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

by Sapphy 74 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  LisaRose

  You are no better than Watchtower.

  No, you are no better than the Watchtower, assuming that all molestation victims are probably lying, assuming that the man is probably innocent, assuming that young women just love to have to relate horrific acts done to them to elders who doubt their story, to confront the man who did unspeakable acts to them. Because that's just what young girls do, right? Make up stories, stories that get them disfellowshipped, stories that make crusty old men salivate over the details, stories that make others judge them as sluts? Because that is just so much fun?

  If these men are innocent, then the facts will come out. But we know many child molesters among Jehovah's Witnesses get away with it, because elders do discount their stories, that the Watchtower likes to pretend it doesn't happen, that victims are discouraged from contacting the authorities, that nobody wants to speak truth to power.

  But here you, advocating for the poor misunderstood pedophiles in the organization. Because God knows those sick bastards need somebody to defend them.
• 

  Teary Oberon

  "assuming that all molestation victims are probably lying"

  I assume no such things.

  " assuming that the man is probably innocent"

  That is a basic principle of Law. I assume innocence until I have been satisfied otherwise. Automatically assuming the reverse is, in my opinion, much more unconscionable .

  " assuming that young women just love to have to relate horrific acts done to them"

  1) I assume no such thing.

  2) You have not convinced me that said acts actually occured.

  " to confront the man who did unspeakable acts to them."

  They were all grown women and voluntarily chose to confront Rose again. I am not obligated to feel pity or outrage for a free and conscious choice.

  " But we know many child molesters among Jehovah's Witnesses get away with it"

  That is a nonsense statement. We know such thing, and by definition we cannot know such a thing. If they, as you said, "get away with it" then that means that they have not been found out. But how do you know they "got away with it" unless you've already found them out? Schrodinger's Cat paradox.

  " victims are discouraged from contacting the authorities"

  Unsupported and unproven statement.

  " that nobody wants to speak truth to power"

  Elders have no power other than the power of persuasion. They have no authority to use force, unlike Government thugs. If a person doesn't want to listen to them then they do not have to.

  " advocating for the poor misunderstood pedophiles in the organization"

  I do not advocate for pedophiles -- I only question your evidence for labeling them as such. Lord knows somebody needs to.

  " Because God knows those sick bastards need somebody to defend them"

  Men accused of serious wrongdoing do indeed need somebody willing and brave enough to defend them. The world would be a much worse place if Defense Attorneys were banned and we were all left at the mercy of rogue Prosecutors and every yahoo who felt like throwing around accusations.
• 

  OUTLAW

  I assume innocence until I have been satisfied otherwise. Automatically assuming the reverse is, in my opinion, much more unconscionable .....Teary Oberon

  Men accused of serious wrongdoing do indeed need somebody willing and brave enough to defend them.....Teary Oberon

  Manchester Evening News

  Jonathan Rose

  A Jehovah's Witness elder who was exposed as a paedophile on Facebook has been jailed.

  Jonathan Rose was branded a hypocrite as he was locked up for molesting two little girls he met through the church.

  Manchester Crown Court heard that Rose, of New Moston , won the trust of his victims’ families before targeting their daughters. His youngest victim was just five-years-old when she was groped by him in her own home. The other was ten when Rose, then 27, kissed her sexually.

  Rose was first accused of indecently assaulting a teenage girl he met through the Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1995. He was acquitted of that offence in a trial and went on to become an elder in his congregation.

  However, after his first accuser branded him a ‘paedo’ on Facebook , his crimes against the two other girls came to light. Rose was found guilty of two charges of indecent assault and has now been jailed for nine months and banned from visiting homes where there are children present.

  The joiner, who is married with children and continues to protest his innocence, showed no emotion as he was jailed and made subject to a sexual offences prevention order. He must sign the sex offenders register for life.

  The court heard that he even sat in judgement in a church ‘investigation’ into the second victim when she was a teenager.

  Her ‘entirely normal’ teenage behaviour was thought to be ‘inappropriately sexual’ by elders.

  Antony Longworth, defending, handed the judge a bundle of supportive letters from fellow Jehovah’s Witnesses which he described as expressing ‘disagreement or disbelief’ about the guilty verdicts.

  But Judge David Stockdale QC told Rose: “You are now utterly disgraced – even though many members of that community still place a great deal of faith in you. The Jehovah’s Witnesses... upholds very high standards of moral behaviour – you deviated altogether from those standards.”

  The family of Rose’s first accuser say they were encouraged to cover up their allegation. He was cleared of groping the then teenage girl in 1995 trial, but she would go on to be a witness in the latest court case. Her family say they were hounded out of the Jehovah’s Witnesses when they expressed concerns.

  Her father told the M.E.N: “They held a meeting where they stood on a platform and said no-one should ever take a ‘brother’ to court. They dismissed our complaint as something that happened between teenagers.

  “We were ostracised, and then told to get out of the congregation after the trial.”

  A spokesman for the Jehovah’s Witnesses said: “Everyone has become more aware of how to deal with these issues in recent years. In no way would the Jehovah Witnesses purposefully try to protect anyone who is accused of serious crimes.”

  The Dirtbag your Defending,JW Pedophile Jonathan Rose..

  Was found guilty of two charges of indecent assault and was jailed for nine months and banned from visiting homes where there are children present.

  He must sign the sex offenders register for life.

  Your Both DirtBags..

  ..............................................OUTLAW
• 

  KateWild

  Teary,

  I am sorry but your talking nonsense. Rose is a paedophile and if you don't believe the facts it's because you know him personally and has manipulated you.

  OUTLAW, I love your passion, keep up the good work

  Kate xx
• 

  konceptual99

  " 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.

  Hi Teary,

  I can see your points and agree that the situation is perhaps not as clear cut as portrayed. What I don't understand however is why there is a such a double standard in all of this.

  There are numerous examples of where individuals have faced kangeroo JCs, accused of some sin yet never known who their accusers (forming the legendary two witnesses) are let alone had the opportunity to grill them.

  I can understand that, in principle, this guy could have been incorrectly found guilty. There is still the fact that during the trial witnesses are called to present evidence. I've not read the transcripts and I don't know how much of the witnesses' evidence was accepted but it was certainly enough to convince a jury to convict. The judge is perfectly free to control what evidence is viewed as acceptable or unacceptable and instruct the jury accordingly.

  The elders are perfectly free to take that evidence into account. They are perfectly free to listen to accusations privately. There was no need to permit a cross-examination in such a setting. It does not happen in any other JC circumstance and could have been handled very differently.

  What I am interested to know is the circumstances that promted this sequence of events. I can understand your point of logic on the choice of the women in this matter however what is not know is what the context of this choice to meet the elders and Rose in this circumstances were. It seems wholely inappropriate to engage the various parties in this manner - even in a court of law there is the option for the victim not to have to face the alleged perpetrator.

  Whatever the context, it seems to me to be yet another example of, at best, a ridiculous level of naivety on the part of the elders. They no doubt were operating under the instruction of the WTS Legal department so this has to be an institutional level of ignorance on how these matters could be handled in a way that meets the needs of "scriptural" justice whilst recognising the psychological impact on victims.
• 

  Pistoff

  From TearyOberon:

  " 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."

  Really? This blindness to protecting the congregation from a pedophile is telling.

  You qualify to be an elder in the congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  I have close family who took sexual abuse charges to elders in a country kingdom hall; in all the elders were informed of at least 6 girls as young as 10 that he had groped.

  He raped his 6 year old sister. The elders asked the victims if they had misunderstood the events, they blamed the victims and ultimately nothing was done.

  My relative went to civil court, suing the perp, the congregation and the WT.

  In court, the WT lawyers denied that the main litigant was ever baptized (it is on her publisher record card that she was), that the congregations are controlled by WT headquarters, that they get their main support from congregations.

  The civil court ruled that the assault happened, but that WT was not at fault. (This is an old suit; WT would probably lose this case now, with all the info that has come out from WT themselves.)

  He eventually was disfellowshiped for drinking, and finally a victim not in the original suit went to the police, and he confessed to the assaults.

  He was never df'd for the assault, and his new congregation does not know his status, unless they read the court dockets.

  The point of this is very clear to all but you:

  The elders and the heirarchy of the WT are NOT INTERESTED IN PROTECTING children if it means calling the cops and letting them do the investigating.

  Here you are, thousands of miles away, picking apart a case that was successfully prosecuted!!

  Not good enough for you or the WT, evidently; they REQUIRED that the victims sit across from the perp and repeat what happened to them WHEN THEY WERE TEENS, NOT ADULTS.

  Only then were the elders willing to say, well, OK then, this case we sniffed at years ago and is now an albatross around our necks in the press, maybe there is merit, and therefore WE decide to disfellowship the man.
• 

  Pistoff

  From the local WT spokesman:

  “Everyone has become more aware of how to deal with these issues in recent years."

  This is a tacit admission of guilt, and is a way to deflect attention from their policy to discredit the victims, discourage reporting and require 2 witnesses to sexual assault, sort of saying well everyone dealt with child sexual abuse that way at the time. Really? Even the organization that is forward looking and is being used by God to dispense truth?

  "In no way would the Jehovah Witnesses purposefully try to protect anyone who is accused of serious crimes."

  This is a blatant lie, and also a manipulation of the truth; their policy still protects pedophiles, anyone with an internet connection can discover the pattern in an hour, starting with Paul Berry and onto the Candace Conti trial and verdict. The pattern repeats over and over; they investigate what they are not qualified to investigate, they follow directions from higher up and on goes the abuser to new victims.

  The policy DOES protect pedophiles, and while they say it is not purposeful, I have my doubts.
• 

  Teary Oberon

  Thank you for your calm and reasoned replay Konceptual. I will try to respond in kind.

  "There are numerous examples of where individuals have faced kangeroo JCs, accused of some sin yet never known who their accusers (forming the legendary two witnesses) are let alone had the opportunity to grill them."

  This is again heresay and conjecture. Better would be to find official written rules governing these meetings, and then we could judge how well individual bodies of elders either stick to the rules or disobey them (provided we actually had accurate information about what went on during the meeting).

  "There is still the fact that during the trial witnesses are called to present evidence. I've not read the transcripts and I don't know how much of the witnesses' evidence was accepted but it was certainly enough to convince a jury to convict."

  The problem I have with cases like this is, there is no evidence other than heresay and he-said she-said. The jury cannot help but make a decision based on emotion and subjective value judgments, because that is often all they are left to work with. The trial essentially becomes a popularity contest between Plaintiff and Defendent.

  These cases also run into issues with memory and the extreme temptation to 'tweek' the narrative to make oneself look more sympathetic or victimized, because really who else was there that could challenge it? We saw this prominently on display when a judge picked Vikki Boer's story to pieces and came very close to calling her a flat out liar. There is also Candice Conti claiming that she was abused over a period of many years, when it was brought out pretty clearly in the briefs that the only possible window for abuse would have been about 2 weeks.

  " The elders are perfectly free to take that evidence into account."

  Perhaps they already did take the trial examinations into account, and simply found them lacking. I am sure that some people disagreed with the original 1995 acquittal of Rose too, but do you call them stupid for disagreeing with the jury? I suppose the real question is: are people obligated to accept jury decisions without question, or can onlookers legitmately disagree and form their own opinions? If the Candice Conti verdict is reversed on appeal, for example, are you going to quietly accept the judge's decision or are you going to protest and argue against it? Be careful to avoid double standards when discussing these things.

  Perhaps that is what the elders in this case did (form their own opinion), and when the three women learned about it, they confronted the elders and pushed for them to reverse their decision. And the elders replied "if you want us to change our opinions, then you are going to have to give us something better," which then led to the strange cirumstances of these meetings. In any case though, it is implied in the sources that the women were the ones pushing for these meetings, not the elders.

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

  truthseekeriam

  I have no doubt these young women were put through that disgusting interrogation.

  Too many victims all sharing the same stories of what goes on in those meetings not to believe it. I just hope these stories get more publicity! Could you imagine a group of these young women on Dr.Phil sharing what goes on in those meetings?? I could hear the outrage already! Of course you would have the few JW defenders trying to explain their absolutely ridicules ways of doing things. They truly are their worst enemy.

  Thankfully, most non-JW's reading these articles will also believe them, after all, they will most likely be the ones hearing these cases(criminal, civil)
• 

  konceptual99

  "There are numerous examples of where individuals have faced kangeroo JCs, accused of some sin yet never known who their accusers (forming the legendary two witnesses) are let alone had the opportunity to grill them."

  This is again heresay and conjecture. Better would be to find official written rules governing these meetings, and then we could judge how well individual bodies of elders either stick to the rules or disobey them (provided we actually had accurate information about what went on during the meeting).

  Not really conjecture. Just ask around on this board. The rules are published in the Shepherd book. They do suggest a meeting between an accused and a single witness. This is not required if there are two witnesses. I can see exactly why this meeting occurred in the world of JW judicial "logic". That does not mean it was sensible or appropriate. It does not mean that there is consistancy between how Rose was dealt with and how others are dealt with in JC situations.

  Perhaps they already did take the trial examinations into account, and simply found them lacking.

  Perhaps. In fact the way the rules are and the way WT legal works then they probably completely discounted the results of the legal process. Perhaps this is the fair thing to do - seperate the two tracks. That, however, is inconsistant with the rest of society. Individuals criminal records are taken at face value in many, many situations.

  Even if you accept that it is fair to ignore the secular judicial process, even if you accept that a JC should operate purely on the basis of 2 witnesses then the rules only allow for a face to face with a single witness. There were three. Again, if you give the WTS process the benefit of the doubt then it is MHO that allowing it to happen in the circumstances as reported is ignorant and naive, symptomatic of the convoluted mess that WT Legal have produced.

  I can see the danger in baseless accusation of child abuse. I can see the risks of being forced to accept any testimony when verification is impossible. I don't think that being cognisant of this constitutes being some kind of apologist for peodophiles. That does not mean that I think the WTS is anywhere close to where they should be in how they handle the accused and how they do their best to prevent abuse occuring.