Leo Greenlees,

by Kiwi 46 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AlanF

  To Had Enough:

  My information came from former Bethelites who were positions to know about this stuff. It isn't generally known among rank & file Bethelites. That's all I can reveal.

  AlanF
• 

  jschwehm

  Hi Alan-

  When I was at Bethel, I had heard about Greenlees and Chitty being gay from my bethel elder roommate. I had only been there maybe three months or so when he told me about it. I was shocked to say the least.

  Also, if I am not mistaken Leo Greenlees lived in the New Orleans area not long after he was asked to leave Bethel.

  Jeff S.
• 

  Scarlet Pimpernel
• 

  bigboi

  Yep Jschwen is right.

  I attended the Downtown Congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses in New Orleans, LA for about a yr or so before I moved away to the Wesbank of New Orleans. I was baptized in 1996 as a member of that congregation.

  I remember the friends in that congregation talking about Bro. Greenlees. It was apparently where the Society had him relocated after his ouster from Bethel. He was known for his fatherly way of dealing with the brothers and his zealousness in the feild ministry. Street work was a big part of the ministry in that congregation's territory and the friend's marvelled at how he would boldly go up and talk to ppl instead of waiting for someone to pass close to him.

  The former PO of the congregation once told me that he had gotten "caught up" in the Franz debacle, and apparantly that's what most of the friends thought about him. I doubt anyone down there in his new congregation new anything about him being gay. I know he died a few yrs before I joined that congregation but i don't know when. I also heard that shortly before he died, he had been reappointed an elder in that congregation, but again i don't know for certain how true that is, thoughi wouldn't put it past em.

  Peace,

  Bigboi

  "..... anyone who ignores everyday reality in order to live up to an ideal will soon discover he had been taught how to destroy himself, not how to preserve himself." The Prince. Niccolo Machiavelli.
• 

  Had Enough

  To AlanF:
  Thank you for your response. I respect your position and the need for discretion. I'm sure more will be revealed as time goes on anyway, so my family is due for an eye-opening. At least for now, knowing these things actually happened in that ivory tower, paints a more believable picture of reality instead of the whitewash of spirit-directed holy men we've been handed. These men were fallible despite their claims of divine approval and I, for one, appreciate knowing the real truth. Thanks again for bringing this to our attention.

  To SanFranciscoJim:
  Thanks for your offer. I've emailed you. Let me know if you didn't get it.

  Had Enough
• 

  waiting

  Hey AlanF,

  The situation begs for clarification. Clearly, if Greenlees was caught molesting a young boy once, he must have done it before and must have molested plenty of other young boys over the years, because that's how molesters operate. The questions proliferate. Why didn't parents come forward before 1984? Why didn't elders who must have known something come forward and protect these children? Why did the GB not disfellowship Greenlees instead of simply removing him to some local congregation where he lived out his days unknown as a pervert? Clearly, Greenlees had committed fornication, so how did he get out of punishment for that?

  That is not how all molesters operate. Some do. As with any other crime, there are differences in how the criminal operates. Perhaps he graduated from young bethel men over 18 to a young boy for the first time. Anything's possible with sex and/or deviates. But if there were other children, it doesn't seem that anyone has proof of them - yet.

  I do not have the facts, but am only responding to your absolute post. You have eluded to having facts, but unwilling to put them forth. Unless you are in a position to publish your facts, it would seem prudent to not make specific charges against a dead man.

  But molesting one boy does not make a long term child molester. He could have been long term, but not necessarily.

  waiting
• 

  outcast

  waiting
  How did you get so smart? And how can I get smart like you?
• 

  Farkel

  : That is not how all molesters operate.

  That's not what he said.

  Farkel
• 

  AlanF

  To waiting:

  : That is not how all molesters operate. Some do.

  Alright, I should have said "almost all". Statistically, molesters have been shown to molest something like 100 children over their lifetimes.

  : As with any other crime, there are differences in how the criminal operates. Perhaps he graduated from young bethel men over 18 to a young boy for the first time. Anything's possible with sex and/or deviates.

  Anything might be possible, but only a few things are true. In Greenlees' case, I've heard other stories from other people who complained about Greenlees' behavior. One man complained that he found Greenlees alone with his 8-year-old son with his hand on the kid's knee -- entirely inappropriate touching. Another complained to me of inappropriate touching of him and his brother when they were perhaps ten years old.

  Given the above, the probability that Greenlees got caught on his first foray into pedophilia is zero.

  Consider this, too: Suppose you were to call Bethel and ask to speak to someone about charges of sexual deviance against someone who is known to be above reproach in this regard, such as the recently deceased Lyman Swingle. They would tell you that the charge is ridiculous, and they would be confident that they were telling the truth. Try that with a known deviant like Leo Greenlees and you'll get an entirely different reaction -- "No comment." How do I know this? Because I've done it. I've also had offline discussions with certain current Bethel members who, while not directly admitting of Greenlees' deviance, could not bring themselves to lie to my face and deny it.

  Perhaps it's time for me to post once again a list of online comments I've accumulated over the years.

  : But if there were other children, it doesn't seem that anyone has proof of them - yet.

  "Yet" is the operative word here. Again consider an important fact: people who are in positions to know the direct facts about Greenlees boil down to Governing Body members, certain trusted secretarial assistants, and a few others. However, the Bethel grapevine is often a reliable source of information, and Bethelites love to build up networks of 'confidants' who usually end up spilling all sorts of juicy gossip all around the place. But almost all of these people have a great deal to lose by letting this information get 'outside'. If it becomes known that they spilled the beans, they're history. If spilling the beans leads to serious consequences for the Watchtower organization, they themselves suffer some of those consequences. Therefore, only under unusual circumstances do these things come out. But if enough people become angry enough due to the upcoming Dateline program and the fallout that is sure to occur, some of them will surely tell their stories in public.

  Were a Governing Body member subpoenaed in court to testify about Greenlees, they would almost certainly try to invoke ecclesiastical privilege in order to avoid testifying. They might even have to invoke the Fifth Amendment so as to avoid incriminating themselves in a cover-up of molestation or of failure to obey state reporting laws. I'm hoping that this will happen, and not a moment too soon!

  : I do not have the facts, but am only responding to your absolute post. You have eluded to having facts, but unwilling to put them forth.

  I can't because I have to protect my sources. Keep in mind that I was only making some comments here, not trying to establish an airtight case.

  : Unless you are in a position to publish your facts, it would seem prudent to not make specific charges against a dead man.

  I have enough facts, which I will certainly publish, which along with the private information I will not publish makes me completely confident of the charges. The Society has had ample opportunity, and will have further opportunity, to bring forth facts to defuse the charges that have been made to date. That they have not done so seems pretty good proof that they don't want to get involved in a public discussion of the details, any more than they want to publicly discuss any of their false teachings and stupid practices that they know they cannot defend.

  : But molesting one boy does not make a long term child molester. He could have been long term, but not necessarily.

  Right, but the other stories that surfaced over the years proves that he was.

  AlanF
• 

  waiting

  to AlanF

  Thanks for qualifying your statement. I appreciate it, as I'm sure Farkel does.

  ...Greenlees' behavior. One man complained that he found Greenlees alone with his 8-year-old son with his hand on the kid's knee -- entirely inappropriate touching. Another complained to me of inappropriate touching of him and his brother when they were perhaps ten years old.

  I'm sure there must be more to these accounts than is given here. The first does not constitute molestation, imho. Without the particulars of what is *inappropriate touching*, the other cannot be commented on either, at least by me.

  Given the above, the probability that Greenlees got caught on his first foray into pedophilia is zero.

  Stories, accounts, truths, proven truths are all different things - which can all be the same - but not necessarily. The probability of Greenlees is probably closer to 95%. Zero, to the common man/woman, is perceived an absolute - molesters, unless proven, still have the probability factor of the unknown. Memory, even by several persons, is still considered by many professionals to not be absolute in truth or error. Even if it is the truth, not necessarily proveable.
  

  Perhaps it's time for me to post once again a list of online comments I've accumulated over the years.

  I would look forward to reading your list.

  Were a Governing Body member subpoenaed in court to testify about Greenlees, they would almost certainly try to invoke ecclesiastical privilege in order to avoid testifying. They might even have to invoke the Fifth Amendment so as to avoid incriminating themselves in a cover-up of molestation or of failure to obey state reporting laws.

  I agree with your speculation on the GB's actions. However, it would seem a lot would depend on where Greenlees resided and the laws of that state/country at that time.
  
  

  : But molesting one boy does not make a long term child molester. He could have been long term, but not necessarily. - waiting

  Right, but the other stories that surfaced over the years proves that he was.- AlanF

  No, the other stories don't prove it - at least not here. The other stories lend credibility to your charges. I don't necessarily disagree with you - only on your absoluteness. I've found little in life that is absolute - especially when dealing with perceptions of *inappropriate actions* and memories, whether of children, adults, or the memories of adults who are remembering events of decades ago.

  Don't get me wrong - if Greenlees did molest young boys - then let the facts come out. But facts, along with the truth, are hard to come by, particularily when dealing with memories. It may all be true, but unproveable. Thus, the little word - alledged - comes into play.

  You've been at this longer than I have - at least in the WTBTS arena - I bow to your prowness on gathering information. However, I've dealt intimately with molesters my whole life, approximately a half dozen of them. They are the same, and quite varied at the same time. Much too easy to lump them and the way they operate - as dangerous as lumping victims/survivors into truth sayers or liars.

  Most likely, the true picture lies somewhere within those parameters.

  I, like many others, look forward to the Dateline program.

  waiting