Honest Questions About Child Abuse

by Richard Oliver 207 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • Hoffnung

    Other organizations and churches have organized independent contact points to ensure that the process is free of any conflict of interest and the authorities are informed right away. Jehovah's Witnesses have no excuse whatsoever for not participating in such a thing.

  • never a jw
    never a jw

    That is 1 per 60. If you have kids, and you are in a congregation of 120 publishers, you are exposing your kids continuously to 2 child abusers. Do you know them... or did the society not bother to inform you... good luck

    Your calculations have to take into account that the 1006 cases happened over a period of more than 60 years. So your children have to remain children for 60 years and be regular JW's. It's not gonna work.

    The situation is very bad as it is, but 2 child abusers per congregation at any given time is a gross exaggeration.

  • Richard Oliver
    Richard Oliver


    I am sorry but you are actually wrong. Below is 3 cases including more recent cases that a fiduciary duty was not extended. Again I never said it was right but this is what the court has found.

    Lewis v Bellows Falls Congregation 114-CV-205-JGM. (2015)

    Holdings: The District Court, J. Garvan Murtha, J., held that:

    1 alleged conduct by church did not create fiduciary relationship between church and congregant;

    2 church allegedly had duty to provide reasonable supervision of its minister;

    3 no special relationship existed between the church and its minister, as required to give rise to church's duty to control minister;

    4 church had no duty to protect congregant; and

    5 church had no separate duty to warn its congregants, distinct from a duty to protect.

    Anderson v Watchtower M2004-01066-COA-R9-CV. (2005)

    Barbara Anderson et al. Claimed that Moses v Diocese of Colorado, 863 P.2d 310 (Colo. 1993) applied to their case. The Appeals court found that the cited case of Moses: “Recognized that the relationship between a clergyman and parishioner was normally one involving rust and reliance, but further held that in order to be liable to breach a fiduciary duty, the superior party must ‘assume a duty to act in the dependent party’s best interest,’” And footnote 23 goes on “Cases examining a breach of fiduciary durty claim in the contest of a religiously-based relationship have made it clear that the clergy-parishioner relationship alone is not sufficient to establish a fiduciary duty. … (declining to find a per se fiduciary relationship between all clergy and their congregants and requiring “something more” to demonstrate a justifiable trust on one side and resulting superiority and influence on the other).”

    Brian R v Watchtower CUM-98-531 (1999)

    The appeals court ruled:

    There does not exist a general obligation to protect others from harm not created by the actor. “The fact that the actor realizes or should realize that action on his part is necessary for another's aid or protection does not of itself impose upon him a duty to take such action.” RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 314 (1965). In other words, the mere fact that one individual knows that a third party is or could be dangerous to others does not make that individual responsible for controlling the third party or protecting others from the danger.5

    Even with the emergence of expanded liability for nonfeasance, that principle has remained clear—in instances of “nonfeasance rather than misfeasance, and absent a special relationship, the law imposes no duty to act affirmatively to protect someone from danger unless the dangerous situation was created by the defendant.” Jackson v. Tedd–Lait Post No. 75, 1999 ME 26, ¶ 8, 723 A.2d 1220, 1221. Only when there is a “special relationship,” may the actor be found to have a common law duty to prevent harm to another caused by a third party.7 There is simply “no duty so to control the conduct of a third person as to prevent him from causing physical harm to another unless ... a special relation exists between the actor and the other which gives to the other a right to protection.” RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 315(b) (1965).8

    We have described the salient elements of a fiduciary relationship as: (1) “the actual placing of trust and confidence in fact by one party in another,” and (2) “a great disparity of position and influence between the parties” at issue. Morris v. Resolution Trust Corp., 622 A.2d 708, 712 (Me.1993). A fiduciary relationship has been found to exist in several categories of relationship, including business partners, see Rosenthal v. Rosenthal, 543 A.2d 348, 352 (Me.1988), families engaged in financial transactions, see Estate of Campbell, 1997 ME 212, ¶ 9, 704 A.2d 329, 331–32, and corporate relationships, see Moore v. Maine Indus. Servs., Inc., 645 A.2d 626, 628 (Me.1994); Webber v. Webber Oil Co., 495 A.2d 1215, 1224–25 (Me.1985).

    We have noted, however, that a “general allegation of a confidential relationship is not a sufficient basis for establishing the existence of one.” Ruebsamen v. Maddocks, 340 A.2d 31, 35 (Me.1975). As with any duty, its existence must be informed by “the hand of history, our ideals of morals and justice, the convenience of administration of the rule, and our social ideas as to where the loss should fall.” Trusiani, 538 A.2d at 261. Although a fiduciary duty may be based on “moral, social, domestic, or [ ] merely personal [duties],” Ruebsamen, 340 A.2d at 34, it does not arise merely because of the existence of kinship, friendship, business relationships, or organizational relationships. A fiduciary duty will be found to exist, as a matter of law, only in circumstances where the law will recognize both the disparate positions of the parties and a reasonable basis for the placement of trust and confidence in the superior party in the context of specific events at issue.10 A court, therefore, must have before it specific facts regarding the nature of the relationship that is alleged to have given rise to a fiduciary duty in order to determine whether a duty may exist at law.

  • Richard Oliver
    Richard Oliver

    Never a jw- That was going to be my next statement. Everyone on this site automatically try to make that calculation work. But like you stated, it is over a period of 60 years so that 60k witnesses maybe a total of 100k and if you go through the full list that the ARC sent to law enforcement, it did indicate not all were witnesses who were perpetuated, some were studying with witnesses, others were family members of witnesses and some the victim was a child of witnesses so the ARC counted those because the elders did no report those cases to law enforcement.

  • zeb

    RO, you said, "Why do you feel that Watchtower is responsible for that person's actions against the child? "

    In pain I have read over this posting.

    The gardener who has a vile weed come up among his prepared rose bed is responsible for its growth if he does not pull it out.

    I see you are new here and have raised this one question. I think you are doing some form of studies and are seeking background and colour for your thesis and will argue forever but never come to a conclusion. In short you like so many in kh who will 'what if'.. endlessly. but never have any commitment. That is what I think but I suspect you are a lawyer building a case....

    I have two questions for you; do you have children? Have any of them ever been sexually abused?


    some were studying with witnesses, others were family members of witnesses and some the victim was a child of witnesses so the ARC counted those because the elders did not report those cases to law enforcement....RO

    As they should..

    Those JW Elders were given instruction by the WBT$,to Protect Pedophiles..

    You want more laws the WBT$ won`t follow..And..

    You`d like to take people's attention off of Suing the WBT$..

    More laws the WBT$ the won`t follow,with no financial punishment..????


    Are you thinking maybe after the WBT$ Is convicted of Hiding Pedophiles,with the new laws..

    Reward the entire group of WBT$ GB "Rock Star" Popes,with an all expense paid trip to a Children`s Theme Park?..

  • joe134cd

    Good point Richard Oliver. I have been deeply hurt by Wt and nothing would bring me more delight than to see an end to this terrible organization. I also feel extremely sorry for the victims involved in this. That been said I have often wondered if the X-JW community is perhaps using this as a way of getting back at someone who has hurt them. A way of venting their anger. Perhaps if it wasn't child abuse would it of been the U.N affiliation or false prophesies.


    Richard Oliver, are you one of Jehovah's Witnesses?


  • cha ching
    cha ching
    "Let us just take the cases where a regular publisher or even an appointed person, with no previous accusation of child abuse has come up against that person. Why do you feel that Watchtower is responsible for that person's actions against the child?"

    Who said that anyone DID say that the WT is responsible for that lewd man's behavior in the first place, as no one can control another person's behavior. (Tho when people see opportunities to act without consequence, you might say the WT is responsible for setting up a condition that makes it easier for the crime to be committed)

    However, for all the documented cases where these victims suffer through years of mental torture, the WT bears responsibility for the harm that comes to those victims after the pedophile has acted.

    Because the WT tells elders not to report these to the police, children suffer.

    It tells elders to call the legal department.

    The GB act like gods, they are the "Guardians of Doctrine" (G.O.D.) and tell everyone how to think, how to act, and let congregation sheep know, in no uncertain terms, what will happen to them if they do not "listen, learn and obey."

    Because , the GB have found out that they have a "goring bull" in the yard, and they themselves have written, and are aware of their responsibility.

    *** w91 2/15 p. 12 par. 8 A Corresponding Ransom for All ***
    "To illustrate: Exodus 21:28-32 speaks of a bull that gores a person to death. If the owner knew of the bull’s disposition but did not take proper precautions, he could be made to cover, or pay, for the life of the slain one with his own! Yet, what if the owner was only partially responsible? He would need a ko′pher, something to cover his error. Appointed judges could impose upon him a ransom, or fine, as a redemption price."

    The WT does know about the "goring bull" when they are first called.

    They do not protect people from a second attack.

    It keeps records "of their goring bulls."

    It lets these "goring bulls" keep goring, not only the "sheep" in the congregation, but people outside of the walls of the Kingdom Halls.

    The WT punishes people for talking or warning about the "goring bulls."

    It takes their life, their family, their friends.

    The WT does not live by the standards that it's own writing department writes of, but expects everyone else to live by the letter of the law.

  • Richard Oliver
    Richard Oliver

    I have been not going to meetings for a few weeks as I delved deeper into these stories from primary sources. And like I have said I at one time tried to defend watchtower but I can't anymore. Though I personally feel that the way to get change is through legislation and not the courts.

    Just because people here feel that it is a waste of time to get new laws made because u feel that no matter what watchtower won't follow them. I think that if legislators make laws with teeth it would help. I look at facts and not just allow emotion to take over. Of course this is a sad and sensitive subject, but finding solutions to sad and sensitive subjects still require practical and thoughtful way.

Share this