Doug:
Sorry about the confusion.
Was she 10-15 or 19-25?
I may just be tired, but I'm struggling to make sense of that article.
Charles Russell, Alleged Child Abuser
by Farkel 61 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
LittleToe
-
amac
She was 37.
-
LittleToe
Argghhh!!!
My brain's exploding!!! -
TD
Hey Farkel,
Barbara Anderson has given us an even more precise age with her research on the subject..... She has discovered through her own primary research that Rose Ball was born in 1869. That would make her 25 years of age when the "incident" occurred.
It also makes Rose Ball the same age as Da Judge
-
Kenneson
TD,
1894 was also the year that Da Judge was introduced to the "Truth."
-
AGuest
Apparently, Ms. Ball was about 15 when the matters reported on by Mrs. Russell occurred (note, however, that does not rule out any incidents prior to), Ms. Ball having come to them at age 10 in 1889 and the first report by Ms. Ball occurring in 1894. I would point out, however, and I think the "experts" would back me up, that most young people under age 15 wouldn't report such a thing, certainly if they had been charged not to.
I must also comment that simply because a matter is stricken from the record does not make it false: in this case, they were stricken solely because they occurred before Mrs. Russell filed her suit, and she failed to mention them in the suit; the court only allowed what took place within a year before/after the date of Mrs. Russell's suit.
But... I'll let the record stand... objections, strikes and all...
http://watchtower.observer.org/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040309/HISTORY1/204019
And I will say, that given his "clandestine" conduct... homosexuality didn't seem to be his problem.
I bid you all the greatest of peace!
A slave of Christ,
SJ
Oh, BTW, Daddy-O, dear... a few things:
1. Young women certainly knew how to type/write correspondence, even before age 15. In fact, during that time, young girls were put to work as young as 10 (if not sooner).
2. Fifteen is not really all that young, but it would seem young for a man of Mr. Russell's age... and self-imposed status... and certainly questionable in light of his marriage...
3. I got into Law School!! Start Monday!!! Praise JAH!!!
-
stev
I have read this thread from last year about Rose Ball, as well as this thread
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/51463/1.ashx
There are inconsistencies in the accounts that cloud this story.
1. When did Rose Ball come to live with the Russells? Maria first gave the year 1884, but shortly afterwards gave the year 1889.
2. How long did Rose Ball stay with the Russells? Maria said 10, 11, or 12 years. If Rose Ball came in 1889, she would have remained with them until 1899-1901. However, Maria left her husband in 1897. If Rose Ball came in 1884, she would have remained with them until 1894-1896, before the Russells separated. The year 1884 as the year of Rose's arrival would be more consistent.
3. Why did Rose Ball come to live with the Russells? Charles claimed that she was an orphan and her brother was living there already, and that the Russells considered Rose their adopted daughter. Did Maria ever confirm this? If Rose arrived in 1889 at the age of 19, she would no longer be a minor, and her adoption by the Russells does not seem credible.
4. Charles admitted that he did kiss Rose Ball. How old was Rose when this occurred? Charles claimed that she was a girl in short clothes, and that at the request of his wife he and his wife kissed her goodnight when Rose left the couple for bed. If Rose Ball's birth certificate indicates her birth in 1869, she would be about 15 years of age in 1884. This would be consistent with Charles' story that she was an orphan and considered adopted. Charles said that he stopped kissing Rose Ball when she began to wear longer clothes for fear he would make his wife jealous.
However, Maria claimed that Charles kissed Rose in the year 1894, when Rose would have been 24 years of age, certainly no longer a child, but a grown woman. This would be inconsistent with Charles's account.
5. Charles claimed that by mutual consent he and his wife were celibate in their marriage, and that this was Maria's preference as well. I believe Maria also stated this in the court case. However, Maria claimed that Rose Ball told her that Charles had told her that "I am like a jelly-fish. I float around here and there. I touch this one and that one, and if she responds, I take her to me, and if not, I float on to others". Maria's attorney claimed that Charles told Rose that "a man’s heart was so big he could love a dozen women, but a woman’s heart was so small she could only love properly one man." Maria claimed that Rose told her that he kissed and fondled her several times.
This story seems at odds with their celibate marriage. If he was truly like a jellyfish, with a big heart that could love 12 women, and touch this one or that one, it is very highly unlikely that he would have desired a celibate marriage, and would have used his marriage to satisfy his supposedly excessive libido.
6. If Maria did believe that her husband had an affair, why did she not make it originally the grounds for her case, rather than introducing it at the last minute into the case?
7. If this occurred in the year 1894, Rose Ball would have been 24 years of age, and she would have been a consenting adult in an affair, and would have confessed to the wife that she cheated with her husband. Yet Rose Ball continued to live with them, and seemed to remain on good terms with both the husband and wife. I don't find this a likely scenario.
8. Maria's story of Rose Ball is hearsay, which is not sufficient evidence in libel cases, where the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. For this reason, and the inconsistencies above, I have not found Maria Russell's story about Rose Ball to be credible.
Steve
-
Lady Lee
I have an issue with this comment
Lastly, Rose Ball was NOT an orphan as Rutherford and the WTS later claimed in the 1975 Yearbook. The divorce trial states that Russell told Rose she could take his name, yet she declined. Russell then tells us why: "She said the only reason she didn't do that she was afraid if her father heard of it he would think she had lost her respect for him."
I don't know that this would actually meanher father was still alive. I could be a phrase similar to "My father would turn over in his grave if..." or "My father would... if he were still alive"
Aside from this in the court testimony Maria was asked point blank if she thought her husbnad was guilty of adultery and her clear response was "No."
Another point that I think might be important was that children were viewed very differently than they are now. They were put to work much earlier. Childhood as we know it did not exist at that time.
But this whole issue of sexual misconduct bothers me. Sexuality at that time was seriously repressed. People did not talk about sexual matters. Freud had given a lecture in 1897 about what he found were cases of sexual abuse. He had been working at the Saltpeterie where he had seen first had (during autopies) the battered, raped and killed bodies of children. He had also seen numerous young women in his private practice who were telling him about being sexually abused. He believed them. In 1897 he gave his speech and was practically run out of the medical prefession. apparently these young women were often the daughters of his medical colleagues. His lecture didn't go over too well.
This was the atmosphere at the time. So here we are about the same time period with a girl/woman supposedly claiming that CTR was acting inappropriately. It just seems very odd to me that she would have made these accusations. In an atmosphere of rigid sexual repression she may not have even known how to deal with this or even what to call it if it has indeed happened. I would think also that if something serious had happened she would most likely be scared to say anything. The usual reaction of a child who was being abused would be fear of telling because she might lose her home, her benefactor (CTR) would be angry with her, it might cause trouble between CTR and his wife plus she would be branded as "spoiled". It just doesn't seem realistic that she would run to his wife and strait-out say he was being abusive.
On the other hand if she did go against all the norms of the times and did go to Maria it would be extremely common for the wife to either not believe her or just tell her to stay away from him. Neither of these would be helpful to Rose which would also be a reason why she would not tell. People KNOW when they won't be helped. So they stay quiet.
One other issue that seems to keep popping up is the possibility the CTR was impotent. That could explain the lack of sexual relations between CTR and his wife. But that does not necessarily mean he was not interested in sex.
WARNING - GRAPHIC SEXUAL INFO.
Getting a little personal and intimate here but when I was 10-11 yrs old I lived with my father and brother in a boarding house. We called the couple Uncle Bill and Auntie Vi. Well Uncle Bill was impotent. He never got hard enough to have been able to perform intercourse. But he would regularly get me to masterbate him when no one else was around. Regardless of how long I did what I was told he never got hard. But he sure was interested. Impotence does not equal lack of interest.
-
stev
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have an issue with this comment
Lastly, Rose Ball was NOT an orphan as Rutherford and the WTS later claimed in the 1975 Yearbook. The divorce trial states that Russell told Rose she could take his name, yet she declined. Russell then tells us why: "She said the only reason she didn't do that she was afraid if her father heard of it he would think she had lost her respect for him."
I don't know that this would actually meanher father was still alive. I could be a phrase similar to "My father would turn over in his grave if..." or "My father would... if he were still alive"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I interpret "orphan" to mean not that both parents were dead, but that one parent was dead, and the other parent did not have the financial means to support the child. This would fit the story there, and perhaps the mother was dead, and the father could not take care of the children. More information would be needed.
Steve
-
Leolaia
I tried doing some research with census data to verify Rose Ball's age, but I was unable to find her anywhere.
According to Edmund Gruss, Barbara Anderson has had access to inside Watchtower files on Russell and Rose Ball, and has determined that she was not as young as claimed by the Society.
Edit: I should clarify that there were several Rose Balls born in 1869 and other years, but without knowing what state she was born in or other info, I cannot find "our" Rose Ball in the data.