May 2019 child abuse WT

by neat blue dog 36 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Della Street

  @flipper ... it's annoying right?

  My thinking around that is when people are required to suppress their desire for achievement in order to fit in, and then are deemed "worthy" of a title and some little influence...it sets people up to mis-use what power they feel they have. They have given their autonomy away, so they take it out on others. I doubt any of them are insightful about that at all, but that is the way I've always seen it. Basic Maslow - people have psychological needs to feel agency, and being a JW strips that away. It's a recipe for disaster, as we well know.
• 

  stan livedeath

  a major problem with this issue in the UK is people who claim they were abused as children--by well known public figures--politicians--actors--entertainers etc. it can destroy such a persons life--career--reputation etc. even before the court case.

  in the really controversial cases--there are NO "2 witnesses"--just an allegation from one person against another..and who's story do the courts believe ?

  i knew of one case--although he was in no way famous.

  this was 25 years ago the man accused was the care taker of an industrial complex. he and his wife had previously been foster parents to several kids. one of the kids--a girl--after a few years alleged the man had abused her whist she lived in his house

  he denied it

  who do you believe ?
• 

  Della Street

  The courts don't believe either side - at least they are not supposed to. The evidence is presented, and then it compels people to believe one side or the other. Although the facts are the facts, there is no such thing as proof, only evidence - which we then choose to be swayed by or not. And each of us has a different line for where it tips over into "beyond a reasonable doubt" territory.

  I am not the court, so I can be biased. I tend to trust and verify victims, while at the same time knowing that sometimes (rarely) people lie even about these things.

  If there is one accuser - I tend to withhold assuming he is guilty. But when the count of accusers is 3 or more, that is when I flip over and assume he is guilty. You can get one person to lie, maybe even two. Coordinating 3 or more people to lie about that kind of thing would be much more difficult and unlikely.

  At least that is how I settle things out when I see stuff like that.
• 

  stan livedeath

  ok--well the man i referred toobviously took legal advice--it was a serious allegation after all.

  now--heres the twist. the court would probably find in favour of the accuser--and he would get a lengthy prison sentence.

  his lawyer advised him to plead guilty--and save a lot of time and stress all round--and receive a reduced sentence in return.

  this he did. he was released from prison within 3 years.

  i talked to him after his release--he went back to his old job. none of us believed he actually did it--the accuser was being malicious and vindictive.

  which begs the questions:

  was he innocent ?

  was he guilty ?

  did he plead guilty--knowing he was--to get a shorter sentence

  or did he plead guilty--knowing he was innocent--but also knowing the balance of probability would find in favour of the woman--and he decided to play the odds?

  and finally--what would you have done in his position ?

  the above really happened--i worked in the place 3 years--and his name was Mike.
• 

  joe134cd

  Stan: I understand what your saying. I guess it comes to the strength of the evidence, and the number of victims who are willing to come forward.

  If it was like the case you just mentioned I could perhaps understand there been some reason to give him the benefit of the doubt. But when it’s multiple victims (e.g Bill Cosby) who are good credible witnesses, who have never known each other or have no reason to want him behind bars. Then the case becomes more compelling. I can think of 2 examples here in this country.

  (1)A university student who prior to the accusation had never had an incident with the law, was accused of rape. The women latter confessed she made the whole thing up.

  (2) A young girl accused the mother’s boyfriend of touching her through her clothes after a night of drinking. The perpetrator denied it and said his hand probably slipped. What made the situation worse was the mother who was also an abuse survivor decided to grill the young child over it. I defence claimed that this had put ideas into the child’s head and he walked free.

  (2)The
• 

  TJ Curioso

  I wrote an extensive article on my website about these Watchtower articles where I review and rebate each paragraph devoted to sexual abuse by the Watchtower.

  A careful analysis reveals half-truths and a deep hypocrisy that tries to clear the image of an organization that has masked abusers and further injured the victim of abuse.

  Of course I wrote in my native language (portuguese). If anyone can translate into English, feel free.
  
  https://www.desperta.net/reflexotildees/novos-artigos-da-sentinela-tentam-minimizar-os-danos-causados-pelos-escandalos-de-abuso-sexual-nas-testemunhas-de-jeova-e-seu-encobrimento-pela-torre-de-vigia
  
• 

  Vidiot

  flipper - " Hypothetically a JW child molester within the WT organization might be 'forgiven' just reproved and remain a JW - even though the police authorities and courts of the land find him guilty and he serves life in prison! Yet he's STILL in good standing as an alleged 'JW christian' while serving his prison term."

  At first glance, this seems like a monumentally stupid move, but on reflection, it actually suggests something significant...

  ...that the Org has weighed any potential short-term "reproach" such a situation would theoretically bring upon itself against the potential long-term problems they'd experience if they actually did things properly...

  ...and decided that the former was more desirable than the latter.

  i.e., The WTS regards any short-term problems caused by keeping the problem under wraps as far less dangerous to them than the long-term impact...

  ....which cannot help but be - ultimately - the undermining of the Org's claims of exclusivity amongst the rank-and-file.

  That is what the Org is fighting against.

  Their self-appointed status as "God's exclusive Earthly organization" can never be called into question... despite what loyalists may insist, it's not particularly pleasant to be a Jehovah's Witness, after all, so without that claim, there's virtually no incentive to remain affiliated...

  ...and the WT leadership knows that without the rank-and-file maintaining their affiliation, there's no revenue flow from said rank-and-file...

  ...and without that necessary revenue flow, the Org's very survival is threatened.