Two Witnesses to WHAT !!! (page 2)

jst2laws

JanH and Dung,
Thanks for the help Jan. I knew of that allowance but have never seen it used in molestation. With the society negativity toward suppressed memory and their catch phrase "credible witness" I'm wondering if in practice this allowance occurs frequently if at all in child molestation.

They are making a deal of it, almost like they 'are never allowed to go from door to door unaccompanied'. The can say it and maybe point to one obscure instance of it, but are these things really practiced by the elders. As a former elder I'm unaware of either occurring.

Still looking for some evidence.

Jst2

ChiChiMama

Okay now, to summarize what I just posted.
Here we have 17 victims from seperate events of child molestation by the same child molester.They were each viewed on their own instead of being viewed as 17 witnesses total against this sicko as WT is claiming their policy would do.

There are hundreds of these types of cases!

You can find them yourself on the silentlambs website.
That's the reason silentlambs exists in the first place.
What WT says is their policy and reality are two different things.

I am sure that there have been cases where two witnesses to two seperate events was accepted but this is not what usually happens.

ChiChi

jst2laws

ChichiMama,

Thanks and good example. I don't know how they can argue around that one. I already have that in my file but would love to get a copy of the CO correspondence that Dateline has. Is that posted somewhere I haven't looked yet?

I just had a major differing with the local PO who feels sure the judicial committees have always acted on the 'separate incident' rule but admits he has never seen such a case. I gave him the Fitzwater case as an example and reminded him he saw that evidence on Dateline.

Nevertheless, I was wondering if there is ANY CASE that can be produced where the judicial committee DID ACT on the 'witnesses to separate incident' rule?

When it is presented in the May 24, 2002 letter as if it is an old and common practice you would think we would find a some common incidences of it being applied. I have taken the stand in the local congregation that it is nearly unheard of. So far that seems to be the case.

Nice to here from you ChiChiMama.

Jst2

ChiChiMama

Jst,

Nevertheless, I was wondering if there is ANY CASE that can be produced where the judicial committee DID ACT on the 'witnesses to separate incident' rule?

I am sure there has been but like I said before, I don't know of any.
The ones who have been handled this way are probably deleriously happy and assume that everyone's cases are handled just like theirs.

Remember, WT had the chance to present the types of cases you are asking for and they even after 6 months didn't come up with them.
They are keeping these things confidential.

So, WT is not giving these examples that back up their claims and the people who may have experienced this policy as stated aren't speaking either.So I don't know where you are going to find what you are looking for.

There is another case I know of where two girls who were sisters were horribly abused.This is the Paul Barry case.These two couragous girls,Holly and Heather, were at the silentlambs candle vigil.

You can read this case on silentlambs too.
Barry is in prison and is still a witness in good standing because WT did not apply the two seperate witnesses to seperate events.

Yuck!

ChiChi

dungbeetle

bwahahahha bwahahaha bwahahaha

LFitzwater

I would like to add that in the Dan Fitzwater case (And I have direct knowledge as I am his daughter-in-law) the the WTS had a legal representative present at his criminal trial in which four victims testified against him for abuses that accured repeatedly and over a period of 24 years. I believe, although I can't be positive, that the representative was Mario Mareno himself. The letter from the WTS was in response to my husbands letter AFTER the trial and AFTER his father was in prison. My husband asked why after being convicted and having these witnesses against him, why was Dan still not DFed. The letter posted above was the response. They absolutely knew of the 4 victims and they also had themselves a record of 17 victims. (this probably included the 4 we knew of because each of them had gone to the elders previous to this and got no help) I provided to dateline a circuit overseers letter to the WTS that talked about the 17 victims. The WTS society had to turn this letter over as discovery to the DA. They to this day have refused to name the victims claiming ecclesiatical privledge. The courts upheld their privledge. They say publicly that if there is more than one witness to the same type of crime they CAN use it as evidence. The key word is CAN. The problem is they DON'T.
Laurie

jst2laws

ChiChiMama,

As I read I really lost it on the "deliriously happy" comment. Dungbeetle, right on.

Remember, WT had the chance to present the types of cases you are asking for and they even after 6 months didn't come up with them. They are keeping these things confidential.

I thought I would test the 'confidentiality' issue and see if anyone had any experience where the 'two witnesses to separate incidences rule was used. So far nothing.

WT is not giving these examples that back up their claims and the people who may have experienced this policy as stated aren't speaking either.So I don't know where you are going to find what you are looking for.

In this case, while curious, I expected failure. In fact failure is success. We have not heard from old hippie yet, but even if one congregation of elders did the right thing, that does not justify the example given here or the general failure of applying their 'two witness rule'.

Big point, you said Barry is "still a witness in good standing". We certainly have some outrageous cases where things haven't been done as the WT society says they are.

Jst2

Salud

jst2laws,

In my years that I served as an elder and on special committee's for the Society I never had an incident where someone was tried on witness testimony of two different occurences. I know you can, it's there in the Flock book, but I would say you will be hardpressed to find a legit. example. It's like getting disfellowshipped for obesity, on how many cases did you sit in on that one? Myself NONE.

jst2laws

Hello Laurie,

Good to have you here. Your input is priceless.

WTS had a legal representative present at his criminal trial in which four victims testified against him for abuses that accured repeatedly and over a period of 24 years

You have given valuable input regarding the WT society fully knowing the details and yet not applying what they say is their policy.

I was hoping to get more info from someone regarding the timing of that letter and how much the society knew at the time:

The letter from the WTS was in response to my husbands letter AFTER the trial and AFTER his father was in prison. My husband asked why after being convicted and having these witnesses against him, why was Dan still not DFed. The letter posted above was the response. They absolutely knew of the 4 victims and they also had themselves a record of 17 victims.

I'm putting together a folder of facts and documents such as this to help the local Jws see the truth in contrast to what was read to them Thursday night at the KH.

They say publicly that if there is more than one witness to the same type of crime they CAN use it as evidence. The key word is CAN. The problem is they DON'T. Laurie

They 'CAN...The problem is they DON'T'. My last words to the local PO Friday was they were lying. Its hard to convince a loyal Jdub but this dialog may be of help. Thanks Laurie.

Jst2

jst2laws

Salud,

Good to hear from you.

In my years that I served as an elder and on special committee's for the Society I never had an incident where someone was tried on witness testimony of two different occurrences

I agree it is rare. I have been involved in cases of smoking, fornication and I just remembered one of drunkenness where action was taken on the testimony of either two witnesses to separate incidences or one witness and 'strong circumstantial evidence' (another not so often used rule). While I say this I'm thinking how stinking wrong it was but it seemed right at the time.

Anyway, its good to have your response as a former elder. The society says one thing knowing full well that reality is totally different.

Thanks Salud for the input.

Jst2

Two Witnesses to WHAT !!!

Share this