Another child abuse cover up by JW"s

by LevelThePlayingField 8 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • LevelThePlayingField


    STANFORD – The trial of a Jehovah’s Witness accused of raping a 15-year-old girl nearly two decades ago is expected to begin in April.

    Donovan Moore, 53, of 2059 St. Michael Drive in Lexington, was indicted in September on four counts of third-degree rape and four counts of third-degree sodomy for allegedly engaging in sexual intercourse with a juvenile in 1997 and 1998. Moore was 35 at the time of the alleged crimes.

    Lincoln Circuit Judge Jeffrey Burdette has scheduled a two-day trial for Moore to begin April 27.

    Moore has been lodged at the Lincoln County Regional Jail since his arrest Sept. 30 on a $75,000 full-cash bond.

    Public defender Sarah Bryant made a motion Tuesday to reduce Moore’s bond, citing the “old age” of the charges and continuous contact with family members as reasons Moore isn’t a flight risk.

    "I would like to point out that Mr. Moore was employed until the time of his arrest. It’s my understanding his job is still available,” Bryant said. "He does not have a criminal history. I don't believe he would offend while he would be out on bond. His family has maintained contact with me throughout this case so far."

    Commonwealth’s Attorney Eddy Montgomery told Burdette he has made a plea offer but didn’t go into any more detail other than saying he wasn’t sure if the defense had plans to reject it.

    "There is still some information we need in the case before we can make a decision – mainly family court records from Jessamine County,” Bryant said.

    A few new details emerged during the Tuesday pretrial conference, including information that both the victim and Moore were Jehovah’s Witnesses at the time of the alleged sexual abuse – abuse that Montgomery argued was known by the church congregation and intentionally covered up.

    "I think a trial would’ve come after the (allegations) came up and the church was aware of it and basically covered it up, similar to the Catholic church deal,” Montgomery said. “Then the victim ended up getting married to this gentleman and having children with him."

    Montgomery argued against the motion to reduce Moore’s bond, stating, aside from the nature of the charges, there are records to back up the alleged crime and cover up.

    "Basically the church told her not to report this and kept it in house. The analogy I’ve made would be the Catholic church sex abuse cases and that’s the reason it had to come forward. He also has children with the victim in this case," Montgomery said.

    Bryant said a lot of the allegations came up after “some family court issues” in Jessamine County, which is why she plans to send Montgomery an order to obtain those records.

    “That was the first time authorities had been told,” Bryant said. “I think they had been divorced for several years prior. They were married for several years and have two children.”

    Montgomery asked that Moore’s bond be very restrictive if the motion to reduce is granted, including restrictive access to children.

    "If you do grant any bond, I ask that it be very restrictive but obviously I’m asking you not to do that based on the nature of this case,” he said.

    Burdette said the only reason he is taking the motion under consideration is because the charges are almost two decades old.

    "Just speaking frankly, the reason that you’re being held on that bond is the nature of the charges and the number of them,” Burdette told Moore. "All I’ve got is what’s on this paper – eight charges that look serious."

    Burdette said he’s going to think about it before he makes a decision on Moore’s bond.

    "I see you nodding your head,” Burdette said to Moore. "That’s just the way they’re going to present it. It may not be true but that’s the information they’ve got. They’re looking at it,” Burdette said. "The fact is the only thing in my process is looking at this paper of multiple charges that are tough, tough stuff."

    Montgomery asked the judge to set a trial date, stating that he has spoken to the victim and it’s an old case that needs to be resolved.

  • OneEyedJoe

    To be fair, it sounds like this went exactly according to the bible - he raped a virgin so he married her. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that she was pressured into marrying him by the elders due to the rape.

    Absolutely disgusting. I hate that I was ever connected to this cult more because of this sort of thing than because of what it's done to my life.

  • sir82

    Basically the church told her not to report this and kept it in house.

    The big question - does "the church" refer to the local elders acting on their own, or does it refer to local elders acting on advice from Bethel?

    If there is ever a case where there is a "smoking gun" linking a direct order from Brookln to cover matters over, that would be a game-changer.

  • Magwitch
    I wonder if there was a shotgun wedding coerced by elders and parents to cover up a rape and a pregnancy.
  • under the radar
    under the radar

    Warning: Politically incorrect diatribe below. Read at your own risk. May contain "trigger words."

    Ok then. Here we go...

    Sounds more to me that it's a case of statutory "rape," meaning that technically the alleged "victim" could not legally have given consent but may well have been a willing and eager participant nonetheless.

    She apparently wasn't too upset or "traumatized" to marry him and have children with him. Yes, they eventually divorced. But that happens all the time for any number of reasons.

    I'd bet all this is coming out now as a direct result of squabbling in Family Court. She probably threatened him with it and he called her bluff. Oops!

    Anyway, I think it's ridiculous to charge someone 20 years after the fact when the alleged "victim" was plenty old enough to know what she was doing, later married her "abuser" and had his children, and only now brings it up when they are fighting in court. If she really thought she was a victim, she could have turned him in long before now. Sounds rather opportunistic to me.

    The sad part is exercises in vindictiveness like this divert attention away from and tend to dilute the seriousness of cases where there really is child abuse.

    This concludes the diatribe. Flame away if you must. I'm just saying what I think may be going on in this particular situation. Other cases may be completely different. Each one must be weighed on its own merits.


    That's so bizarre. This case is a prime example of why all cults should be taxed out of existence.

    Without knowing all the details of the case, I can tell you this with 100% certainty; those two people, abuser and victim were F'd by the WTBTS. Did the man need help at 35 years of age, counseling perhaps? Where was that help? It does not exist in WT-Land. Do I put the majority of the blame on him? Of course, he was 35. Even so, he was failed by the Eldubs, who are totally unqualified to give counselling! The guy was better off flipping a coin!

    What about her? Where were her "Dukes" and "Stars of Revelation", nowhere. Whom could she speak to about improper feelings for an older man, other older men?? ( I'm not blaming her, just to be clear. He may have totally forced himself upon her. Still, there could have been a mutual attraction that was left unchecked.) Could she confide in a "spiritually mature" Sister, perhaps an Eldub's wife? Hell, No!! That would spread like wild fire! Could she go to the Eldubs? Hell, No!!! Those perverts would ask if she was reading romance novels and touching areas of her body, instead of praying to Jeehoober!

    Now there are children involved!! Little humans with no choice except to be exposed to the idiocy and soul-retarding stupidity of the WT Cult! This has got to stop!! 😡


  • sir82

    I think it's ridiculous to charge someone 20 years after the fact when the alleged "victim" was plenty old enough to know what she was doing, later married her "abuser" and had his children, and only now brings it up when they are fighting in court.

    Do you know this for a certainty, or are you just projecting / guessing / making up stuff, based on what you think "must be the case"?

  • stuckinarut2

    The point about the details of the "case" are disturbing... (sodomy)

    She was a child. He was 20 years older than her! He no doubt manipulated her emotionally. (Stockholm syndrome?)

  • flipper
    Whether the perpetrator was 35 and the victim was 15 and she ended up marrying him - child rape is still child rape. It may very well be that the elders or congregation involved with the two families tried to sweep the whole thing under the rug as the news article stated to " save face " in front of the local congregation . The fact that , " Basically the church told her to not report this and keep it in house " definitely indicates irresponsibility on the elders part in covering up a crime. Whether that crime was exposed 18 years later - or not- really makes no difference in my opinion

Share this