UK: Paul Shields "abused girls after luring them with video games"

by darkspilver 39 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  blondie

  his being df'd DOES only depend on his being found guilty by the congregation.

  In the Berry and Fitzgerald case, the abusers went to jail for a period of time, but neither man was df'd from the congregation.
  
• 

  Richard Oliver

  The reason that I ask what people on here feel should happen to him congregationally is that a number of people on here feel that elders should not have any role in the investigation of a child molestation allegation. Here we see that this gentleman in the eyes of the law is not a molester and is under no restrictions what so ever, so if Watchtower did as many people here suggest there would be no restrictions on this gentleman in any congregation at all either. But the policy is that this gentleman, with even the allegation of child molestation won't be able to receive a position of responsibility in a congregation.
• 

  darkspilver

  his being df'd DOES only depend on his being found guilty by the congregation.

  In the Berry and Fitzgerald case, the abusers went to jail for a period of time, but neither man was df'd from the congregation.

  Yes - but this is the other way round? - here it appears the Defendant was DF'd for something that a jury has found the Defendant to be unanimously not guilty of.

  It looks like the JC was looking for signs of 'repentance' (hence the emails the Defendant sent) but you can't repent of something that you say you have never done - you can say sorry that your original course of action gave an impression that you did something wrong - and that is apparently what the Defendant expressed in those emails - hence why they seemed 'strange'.

  But still it poses the question - after being found unanimously not guilty by a jury - what else, of a sufficiently serious nature could the Defendant have committed that would have warranted the Defendant being DF'd?

  The JC must have had evidence of wrongdoing for them to DF the Defendant - from whom?

  All I can think of is if the Defendant had been strongly counselled to stop being so 'friendly' with the young girls (ie not letting them sit on his knee, being less touchy-feely, not being alone without another adult etc) as a precaution, and the Defendant brazenly ignored the counsel? But that's all, and that seems unlikely for DF rather than private/public reproof?

  The other question is regarding the three witnesses - are they JWs? If so, how does this court case and the outcome effect the congregation's relationship with them?

  But this is all (rather fruitless) speculation - we are also very unlikely to find out how the congregation/s involved have/are handling the situation....but I do think the unanimous 'not guilty' verdict by a trial jury will be very unsettling for the congregation publishers.
  
• 

  blondie

  Yes you can be and I have seen it disfellowshipped by the congregation when found not guilty by the court. Remember that the WTS does not df for the specific "crime" but for being "sincerely repentan" and for things other than the "crime."

  Proof is not necessary from the secular system, but in the opinion of the JC and if necessary the WTS admin.

  Don't ever underestimate the arrogance of the WTS.

  "Evidence" by the WTS is very different from that in the court system.
  
• 

  cha ching

  If these girls were molested, and apparently they felt that they were, I still support them for coming forward.

  I have met many people who have to deal with the aftermath of feelings that child sex abuse brings on you. I personally would rather confront the person, and do my best to have him exposed to prevent others from falling in harms way.

  I have been robbed by a "brother", lied to by the committe of three, and I was the one with PTS for over a year afterwards when "the robber" was not accused of anything. That does not mean he did not steal from me. He simply was not DF'd, reproved, or anything. We did not go to "the authorities" because my husband was an elder, and he did not want to dirty "Jehovah's name." Post Traumatic Stress is hard to deal with. I eventually overcame that, but would not want anyone to suffer with it's atrocities.

  OJ Simpson was not found guilty of murder in the very sad trial he had the first time, but was found guilty of murder in the civil trial that followed.

  Justice is very elusive. I feel for any who have had to feel the weight of injustice, and are not allowed to "come forward."

  If this man has done no wrong, it shows further the terrible injustice the WT sets up for people. There is no justice with the WT.
• 

  cha ching

  **Correction: The reason my husband did not take the brother to court was NOT because of "dirtying Jeh's name"... It was a scriptural reason: "do not take your brother to court". He actually went to the Distirct Attorney, and told him about the case, the DA wanted to prosecute, but becaue of the scripture "do not take your brother to court", we did not press charges.
• 

  smiddy

  The reason my husband did not take the brother to court was NOT because of "dirtying Jeh's name"... It was a scriptural reason: "do not take your brother to court".

  However if any "brother" touches the WT/JW`s eyeball (really their pocket $$$$$ ) they will have you in court faster than you can say what ?

  I have witnessed it in a congregation and I`m sure their are plenty of others who have seen this double standard applied .

  When "you" are taken advantage of in any way by your fellow JW you are encouraged to just leave it in Jehovahs hands he will right it in his own due time.

  When the GB is taken advantage of in any way "you" will be hauled before the courts in no time .

  The GB/JW are very selective in how they apply the scriptures.

  I`m sorry your husband never took advantage of the DA`s offer to prosecute.it may have prevented more people from becoming victims.

  Its just a thought ,

  We will never know.
• 

  cha ching

  Thank you Smiddy, You are absolutely right! There are so many sides to the WT I forgot.... they are the most voracious "law users" around.

  Yes, very true, if we had gone to the DA, it may have prevented others from being taken advantage of. The well practiced WT screws with peoples brains royally.

  BUT, we are both now out! YAY!
• 

  Vidiot

  blondie - "In the Berry and Fitzgerald case, the abusers went to jail for a period of time, but neither man was df'd from the congregation."

  This still gobsmacks me.

  They'll DF you for privately expressing that you think the GB gets things wrong ("apostasy"), but not these assholes?

  WTF???

  All shit like this does is make JWs and the WTS look like morons.

  There was even a similar case in the UK a couple years back where WT Legal realized this and ordered the local congregation to cooperate (after they hadn't been).
• 

  karter

  Richard oliver ,Were does it say in JW land that "Even with the allegation of child molistation won't be able to receive a position of responsibility in a congregation"?

  Read the Elders hand book it says "After a number of years they can"

  I know of one guy that Raped his sister and now is an Elder.

  I am leaft to wonder how many more cases will come to lite before you and the WTS see there is a major problem!!

  Karter.