Two file sex abuse suit against Jehovah's Witnesses congregation

Pioneer Press ^ | Tue, Jul. 02, 2002 | STEPHEN SCOTT

[wallcrawlr]

Two women filed a civil suit Tuesday alleging they were sexually abused as young girls by a fellow member of a Jehovah's Witnesses congregation in Annandale, Minn. The women, both now 22 and living in the Twin Cities, say the religion's very tenets make it virtually impossible for victims to come forward, because at least two witnesses are required to corroborate any act of wrongdoing.

“After these incidents,’’ said the plaintiff’s attorney, Jeffrey Anderson of St. Paul, “these women went to the elders, and they were told, 'We don’t really believe you, because we require two witnesses to this for it to have happened, and if there aren't two, you are giving false testimony.' ”

At issue is Jehovah's Witnesses understanding of the Bible, specifically Deuteronomy 19:15, which says a single witness shall not suffice in convicting a person of a crime or wrongdoing.

Although Jehovah’s Witnesses do not interpret every passage of the Bible literally, they base their beliefs solely on principles found in the Bible.

“If the accused … denies the charges and there are no others who can substantiate them, the elders cannot take action within the congregation at that time,’’ says the group’s official statement called “Jehovah’s Witnesses and Child Protection.’’

Both plaintiffs allege that while they were between 10 and 12 years old, they were fondled by a male member of the congregation who was eight years older.

Named as defendants are Derek Lindala, 30, of South Haven, Minn., who is alleged to have fondled the girls on separate occasions either in his family home or while on church-related activities; the Annandale congregation; and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, which is the Jehovah's Witnesses incorporated headquarters.

[wallcrawlr]

Its almost refreshing to hear about hetrosexual abuse instead of the typical homosexual. Forgive the sadistic irony.

[RobRoy]

Although I am no fan of JW's I have to come to their defense. You want two witnesses? Here they are:
1. Testimony of victim
2. Physical evidence.

Now that we have that, we can at least take the claim seriously. What do they want, the ability to accuse anybody of anything without any evidence other than one persons word and expect it to stick?!?!

[big'ol_freeper]

Tell that to the two girls.

[Republican Babe]

How about calling the cops???????

[RobRoy]

Exactly.

I get the feeling these women are barking up the wrong tree in this case though. Saying that a guy molested you years ago and there were no witnesses and there is no physical evidence isn't going to fly with ANY church OR the cops.

These women missed whatever window of opportunity they had, unless they can show compelling evidence other than the "he said, she said show."

[Ed_NYC]

My grandmother is a JW but I've learned to dislike them. My mother started taking their "studies" and unlike most religions which you're suposed to kind to others, the JWs as my mother told me "that if you're not interested you shouldn't even say hi to you". This is true, I've declined their studies once and it got back to my grandmother, they said that I was going on the wrong path.
Who knows which one is the true religion, but these guys "KNOW IT", it is the only one, the "TRUTH". That is why I do not allow them back in my house, I am an open-minded-catholic-raised individual but to tell me which one is the "ONLY TRUE" religion, that is not right.
Please read this http://www.irr.org/English-JW/jwfacten.html

[HassanBenSobar]

Well, that's the dilemma: the jw's won't take 'physical evidence' as the 'second witness', because that's not their interpretation of a witness (=eyewitness). So they say, 'well, we can't just accept this accusation as sufficient evidence to do anything...in fact, if you (the supposed victim) keep complaining and accusing so-and-so here of abuse, we'll kick you out for slander.' ('kick you out' means they get shunned: no one in the entire organization will speak with them, do business with them, be seen with them, etc. Nice, huh?)

So, no matter when a person makes a complaint--if they don't have two witnesses, it won't hold up for the jw's. And oh by the way--jw's aren't supposed to go running to the authorities with such complaints. That would be disloyal...and you wouldn't want to be shunned, would you?

They are really quite diabolical in the way they run their organization. Nice people individually...but rather totalitarian as an outfit.

[Ohioan]

The idea of suing a religious denomination because an individual believer fondled them, is absurd. This is not analogous to the cover-up of the Homosexual problem in some Catholic Churches, but it may be analogous to the possible misuse of the Catholic problem to try to discredit that Church or organized religion, in general.

It seems to me that someone abused as a child--and being fondled briefly is a far cry from being penetrated by a pervert--whether that abuse is reported to the Church or not--has a civil and criminal remedy in the Courts. If, because of religious sentiment, they choose not to report it, seasonably, that refusal does not give rise to a cause of action against their denomination, later. There may be exceptions, where there is some clear negligence upon the part of someone in authority. But the idea of attributing the actions of one individual to his denomination is an extremely dangerous one, and should not be lightly indulged.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[JCG]

This seems unfair reporting. It is a civil case which means it may be total BS. They name the defendant by name but not the accusers who filed the suit. What kind of smear is that? If we knew the accusers' names we might also know that they were a couple of misguided crackpots.

Or not.

America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)

[Dog Gone]

That's exactly right. They are suing the denomination because they felt they had no recourse within the denomination.

That hardly makes the fondling the fault of the church. If this suit flies, I'm going to find out which church the neighborhood punk who vandalized my son's car belongs to, and sue it.

[HassanBenSobar]

This is not analogous to the cover-up of the Homosexual problem in some Catholic Churches

Why not? The question is whether the church knowingly covered up evidence of criminal acts, or perhaps whether its policies led to further criminal damage. Let's not try to settle whether it is true or not that the jw's did anything wrong: the question is, IF there is evidence that their organization knew and covered up cases of abuse, allowed pedophiles to transfer here and there without warnings to protect others, intimidated victims from seeking relief from the authorities, etc---then why can't they be held responsible?

Who knows what the true extent of it is. But if ANY organization, religious or secular, acted in the way I just described, why shouldn't they be held accountable?

[retrokitten]

A quick google search for Jehovah's Witness comes up with alot of anti-JW sites. I found this message board where no one seem that happy with thier Jehovah's Witness experience. Then, there was a link to this site that people can submit thier own stories of physical and mental abuse at the hands of fellow Jehovah's Witnesses.

[HassanBenSobar]

Yeah, and interestingly, the guy who set up that site is a jw who is being threatened with shunning...just for blowing the whistle. It's a pretty effective way to silence dissent, isn't it? Members who don't following the official decree to shun someone...are in turn liable to be shunned.

Totalitarian. Scary, in fact.

[Ohioan]

There is nothing in the article that suggests a coverup, merely a demand for a standard of proof which was not met. Nothing in this, prevented recourse to the Courts or Police. In the Catholic situation, some Bishops made the moral and judgmental mistake of transferring those whom they were on notice might be perverts seeking prey, to other congregations. The sin--and tort--there was not the Church as a whole's either. But it does raise the question of respondeat superior, and hence the negotiated settlements.

But that does not appear to be the situation in the case here.

My concern, again; and it goes both for the Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and any other American religious denomination, is that we not allow those who would like to discredit all religion, to create absurd Court precedents to make more mischief later. I do not want to see my fellow lawyers tempted to file a bunch of shake-down type lawsuits to bedevil honest believers. The evil in these cases is primarily that of individuals. No denomination advocates abusing children.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[concerned about politics]

Both plaintiffs allege that while they were between 10 and 12 years old, they were fondled by a male member of the congregation who was eight years older.

I'm not a Jahova Witness, but this is not a church matter.
This was between a boy and some girls, not leaders of the church. They should have told their parents, and their parents should have called the police.

[HassanBenSobar]

Ok, well, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't think the purpose of the suit is to discredit religion per se. I happen to know a lot more about this issue than what is stated in the article (but I won't get into that too much now, except for a few observations).

What would you say is the recourse of a jw victim of abuse? Remember that it's pretty rare that anyone else sees someone getting sexually abused. But here's the really tricky part: an abuse victim who comes forward is in essence admitting that they took part in a sexual act. That means that even if the accuser denies it--the victim gets blamed (and likely shunned) because they just admitted to the act (if they deny it, then they lied, and they 'slandered' the person the accused--same result, out they go). Abuser gets off. Victim has no further recourse since a shunned member gets no credibility whatsoever with the organization.

Next scenario. Abuse victim goes to police or to a doctor with the complaint. Maybe, just maybe, they get incontrovertible evidence, like DNA, that can link the abuser to the crime. Rarely happens, though. Don't forget that for a jw, turning to 'secular authorities' in this instance is very dangerous and could bring all sorts of reprisals. Also--most kids can't just jump in the car and go see the doctor or the cops right after they are abused. Doesn't work like that. Usually they're scared ***tless and if they tell anyone, it'll be later..and it'll be their parents. And it'll mean they are admitting to sexual activity...in essence jeopardizing their life.

Now, on the other hand, you have guys like Mr. Bowen who were church officials, and got all sorts of complaints about individuals--complaints that could not be acted on. Kind of tough on the conscience, don't you think? So he tries to blow the whistle and say 'let's change the policy'. Result? He'll probably get kicked out. But, of course, the church itself is not responsible. No, couldn't be. Policy had nothing to do with it.../sarcasm off.

[Bonaparte]

"Physical evidence."

The man's accused of fondling. What's the physical evidence, prints lifted off their behinds?

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Well they could always quit and try Catholicism. (just kidding)

[Ohioan]

You are confusing sexual abuse and a consensual act by someone under the age of consent. But are you suggesting that those in positions of responsibility have a duty to believe the accuser, without being satisfied by the evidence? That is as unfair as completely ignoring the accusation.

When you are talking about something as difficult to prove as a fondling, without any witnesses, isn't it proper to screen, and try to determine what actually happened, before you become a part of something that can ruin someone's life? You surely cannot fault a Church for wanting to be persuaded before it jumps on a destructive bandwagon. And again, a fondling is a far cry from a penetration, for which there would be evidence.

But my point is not the difficulty for the Courts or Church to determine what actually happened in one of these cases. My point is that you cannot blame the Church for proceeding with great caution.

William Flax

[HassanBenSobar]

You are confusing sexual abuse and a consensual act by someone under the age of consent.

In the jw's eyes, it amounts the same thing UNLESS you've got those two witnesses. It's a catch-22: I agree, you can't just believe every time someone cries wolf--there have to be some standards of evidence. But you can't go to the other extreme, as they are, and silence anyone who ever "cries wolf"--sometimes they're not faking. Get it?

To the credit of the catholic church, at least they don't take out severe reprisals on members who make criticisms of the church or its policies, or who come forward with complaints of abuse. And they are trying to make changes in their policy to correct and prevent patterns of abuse. I don't see anything constructive being done by the jw's. It took enormous public pressure to get the Catholic church to change--not likely to happen with the jw's. So the pedophiles get another walk...