So, yes, there is a story, but there is a confusing timeline and a mix of incidents in the newspaper articles.
In 1990, while attending a Spanish-speaking congregation in Brussels, Belgium, Miguel Garcia - then aged 16 - alleges that he was sexually abused/attacked by a man 'A' (a brother in good standing in the congregation) ie it was NOT consensual and Miguel Garcia was an 'unwilling participant'.
Three years later in 1993, and now in Spain, Miguel Garcia - then aged 19 - approached the elders in his congregation regarding his allegation of sexual abuse/attack that took place in Belgium three years earlier and it seems that a Judicial Committee (three elders) was set up for the man 'A' (???) for which Miguel Garcia cooperated and gave details - apparently others had made similar allegations regarding the same man 'A'.
What was the outcome of that judicial hearing? If summary details where placed in a sealed envelope does that mean the man 'A' was reproved / disfellowshipped?
Miguel Garcia complains now (in the Sept 2016 article) that he was 'asked not to file charges in order to not disgrace the congregation.'
Following the 1990 to 1993 events, Miguel Garcia remained a JW in good standing.
After some years, and still as a JW, Miguel Garcia married his wife (a sister in the JW congregation) who continues to be a JW down to this day.
Around five years ago? They separated (not divorced, and not scriptural) and Miguel Garcia stopped attending meetings (faded - not DF or DA)
Around this time Miguel Garcia suffered from panic attack/s requiring attendance at hospital (when was this? how soon after he stopping associating with JWs?)
Miguel Garcia complains that because his JW friends where concerned for his safety/health they visited him in hospital which he did not want (confusing – it is likely that some people would complain if NO one at least turned up - natural human empathy etc)
In time, and over a number of years, due to inactivity in the JW congregation, Miguel Garcia was effectively no longer viewed as a JW.
Four years later Miguel Garcia and his wife legally divorced (when?? 2014? 2015?)
IMPORTANT - although not needed for the legal divorce, Miguel Garcia was happy (at the same time, when?) to effectively confess to adultery in order for his wife to have a scriptural divorce and to allow her to remarry (as per her continuing JW beliefs).
In April 2014 Miguel Garcia wrote to the congregation he was last associated with and requested the removal of all his records and data etc from JW files (wouldn't this effectively be a technical 'disassociation' - and shouldn't/couldn’t the congregation have pursued this as a DA at the time? – tricky thing is I don't think the elders can ask if you want to DA.
The JWs told him he was still viewed as a 'baptised member', and not ALL records could therefore be destroyed.
IMPORTANT - it seems that Miguel Garcia was asking for the destruction (scrubbing out of the record?) of the very basic summary details of his allegations of earlier sexual abuse/attack? Yet there was huge outcry here when it was (mistakeningly) thought that the JWs were destroying these summary records anyway? Do you support the destruction of these (summary) sexual abuse/attack records?
Miguel Garcia is complaining now (in the Sept 2016 article) that some information on him was apparently not destroyed – again, it seems he wanted to remove (withdraw?) from the record his allegations of sexual abuse/attack.
Although no longer associating, or viewed by the congregation or the public in general, as being a JW, for around five years now - the congregation elders now wish to pursue a judicial committee.
QUESTION: Wouldn't Miguel Garcia's earlier 'confession' have been enough to trigger the Judicial? - no need for a preliminary meeting to confirm need for Judicial? Also, could that confession - which would have needed to be signed or at least verbally stated in front of two witnesses - have been enough anyway to DF Miguel Garcia even ‘in absentia’ – that is IF the JW elders had really wanted too at that time? Indeed, could Miguel Garcia's evident (non) action regarding JW scriptural things be sufficient to indicate a lack of repentance from a JW view point?
Miguel Garcia is complaining (in the Sept 2016 article) that the JW congregation are only now pursing the Judicial Committee due to them believing he has committed (homosexual) adultery rather than (heterosexual) adultery - ie: he is complaining that if the JW elders believed he had committed (heterosexual) adultery, they would NOT being pursing the Judicial Committee with him.
Sidenote - I believe the letter inviting him to the Judicial is in order (if they had not been able to contact Miguel Garcia in person or verbally), but it is a 'last resort' method, though it should NOT have listed the reason why, that should have been given to him verbally. Miguel Garcia isn't denying the allegation of adultery (as per above comments - allowing wife a scriptural divorce), and it's likely that members in his wife's congregation know too if she continued in good standing throughout and is now free to date/remarry, and Miguel Garcia has himself chosen to go public with the letter.
Sidenote 2 - Must say, I'm kinda disappointed that, after the build-up of this article in this English language forum, we seem to have only been provided with an automated 'google translation' of the articles and not a 'human' one - also disappointed that there seems to be no translated transcripts of the two videos either yet - c'est la vie
Does anybody have any corrections and/or clarifications on the above? Please?
