ah oberon, trolling
Convicted paedophile allowed to grill his victims at Jehovah's Witness meeting
by Sapphy 74 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
jhine
marked
-
Teary Oberon
Teary Oberon, Could you post the source of your information please?
Both original news articles and partially from Cedar's blog. It is unwise to blindly accept news articles and blogs at face value. To really understand a case, you have to try to pull out undisputed facts from multiple sources and then arrange them in a logical fasion, like so:
PARTIES & FACTS
Name: Jonathan Rose
Current Age: 40
Age During Alleged Incidents: 21, 27
Congregation Status During Alleged Incidents: non-elder during Jane Doe 0 allegation, unknown status during Jane Doe 1 & 2 allegations but presumed to be non-elder due to young age.
Current Congregation Status: became an elder at some point after 2001, disfellowshipped recently after new allegations came to light.
Current Marital Status: Married w/children
Notes: never admitted guilt, continues to protest his innocence.
Name: Jane Doe 0
Current Age: unknown
Age During Alleged Incident: “teenage”
Age of Defendant During Alleged Allegation: 21 or younger
Year of Alleged Incident: 1995
Allegation: “indecent assault,” i.e. groping
Court Ruling: Acquitted
Notes: made the recent Facebook allegations against Rose that led to prosecution for crimes committed against Jane Doe 2 & 3. Jane Doe 0 and her family apparently left the congregation after the 1995 allegations, with elders at the time dismissing their complaint “as something that happened between teenagers.” Trial court apparently agreed. Articles did not mention any explicit disfellowshipping of the family, only that they left.
Name: Jane Doe 1
Current Age: ~22-23
Age During Alleged Incident: ~5
Year of Alleged Incident: ~1996-1997
Allegation: 1 count “indecent assault,” i.e. groping
Defendant Plea: not guilty
Court Ruling: guilty
Sentence: 9 months prison, banned from contact with children, sex offender registry.
Notes: contacted Jane Doe 0 in 2010 over a comment on a Facebook post involving Rose. Father was apparently not a Witness at that point in time, indicating that the daughter might no longer have been one either.
Name: Jane Doe 2
Current Age: 23
Age During Alleged Incident: 10
Year of Alleged Incident: 2001
Allegation: 1 count “indecent assault,” i.e., inappropriate kissing
Defendant Plea: not guilty
Court Ruling: guilty
Sentence: 9 months prison, banned from contact with children, sex offender registry.
Notes: Contacted Jane Doe 0 & 2 in 2012. Accused of indecent sexual behavior by elders as a teenager. Apparently disfellowshipped some time prior to trial. Apparently the one who started the court ball rolling by coming forward first. Other girls joined after. Coordination and interaction between Jane Doe 2 and Jane Does 0 & 1 prior to the police reports is unknown, but in some accounts implied.
I have my own inferences and opinions on the case, but I am not done writing and reviewing those yet.
-
shadow
As the father of an abused child, I find your rush to defend a convicted pedophile utterly contemptible.
-
AFRIKANMAN
Teary Oberon - when you have been through such trauma it is very very possible that one could end up being a little out of sorts psychologically - to varying degrees. Often girls become promiscuous etc etc And of course that would earn them a DF'ing -
He was convicted and sentenced because of what he did with these girls - I dont give a shit if they were JW / Taoist or Muslim at any time - he interfered with them when they were Minors - He is a dog! And now are you defending this dog?
And Candice Conti ...???????? and ALL the others ??????
-
Crazyguy
I think is good that were trying to get to the facts of this case and others before we make an ruling. This case of the elders putting the woman through the paces with the pedophile present may be a he said she said coments since the news could not get the elders to confirm this. Its very important that all facts come out and are investigated before things are said. If some thing is said to a JW by some one from the apostate comunity and is later to be found to be wrong then we will loose all credibility. I look forward to the day when a case comes before us that can not be refuted in any way and we can go to our families and say LOOK AT THIS!!!!
-
Violia
I put this on my face book . I seldom do that b/c some of the family is ( not jws) but still will defend their beliefs. It is so sad this sort of thing has been allowed to happen in the Org. but here is the written proof. The more exposure non jws get to this the more they will see what is behind jws dirty little curtain.
-
Teary Oberon
I think is good that were trying to get to the facts of this case and others before we make an ruling. This case of the elders putting the woman through the paces with the pedophile present may be a he said she said coments since the news could not get the elders to confirm this. Its very important that all facts come out and are investigated before things are said.--CrazyGuy
I concur with your opinion.
On this case especially I have a lot of unanswered questions as to motives, communications and time lines. The question of whether or not the women were actually still Witnesses at the time of the post-trial meetings, is one of those important questions. If none of them were actually still Witnesses, then it reduces this whole issue to a bunch of substanceless hype, because it would mean that they all attended 100% voluntarily without any possible coersion, threat or pressure.
Even better than just news articles and heresay though, if I could find a copy of the actual court transcripts, or more specifically, the witness examinations and cross-examinations, then I could get a much clearer picture of both sides and thus form a more balanced opinion. Would anybody know about the availability of such things in England?
-
Hairtrigger
I concur with both Crazyguy and Teary Oberon.
Just recently I jumped the gun on someone and realized that this forum is a good one for all of us. But in our zealousness to go after the GB and THE FDS and all the other rank and file maggots down the line, let us not be precipitate in our judgement. Lets hear the facts first . Our knives will always be sharp and ready. Let's just use discretion when plunging it in. This guy has been convicted and imprisoned for 9 months -in my opinion 99 years too short of justice. Nevertheless, if the three girls volunteered to come forward-they are mature adults now as well as out of the WTS- then lets just hold our peace.
But this does not extend to that SOB elder who posed the Q" did you enjoy it"? Nor the other 7 perverts who were involved in the "mental groping" of these three crushed women with their sick questions.
-
Teary Oberon
" But this does not extend to that SOB elder who posed the Q" did you enjoy it"?"
Always remember to question context and source my friend. Isn't that the reason why so many left the Witnesses in the first place, because they questioned everything instead of accepting on faith? Are we now expected to close our minds and keep quiet about difficult issues?
1. Where does the quote come from? The only place it could come from is one of the female accusers after the fact. But that makes the statement heresay and subject to substantial bias.
2. What was the context around it? Why was it asked and who was it asked in reference to? If it was asked of Jane Doe 0 (see my previous Parties and Facts post), then things get much more complicated. Reposting the notes on her:
"Jane Doe 0 - made the recent Facebook allegations against Rose that led to prosecution for crimes committed against Jane Doe 2 & 3. Jane Doe 0 and her family apparently left the congregation after the 1995 allegations, with elders at the time dismissing their complaint “as something that happened between teenagers.” [also heresay, also from the same source as the quote we are examining] Trial court apparently agreed. Articles did not mention any explicit disfellowshipping of the family, only that they left."
So we know that something happened between Rose when he was 21 or younger and Jane Doe 0 when she was a teenager. The question posed from the elder ("did you enjoy it") only makes sense to me if he was questioning what he thought might have been a consentual act between two teenagers (the original 1995 allegation was dismissed by elders as "something that happened between teenagers). It simply doesn't make sense to ask that question of someone who was 5 and of someone who was 10 at the time.
Whatever really happened between Rose and Jane Doe 0, we know that Jane Doe 0 tried to frame it as assault and a jury did not believe her. Rose was acquitted of all charges. That is telling, because usually women have a very large advantage in sexaul assault accusation cases. The elders from 1995, from that perspective, might have had good reason to not believe Jane Doe 0; and if those same elders were present at the most recent post-trial meeting, they might still not have believed her and thus asked the infamous question: "did you enjoy it?"
But those are just my random shower thoughts. Take them as you will.