Convicted molester sentenced to 45 years to life(JW)

by purplesofa 18 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • purplesofa
    purplesofa

    Sorry if this has already been posted.

    purps

    http://www.pe.com/localnews/rivcounty/stories/PE_News_Local_N_witness28.471157c.html

    By TAMMY J. McCOY
    The Press-Enterprise

    A Murrieta man used his daughter's slumber parties to satisfy his perverted desires, a judge said Friday, then ignored calls for mercy and sentenced the 50-year-old father to a prison term of 45 years to life.

    "The court has little doubt that if released he will move immediately to molest little children," Judge F. Paul Dickerson III said. "The court feels there are other victims out there who have not come forward."

    Dickerson said he was compelled to impose the harshest penalty, given the pain defendant Gilbert Simental inflicted on the girls and the peril he would pose to children if released.

    In April, a jury at the Southwest Justice Center in French Valley convicted Simental of molesting two sisters, then ages 9 and 10, on separate occasions in 2005 and 2006.

    Story continues below

    The Press-Enterprise does not routinely publish the names of minors who are victims of sexual abuse.

    Prior to sentencing, defense attorney Miles Clark and eight of Simental's friends and relatives asked the judge to be lenient with Simental, repeatedly describing him as a good man who made a bad mistake.

    "Continuing to love in the face of something terrible . . . that's what is important, that we continue to love one another," Simental's 22-year-old son, Alex Simental, said. "I ask for your mercy."

    Later, the father of the two victims expressed anguish and rage that his daughters were sexually violated by a family friend.

    He applauded his daughters for having the strength to endure so much, including testifying before a jury of strangers about intimate facts that children should not have to discuss.

    "My daughters . . . in time will recover from their ordeal," he said.

    During his trial, Simental admitted that he twice molested the younger girl but he denied abusing her older sister.

    Leaders of Simental's congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses contradicted his statements and testified Simental, during the course of their religious inquiry, admitted touching both girls.

    Prior to the trial, the case broke new legal ground in California about when statements made to clergy members are deemed confidential, prosecutor Burke Strunsky said.

    "This case makes a bold statement to any religious organization that we are not going to allow you to abuse confidentiality privileges in order to suppress the confessions of child molesters," said Strunsky. "The stakes are way too high."

    Elders John Vaughn and Andrew Sinay balked at testifying against Simental, when subpoenaed by Strunsky. They cited the confidentiality afforded by the penitent-clergy privilege.

    Dickerson ordered them to testify after finding the Jehovah's Witnesses' judicial committee system is not designed to keep information confidential.

    As a result, the penitent-clergy privilege does not apply since state law protects statements made to clergy members who are required by their faith's practices to keep them secret.

    While Simental did not make a statement on his own behalf Friday, he said he did not get a fair trial when interviewed for a pre-sentencing report filed by Deputy Probation Officer Julia Meeks.

    "The jury was made up of mostly women, so there were lots of emotions," Simental told Meeks. "I'm sure as much as he (the judge) tried to be a good judge, I think he was biased."

    Simental will be in court July 28 in connection with another molestation case against him involving another girl.

    Reach Tammy J. McCoy at 951-375-3729 or [email protected]

  • Sparkplug
    Sparkplug

    Just freaking amazing. This is amazing to see conviction. I love that the orders were forced to testify. Just amazing. "Dickerson ordered them to testify after finding the Jehovah's Witnesses' judicial committee system is not designed to keep information confidential. ". Wow!

  • purplesofa
    purplesofa

    Some comments to the article

    Most Recent Comments: 38 Justice 3 days ago wrote:

    I sure would love to hear what someone who was on the jury thought
    about this creep. I'm sure they have some stories to tell!!


    Recommend Report Abuse

    GuiltyAsCharged 3 days ago wrote:

    As the judge himself stated, there are certainly more victims that haven't come forward yet. Thankfully there will be no more unless his cellmate at Pelican Bay is smaller than him (not likely by looking at the pics of that fat, disgusting blob of shame). It's just too bad there aren't a few more cells being readied for others who owe some responsibility in this case. All will be made right in time!


    Recommend Report Abuse

    RvrsdJutice 3 days ago wrote:

    funny41 said: "fyi, Simental's attorney tried to invoke the penitent clergy privilege, not the elders. Just thought you should know."

    Those men were accomplices and cohorts of the defense from the start according to these articles. They were witnesses for the defense and refused cooperation with the authorities up to the point of being prosecuted. In other words, they wouldn't tell the truth until forced to and then their conviction withered. "The liars portion will be in the lake which burneth with fire and sulphur..."


    Recommend Report Abuse

    CourtReport 3 days ago wrote:

    Justice's comments quoted below are 100% true! The main concern should have been defending the little victims of this monster, not protecting their buddy up until personal prosecution was mentioned, then cowering behind immunity and even then conveniently "not recalling" the details of his confession. Anyone who was involved in these hearings and saw the bahvior of everyone involved knows quite well who was in Simental's corner. They couldn't seem to get enough of the guy out in the hall in full view for everyone to see! The father's statements are very moving! I could hardly remain quiet when they were addressing the court. I wanted to give a "hip, hip, hooray!" Likewise, that scene outside when the family had to be surrounded by deputies to get to their car safe was horrible. Just horrible! Those two brothers of Simental who were standing on the steps outside harassing the family are beneath human dignity.

    "I agree with your comment there are victims on every side of these sick acts that Gilbert and only Gilbert committed.
    As far as Jehovah's name being dragged through the mud we all know how powerful he is and he if didn't want this "out" and these children protected I'm sure things would have been different. I really think if those elders would have done the right thing and protected the most innocent of Jehovah's sheep by standing up for them in a court of law instead of fighting it tooth and nail this wouldn't have even made the news."


    Recommend Report Abuse

    Justice 5 days ago wrote:

    I have to tell you the more research you do and questions you ask the more confussed you will be:(

    If you want to ramain a stong JW you
    have to be a bit blind on the policy set up for child molestation.


    Recommend Report Abuse

    a mother 6 days ago wrote:

    Justice, I misapplied that law...It has to do with mandatory reporting fo abuse to governmental authorities. I need to research more, but here is further info from the Society:
    *** w87 9/1 p. 12 “A Time to Speak”—When? ***

    “A Time to Speak”—When?

    "Another Bible guideline appears at Leviticus 5:1: “Now in case a soul sins in that he has heard public cursing and he is a witness or he has seen it or has come to know of it, if he does not report it, then he must answer for his error.” This “public cursing” was not profanity or blasphemy. Rather, it often occurred when someone who had been wronged demanded that any potential witnesses help him to get justice, while calling down curses—likely from Jehovah—on the one, perhaps not yet identified, who had wronged him. It was a form of putting others under oath. Any witnesses of the wrong would know who had suffered an injustice and would have a responsibility to come forward to establish guilt. Otherwise, they would have to ‘answer for their error’ before Jehovah."

    Sounds pretty clear that all who know about wrongdoing should come forward as witnesses...doesn't it, .... but an elder I know says this "pertains only to the nation of israel, God's people and that this law is for their nation and no other".....But isn't the principle valid and consistant with love of (innocent) neighbor?...WE ARE WITNESSES OF WHAT?.... WE COME FORWARD WHEN IT SERVES THE INTEREST OF WHOM? Can an elder shed some light on this? It has to feel right. I can't support this blindly.
    I just read in one of these PE.com articles (and they don't appear to have an ulterior motive) that the elder denies telling the mother that Simetal confessed. "Sinay denied telling anyone about Simental's statements to him when he testified last week in court.
    Sinay testified that everything he hears during the course of the judicial committee is confidential and members of his congregation rely on that.If he failed to respect their confidences, Sinay said he would become an ineffective spiritual leader."

    If my minor child is party to a sex act, unwittingly or not,shouldn't I be notified? Brothers, what if your dentist molested you when you were under anesthetic even just one time...and people you thought were your friends knew this. Wouldn't you expect them to tell you? What if they just said..."You need to find another dentist" and left if at that? What about possibility of AIDS? What about transmitting it to your wife and perhaps unborn children? Don't misunderstand Lot's response to the unruly crowd to mean some are more valuable than others.


    Recommend Report Abuse

    Justice 1 week ago wrote:

    What ever happened to doing the right thing!!
    Personally as a mother would risk being sued if it meant protecting innocent children from being a victim of child molestation, but then again I'm a mother, not some 50 year old men who can look the other way. They can use any excuse they want but they know morally they are accountable!!
    Remember they were given Immunity for testifing. Hmmmm


    Recommend Report Abuse

    a mother 1 week ago wrote:

    Below is the law about the clergy penitent privilege. If the citizens think this law is a bad idea, then they should change it. The elders are bound by this law. God's law is higher, but God's law is not very specific and really gives no guidance. We tell truth to those entitled to it. Just who is entitled to it? Not very clear, is it?
    I am glad, but surprised the elders told the mother (usually they would speak to dad) initially that Gilbert confessed. I personally believe that she was entitled to it. That was a violation of the California law strictly speaking. But in the JW organization, the purpose of a judicial fact finding is to gather facts about a matter and pursue such matters to protect God's name, to protect the spiritual purity of the congregation and lastly in importance, to regain the sinner. Confidentiality allows this to be played out with less drama and disruption to the peace of the congregation. The elders are not agents of the state although they are subject to its laws. They do believe they are agents of God and so their mandate is the three items above. Change the law and you should get their full cooperation. That does not mean that men are not biased, but that is an individual thing, not a policy thing.


    California
    Cal. Penal Code § 11165.7(a)(32)-(33) (LexisNexis through 7/30/07)
    A mandated reporter is defined as any of the following:

    A clergy member, as specified in § 11166(c). As used in this article, ‘’clergy member’’ means a priest, minister, rabbi, religious practitioner, or similar functionary of a church, temple, or recognized denomination or organization.

    Any custodian of records of a clergy member, as specified in this section and § 11166(c).
    Cal. Penal Code § 11166(d)(1)-(2) (LexisNexis through Cal. 2007 Legis. Serv., Ch. 393)
    A clergy member who acquires knowledge or reasonable suspicion of child abuse during a penitential communication is not subject to the requirement to make a report. For the purposes of this subdivision, ‘’penitential communication’’ means a communication, intended to be in confidence, including, but not limited to, a sacramental confession, made to a clergy member who, in the course of the discipline or practice of his or her church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications, and under the discipline, tenets, customs, or practices of his or her church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret.
    Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to modify or limit a clergy member’s duty to report known or suspected child abuse when a clergy member is acting in some other capacity that would otherwise make the clergy member a mandated reporter.
    http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/clergymandatedall.pdf


    Recommend Report Abuse

    FYI 1 week ago wrote:

    FYI
    I guess you didn't read this comment by DR.Duke
    "I attended court on the day that the two Jehovah Witness elders testified. Before the trial began I overheard Elder John Vaughan talking with his attorney in the hallway. Elder Vaughan was deeply concerned not about the welfare of the two children he knew to have been molested, but about the possibility that he might have to go to jail for refusing to testify against the man he called under oath his friend -- Gilbert Simental. I think that the behavior of these Jehovah Witness elders in trying to cover up criminal activity is nearly as reprehensible as the crime itself. How many other criminals are the Jehovah Witnesses shielding?"


    Recommend Report Abuse

    funny41 1 week ago wrote:

    fyi, Simental's attorney tried to invoke the penitent clergy privilege, not the elders. Just thought you should know.

  • Mulan
    Mulan
    "Dickerson ordered them to testify after finding the Jehovah's Witnesses' judicial committee system is not designed to keep information confidential. "

    I wonder what they mean by that?...............possibly that information leaks out, like to wives and friends, so they might as well tell the court?

    What does "designed to keep information confidential" mean?

  • Junction-Guy
    Junction-Guy

    It probably means that private information revealed to JW clergy really isn't private and can be passed on to circuit overseers, district overseers and ultimately WT headquarters, thus there is no expectation of privacy within the JW system. Sure, the rank and file may be kept in the dark, but numerous other people will be notified.

  • Billy the Ex-Bethelite
    Billy the Ex-Bethelite
    "The jury was made up of mostly women, so there were lots of emotions," Simental told Meeks. "I'm sure as much as he (the judge) tried to be a good judge, I think he was biased."

    Simental is truly sick to say anything like that. Sick, sick, sick.

    B the X

  • UnConfused
    UnConfused

    What Simental said about the fairness of his trial is weak and lame - what would he want a jury of male molesters so it could be "fair"?

  • White Dove
    White Dove

    The lawyer represents the client, so it is just as valid as if the client spoke for himself.

  • purplesofa
    purplesofa

    I guess what they are saying is a judicial committe is not recognized as clergy.

    so they are exempt from confidentiality.

    interesting.........so why the tax breaks?

  • Billy the Ex-Bethelite
    Billy the Ex-Bethelite

    Hey Purps,

    I think it had been explained in some of the other articles in PE leading up to the case.

    As I recall, clergy penitent privilege is to only involve that... a clergyman and the one confessing. That wouldn't hold up well in court anyway, since it would be "my word against his". However, the JC arrangement involves usually three elders, other witnesses, a whole fact-finding investigation. Since this involved pedo., they would have contacted WT Legal out in New York and discussed the case, as well as filed other paperwork about their findings. While the JC procedure is supposed to be 'confidential', it doesn't meet requirements for clergy penitent privilege.

    I think there was another factor, too.

    a judicial committe is not recognized as clergy

    I suppose it could be argued that they are clergy, just not eligible for clergy-penitent privelege in the JC setting. But let's be honest. They aren't qualified to be clergy... they're only qualified to be janitors.

    so why the tax breaks?

    Why?... because they're the True Religion(tm), of course!

    B the X

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit