back up
silentlambs
JoinedPosts by silentlambs
-
1
Watchtower Water
by messenger inin the recent pr release the wt gloated over their efforts of providing water to jehovah's witnesses who walked into the front door of 124. it seems wt is taking every opportunity to misrepresent to the public their actual community efforts.
in the latest awake the obituary for a sister who passed away read as follows:.
"she performed voluntary community service as a jehovah's witness by teaching the bible to interested people for 54 years".
-
-
-
6
Another JW Molester in the News
by silentlambs inmeaning of girls privates disputed.
by andrew wolfe, telegraph staff.
-
-
silentlambs
back up
-
17
Armegeddon Pictures
by silentlambs inanyone know where i might find some good pictures of armegeddon in wt publications on the net?
any help would be appreciated.
-
-
silentlambs
thanks for the response, I am loaded now.
-
6
Another JW Molester in the News
by silentlambs inmeaning of girls privates disputed.
by andrew wolfe, telegraph staff.
-
-
silentlambs
Meaning of girls’ ‘privates’ disputed
By ANDREW WOLFE, Telegraph Staff
[email protected]NASHUA – A Hollis man asked a judge Thursday to throw out his conviction for molesting twin sisters, arguing the 10-year-old girls weren’t specific enough when they testified that he touched their “privates.”
Gregory Blackstock, 45, formerly of 68 Flint Pond Drive, also argued that prosecutors failed to prove he acted with the purpose of sexual gratification.
Blackstock was found guilty of three counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault July 26 after a trial in Hillsborough County Superior Court.
If Judge William Groff upholds his conviction, Blackstock is scheduled to be sentenced Sept. 25. Groff did not immediately rule on the issue after hearing arguments Thursday.
If Groff overturns Blackstock’s convictions, prosecutors could seek to appeal his ruling, or request a new trial. On the other hand, Blackstock could argue that the case should be dismissed, and that double jeopardy bars the state from trying him again.
Blackstock is currently serving a five- to 10-year prison sentence for sexually assaulting a 9-year-old East Kingston girl in that town. He also faces trial next month on charges that he sexually assaulted a Hollis girl, now 17, between 1989 and 1996.
Blackstock was convicted of molesting the twin girls between October 1998 and June 1999 at his mother’s home in Hollis.
Blackstock met the girls and their family while living in East Kingston and attending the same Jehovah’s Witness congregation as they. He became close with the family and lived with them for a time. The alleged assaults took place while the girls visited him in Hollis.
The girls, who are now 10, both testified during the trial that Blackstock had touched their “privates.” The girls drew circles on an anatomically correct drawing to indicate the area to which they were referring.
Blackstock’s lawyer, Paul Garrity, argued that evidence wasn’t enough to prove sexual contact with their genitalia.
“They circled an area on the body that encompassed stomach, groin, legs and genitalia,” Garrity said.
Assistant County Attorney Roger Chadwick disagreed, saying the drawings were somewhat more specific. In any case, he argued, the term “privates” is unambiguous.
“We’re dealing with a very specific term, commonly used to refer to the genitalia,” Chadwick said.
“Common sense seems to rule out any question as to where a 10-year-old girl . . . means when she says ‘privates,’ ” Chadwick wrote in his response to Blackstock’s motion. “If you were to look up from this paper and see someone stumble into your room, bent at the waist and complaining of having been kicked in the ‘privates,’ would you, could you, have any doubt as to where they had been harmed?”
In making their arguments, Chadwick and Garrity cited two previous state Supreme Court rulings. In a 1997 case, the court upheld a conviction based in part on testimony by the victim, who said she was touched in her “privates,” and used a stuffed bunny to point out what she meant.
In a 1989 case, the Supreme Court upheld Groff’s decision to overturn the sexual assault conviction of a Lowell, Mass., man, because the victim testified that the man “stuck his fingers in my bum.” The court found the word “bum” was too ambiguous to prove sexual penetration.
Garrity argued the situation in Blackstock’s case was akin to the 1989 case, while Chadwick likened it to the more recent case.
Garrity also charged that prosecutors failed to prove that Blackstock acted for sexual gratification, as state law requires in such cases.
Prosecutors offered no evidence of the circumstances surrounding the alleged assaults – not even whether they happened at the same or different times, Garrity said. For all the jury knew, Blackstock could have stumbled into the girls by accident, or touched them while he was sleeping, Garrity said.
“You can’t infer criminal intent from no evidence,” Garrity said. “They presented no evidence of the circumstances surrounding this touching.
“It’s like this hand in the Addams Family, floating in the ozone,” he said.
Chadwick countered that the simple fact both girls were assaulted rules out an accident, and shows that the touching was purposeful.
Blackstock’s case already has produced other noteworthy legal rulings.
Before the trial, Groff ruled that Blackstock couldn’t be sentenced under the state’s “three strikes” rape law, because he committed all of the alleged offenses before he was charged with any of them. Some judges have interpreted the law differently, and the state Supreme Court has yet to decide the issue.
In another pretrial ruling, Groff found that elders in Blackstock’s Jehovah’s Witness congregation couldn’t be made to testify about his statements to them because of the “religious privilege” rule, which holds that religious leaders can’t be required to disclose a confession or other statements made in confidence in their capacity as spiritual advisers.
Andrew Wolfe can be reached at 594-6410.
-
17
Armegeddon Pictures
by silentlambs inanyone know where i might find some good pictures of armegeddon in wt publications on the net?
any help would be appreciated.
-
-
silentlambs
thanks for the response, please send what you might have as I would like to have something in color.
-
17
Armegeddon Pictures
by silentlambs inanyone know where i might find some good pictures of armegeddon in wt publications on the net?
any help would be appreciated.
-
-
silentlambs
Anyone know where I might find some good pictures of Armegeddon in WT publications on the net? Any help would be appreciated.
-
15
BRITISH APOSTASY!
by silentlambs inafter reviewing the british boe letters posted here, a painful truth seems to be evident.
the british brothers are apostate.
i tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, but i can no longer cover for them anymore.
-
-
silentlambs
Jem, I thank you for your comments regarding your experience with WT legal. In the case you reference, was the matter reported to the police? Were you advised to do so at the biding of WT Legal? I do not deny that WT legal will advise certain cases to be reported, but what if they advise you not to, what would you do then?
Regarding the 12-1-00 boe letter there are clear directions given to report the matter to authorities first, conduct an investigation, and THEN call WT Legal. The Reference is as follows:
"The elder may express deep and sincere concern and offer Bible-based counsel in harmony with what has been published by the Society. His counsel should always include advising the complainant that the congregation cannot take over the God-given responsibility of the ‘superior authorities’ in dealing with crime. Accordingly, the complainant should consider his or her responsibility to report the matter to the authorities without delay. (Compare Romans 13:4, James 4:17) Such authorities might include the family doctor, the head teacher of the child’s school, the social services, the NSPCC, or the police. The elder should explain to the complainant that he himself might have a duty to report the matter to the proper authorities.
If the complainant is a child the elder might offer to accompany him or her to discuss the situation with a parent (but not the alleged abuser) or to one of the above authorities. A child should not be placed under pressure to take such action, and an elder should not be alone with a child who complains of abuse. At an initial disclosure elders should avoid making promises, but they may indicate that they will need to give the matter very serious and urgent consideration. In any event they should treat the matter as a priority so that the complainant does not get the impression that nothing is being done.
As soon as possible thereafter contact the Society’s Legal Department. The presiding overseer should also be informed, but do not arrange to speak with any other person. The elders should not lose sight of the fact that victims urgently need to be protected from further abuse and abusers need to be prevented from finding additional victims."
Here is plainly stated the British policy, go to the elders who then direct you to go to police first or other authorities to see it is reported, they even would be willing to accompany you. Good policy! Yet the very next month you recieved a policy change see Boe letter of 1-1-01 there it is stated:
"When a member of the congregation is accused of child molestation remember to contact the Society's Legal Desk immediately."
So now I ask you, which letter do you now follow?
12-1-00 or 1-1-01.
There clearly seems to be a conflict of direction. Do you contact the police first or WT Legal? As you well know newer letters superceed older ones and as a result you now have a part of USA WT policy in place.
Now roll forward six months, the 6-1-01 letter makes a further adjustment in British policy. There it states:
"Those who have confessed to child molestation, or who have been found guilty of child molestation by the congregation on the basis of two or more credible witnesses,"
and
"a former child abuser who is currently serving as an elder or ministerial servant. In such a case, if the branch office has decided that he can be appointed or continue serving in a position of trust because the sin occurred many years ago and because he has lived an exemplary life since then, his name should not appear on the List, nor is it necessary to pass on information about the brother’s past sin if he moves to another congregation,"
Policy change #2, now according to direction offered, the CONGREGATION determines guilt based on direction from 97 letter of what a "known" child molester is defined to be. Again I point out why was the 12-1-00 letter not referred to when establishing the basis of how to determine if a person is a child molester? Would not turning a person over to the police seem to be a huge factor in determining that? Not according to the 6-1-01 and the 97 letters, they clearly state the CONGREGATION makes that decision. Once they are determined to be guilty by the CONGREGATION, then Legal authorizes what to do next. If you are to just simply turn them over to the authorities why would you need to call WT Legal? What would be the purpose? They would have no basis to be involved.
Policy change #3, if you are a child molester and wait a few years you become completely anonymous as you serve as an elder.
This has never been so clearly stated than this letter. Even the form letter sent out when a brother is removed only allows for minor priviledges. Here we have clear direction and acknowledgement that child molesters are and can again serve as elders.
As I mentioned earlier, I hope this are wrong assumptions, but the hard copy seems to indicate otherwise.
-
64
Bethel Closed Today!
by silentlambs ini had a victim call me after they had called bethel this morning.
they were informed bethe was offically closed till 1:30 pm for a special meeting with the bethel family.
would anyone care to speculate or verify the purpose of the meeting?
-
-
silentlambs
I have confirmed from another source that the Gilead meal was actually on Wednesday and extra time was taken for the meal. The original source claims they called in earlier, but they are on the west coast so who knows. So this may be much ado about nothing. if so, I apologize for raising a non-issue, thought it seemed odd at the time. So unless some amazing revelation develops now maybe we can let this thread die in peace.
-
15
BRITISH APOSTASY!
by silentlambs inafter reviewing the british boe letters posted here, a painful truth seems to be evident.
the british brothers are apostate.
i tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, but i can no longer cover for them anymore.
-
-
silentlambs
While I may have worded some strong statements in the post above, I must mention what I believe that there was an adjustment in British WT policy when the 6-1-01 Boe letter was released. I refer you to a statement in that letter:
"Those who have confessed to child molestation, or who have been found guilty of child molestation by the congregation on the basis of two or more credible witnesses, should appear on the Child Protection List. (For a definition of child molestation see paragraph 3 of our letter To All Bodies of Elders dated April 15, 1997.)"
Here the statement is clear of not only going to the elders first, but also who makes the determination if the person is a child molester? The CONGREGATION, and how does the congregation make that determination? Do they report the matter to the police? Do they refer you to the good policy in the 1-12-00 British regarding making that determination? No, it is completely ignored and instead you are directed to reference the 97-boe letters, which give definition of how to determine a "known" child molester. What does that letter say about how you determine that? Read as follows:
WHO IS A 'KNOWN CHILD MOLESTER '?
"Rather, we are referring, for example, to situations in which it is established by a congregation judicial committee that an adult brother or sister has been guilty of sexually abusing a young child or has been sexually involved with a nonconsenting minor who is approaching adulthood."So the question is, who establishes a "known" child molester? A congregation judicial committee, not the police. After all it is a "known" child molester only, who cannot be an elder or have privileges for a few years. How do you establish a judicial committee? First you have to have a basis to do so. As the 6-1-01 letter plainly states, a confession or two eye witnesses to the act. So when you look at what is stated I believe you have a change in British policy. You must first have an investigation; if the pedophile lies and you do not have two witnesses what are you directed to do? 6-1-01 states:
"There are, however, many other situations that are connected with the abuse of a child. For example, there may be just one eyewitness, and the brother denies the allegation. (Deuteronomy 19:15; John 8:17) Or, he may be under active investigation by the secular authorities for alleged child abuse though the matter has not yet been established." 'In these and similar cases no entry will be made on the Child Protection List. Rather, information should be kept in a sealed envelope in the congregation’s confidential file as described below. When such individuals move, the Congregation Service Committee should write a letter addressed to the Society’s Legal Department seeking advice as to whether to communicate the details to the new congregation."
No direction to report to police but an off hand statement that he may be under investigation by the authorities. Shouldn't all cases of reported child molestation be under investigation? Not according to this letter, you put it in a sealed envelope and don't tell anyone. The information is not even forwarded to the next congregation. That paragraph describes 90% of child molesters, that is, you will not have two eyewitnesses and they will lie about it. They are "unknown" child molesters, which make up 90% of child molesters within the organization.
So to get back to the original statement, the 6-1-01-boe letter was a policy change, you brothers have not studied it close enough to see the subtle adjustment. That is, the CONGREGATION determines if a person is a "known" child molester. If the CONGREGATION determines the person is an "unknown" child molester no one is informed with information kept in sealed files. This is now very similar to USA policy. Elders are clearly instructed to call WT Legal as here in the USA. WT Legal instructs you not to report the matter, what are you going to do? You are not allowed to think or decide what is morally right, WT Legal does it for you and if you do not obey, your time as elder will be short.
I served as an elder for many years and did not give a thought to what WT policy actually was. Till I became personally involved with a victim did I begin to study closely what WT policy directed elders to do. When I tried to disprove my conclusions by actually dealing with Service and Legal, it was terribly disappointing, they confirmed my worst fears.
You brothers in England in my opinion have been hoodwinked, the change has been made and you do not even know it. Just wait till you call Wt Legal and ask for direction on a molestation issue, then your education will begin. I hope you can prove me wrong, because if you can, it will mean something better for the children. If not, what are you willing to commit to for the protection of children?
Not one more day should pass with this bogus farce known as WT policy, it must change and people within are going to have to stand up for it to happen.To say, "wait on Jehovah" for policy to change is a non-statement, you could as easily say, "eat shxt and die" they are interchangeable, yet this is what witnesses are saying about taking positive action to protect children. There is no "waiting" when it comes to doing what is morally and ethically right.
-
64
Bethel Closed Today!
by silentlambs ini had a victim call me after they had called bethel this morning.
they were informed bethe was offically closed till 1:30 pm for a special meeting with the bethel family.
would anyone care to speculate or verify the purpose of the meeting?
-
-
silentlambs
I beg to differ, if you refer to my original post, my friend called around ten in the morning and was informed bethel was closed until 1:30 pm, later that day. I have had Gilead meals and as I recall they were on Fridays before graduation. So I would not give up this question based on one post. It is odd how quiet it has been regarding anyone who might actually know the answer to this question.