Charles Russell, Alleged Child Abuser

by Farkel 61 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Lady Lee

  For me it is still open to interpretation. In the book "Four Presidents" she went to Bethel to be with her brother. That too can be taken a couple of ways. Perhaps neither parent was alive and she wanted to be with the only family she had left. Or after joining up with Russell and his followers her surviving parent did not appreciate her leaving their faith (whatever that was). Or maybe it was an early version of working where the need was greater.

  It is all supposition. I don't think we have enough info to support this one way or another.
• 

  stev

  This is Charles T. Russell's recollection of the age of Rose Ball:

  http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/r3808.htm
  The next day Mr. Russell on the witness stand explained that "Rose" and her brother "Charles" were members of the family and office assistants--the former at Mrs. Russell's request. "Rose" was quite childish in appearance, wore short dresses, and looked to Mr. Russell to be about 13 years old. He did not know her age, but another who knew her guessed that she was then only 10 years old. She may have been older than 13 in 1888. The brother came first, and shortly after "Rose's" coming he died.

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Russell estimated her age at 13 in 1888, but I think I recall that Maria said she was 19 years of age in 1889. Russell's whole explanation is based on Rose being a child, and considered adopted. If Rose came at the age of 18-19, this explanation seems less plausible. However, both Charles T. and Maria seem uncertain of the dates involved.

  More questions on this case:

  1. Did Maria state in court that she and her husband both agreed to a celibate marriage?

  2. If the Rose Ball story was stricken from the record, was there any more testimony concerning it during the court case? Though stricken from the records, it found its way into the newspapers, but likely was not subject to the cross-examination that would have happened if it was admissable. But the allegation was made and still is repeated, yet these questions remain that might have been put to rest under cross-examination.

  3. Did Maria confirm that Rose Ball was considered adopted by her and her husband?

  4. I recall reading that Russell later sued twice on the "jellyfish" story, and won his suit both times. Is there a court transcript for either of these suits?

  5. Maria subsequently went to court twice to collect alimony. Did she in court or in the newspapers respond to Charles's denial?

  6. Had Maria attempted to get Rose Ball to testify? Rose Ball was in Australia at the time with her husband. Did Maria make any efforts to call her as a witness?

  Steve
• 

  Leolaia

  It is too bad the 1890 census got destroyed in a fire. It would have likely showed who was living at the Russell address and how old they were, etc.
• 

  stev

  For me it is still open to interpretation. In the book "Four Presidents" she went to Bethel to be with her brother. That too can be taken a couple of ways. Perhaps neither parent was alive and ; she wanted to be with the only family she had left. Or after joining up with Russell and his followers her surviving parent did not appreciate her leaving their faith (whatever that was). Or maybe it was an early version of working where the need was greater.

  It is all supposition. I don't think we have enough info to support this one way or another.

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does the "Four Presidents" book give a reason for why Rose Ball was a director of the Society? Steve
• 

  Lady Lee

  Does the "Four Presidents" book give a reason for why Rose Ball was a director of the Society?

  No it does not give a reason. What the "Four Presidents does say is:

  In the April 25, 1894 Extra Edition of Zion's Watch Tower, the name Rose J. Ball appears as one of the seven director's of the Watch Tower Society. (bold in text)

  footnote 40 on p 201 Interestingly, the directors may have been in name only for the sake of legal purposes. On page 15 of the book it says: In 1881 Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society was organized, and in 1884 it was legally chartered in Allegheny, Pennsylvania. Russell drafted the by-laws and selected the seven directors, one being Maria. But, as she explained in court testimony: "Although I was [a] director, I never did any directing and neither did anybody else." When asked how many business meetings of the Society were held between its founding and when she left her husband in 1897, she stated that the only meeting

  for any purpose was once a year for the election of officers... that was the only thing that the directors were ever called upon to do; ... all the business was done by Mr. Russell, and nothing was ever communicated to the others. I was secretary and treasurer during those years myself, but I never saw the books of the society, never did any of the work that belonged to a secretary and treasurer.

  So the question of Rose's age and whether you would trust a minor to do certain work becomes moot. The reality was that all the directors wer "in name only". Leol In your research of Rose was there ever a middle initial of "J"? If so maybe she can be traced after all.
• 

  West70

  
  With all due respect to Barbara Anderson, I do not believe Rose Ball was born in 1869. Possibly her research turned up a different Rose Ball, or if it was the correct person, the date could have been wrong.
  

  I have done a fair amount of research myself, and the one thing I have learned is to make certain documents are referencing the correct person, and if they are, then be careful that any "numbers" (as in dates) can be verified elsewhere.

  Anyone that has researched Charles Taze Russell has ran across the "Charles T. Russell" who was a Boston attorney who lived during the same period. There were even a father and son "C. T. Russells", who lived in eastern Pennsylvania at the same time.

  Charles Taze Russell stated in the February 15, 1900 WATCH TOWER magazine:

  "Of course, Sister Henninges will accompany her husband, not only as his natural help-mate, but as his helper in the Lord's work. We commend our dear sister very highly to you all as a very earnest and faithful child of God and servant of his cause; full of the spirit of self-sacrifice, and firm for every principle of righteousness as she discerns it. Sister Henninges has been a member of the Watch Tower family for twelve years, joining in the office work with her brother when quite young. May God's blessing continue with both these dear members of our family, making them blessings in various ways to the household of faith across the great deep." ---ZWT Feb 15, 1900.

  This places "quite young" Rose Ball in WT HQ circa 1887/8. I simply cannot see Russell referring to a 18-19 year old as being "quite young", or his even bothering to make the point if she were that old.

  Additionally, please note the dates of the Watch Tower magazines when Rose Ball's poetry first began to be published by Russell. I believe that such started around 1897/8. If Rose was around 20 years old in 1897/8, such sounds about right. Otherwise, one must believe that Russell worked Rose in WT HQ throughout her 20s before he ever got around to publishing her poetry.

  The fact that Russell listed her as a Director in 1894 is easily explained away, as is a reasonably intelligent 9-10-11 year old girl doing office work in the late 1800s. At what age did Russell himself start work in his father's business?

  Thus, Rose was most likely still a "child" when Russell began showing her whatever improper affection that he did.
• 

  Leolaia

  Did she live out the rest of her life in Australia? If there is an obituary out there, that could help solve some problems.
• 

  West70

  
  I forgot to take care of this "argument" found in the original post:
  

  "When Maria asked Chuckie if Rose could come and live with them so she could be close to her brother, Chuckie said "If you could teach her how to take care of the correspondence, that would relived you from that for the more important parts of the work." Does it seem logical that Chuckie would want a 10 year old girl to handle correspondence for the Watch Tower Society?"

  YES, IT IS LOGICAL if you have studied WT history sufficient to understand what it meant to "take care of correspondence" at WT HQ in the late 1880s.

  "Taking care of corrspondence" meant processing literature orders and subscriptions, and other similar duties. Even then, Rose would have been delegated only what a 9-10-11 year old could reasonably handle. She may have started by "picking orders", then "wrapping" and addressing", and eventually probably doing some of the necessary bookkeeping regarding orders, etc., etc. When doing research you have to remember to define terminology as it was then used.
• 

  stev

  I have noticed other inconsistencies in Maria's story.
  http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2919/russadult.html

  In the court case, her attorney said:
  ===============================================================================
  By Mr. Porter: We propose to prove by the witness upon the stand that the plaintiff after observing the conduct as stated by her, of her husband with Rose Ball, she went to the girl and secured from her statement that Mr. Russell at various times embraced and kissed her; that he called her his little wife and jelly-fish, and told 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: that after receiving this statement from Rose Ball, the plaintiff told her husband that, and he admitted that is was true.
  ============================================================================

  Maria said in her testimony:

  ============================================================================
  Q. Now, about the endearing terms.
  A. She said one evening when she came with him, just as she got inside the hall, it was late in the evening, about eleven o’clock, he put his arms around her and kissed her. This was in the vestibule before they entered the hall, and he called her his little wife, but she said,"I am not your wife," and he said, "I will call you daughter, and a daughter has nearly all the privileges of a wife."
  Q. And what other terms were used?
  A. Then he said, "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," and she wrote that out so that I could remember it for sure when I would speak to him about it. And he confessed that he said those things.
  ================================================================================

  Her attorney claimed that Charles said to Rose Ball that Rose was his "little wife and jellyfish." However, later Maria claimed in her testimony that Rose Ball told her that Charles had told Rose that HE was like a jellyfish, not Rose. The attorney said that Charles had said "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." However, Maria later does NOT include this memorable statement in her testimony. Her attorney would only know whether Charles had actually made that statement if Maria would have told the attorney in the first place. However, Maria claimed that Rose Ball had written the statement out for her so that she remember it for sure. Yet Maria's and her attorney's story does not match.
  I have problems believing the actual statements to be true. For a man, especially for a Victorian preacher, to boast openly of his promiscuity to a woman is so unflattering to the person making the statement and insulting to women that it hardly qualifies as "endearing terms," or credible as a seduction line. Someone who is prone to boasts of their libido like that would certainly have made numerous statements to his own wife, yet Maria resorts to hearsay. I find this difficult to swallow.
  It appears from the court transcript that in 1903 when Maria first brought the suit that the Rose ball story was not included, and she dated the origin of her complaints to 1897. However, in 1906 in her testimony she began her complaints with the Rose Ball story in 1894. The Court said she did not mention it in her libel. I find this curious, because if Rose Ball had written the testimony down so she would be sure, yet she did not recall this unforgettable incident of 1894 when filing in 1903. If ones today charge Charles T. Russell with child molestation and adultery and perversion, why would she neglect to do so, how could she forget it, and why did she not include it in her original suit?
  When the evidence was stricken from her testimony, she then claimed that that she and her husband talked about it after 1896. This fluctuation on her part does not make her case strong in my opinion.
  On the matter of Rose Ball being in Australia at the time, was it known ahead of time before 1906 that Rose Ball would even be mentioned by Maria Russell in her suit? It has been insinuated that Charles Russell got her out the country so she couldn't testify. However, the opposite case could be made that Maria surprised Charles during the trial with the Rose Ball story because she knew she lived in Australia and that it would take months for her to travel to the U.S. and would not be available to contradict her story.

  Steve
• 

  Cygnus

  Since I've 'defended' CT Russell before, let the record show I am of the inclination to agree with Steve insofar as my interest in this topic allows. In reality, it barely raises my ire at all.