These statements from ALICE:
"Camping is not a congregation function. If a single man wanted to take my daughter camping without any other parents going, I would have told him NO. In fact I would ask what other children were going, contact their parents and tell them this is inappropriate. On one end, there's a parent (adult) that claims (they) had no clue that an alleged sexual predator was amongst them."
McLean wasn't single, he was married with children. He created activities that would attract kids, all known victims were enticed from Kingdom Halls. Most of his victims came from homes with 'single moms'. I've represented the victims.
'This man was single with no children.'
Actually he was married with two children.
' It's been stated he molested the same person over a number of years in another media release.'
One of his MANY victims was a family member, who he raped for many years. I represented her.
'Before going to the authorities, it's best that there's incrementing evidence against a person so that there's a successful prosecution. Substantial evidence would be; more than one eye-witness, physical evidence or if the abuse is an on going matter (meaning a person knows the same thing is going to happen again). '
This statement stands in direct opposition to existing mandatory reporting requirements in all states, including the state of California, where McLean was prosecuted. Investigation is undertaken, and evidence is gathered by law enforcement authorities, not untrained laymen, by LAW.
'In this situation, the criteria for substantial incrementing evidence has been met, however, victims with the cognition to tell the secular authorities about this long standing matter never did for a number of years, and what makes this situation less understandable, is if the victims told the elders, you can be assured they told their parents about the abuse; their parents knew about it. '
Of the two dozen known victims, one told a parent and was dismissed. The girl who reported to police was encouraged by family and congregational authorities to drop the complaint. Thankfully, she refused.
'In this story, there are adults (parents) involved that could have told the authorities, but didn't do so over a period of years.'
What is your basis in fact for this statement? Names? Time frame?
' The fact that it is their children that are involved leaves some unanswered questions. Whatever the case, it's these children's parents that are just as liable for acting irresponsibly as the congregation elders. '
What is your basis in FACT for these statements?
'If it was my daughter, I could have trapped this man in his actions and seen to it that he was prosecuted with or without the elder's assistance, and upon prosecution the elders would be removed and possibly prosecuted. '
This is an astonishly naive statement. 'Upon prosecution the elders would be removed and possibly prosecuted'?
Frankly, you don't have a clue as to the FACTS of this scenario. Interesting that you feel free to fabricate.
Kimberlee D. Norris
attorney at law
Love & Norris