cooee
Junior Member
Posts: 69 
|
Post by cooee on Jul 24, 2012 23:01:06 GMT -5
To Jimmy (reply 52)
Well done. Linking the name David Leitch with "proactive" and "quality leadership", you have created two classic oxymorons.
To JO (reply 83), you have nailed it. While David Leitch has handled both the EB and CC cases in the most unsatisfactory way imaginable, he has introduced a vicious twist into his handling of the CC case. DL has demonstrated a serious flaw in his character. He is being vindictive in the extreme. David and Chris went into the work the same year. Before his present situation arose, CC was always very popular, open and approachable, an insightful and easy to listen to preacher. David Leitch is none of these things and is probably insanely jealous. EB was supported and sheltered from any exposure by DL. In stark contrast, it looks like DL is actively trying to destroy Chris.
|
|
jimmy
Junior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by jimmy on Jul 25, 2012 8:52:36 GMT -5
Hmm, it seems David can't win. EB was not willing to personally acknowledge the allegations against him, and as far as I know, despite his conviction still sees he has done no wrong. He has not been publically named by the courts - as such, legally, David can say very little about him. CC on the other hand has had the decency to provide an explanation and this has allowed David to be a little more open. I am definitely not seeing any evidence of a campaign to destroy Chris. I am personally devestated that it is CC involved, i have always respected him, and know he was troubled as a youth. My prayers are with him.
I'm not going to say I have agreed entirely with how DL has managed the situation, but I think he deserves some credit for taking on the position of responsibility when everything was hitting the fan in the EB case. JR was not capable of managing such a situation, but I believe he limited how DL could handle it.
Cooee I think your slur on DLs character is appaling. I have never seen any evidence that DL is a jealous man. He is, rather, an intelligent being, who is very aware of his legal obligations and unfortunately in Victoria they have long favoured the perpetrators of CSA rather than the victims by allowing them a cloke of annonymity.
|
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 25, 2012 10:54:18 GMT -5
Did the incident(s?) CC was involved with happen before he even was a worker OR part of the fellowship?
|
|
|
|
Post by becareful on Jul 25, 2012 18:49:28 GMT -5
I think some people are being a little unfair here. The workers are on a very steep learning curve with how to lawfully deal with issues of CSA. I think they are being much more thorough with this latest sad case because they realised the mistakes of the last. I believe if someone else was to come forward re EB ( or God forbid anyone else!) it would be handled differently. People are being asked in Tasmania and it's thorough- even people like me who no longer attend. I want to add that I see Chris as a close personal friend and understand how this is so difficult for so many people.
|
|
|
|
Post by menatwork on Jul 26, 2012 6:32:11 GMT -5
I think some people are being a little unfair here. The workers are on a very steep learning curve with how to lawfully deal with issues of CSA. I think they are being much more thorough with this latest sad case because they realised the mistakes of the last. I believe if someone else was to come forward re EB ( or God forbid anyone else!) it would be handled differently. People are being asked in Tasmania and it's thorough- even people like me who no longer attend. I want to add that I see Chris as a close personal friend and understand how this is so difficult for so many people. What do you mean by "People are being asked in Tasmania and it's thorough- even people like me who no longer attend." What are you being asked?? |
|
|
|
Post by becareful on Jul 26, 2012 17:36:25 GMT -5
What I mean is the workers are trying to identify any home Chris may have stayed in. ( including ex's) Each person is being contacted and name/ address given to police. There was a poster earlier who was feeling that this was unlikely to happen- just want to assure them it was. Unfortunately this needs to happen in every single case with CSA involving workers. Whether it be to give more victims the chance to come forward or whether it is to prove there has been nothing during that time frame ( as I personally believe with Chris)
|
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 26, 2012 19:54:08 GMT -5
What I mean is the workers are trying to identify any home Chris may have stayed in. ( including ex's) Each person is being contacted and name/ address given to police. Can you confirm that the same is being done with regards to Ernie? |
|
|
|
Post by becareful on Jul 26, 2012 20:14:12 GMT -5
Wish I could- but that was not the case with Ernie. I really don't think it's because it's Ernie vs Chris though ? I would like to think that if further people came forward re Ernie it would be dealt with following the guidelines workers are now talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 26, 2012 21:26:07 GMT -5
Just trying to figure out why DL is so proactive regarding Chris yet for Ernie it would take someone to come forward?
|
|
|
|
Post by becareful on Jul 26, 2012 22:50:05 GMT -5
I think most people assume the Ernie case is over. Court and sentence.
( not my personal opinion)
I understand the Ernie case was better handled in Victoria than Tas?
|
|
|
|
Post by menatwork on Jul 27, 2012 4:03:30 GMT -5
Just trying to figure out why DL is so proactive regarding Chris yet for Ernie it would take someone to come forward? I think it might have something to do with the fact that Chris was quite critical of the way in which the EB case was handled by DL. DL and CC do not get on and DL is telling elders of the church that what right has CC to be critical of the way in which CSA is being handled . |
|
|
|
Post by menatwork on Jul 27, 2012 4:10:50 GMT -5
I think most people assume the Ernie case is over. Court and sentence. ( not my personal opinion) I understand the Ernie case was better handled in Victoria than Tas? From my understanding the EB case was handled appallingly in both VIC & TAS. There has been plenty of opportunities for DL to offer an apology for what happened and to encourage other victims to come forward. Instead he stood up for EB and supported him in court and discouraged other victims to come forward. It would be good if he took on the example of Graham Thompson and was prepared to make a strong public stance against CSA........but don't hold your breath  |
|
|
|
Post by whatistruth on Jul 27, 2012 5:45:46 GMT -5
You have published a letter written by YY that he was involved in a matter, unspecified, when he was young, which he regrets, and before he was part of the church. He says the Police have questioned him about it, and he has therefore stood down from being a worker. It seems a big leap to publicly say he is guilty of CSA. Can people simply say anything on this board? There are some quite outrageous statements in recent letters. Has anyone said that there was a problem while he was a worker? Perhaps so, but if not, then we have a person who has done something unspecified, repented, lived a decent life since and yet now is advertised as guilty of anything that anyone feels like saying. Great if we could have some integrity in what is allowed to be said here. Some day, he may well need to appear in court to answer some charges and he may be convicted of something but right now that is not the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by To what is truth on Jul 27, 2012 7:12:41 GMT -5
I don't think anyone has said that CC was involved in CSA as a worker...
Personally I think CC has done the right thing in writing a letter which attempts to clarify the reason why he has stood down.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 27, 2012 11:33:45 GMT -5
You have published a letter written by CC that he was involved in a matter, unspecified, when he was young, which he regrets, and before he was part of the church. He says the Police have questioned him about it, and he has therefore stood down from being a worker. It seems a big leap to publicly say he is guilty of CSA. Can people simply say anything on this board? There are some quite outrageous statements in recent letters. Has anyone said that there was a problem while he was a worker? Perhaps so, but if not, then we have a person who has done something unspecified, repented, lived a decent life since and yet now is advertised as guilty of anything that anyone feels like saying. Great if we could have some integrity in what is allowed to be said here. Some day, he may well need to appear in court to answer some charges and he may be convicted of something but right now that is not the case. It is my understanding that he has had counselling for that that had happened many years ago before becoming a worker and according to him, there's not been a problem, but voluntarily step down from the worker position. If all of that is true, all he should do is to be sure to follow the guidelines of the law in being at or doing things that put children before him...otherwords following the reccomendationsd of an offender who has been convicted....this would make him to have at least followed the law. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 27, 2012 11:36:33 GMT -5
Just trying to figure out why DL is so proactive regarding Chris yet for Ernie it would take someone to come forward? I think it might have something to do with the fact that Chris was quite critical of the way in which the EB case was handled by DL. DL and CC do not get on and DL is telling elders of the church that what right has CC to be critical of the way in which CSA is being handled . CC probably has the knowledge of how these things are dealt with due to his own experience....also he had counseling in this regard....so I'd say CC would perhaps be a good point of reference on the law...that is if he is bering honest and it appears he is. |
|
|
|
Post by mod5 on Jul 30, 2012 21:51:49 GMT -5
This from from BTS.... WINGS has been given permission by the Police investigator to publish the following letter sent to selected friends chosen by David Leitch 3 July, 2012 Morwell SOCIT 8-10 Hazelwood Road Morwell 3840 Victoria, Australia DX Telephone (03) 51317046 Facsimile (03) 51315090 Email darren.eldridge@police.vic.gov.au www.police.vic.gov.au My name is Darren ELDRIDGE. I am a Detective Senior Constable of Police currently stationed at Morwell Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Unit. I am currently investigating an allegation of child sexual assault. Your name and address has been provided to me by David LEITCH. David indicates that the person I am investigating has spent time with you and your family and may have lived with you for a period of time. Neither myself nor Victoria Police are suggesting that you or your family have been offended against but would like to give you an opportunity to talk to police should you choose to. I can be contacted on the above telephone number; all contact will be treated with the utmost discretion. Darren ELDRIDGE Detective Senior Constable 32210 |
|
cooee
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by cooee on Aug 2, 2012 20:05:11 GMT -5
To Jimmy (reply 86),
David Leitch can “win”. That will be when and if he decides to do the right thing before God, by the numerous victims of CSA, by their supporters and by the whole body of believers under his care.
Your post is quite revealing because of the interesting observations you make. Would you care to elaborate on what you wrote that John Robinson constrained the way David Leitch dealt with the EB matter?
Court proceedings in Australia are generally conducted entirely in public. There is provision for “in camera” or private proceedings to be held in some special cases. As far as I am aware, no part of the EB court proceedings was conducted in camera. Consequently the defendants name “Ernest James Barry” is publically known. It is foolish to suggest that David Leitch cannot mention the name of this felon within the fellowship.
You talk about finding my assertions about David appaling (sic).
I’ll tell you what I think is appalling:
That John Robinson failed dismally to deal adequately with multiple cases of Child Sexual Abuse committed on his watch as overseer.
That he failed to deal adequately with multiple cases of workers involved in immoral sexual behaviours on his watch.
If it is true, as you suggest, that John Robinson dictated the way David Leitch was to deal with the EB CSA case, then that too is appalling.
These things also are appalling:
That David Leitch, having grasped the leadership role, comprehensively failed to deal adequately with the EB case.
That he sat in court and listened while evidence was lead by EB’s defence team that he knew to be utterly false.
That workers and their apologists continue to peddle the claim that workers are on a steep learning curve about how to deal with Child Sexual Abuse cases, using this excuse to justify the lack of proper actions. The fact is that over many years there have been numerous instances of Child Sexual Abuse in our land, and in many other countries. This has provided ample opportunity for the ministry to establish and refine its response to sexual sinning. It isn’t rocket science. Stand the accused down, hand complete responsibility for investigation over to the secular authorities, provide pastoral comfort and care for the victims, advise the body of believers.
That, as you acknowledge, the culture in Victoria in the past has been the provision of annonymity (sic) under a cone of silence.
That this culture of anonymity is still very much in vogue today.
That XX is still engaging in his faulty process of selective disclosure by giving the police the names of people in whose homes YY has stayed during his time in the ministry. This is an equivalent tactic to the one he used in the EB case where the sister workers decided who may have potentially been a victim, based on the acceptance of assurances given by EB that he had stopped offending 30 years ago.
In addition, it is known that EB’s offending occurred on convention grounds and in public places as well as in private homes. It is not good enough to confine the current investigation just to potential offending in private homes.
|
|
|
|
Post by whatistruth on Aug 3, 2012 3:43:03 GMT -5
You have published a letter written by CC that he was involved in a matter, unspecified, when he was young, which he regrets, and before he was part of the church. He says the Police have questioned him about it, and he has therefore stood down from being a worker. It seems a big leap to publicly say he is guilty of CSA. Can people simply say anything on this board? There are some quite outrageous statements in recent letters. Has anyone said that there was a problem while he was a worker? Perhaps so, but if not, then we have a person who has done something unspecified, repented, lived a decent life since and yet now is advertised as guilty of anything that anyone feels like saying. Great if we could have some integrity in what is allowed to be said here. Some day, he may well need to appear in court to answer some charges and he may be convicted of something but right now that is not the case. It is my understanding that he has had counselling for that that had happened many years ago before becoming a worker and according to him, there's not been a problem, but voluntarily step down from the worker position. If all of that is true, all he should do is to be sure to follow the guidelines of the law in being at or doing things that put children before him...otherwords following the reccomendationsd of an offender who has been convicted....this would make him to have at least followed the law. Do I correctly understand you, that Chris should behave as a person already convicted of CSA? You say "follow the guidelines of the law" I gather in EB's case that means no contact with any children for 10 years or something???? Is that what you mean? And then what about all the rest of the men we know who have messed up. There are plenty of guys out there who were sexually inappropriate with a younger girl to some level or another. I could name half a dozen myself probably. As I understand it this is not about Chris as a worker so is probably in the same position as every guilty or innocent guy who eventually got his life together and behaved appropriately. I sure get that guys in the work are in a high place of trust, just a bit confused as to why you think Chris is in the same situation as EB. |
|
|
|
Post by Headinthesand on Aug 3, 2012 7:03:10 GMT -5
What is truth am I understanding you correctly that you are saying just because others guys have behaved inappropriately with a minor that Chris is not accountable for his actions?  ? Following your analogy do we stick our heads in the sand and let girls be harmed??? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2012 7:52:01 GMT -5
What is truth am I understanding you correctly that you are saying just because others guys have behaved inappropriately with a minor that Chris is not accountable for his actions? ? Following your analogy do we stick our heads in the sand and let girls be harmed??? Exactly right. We cannot justify our own criminal behaviours by pointing out someone else's criminal behaviour. The whole scenario surrounding [name of worker removed - mod7] is appearing worse all the time. His situation was originally promoted as youthful teen indiscretion. Then it slipped into an alleged (but denied) offense at age 23. Now we hear of an allegation when he was around 29 or 30. [name removed]'s camp is simply no longer reliably believable with the changing stories and allegations emerging. What's worse, a CSA allegation of someone at age 29 is no longer in the realm of "youthful dumb mistake", "atheist indiscretion", or any other excuse. There are no excuses, it's outright criminal if true. Add to that his movements around the world (a past indicator of worker-offenders), his shutting down of his Facebook account, his sudden low profile, his hiring of the same lawyer as the convicted worker EB......and you have a lot of awful smoke surrounding this case. The best hope for Mr.[name removed] is to quit making the investigator chase down leads and come clean. Confess to all the incidences of improper child contact, pay the price, and reclaim his soul. The current route of hiding, playing the legal game, and misleading everyone about his offenses will destroy him. He needs to remove himself from his current ill informed advisers and seek advice from people who know what to do that is best for him and his victims. |
|
|
|
Post by Brianna on Aug 3, 2012 15:43:30 GMT -5
Good one Clearday. You have made a heap of stuff clear in your post. (Very sensible and down-to-earth). We can only hope CC has enough gumption to do the right thing now, not try and wriggle out of the inevitable. But I wont be holding my breath!!!!!!!!! Pity we dont have similar laws to USA. Bit inclined to slap em on the fingers here. Laws for CSA should be more severe. I remember Chris telling us he was a "greenie" before he went in the work and greenies dont have a conscience. He said he had to relearn his when he went in the work. Wonder if his conscience is working NOW!  |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 3, 2012 20:13:16 GMT -5
Wish I could- but that was not the case with Ernie. I really don't think it's because it's Ernie vs Chris though ? I would like to think that if further people came forward re Ernie it would be dealt with following the guidelines workers are now talking about. The reason they're being very careful about Chris is because he's been cited before he ever professed and before he ever went into the work....as he admits to having taken counseling to get rid of those tendencies. So he may well come under the radar as having broken his own legal status by just being in the membership where children would be present....kind of like someone working for a school, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 3, 2012 20:15:48 GMT -5
It is my understanding that he has had counselling for that that had happened many years ago before becoming a worker and according to him, there's not been a problem, but voluntarily step down from the worker position. If all of that is true, all he should do is to be sure to follow the guidelines of the law in being at or doing things that put children before him...otherwords following the reccomendationsd of an offender who has been convicted....this would make him to have at least followed the law. Do I correctly understand you, that Chris should behave as a person already convicted of CSA? You say "follow the guidelines of the law" I gather in EB's case that means no contact with any children for 10 years or something???? Is that what you mean? And then what about all the rest of the men we know who have messed up. There are plenty of guys out there who were sexually inappropriate with a younger girl to some level or another. I could name half a dozen myself probably. As I understand it this is not about Chris as a worker so is probably in the same position as every guilty or innocent guy who eventually got his life together and behaved appropriately. I sure get that guys in the work are in a high place of trust, just a bit confused as to why you think Chris is in the same situation as EB. I didn't say that Chris is in the same situation as EB, I've posted another version in an above posting. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 3, 2012 20:18:46 GMT -5
Just trying to figure out why DL is so proactive regarding Chris yet for Ernie it would take someone to come forward? I think it might have something to do with the fact that Chris was quite critical of the way in which the EB case was handled by DL. DL and CC do not get on and DL is telling elders of the church that what right has CC to be critical of the way in which CSA is being handled . The reason is Chris had already been in the authorities radar BEFORE he went into the work, otherwords he may well have not followed his post sentencing guidelines where he does not allow himself to be where children certainly are.....plus the workers who let him do that may well come under the radar of the authorities for breaking the law in putting Chris in a position to where he would be around children. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 3, 2012 20:24:04 GMT -5
"That workers and their apologists continue to peddle the claim that workers are on a steep learning curve about how to deal with Child Sexual Abuse cases, using this excuse to justify the lack of proper actions. The fact is that over many years there have been numerous instances of Child Sexual Abuse in our land, and in many other countries. This has provided ample opportunity for the ministry to establish and refine its response to sexual sinning. It isn’t rocket science. Stand the accused down, hand complete responsibility for investigation over to the secular authorities, provide pastoral comfort and care for the victims, advise the body of believers."
Why should the workers seek MORE TIME in dealing with these criminal issues? We don't get that privilege when changes must be made, people that obey the law adapt and put that law into practice or knowingly be apt to be arrested for not doing so. Why do the workers feel they need more time to "adapt"...other groups have not had to do that as far as knowing what to do about CSA....it comes down to just reporting the abuse to the authorities and really it should pass through any other person's realm but by the person who becomes aware of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 3, 2012 21:43:33 GMT -5
I'm wondering what authority you have to make this post. Not claiming you don't have authority, but would like a source. Otherwise is it not posting unconfirmed allegations?
Libelous posts are strictly forbidden. Please provide news links if you are accusing someone of a criminal offense. Otherwise, don't post such articles.
We have a commitment with ProBoards that no libelous posts will be allowed. This includes posts that contain names or initials of living people about whom criminal allegations are made.
|
|
|
|
Post by guest sauerkraut on Aug 4, 2012 6:32:45 GMT -5
|
|
? Following your analogy do we stick our heads in the sand and let girls be harmed???