Two witness rule IS A MAJOR PROBLEM

by LFitzwater 41 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  LFitzwater

  It may not be the main problem or the only problem and I DO AGREE that this needs to be treated as a criminal issue, but let me give you a very good example of why it is important for a problem like this to also be taken care of congergationally.

  My father in law Dan Fitzwater Sr has now been taken care of criminally. ( No thanks to the WTS) He is in prison for child molestation. He has been abusing children for a very long time, but he is only serving a short time in prison. This is mostly because some of his victims are past the statute of limitations to prosecute. He has never been DFed for his crime against children. To the many JWs that knew him and could not imagine him guilty of this crime, a DFing may have helped. But the elders and WTS stood behind him because they did not have 2 witnesses to EACH incident (4 people testified at the trial that they were abused by him). The elders alledged that the ones that had accussed him did so to hurt "Jehovah's Org". I believe that it is because he was not DFed that many rank and file think he is innocent. They truely believe if there was proof that he did this the elders SURELY would have taken action. 10 people wrote to the judge in Dan's sentancing saying that they did not bvelieve Dan did this and they would STILL trust their children with him. When Dan leaves prison and goes back to these people they will protect and shield him from the law and they will allow their children to be alone with him. If he had been DFed I truely feel that these ones would have 2nd thoughts about Dan's guilt or innocence. I know that it is sad and pathetic to think that people put that much stock in the elders actions or inactions, but that is the way it is. And as long as people put that much trust in the elders decisions I think it is VERY important to get that policy changed.

  Laurie Fitzwater
• 

  Lady Lee

  Laurie I have to agree that if he was DFed then people would not have been supporting him. But if I understand the applications and misapplications of the 2-witness rule even if 2 people witness different incidents he should have been DFed. The elders messed up bad on that one.

  I hope and pray that people have more sense to allow him near their kids. I hiope that there doesn't have to be another child abused by this man before the cong does something. But reality is even if they did DF him he could move to another cong - plead remorse and be back in within six months and would have the backing of the entire cong.

  And I don't think that really has anything to do with the 2-witness rule. Even without the rule the system is severely flawed and he would get back in and have everyone welcoming him with open arms

  <<<shakes head at the insanity>>>
• 

  LFitzwater

  The WTS is the one that messed up. They themselves stepped in the middle of this case and THEY decided not to DF Dan. I have a letter from the WTS AFTER Dan was convicted and in prison. It is in response to my husbands question as to why Dan was not DFed. They said because there were not TWO witnesses. Like I said this was AFTER he was convicted and 4 people not only testified in court under oath but also had reported their allegations to elders.They meant 2 witnesses to each incident.

  Laurie
• 

  jst2laws

  Wow Laurie,

  We have spoken before. Thanks for pointing this out. I hope you keep posting here because you have experience and insight into this issue that few of us can match.

  Yes the 'two witness rule' does make a difference in the congregation setting. That is regrettable that this man, when released, will be treated with trust, because of the two witness rule. What is strange is that the local elders do not seem to be applying the two witness rule, unless, perhaps it is because of their loop hole, "credible witnesses".

  As for the long reaching problems, if the matter has been handled by the state of Florida, he will be a registered pedophile from now on and the COMMUNITY, at least, will be alerted. To bad the WT policy did not allow for this man to be exposed and prosecuted before so many victims were molested by him. That should have taken place a long time ago.

  But suppose the WT society policy had a ONE WITNESS rule? Would it have changed this matter? If the local congregation would have acted on the crimes based on one witness or two witnesses, the state of Florida, and many other states, still does not require reporting so the authorities likely would not have been notified. Not only would the congregation NOT no the truth but the state would not know the truth either. So what it boils down to is the need for the WT to change their policy and report all crimes or at least insist that all aware of the incriminating circumstances to report it to the police. If that was their policy years ago then I doubt that the brothers would be defending convicted pedophiles as fervently as they do.

  You make a good point, Laurie. The local JWs support whatever lead the elders set for them, and the two witness rule governs that lead. And you are in a position to be adamant about your stand. Don't loose your enthusiasm. We need it.

  Jst2laws
• 

  Lady Lee

  Well Laurie it seems that the rule is applied when it is convenient. They need to save face and will do whatever they please at the expense of the vicims. We know this. I feel so bad for what your family has gone through. At least you know for a while children are safe from him.

  We do what we can to protect the innocent. I spoke to everyone in my family about my abusers. I took one to court (not JW related) We do what we can.

  The world knows about him now. You cannot hold yourself to blame for what the WTS does about him. I think that as difficult as it is sometimes we need to let it go and let people protect their own. Believe me I understand your anger that they will do nothing but support him.

  What a mess. What a tragedy in the making
• 

  gumby

  if 2 people witness different incidents he should have been DFed.

  Lady lee....not so with the Witnesses unfortunatly. 2 or more witnesses to SEPERATE incidences does not qualify for Dfing. It might make for a deeper investigation by them. If there is no confession by the abuser they still require 2 or more witnesses per accusation. If several come forth with accusations on different accounts and he holds a position ...he could become REPREHENSIBLE in the eyes of the congregation if enough were aware of this to which he could not serve. Still ...no judicial action is taken against him unless there is 2 or more witnesses per accusation.
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Here is what I posted on the other Thread by JST2LAWS:

  JST2LAWS said:
  

  BUT IS THE TWO WITNESS RULE THE REAL ISSUE? NO!

  THE REAL PROBLEM WITH WT POLICY
  Any religion, in a society that guarantees freedom of religion, can make their own rules to apply within their limited community. It should not matter to us if the WT requires two witness to take congregation action. What is wrong with the WT policy is that they do not treat this criminal act as a crime. They do not send the alleged victim directly to the authorities.
  They may claim they are not required to do so in many states. But in most, if not all, states everyone who does not have Clerical Immunity is required to report knowledge or suspicion of a serious criminal act to the authorities. If they do not they may be charged with complicity to the very crime.

  I agree. The MAIN NUMBER ONE PROBLEM is not going to the Police before the Elders.

  However, the Elders use the 2-Witness Rule to Threaten, Shun, and Punish the VICTIM inside the Congregation.

  First, they tell the VICTIMS that the 2-Witness Rule is GOD'S RULE, and that you must not go against GOD.

  Then, if the Victim actually does tell someone else (including the Police), the Elders can claim that the Victim is SLANDERING AN INNOCENT PERSON because the Victim did not have a 2nd Witness.

  So, then they can initiate a Judicial Hearing against the Victim, and they can then have everyone in the Congregation Shun the Victim, and basically tell everyone in the Congregation that the Victim is a liar.

  This type of crime has only in the last few decades come to the surface of societal awareness as more than a family problem.

  Well, maybe so, but several thousand years ago, God had a Law against it:

  Leviticus 18:6: "'None of you shall approach anyone who are his close relatives, to uncover their nakedness: I am Yahweh.

  Bottom Line
  The two witness rule is an internal congregation law. Its relevance to the WT molestation problem is the confusion that congregation rules should be applied before and instead of turning over criminal acts to crime investigators.

  I agree, however, the 2-Witness Rule causes a lot of problems for the Victim, even if the Victim does go to the Police.

  In my opinion they can KEEP their two witness rule and apply it in the CONGREGATION any way they want to.

  Well, the 2-Witness Rule allows the Elders to Threaten, Shun, Condemn, and Punish the Victim within the Congregation, even if the Victim goes to the Police.

  However, I agree with you, the MAIN PROBLEM is not going to the Police.

  Also, I wanted to add a few more things:

  The Watchtower claims the 2-Witness Rule is an EXTREMELY IMPORTANT LAW OF JEHOVAH.

  Yet, if the Elders are in a Mandatory-Reporting State for Clergy, they go against "God's 2-Witness Rule" and report to the Authorities without having the 2nd Witness.

  Also, I believe the Laws in all 50 States DO REQUIRE Clergy to report cases to the Authorities if they were reported BY THE VICTIM, but some States do allow Clergy to not report if it was a CONFESSION BY THE MOLESTER.

  Also, check out this Thread I just started which lists MOST of the Watchtower's Quotes about their TWO-WITNESS RULE: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=39906&page=1&site=3

  I definitely need to add the Letter the Watchtower sent to you, Laurie (I had forgot about that).
• 

  AlanF

  The experiences of the many who have recently come forward and exposed the Society's vile practices with respect to child molestation show clearly how hypocritical Watchtower leaders are.

  While the elders' manual (the Flock book, p. 111), under the heading "What kind of evidence is acceptable?" for "handling judicial cases", states that the testimony of witnesses to separate incidents of misconduct "can be considered" in theory, it also gives the elders great leeway to dismiss such evidence. For example, it states: "The testimony of youths may be considered; it is up to the elders to determine if the testimony has the ring of truth." In other words, elders are free to dismiss eyewitness testimony if they please. Regarding the testimony of witnesses to separate incidents, it states: "Such evidence may be used to establish guilt..." No guidance is given as to just where the line between "may" and "will not" should be drawn. As for those who have been disfellowshipped or have left the JW cult, the manual states: "The testimony of unbelievers may also be considered, but it must be carefully weighed." Of course, since molested children are mere "youths", elders are thereby given free rein to dismiss their testimony. The same goes for any later testimony of those whose cases were mishandled and who fled the cult as a result. Because the main focus of the JW organization is protection of its image, elders have a clear and strong incentive to come down on the side of dismissing such evidence. The very first paragraph under the above heading emphasizes this point, and really poisons the possibility of turning these "mays" into definites, by stating: "No action can be taken if there is only one witness."

  The Society's hypocrisy in its practice of virtually never convicting a child molester except on the testimony of two eye-witnesses is blatantly evident in how the elders' manual dismisses the "two-witness rule" in the area where the Society has traditionally come down extremely hard on sinners: "Strong circumstantial evidence, such as pregnancy or evidence (testified to by at least two witnesses) that the accused stayed all night in the same house with a person of the opposite sex (or in the same house with a known homosexual) under improper circumstances, is acceptable." Did you get that? Circumstantial evidence to sexual misconduct -- not eye-witness testimony -- is acceptable here. Why does the Service Department take this position? Because its leaders -- in particular Ted Jaracz -- consider fornication and adultery among adults to be far worse than the crime of an adult fornicating or committing adultery with a child! Indeed, this hypocrisy makes it painfully obvious that in their hearts these men do not consider child molestation a crime! The fact that it took the adverse publicity generated by the Silentlambs movement to force the Society into introducing a new rule for elders at last year's Kingdom Ministry Schools (to avoid telling molestation victims not to go to the police) proves how cynical, stubborn and unchristian these men are.

  A number of posters have pointed out that the Bible itself allows for intelligent interpretation of the "two-witness rule". A blind application of it -- and a deliberately self-serving one -- results in the kind of stupidity that Laurie Fitzwater has pointed out with respect to Dan Fitzwater's not having been disfellowshipped, where a man who molested at least 17 children will soon be allowed to molest children again within in the JW community. Even the most ardent Bible believer will admit that God is not so stupid as to require the dismissal of evidence as strong as, say, DNA evidence that semen found in the vagina of a molested girl proves that a certain man raped her. Yet it is evident that the Watchtower Society, by its demonstrated practices and by its lack of comment on such specific circumstantial evidence in the area of child molestation, does not want to allow such evidence to be used against JWs -- especially elders -- who molest children.

  I think that this is an extremely important question for the media to raise: Why does the Society in practice and by giving examples in its elders' manual allow circumstantial evidence to be used against people accused of sexual sins between consenting adults, but at the same time give elders every bit of leeway to dismiss the same type or even stronger evidence against child molesters?

  It has rightly been said that those who are soft in their words on child molesters are probably child molesters themselves.

  AlanF
• 

  Brummie

  I believe that it is because he was not DFed that many rank and file think he is innocent.

  If he had been DFed I truely feel that these ones would have 2nd thoughts about Dan's guilt or innocence.

  Great thoughts...

  By taking no action they are saying he is innocent ! In a JW mind this clears him of any charges so the child suffers again! Hadnt thought of this so thanks for the post!

  Brummie
• 

  Farkel

  AlanF said:

  : The very first paragraph under the above heading emphasizes this point, and really poisons the possibility of turning these "mays" into definites, by stating: "No action can be taken if there is only one witness."

  Simple and direct. However,

  : The Society's hypocrisy in its practice of virtually never convicting a child molester except on the testimony of two eye-witnesses is blatantly evident in how the elders' manual dismisses the "two-witness rule" in the area where the Society has traditionally come down extremely hard on sinners: "Strong circumstantial evidence, such as pregnancy or evidence (testified to by at least two witnesses) that the accused stayed all night in the same house with a person of the opposite sex (or in the same house with a known homosexual) under improper circumstances, is acceptable." Did you get that? Circumstantial evidence to sexual misconduct -- not eye-witness testimony -- is acceptable here

  "Sexual misconduct" among consenting adults hurts far less people than the rape of a little, trusting child. Ask the victims.

  This brings up a lot of interesting possibilities that shows how stupid and truly evil the society's position on the two-witnesses rule really is:

  Suppose little 8 year old Suzie was raped in private by some JW pervert After that JW pervert departs the scene of his rape, little Suzie begins crying in pain about how much her body hurts. Suzie's JW mother rushes her to the hospital and the doctors find semen where it shouldn't be. Suzie's mother contacts the authorities and tells them she suspect that JW the pervert committed the crime based upon how he always wanted to be around little Suzie in the past. They do a DNA test and sure enough, the JW pervert is shown to be the child-rapist. Furthermore, little Suzie swears he was the perp.

  There were not two witnesses. Only concrete scientific evidence that is better than any witnesses. According to the flock book, since little Suzie (who is only 8 years old) is not visibly pregnant (Doh!), then that scientific evidence is not sufficient for the congregation to expel the pervert. If little Suzie was baptized, she might well be disfellowshipped. Her mother would also face disfellowshipping for "slander" according to Watchtower Dark Ages Rules(tm).

  The society demands two witnesses on ALL occassions (except when they accept circumstantial evidence) according to the flock book. Except they don't. They are so inconsistent it would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.

  The observation that they view adultery and "sleeping over" among consenting adults (even if nothing happened) as worthy of expelling that do NOT require two witnesses shows where their priorities are: child-abuse is no big-deal to them, or they don't want the world to know about it, or even worse, they have some nasty skeletens in their own closet they want to keep secret.

  When liars like J.R. Brown says the WTS "abhors child abuse" and they take "aggressive steps" to deal with it, I'm sitting here wondering what the fuck he thinks he means by that.

  Farkel