JW cleared of rape

by Earnest 6 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • Earnest

    As reported in the Cambridge (UK) Evening News, September 2, 2004, page 17:

    A Jehovah's Witness accused of raping a 13-year-old has been acquitted by a jury.

    Jon Hines had described the rape allegations as "farcical".

    Mr Hines, formerly of Kingston Close, Huntingdon, and now living in Lowestoft, said his 20-year marriage had ended in divorce mainly because he had been unable to make love to his wife for several years as a result of prostrate problems.

    The 61-year-old had denied three charges of raping the girl while she was visiting his Lowestoft home in 2002.

    Although one of the guidelines for posting on this forum is not to add the same comment more than once, I am opening a subsequent thread to the newspaper report on the trial as his acquittal should receive no less publicity than the original allegations.

    In my opinion, this trial is a cautionary note to the much criticised two-witness rule. As it happens, the accused in this particular case had convincing evidence he was incapable of the rape with which he was charged. But if he had no such evidence and it was simply his word against hers, would it have been right that he live the remainder of his life with this slur on his character simply on the word of one other.


  • Big Tex
    Big Tex

    I don't think anyone is convicted solely on the word of another. From what I understand, circumstantial evidence (DNA, blood, physical injuries) are more important than eyewitnesses in a court of law.

    The two witness rule, as it relates to child abuse and as applied by Jehovah's Witnesses is nothing short of evil.

  • dh

    same as i said on the other topic... glad to hear it, i wish they would prosecute the girl now. same sentence as he would have got.

  • SwordOfJah

    Thank you Earnest for your balanced view on this case and for posting the results of the case.

  • Pleasuredome

    would be interesting to know if his wife is a JW, wouldn't it?

  • Undaunted Danny
    Undaunted Danny

    This doesn't absolve all the OTHER perpetrators.Jehovah's Witnesses are still a pedophiles paradise,and they are just plain mean too.. I worked out stats that put Jehovah's Witnesses at FOUR TIMES THE PEDOPHILES PER CAPITA AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Regarding JW elders abetting child molestation at Watchtower direction: William H. Bowen addressed the (Denver SNAP) conference on the topic, ?Is it possible JW?s are Far Worse Than main Stream Religion When Dealing with Child Abuse?? Never-before-seen material was presented to show the extent of the problem to gasps from the audience. A general consensus was the audience was shocked to know how JWs handled abuse for all members.Denver 2004 SNAP conference

  • Earnest


    You are absolutely correct that the innocence of this man does not absolve the guilt of those responsible for child abuse, or of those who allow known sexual offender(s) to remain anonymous and a danger to others in the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses. However, I think that your description of JWs as a "pedophiles paradise" is an exaggeration and that your stats that they have four times the number of pedophiles per capita than the Catholic Church without any foundation.

    My comment on your stats is based on the assumption that you have no way of knowing how many pedophiles per capita exist in the Catholic Church. While the Watchtower Society is believed to have a database of JWs past and present who have been accused of child molestation, I do not believe that is true of the Catholic Church. I have no doubt that they have records on all priests or clergy that have been involved in molestation, but the very nature of the confessional precludes record-keeping of the laity unless the matter is public knowledge. If you believe I am mistaken I would appreciate knowing the source of your figures for the Catholic Church.


Share this