Former elder Louis Angiuano found NOT guilty

by Nathan Natas 32 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Nathan Natas

  Hi PorkChop,

  I suppose some of us might have an easier time accepting the jury's verdict if Lou indicated that the things of which he was accused had never occurred. The guy admitted to smarmy conduct and desires, so it is easy to think that he did everything that he was accused of. I think the defense attorney was able to convince the jury that the evidence did not support a charge of sexual molestation - it might have come very darned close, but it didn't cross that line,apparently.

  Lou Angiuano is not the best choice for the JW "falsely accused" poster boy.

  I think it is likely that Mr. Angiuano will find himself in front of another jury facing similar charges in the not too distant future - well before Armageddon arrives. Why do I think this? Because sexual predators have the highest recidivism rate of any class of criminals. If he's thinking with the little head, he'll never be smart enough to change his behavior significantly.
• 

  avengers

  why not just execute on accusation since obviously anyone accused must be guilty.

  Yeah. Why not?

  sexual predators have the highest recidivism rate of any class of criminals.

  If this is true then look out for the future within the WT walls. Seems they're fortifying the walls making it harder for us to penetrate. The pedophiles within will have even more free play. I can see them laughing at us. Actually it doesn't matter how much you try to cover up though. It will come out.

  What saddens me is the kids within these walls. They are the victims. If you think that there have been many victims, then you should see the future with the rules they now have. I bet you, (sorry, I know that Jehovah hates betting [who cares?] ) that within several years there will be an explosion of child-abuse within those creepy sick walls.

  The question is: "What can we do now, since we know this?" What bothers me is that if I can see it, why can't the GB? I bet (again) that they do know, but the "image" of the (b)Org. is more important than our children.

  Love love love love love. yeah right!!

  "Love thy neighbor, but don't get caught"

  Andy. (Sorry I have to go and barf)
• 

  gcc2k

  This is an interesting story for a couple of reasons. Clearly his actions were wrong, but do they classify as sexual abuse? The jury didn't think so, and based on the single transcript, neither do I, because the girl and her parents were able to intercede. What I find really interesting is that the elders called CPS themselves. I wonder why? It would also be interesting to find out the parents' status in the congregation. Perhaps this is an indication that changes are being brought about?
• 

  Abaddon

  This is disturbing.

  It is most disturbing that it happened; no girl or boy deserves this when they grow up.

  It's disturbing that a grown man should feel like that.

  It's disturbing the parents didn't hear alarm bells.

  It's disturbing that children are being raised in a climate of fear. I thought the comment about the girl being ruined for life was a little over the top, if what's described is exactly what happened; I base that on having gone out with a woman who was abused... maybe she was strong, but surely it's the ones who are strong and do not allow themselves 'to be ruined for life' we should use as an example.

  It's disturbing that adults can't take photos of children without being thought of as a pervert. Kids are beautiful. Obviously my kids are the most beautiful, but if a someone else's horse can be beautiful, why can't another persons kid? Does it have to be sexual? Yeah, there's a difference between a candid shot and roll after roll, but that's where parents come in, to see when it's inappropriate. There's been cases where photos of young kids on holiday with their parents have lead to prosecutions because the kids (a few years old at most) were on a beach naked! Is that sane?

  It's disturbing that people are so willing to discard the concept of trial by jury because of the understanably strong emotions they feel. Not that juries are perfect, but it's what we've got.

  One thing stood out, and this is nothing personal Big Tex. I think it is perfectly normal to buy my daughters underwear. I don't think they are mortified.

  But, if underwear is an unmentionable subject, then sex is. If sex is unmentionable, then the dangers of sexual predators are unmentionable.

  I think one of the surest ways of protecting a child is to make sure they have no qualms about saying "so and so keeps slapping my butt and I don't like it".

  Make sure they know what's wrong in terms of conduct and touching, even if it embaresses you or them. Far better a little embaressment than a lot of heartbreak.

  If your kid can't talk to you about sex, WHO IS?

  Knowledge is power and power is strength.
• 

  amac

  This man was found "not guilty" in a court of law, yet many on this board are willing to continue to label him as guilty despite knowing nothing more than what a news article says on it. That is what scares me about child molestation accusations. I hope to God that I am never falsely accused, because it doesn't matter, an accusation like that stays with you for life.

  Was this guy stupid and perverted? Yes. Did he admit to being stupid and perverted and slapping her on the butt and buying her underwear? Yes. Did he admit to anything more? Not according to the article in this thread. Is he deserving of 16 years in prison? Not according to the jury who went through all the details of this case.

  Questioning things like this is the same mindset that some JWs use to justify going to the elders first.

  Don't let your cynicism get the best of you.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  I take exception to this article on one note, juries DO NOT declare anyone innocent. They acquit, which is something entirely different than finding someone innocent. A reporter worth his ink would know that. Acquital simply means not enough evidence existed to declare the party guilty.
• 

  RevMalk

  While Juries do not declare anyone 'innocent', in a court of law, the accused IS innocent, until proven guilty to a jury of his/her peers. So, in effect, by law he was 'innocent' since day one, the jury simply didn't find him guilty.

  I must emphatically agree with amac here. I myself don't know alot about this case, and I wasn't there, through any of it, and I too would like to see the court transcript. I'm not giving my opinion on his guilt or innocence, because I don't have one. We have to be careful not to assume all those accused are guilty. It could be any of us accused at any time, or members of our family. That's why I totally disagree with this 'plan' to get the Watchtower to remove their two witness rule. While it needs to be revamped from top to bottom, they should never in my opinion, remove the rule itself. (with that being said, I do believe that any time a case is brought before congregation Elders, the proper authorities should be called in, before anything else, no matter what the evidence or lack thereof)

  I also heard rumors that some were blaming the Watchtower for Angiuano not being found guilty. I don't know what they attempted to cover up prior to the trial, but judging from the following statement, it doesn't appear to be the case during the trial:

  "During the course of the trial the 12-year-old, her mother and a congregation leader testified against Angiuano."

  So like I said, I don't know enough about the case to know whether the guy is innocent of rape or not, but I do agree with amac, we have to be careful not to condemn someone without knowing more than what we know now. And we also have to be careful not to condemn the Watchtower in every case. Once in a great while they do everything right, not very often in my opinion, but on occassion. It's not the Watchtower's fault that they have Child Molesters within their ranks, they're in every walk of life. In my opinion, we should be applauding this 'congregation leader' for testifying in this child's behalf.

  Rev
• 

  outnfree

  I, too, am thinking "well, the jury was there, heard all of it, and I wasn't" so the former elder must be viewed as innocent of the charges laid by the prosecutor's office. What degree of abuse/molestation was charged according to that state, and what degree was Anguiano actually guilty of (according to his own admissions)?

  And, I think skally has a point, too: where were the parents? Yes, elders are demi-gods among the Witnesses, but even when the girl told her mother the parents "tried to keep him away?"!!!!!????? Perhaps during the course of the trial the jury felt that the parents had some culpability in putting their daughter at risk. Sounds like it, doesn't it?

  In this case, it seems the JW elders acted properly, within the law, and even morally -- they removed the guy -- and it was up to the system to convict or acquit. The jury acquitted and the man walks.

  I, too, hope that not only that child's parents' eyes, but the eyes of many parents in the congregation and the area have been opened to the very real danger of abusers hidden within their churches and neighborhoods. And I hope the courageous little girl gets therapy from competent counselors and lots of agape loving from those who are supposed to demonstrate such disciplined love -- the other members of her congregation.

  outnfree
• 

  Pork Chop

  I would say this guy needs some counseling of some kind at the very least. Not sure about recidivism. From personal observation most of the Witnesses involved in this kind of thing seem to be situational rather than serial. This guy just may have a bolt loose rather than being a real predator. Don't know enough about the situation. If he's a predator I'll be happy to throw the switch myself.
• 

  RevMalk

  I would say this guy needs some counseling of some kind at the very least. Not sure about recidivism. From personal observation most of the Witnesses involved in this kind of thing seem to be situational rather than serial. This guy just may have a bolt loose rather than being a real predator. Don't know enough about the situation. If he's a predator I'll be happy to throw the switch myself.

  Couldn't have said it better myself.