event itself.

  As I ignore yours, you have a tendency to see every event in the light that is most flattering to the Watchtower. I wonder why that is?
• 

  Iown Mylife

  The behavior of going around a victim's father acting as if he was innocent, WAS very consistent with a child molester. They behave as if they are innocent because they BELIEVE they are innocent. A sociopath recognizes no higher authority than his own will. If he decides to do something then he believes it is right and correct.

  The WT cult certainly gives every appearance of protecting sociopaths: Child molesters, violent domestic abusers, emotional abusers, etc. And terrorizing their victims.

  Marina

  edited
• 

  Hairtrigger

  Teary Oberon

  Thanks once again. Appreciate the education.
• 

  truthseekeriam

  @ lown Mylife,

  You are so right with what you said.

  Isn't is great that in the real world, we have educated experts that get on the stand and explain the mind of molesters. If you listened to these WT defenders you would believe every accuser is a big liar and every molester is just an innocent misunderstood brother.

  I suppose they are just preaching to their own choir, but it is a bit annoying to read.
• 

  sparrowdown

  The borg is a veritable safe harbour for predators of all sorts, be it sexual, emotional or physical.

  Predators don't go around with a tee-shirt that says "hi, I'm a predator ".

  They are usually extra nice, they have to be to get people to trust them, sometimes "grooming" their

  victims for months or even years before the actual abuse starts.

  Unfortunately the elders allow this atmosphere of automatic trust that any normal person would consider dangerous in any other setting

  In normal life you do not just trust anyone with your children no questions asked- yet that is exactly what happens in many a congregation.

  That is why the cong is a haven for sexual predators and it will remain so until the GB change policy and elders grow a pair and refuse to be a party to "blame the victim" mentality..
• 

  Pistoff

  Case in a nutshell:

  Accusations of child sexual abuse are brought to the elders

  Elders interview minors with no parent present

  Elders absolve the perp

  After seeing others call out the perp and after the perp IS SENTENCED FOR THE ASSAULT AFTER BEING CONVICTED IN A COURT OF LAW, INVESTIGATED BY PROFESSIONALS, the first victims go back to the elder body (their non-witness status is irrelevant, in fact it is likely why they had the courage to confront the elder body) and want to know why the man was not disfellowshiped.

  The elders require that the perp and the victims meet face to face, a practice they selectively enforce.

  After the meeting, the perp is df'd.

  At the very least, this reveals the total incompetency and lack of qualifications of the elder body the first time around.

  At worst, it reveals a policy that covers for pedophiles by giving them a benefit of doubt that does not extend to fornicators, adulterers and thieves; their record is consistently in the pedophiles interest by not turning over cases of accusation to the police.

  They publicly say the do, but they do not; if there are not 2 witnesses, or now maybe 2 victims, it goes NOWHERE except to headquarters.
• 

  konceptual99

  I can certainly see why serious questions might be raised by the elders. Please allow me to play Devil's Advocate and speak from the perspective of the Defense for a moment.

  1) Rose never admitted guilt at any point. He maintained his innocence from the beginning to the end.

  I don't really see why that matters. People claim innocence all the time which is why the judicial process seeks to establish the truth of the matter based on evidence and witnesses. In the context of the JC then lets presume innocence. There was still no need or justification for a face to face grilling under the direction of unqualified men.

  2) Jane Doe 0 had already made apparently false accusations against Rose in the past, so her involvement in this new case and her behind the scenes coordination with the other women should be a giant red flag.

  Fair comment but that was taken into account in the legal process yet there was still a conviction.

  3) Rose's behavior around the family of Jane Doe 1 is not consistent...

  That means nothing as other posters have pointed out. Guilty people do all sorts of strange things. There are cases of child abduction and murder here in the UK where the perpetrator has been right there in the forefront of the search, acted as a spokesperson for the family and raised their profile not just to the family but to the media.

  4) Jane Doe 2 was apparently quite the wild child...

  Ok, there is the basis for examining the possibility of a grudge based wild accusation but it would also be unfair to assume that is case.

  I accept that the Shepherd book does not expressly forbid a face to face meeting of more than one witness with an accused but it is extraordinary. You might argue this was an extraordinary case and perhaps in the world of WT fuzzy logic the process of allowing the accused to answer a charge was required. There was still no need to have a face to face grilling. This whole WT setup in these situations places the burden of proof to be on the victim and not the accused yet in most other JC situations it's the other way round and the accused is usually afforded little opportunity to counter the evidence of witnesses, especially if there are two. Pistoff has summed this up perfectly.

  There were two, because Jane Doe 0's testimony should not have carried any weight at that point.

  Accepted however there were still two witnesses and the whole setup was poorly handled. Whatever the context of how these women came to meet with Rose and the BOE, their objectives and agenda it would have been WT Legal, through the BOE, calling the shots. They had control over the nature of the meeting and they failed to manage it in a way that was cognisent of the risk of emotional harm to the victims and in a way that is consistent with how accused ones are treated in other far less serious circumstances.