Listener - I hear you - I apologize for being harsh with the Pill.
I am not being clear here myself.
Here is what I mean: The Pill is going on and on about
nothing specific. He does not NAME NAMES, or give any
specific information that would be reportable, THAT is a rant.
The BluePill has knowledge of the NAME of the predator
and his location and details of this sexual molestation.
The Pill is not revealing who the man is, his NAME.
Eaxample of a real case I knew about:
A JW named David Mochart, who was an elder in 1984
in Santa Barbara California, sexually molested his five children.
His wife's name is Janet Mochart. The children are now all
on facebook and so is Janet. Janet is still a JW.
The men on the committee, included Baron Eric Spafford,
a famous Photographer with a web site and
still in Santa Barbara and still an Elder.
And Richard Ried and others elders on that Judicial Committee.
This case was never reported to the police.
(until I did but I did not have first hand knowledge)
David Mochart was disfellowshipped, his confession was heard.
I heard from the Day Care provider whose name is Kathy Reid,
who is married to Richard Reid who sat on the judicial commitee.
Kathy had an Early Childhood Degree and saw the young child of
about 4 years old "acting out" in a way typical of sexually molested
children, and talking about sex, inappropriate knowledge.
Compare that small bit of actual factual information written here,
to Blue Pills account below.
I will report - give me the name of this man, and the children,
and the Branch location and some reporatble details and Blue Pill
needs to step forward and give testimony, ten years late is not too late
these crimes have no "Statute of Limitation".
Circuit Overseer and someone from the Branch where assigned to investigate the case. He negated everything and didn't confess. The children could deliver explicit details about him and kept mentioning a certain mark on his manhood. The committee was confused on what to do (nope, the accusations of the boys weren't good enough). So, the District Overseer seriously starts contemplating if they should ask him to put his trousers down and have a look at his junk. This created confusion, as it was highly unortodox and not mentioned in the "Shepherd the Flock" book (I am not kidding you here!). So, they ask the branch and it was decided that this was out of question and the "two witness" rule was applied. End of Story. Man get's off the hook.
I - as an individual can't do a thing - but I sure can put a needle through their heart.
They should not be able to bury the past, because people didn't have the guts to tell their story and put it in writing.
I have come to believe that the truth has a certain ring to it. No need to come up with "stamped and sealed" papers - that is what the Society does