Day 5 - Fessler vs. Watchtower – Ends: Plaintiff settles in Jehovah’s Witness Child Abuse Trial

by darkspilver 90 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • StephaneLaliberte

    Richard Oliver, we know watchtower is not abusing the children themselves, the paedophiles do. But when they are sitting idle, deliberately not reporting such people to the authorities, it makes them accomplices on any crimes committed by the individual after he/she could have been reported.

  • OrphanCrow
    RO: because Orphan Crow made the assertion that Watchtower can and does monitor their members all the time, but chooses not to act when it comes to pedophilia.

    No. That is not what I said. It is sort of what I said...but not what I said.

    Yes, the Watchtower can and does monitor their members outside of "official" JW activities. is the next part of your sentence that reveals how you twist the meaning of what has been said, Richard. This is where you show your greased pig persona:

    "...but choses not to act when it comes to pedophilia". That is the part where you use hyperbole to make your case.

    I was presenting another institution's policies surrounding the protection of minors and stating that the Watchtower doesn't have anything at all in place to protect victims of child sex abuse. You had said that the WT can't monitor activities in a person's home and I was talking about how the WT could certainly make certain behaviors a disfellowshipping or disciplinary offense - such as make it policy that minor children never have unsupervised sleepovers with an adult who is not their parent or specified guardian.

    The WT could have certain behaviors prohibited - of course they can't stop all bad behavior (don't be ridiculous, Richard) but they could at least define what behaviors are not to be engaged in - like having minor children over for sleepovers. Which is no different than making it an offense to sleepover at a home of a JW of the opposite sex. Which the WT defines as bad behavior. And that is where the WT could take a more proactive position in making membership in their institution responsible for the protection of minors. They could define the behavior that puts a child at risk and make it an offense for adults to engage in those defined behaviors - like having sleepovers.

    Richard, I did not say exactly what you said I did - you have taken my words and twisted them slightly to put them out of context.

    You are the one who emphasizes "facts" above all else and yet you have a difficult time in interpreting and using "facts" when they are presented to you.

  • steve2

    RO bangs on about the elders not being able to literally stop people from having contact with each other. He is literally correct. But what the elders can - and should do - is demonstrate what actual, practical steps they have taken to monitor the situation. That could consist of written warnings to the woman not to have any contact, supervised or unsupervised, with the victim, explain to the victim's parents - and support their efforts - over the need to keep her away from any contact with the woman; encourage the child victim to seek help; sensitively refer her to appropriate services for child victims of sexual abuse, state that their misgivings about what has been reported are of sufficient concern that they will seek counsel from appropriate licensed professionals about how to better ensure the victim's safety and wellbeing. In other words, demonstrate they are humble enough to learn about best practice - information that has been widely available for at least two decades.

    It is the very worst defense to argue that elders cannot literally keep people from having contact. Who ever said they should? What has been said is the elders did nothing beyond their immediate circles of contact (talking to another body of elders). In simple English, the child victim's wellbeing was NOT a priority for when you look at the behaviour the elders took it was strictly in line with the main JW organization policies: Phone the legal department and follow their instructions.

    Too right JW organization should have also been called to account in the civil case.

  • Fisherman

    IN THE US: It is not the legal duty of the church to protect physically. That is the duty of Caesar.

    Caesar can pass laws making it a felony 80 years in jail if convicted or death penalty for a lawyer or judge or child or mother or father or jury or anybody to falsely accuse or prosecute or sue anybody for sexual child abuse.

    Change US laws of clergy confidentiality as WT proclaimed in Court.

    Legislation expressing that no sexual crimes against children will be tolerated by Caesar. No exceptions!

  • Hecce

    Mandated Reporting

    Protecting children is the responsibility of us all. Anybody who suspects that a child is being hurt, has the right to report that suspicion.

    Certain professionals, due to their contact or work with children, have special responsibilities. These people are called mandated reporters and are required by law to report suspected child abuse. Mandat­ed reporters are critical in the child abuse prevention effort.

    Mandated reporters include but are not limited to:

    • School employees
    • A person licensed or certified to practice in any health-related field
    • A medical examiner, coroner or funeral director
    • An employee of a healthcare facility or provider who is engaged in the admission, examination, care or treatment of individuals
    • An employee of a child care service, who has direct contact with children in the course of employment
    • A clergyman, priest, rabbi, minister, Christian Science practitioner, religious healer or spiritual leader of any regularly established church or other religious organization
    • An independent contractor
    • An employee of social services agency, who has direct contact with children in the course of employment
    • A peace officer or law enforcement official
    • An employee of a public library who has direct contact with children in the course of employment
    • Mandated reporters are required to report abuse when they have reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of their medical, professional or other training and experience that a child is being abused or neglect.

    Mandated reporters are not trained child abuse investigators.

    It is critical to child abuse prevention to report suspect abuse and not wait for the child to tell you about the abuse. It is also critical to child abuse investigations that mandated reporters do not conduct interviews to prove abuse is occurring. Suspicion is derived from professionals’ training and experiences.

    To make a report of suspected child sexual abuse, call ChildLine at 1-800-932-0313, or submit a report online via the Child Welfare Portal.

    PCAR has trainers across the Commonwealth in our 50 rape crisis centers that provide in-person training on child abuse recognition and reporting. Our curriculum has been approved by the Department of Human Services in accordance with Act 31 of 2014 and approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Education in accordance with Act 126 of the Pennsylvania Public School Code.

  • Fisherman

    State laws versus US laws.

    legal duty versus "responsibility"

    false accusations versus no penalty

  • JunkYardDog

    richy richy richy go stand face first in the corner. while the elder sticks it up your butt...

  • Ruby456

    well it is easy to see why Fessler settled. good on her. there is so much hyperbole here. I do hope she was not subjected to any of this sort of pressure but suspect that she was. glad she is now out of it and and can go on her way with the rest of her life.

  • AverageJoe1

    That's why I don't contribute anymore, ever since watching the ARC trial in 2015. Looking forward to the new one next month.

      • sir82

        I wonder how many JWs understand that their "worldwide work" contributions are going to settle child abuse lawsuits?

        I wonder how many JWs understand how many dozens of these cases have been thusly settled, and how many dozens or hundreds more such cases are in the pipeline?

  • Hecce

    Two cases in California destroyed the so called clergy privilege of the WT, one was the Napa case and the other the Simental case. The rulings were that once that the initial confession is shared with someone else the privilege disappears, very different that the Catholic Church confession. Here is some Silent Lambs information on the Simental case:


    Murrieta man convicted of molesting two sisters sentenced today

    The Desert Sun wire services • June 27, 2008

    A 50-year-old Murrieta man convicted of molesting two young sisters in 2005 and 2006 is scheduled to be sentenced today.

    Gilbert Simental was convicted of lewd behavior with a child under 14
    for molesting two sisters he knew from his Jehovah's Witnesses congregation and
    faces 45 years to life in prison when he is sentenced this morning.

    It took less than a day for the eight-woman, seven-man jury to find him
    guilty of three counts of lewd acts upon a child under 14 for molesting a 9- year-old girl in 2005 and her 10-year-old sister in 2006.

    The jury also found true an allegation of multiple victims.

    While testifying in his own defense, Simental confessed to molesting the younger sister but denied touching her sibling at a July 15, 2006, pool party and sleepover at his home.

    Church elders in the Jehovah's Witness congregation that Simental attended testified during the trial that he told them he molested the girls.

    The elders had tried to avoid testifying by claiming clerical privilege, but the judge ruled spoke with them in a group setting, not a confessional setting.

    The defendant has another case pending stemming from allegations by a third child that he molested her.

Share this