Convicted paedophile allowed to grill his victims at Jehovah's Witness meeting (page 5)

sparrowdown

This is not an isolated incident, elders are trained to ask stupid questions.

Which is why I wonder how anyone could decide to remain an elder after finding out what really goes on in these meetings/wichtrials.

Hairtrigger

Teary Oberon

Thank you for the insight.Appreciate you inputs. Point taken.

OUTLAW

.

JW Pedophile Jonathan Rose is a Dirtbag..

..............So are His Supporters..

..They "ALL" need to be Enrolled in the..

.

.........................OUTLAW..

......Pedophile Rehabilitation Program..

.

..................................................................... ...OUTLAW

Band on the Run

I am curious as to why parents would consent to elders questioning their children. It could interfere with law enforcement and healing from trauma.

Teary Oberon

"I am curious as to why parents would consent to elders questioning their children. It could interfere with law enforcement and healing from trauma."

They aren't children. Two of the women are in their 20's and the third is probably in her 30's if she was a teenager in 1995. It is just journalistic sensationalism -- they get more interest if they never make it clear how old anyone is. Notice they fooled you with that technique Band

PaintedToeNail

Perhaps the reason the women went back to testify to the elders was because they learned this Rose guy wasn't disfellowshipped and he should have been. To protect the other children in that KH from becoming victims due to the 'don't ask don't tell' policy the WTBTS seems to require. If that was the womens lesson, I applaud their courage and self lessness.

konceptual99

The irony is that its almost impossible for one accused of things like apostacy on hearsay and rumour to know who their accusers are let alone face them in an extended committee. Surely the court testimony should be sufficient to see this guy df'ed.

LisaRose

They aren't children. Two of the women are in their 20's and the third is probably in her 30's if she was a teenager in 1995. It is just journalistic sensationalism -- they get more interest if they never make it clear how old anyone is. Notice they fooledyou with that technique Band

So they are twenty, that means what? That they weren't abused? That they should be over it by now? Notice that you are advocating for a child molester, who is being fooled?

Teary Oberon

"To protect the other children in that KH from becoming victims due to the 'don't ask don't tell' policy the WTBTS seems to require."

With all due respect, your theory does not make any sense. It was a public trial and according to reports, the entire congregation was aware of the proceedings. Additionally, Rose was placed on a public sex offenders list and was on court imposed restricted access to children. He was also stripped of his elder status prior to trial and will not be able to regain it. Elders are also allowed to consult and warn parents of children privately if there is a potential threat attending public meetings.

With all of that in mind, I simply do not see how the womens' post-trial efforts at disfellowshipping accomplished anything, aside from simply drawing more attention to themselves. If you notice, they did run straight to reporters immediately afterwards to give statements. You all are still here talking about it aren't you? If that was really their intention, then it was probably a success.

" Surely the court testimony should be sufficient to see this guy df'ed."

It is dangerous to make such assumptions when we don't even know what is in the court transcripts. We don't know any arguments that the Defense made or any of the lines of questioning that they pursued.

If your sole argument is: "the jury convicted, therefore the evidence and testimony must be damning," then you should keep in mind that a jury also acquitted Rose of sexual indecency in 1995 (a jury also acuitted O.J. Simpson in 1995) If you think that the first verdict might have been wrong, then you also have to accept that there is an equal chance that the second verdict might also have been wrong. Any good lawyer will tell you that juries can be unpredictable and emotional. It is much safer to get the actual transcripts and read the arguments of the Prosecution and Defense for yourself, and then form your own opinion.

" Notice that you are advocating for a child molester"

That is a fallacy. I have not yet accepted that he is a child molester, therefore I logically cannot be advocating for one. I'll form my final opinion when and if I get my hands on the court transcripts. And even then if I side against him, that does not invalidate a single word that I have written. I still strongly support questioning all sides, no matter how 'sacrosanct' or emotional the issue might be. When you try to shut down honest questioning and discussion, and try to insult and bully people into accepting stories and articles on faith and at face value, you are no better than Watchtower.

But that is just my two cents. Take it as you will.

OUTLAW

I have not yet accepted that he is a child molester, therefore I logically cannot be advocating for one.....Teary OBeron

JW Pedophile Jonathan Rose was found Guilty Twice,for Molesting Children..

Your a Pedophile Protector..Your Both DirtBags..

..................................................................................OUTLAW

Convicted paedophile allowed to grill his victims at Jehovah's Witness meeting

Share this