NEW: CSA-Incest Account

[jondough]

Jul 24, 2013 9:57:56 GMT -5 ts said:

Jul 24, 2013 9:18:15 GMT -5 @ram said:

Rational is right if we are considering establishing as far as possible the actual truth of the events related in any given account. A process of examination has to be undertaken, if such a thing has not previously occurred. However, in most cases we do not have the tools or opportunity to subject such accounts to the highest level of scrutiny. But another way does exist for those who, like myself, view the account provided by Cherie as an example of some of the things which are alleged to happen in the sect, rather than being taken up with the integrity of the specific account.


There are many other testimonies which have similar characteristics. These are provided by many different individuals, completely separate from the others through time and geography. Whilst each may still lack a proper scrutiny to establish their independent validity, the volume of the various accounts will collectively be such that they will establish the likelihood of the malpractices, rather than reject them. Ultimately each account really needs to be examined on its own merits if we are to rely on its specific details, but for the purposes of a collective sign post, a series of testimonies from different, independent sources, will establish this, even if they have not been thoroughly examined. This will establish likelihood, but not fact.

Ram and Jondough,

You both have an obvious bias towards the victims and against the Workers. You are not impartial, therefore, your assessments are not reliable.....There are no facts...it is all a dream.....There are no facts....

Although I know you are being sarcastic here... I would rather you not insuate that I have a bias against the workers. I am professing, and appreciate all they do.

I try to see things how they are, and recognize things that are not right. What I'm not is a head wagging person, agreeing with everything because a worker said it. They ARE as human as we are.

Unless Debbie lied about her entire story, and this is a conspiracy, to suggest that abuse did not take place here is just ridiculous. There may be memory inaccuracies in regards to details, but to suggest that all these things were fabricated in her memory to me is absurd

[sharingtheriches]

Jul 24, 2013 10:12:44 GMT -5 mangochango said:

Often people's comments about things like this make me so sick. How do you think it makes victims feel when everyone is so concerned about "verifying facts" when a lot of facts are impossible to verify!! If there had been other people there when Leslie White raped me then it wouldn't have happened. While you're all to busy and taken up with "verifying facts" there are more innocent children and adults out there being abused by the very same people who've done it before. They are free because well after all there was no eye witness to say oh yes that child was molested,raped, abused etc. These facts are the hell we live with and will continue to live with...verified or not.

I can't believe my eyes in what is written on this thread! Some of the smartest people in the world, by their own aspirations, pushing for verifiable "data"/facts! This is something that there are only 2 people involved in at a time...the victim and the perpetrator and we all should understand that the perp will not willingly tell on himself/herself to their criminal sexual behaviours. So then all we really have is the victim, who is probably the only source of verifiable facts.......Sheesh....how ridiculous can you get!

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2013 11:05:30 GMT -5 sharingtheriches said:

Jul 24, 2013 10:12:44 GMT -5 mangochango said:

Often people's comments about things like this make me so sick. How do you think it makes victims feel when everyone is so concerned about "verifying facts" when a lot of facts are impossible to verify!! If there had been other people there when Leslie White raped me then it wouldn't have happened. While you're all to busy and taken up with "verifying facts" there are more innocent children and adults out there being abused by the very same people who've done it before. They are free because well after all there was no eye witness to say oh yes that child was molested,raped, abused etc. These facts are the hell we live with and will continue to live with...verified or not.

I can't believe my eyes in what is written on this thread! Some of the smartest people in the world, by their own aspirations, pushing for verifiable "data"/facts! This is something that there are only 2 people involved in at a time...the victim and the perpetrator and we all should understand that the perp will not willingly tell on himself/herself to their criminal sexual behaviours. So then all we really have is the victim, who is probably the only source of verifiable facts.......Sheesh....how ridiculous can you get!

It's a fair question actually. Just because someone is asking the questions doesn't mean that they are insinuating that it is all lies. Quite the opposite, they are looking for ways to increase their confidence in the story.

Things like:

"Did this person ever exist?" How do readers know that this isn't a work of fiction?

"Was there outside editing on this story?" Readers can be helped by knowing this story is the work of the first party only.

There is plenty of corroboration of the facts of this story. Cherie mentioned several of them. Again, legitimate questions. Readers need help to decide the extent to which they can embrace the story,after all, Debi is now deceased so anyone can write anything and call it the truth.

While there are facts which cannot be corroborated, there are plenty which can be corroborated and these should be articulated so that there is hope for the story to have a significant impact.

[cbs]

Jul 24, 2013 9:17:31 GMT -5 CherieKropp said:

Jondough:  Thanks for giving your report about the memory articles. 

Debi personally told me what's in her story...the info is not second hand.

And while I was not personally involved in any meetings that took place between the victims and the abuser, I am Shannon's aunt and can verify the facts surrounding this part of Debi's story are true and factual.

Having grown up with Debi's family, knowing them at convention and visiting in their home once, I'm so heartbroken she and her sister had to go through this horrible tragic experience that never seemed to have any positive resolution. I'm completely disgusted at the abhorrant behavior and wonder why his name is still being protected?

CBS

[rational]

Jul 24, 2013 8:56:50 GMT -5 jondough said:

I guess my first reaction to your post is; Did you verify that these articles were accurate? I see this happen all the time on this board. Someone needs an argument...you can always go to google and find an article that will support your argument, no matter what side of the fence you're on.

Why don't you present the other side - how reliable events recalled from memory really are?

Then upon skimming these articles, I have found everyone of them to be irrelevant to the subject at hand.

The first article that you googled has to do with someone thinking they witnessed an event first hand when in reality they didn't witness it all, but actually someone had explained the event to them. This happens, I've actually witnessed someone doing this...but its not relevant to this case unless you think that someone actually explained this event to Debbie.

Exactly. We don't know what she was told and now believes to be true. Just as the article, and the referenced research pointed out, the teller becomes so entrenched in the story that they actually do not know if it really happened or if it was something they were told. How is that irrelevant? Unless, of course, you have access to secondary confirmation.

The second one you googled, compares our memory to a telephone game where a story is told from one person to the next. They claim that our memory is distorted in the same way every time we recall it. So I guess all your childhood memories by the time you are your age Rational, are completely distorted to the point of completely in-accurate. Non of us better be telling any of our grand-kids (when we have them) any of our childhood memories....or at least let them know that what we are about to tell them is completely inaccurate.

This is also accurate. The research shows that in the retelling the story slowly becomes distorted and the reality blurs as the deviation becomes to be viewed as what really happened. Again, this is an emotionally charged story and the teller has indicated that it has been retold more than once.

The third one you googled, was a car accident that happened in a very short period of time and obviously witnessed from distant, and different vantage points. Not relevant to this at all.

Really? It is the classic research demonstrating how events can be observed and the conclusions are completely at odds with the events as they actually took place,

The fourth one you googled,is the same as number two above.

No, it is additional research confirming the earlier findings.

The 5th one you googled, has to do with suppressed memories, that are recalled at a later date - many times triggered by a single event. It also talks about false memories that have been implanted by someone asking about an event. This was a single event, not something that happened over a long period of time.

The events related were a series of single events that were distributed along the time line of her life. The recall is triggered by current events and the original event is recalled. It is exactly the type of case that was being discussed. How did you come to the conclusion that it was not relevant?
Did you read the account?

I began to have uncontrollable flashbacks, nightmares and painful memories surfaced that I hadn't thought about in years. Probably, Ronnie's death triggered them. I was forced to deal with my past. I wrote my Father a letter about what he had done to me. He called to talk about it while Mom was working. He said he had hoped the past had been put behind us, and that we would not have to talk about this again. I told him that it still hurt me, and that we hadn't really ever talked about it; that I had just told him never to do it again, and he promised me he wouldn't. I reminded him that he had never even told me he was sorry. He thought he had. I disagreed. So he said he was very sorry, and asked me if we could drop it and never bring it up again. Even though I personally, didn't believe he was truly sorry, I agreed to drop the matter because I needed to get on with my life. I'd had enough pain and didn't want to dwell on it any longer.

The events were being asked about and discussed, by people who all had a vested interest in presenting a story that was least damaging to themselves.

The sixth one you googled, has to do with how a one term - single event type memory is less accurate than a repetitious type memory like learning spelling or math. Again, it has to do with a single event, not something that happened over an extended period of time. It explains how if you only recall part of the event, then the rest of it may get lost over time.

Again, a single event in the article but the story told is a series of events, many discrete, that happened over the course of her early childhood.

For the record, I was aware of more than 1/2 of these articles before I posted them. I have other references that I did not bother to post because they are unavailable on the internet. If you are so certain that a simple google search can bring to light research to support claims, why don't you find some peer reviewed research that explains how accurate memory is? Show that there is no need to examine stories from decades ago to be sure they are accurate. Show how the articles I referenced are in error.

This is just my response to your post. I hesitate to post this as you have way more time than most of us, and you will break this post up in little pieces and respond with more googles, or comments....until I finally have no more time. So I probably will only read what you respond with, but will not engage in a back and forth dialoged like you love to get into because I simply do not have the time.

I have no more time than you do. Perhaps I am a faster typist. And I didn't have to spend the time googling the articles I wanted to use because I already knew the author's names.

[shipwreckedsailor]

Unlike mangochango being made sick by the comments of those looking/searching/inquiring for facts...these comments only sadden me.  I realize that to post untrue comments or make untrue accusations against another the results can be damaging and life changing....hence the necessity to confirm or corroborate facts.  But as was also posted...many times and in most instances, there are only two people who know the REAL facts and they are the perpetrator and victim.  Because it happened to me, I was the victim.  The facts were very real to me, but because I was only 9 years of age and he was a beloved brother worker, I felt I was at fault.  I was ashamed and felt no one would ever believe me.  So I remained quiet.  It only happened once (but sadly there could have been other victims, we will never know).  So the human psyche within me has fuzzied up the facts of the event, mellowed them so I could live with them.  Did it really happen? Yes.  Could I, would I ever be able to retrace, recreate exactly every detail of what happened?  No.  Do I want to? No.  This man is now dead.  By God's grace I have forgiven him, and by even greater heavenly grace  I have also forgiven myself.  There are only a very few with whom I've ever shared this information, now I'm sharing it with you.

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2013 13:30:07 GMT -5 cbs said:

Jul 24, 2013 9:17:31 GMT -5 CherieKropp said:

Jondough:  Thanks for giving your report about the memory articles. 

Debi personally told me what's in her story...the info is not second hand.

And while I was not personally involved in any meetings that took place between the victims and the abuser, I am Shannon's aunt and can verify the facts surrounding this part of Debi's story are true and factual.

Having grown up with Debi's family, knowing them at convention and visiting in their home once, I'm so heartbroken she and her sister had to go through this horrible tragic experience that never seemed to have any positive resolution. I'm completely disgusted at the abhorrant behavior and wonder why his name is still being protected?

CBS

Is Mr. Gordon's movements around children restricted in any way today?

[cbs]

Jul 24, 2013 14:08:53 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Jul 24, 2013 13:30:07 GMT -5 cbs said:

And while I was not personally involved in any meetings that took place between the victims and the abuser, I am Shannon's aunt and can verify the facts surrounding this part of Debi's story are true and factual.

Having grown up with Debi's family, knowing them at convention and visiting in their home once, I'm so heartbroken she and her sister had to go through this horrible tragic experience that never seemed to have any positive resolution. I'm completely disgusted at the abhorrant behavior and wonder why his name is still being protected?

CBS

Is Mr. Gordon's movements around children restricted in any way today?

To my knowledge, no, because he was NEVER, taken to the authorities.

[faune]

Jul 24, 2013 11:05:30 GMT -5 sharingtheriches said:

Jul 24, 2013 10:12:44 GMT -5 mangochango said:

Often people's comments about things like this make me so sick. How do you think it makes victims feel when everyone is so concerned about "verifying facts" when a lot of facts are impossible to verify!! If there had been other people there when Leslie White raped me then it wouldn't have happened. While you're all to busy and taken up with "verifying facts" there are more innocent children and adults out there being abused by the very same people who've done it before. They are free because well after all there was no eye witness to say oh yes that child was molested,raped, abused etc. These facts are the hell we live with and will continue to live with...verified or not.

I can't believe my eyes in what is written on this thread! Some of the smartest people in the world, by their own aspirations, pushing for verifiable "data"/facts! This is something that there are only 2 people involved in at a time...the victim and the perpetrator and we all should understand that the perp will not willingly tell on himself/herself to their criminal sexual behaviours. So then all we really have is the victim, who is probably the only source of verifiable facts.......Sheesh....how ridiculous can you get!

Sharingtheriches ~ Perhaps that's why some people never tell their story, for fear of being victimized all over again by some of the same people they meet with on Sunday Morning?   It's never easy to come forward and tell your story and then to be accused of lying only adds more discomfort to the original pain of betrayal by someone you once trusted to have your best interest at heart. Working as a facilitator in the past in my church and dealing with a number of hurting people in group discussions, I know how hard it is for some to come forward and share their painful life experience, which stays with them years later as unresolved business. My heart goes out to all the victims of such horrible crimes against one's person, especially CSA. It makes you wonder just how cold and calculating some people can be as not to realize the harm of their actions ~ and later to cover up and deny it ever occurred when confronted.

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2013 14:29:52 GMT -5 cbs said:

Jul 24, 2013 14:08:53 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Is Mr. Gordon's movements around children restricted in any way today?

To my knowledge, no, because he was NEVER, taken to the authorities.

The meeting system can restrict his movements without the authorities. A fairly recent case in NZ resulted in an elder losing his position, eventually losing the meeting out of his house, is not allowed to stay overnight at convention and if I recall, has a minder at convention to monitor him while on the grounds.

This is the sort of thing that should be in place for Peter Gordon. In addition, he should not be allowed to attend fellowship meetings where there are minor children.

If none of this is happening, then Harold Bennett and Dale Schultz are being negligent in the protection of children.

[cbs]

Jul 24, 2013 14:35:43 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Jul 24, 2013 14:29:52 GMT -5 cbs said:

To my knowledge, no, because he was NEVER, taken to the authorities.

The meeting system can restrict his movements without the authorities. A fairly recent case in NZ resulted in an elder losing his position, eventually losing the meeting out of his house, is not allowed to stay overnight at convention and if I recall, has a minder at convention to monitor him while on the grounds.

This is the sort of thing that should be in place for Peter Gordon. In addition, he should not be allowed to attend fellowship meetings where there are minor children.

If none of this is happening, then Harold Bennett and Dale Schultz are being negligent in the protection of children.

There are more then just meeting children in his world.

[jondough]

Jul 24, 2013 14:35:43 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Jul 24, 2013 14:29:52 GMT -5 cbs said:

To my knowledge, no, because he was NEVER, taken to the authorities.

The meeting system can restrict his movements without the authorities. A fairly recent case in NZ resulted in an elder losing his position, eventually losing the meeting out of his house, is not allowed to stay overnight at convention and if I recall, has a minder at convention to monitor him while on the grounds.

This is the sort of thing that should be in place for Peter Gordon. In addition, he should not be allowed to attend fellowship meetings where there are minor children.

If none of this is happening, then Harold Bennett and Dale Schultz are being negligent in the protection of children.

CD,

How long do you think this would be necessary? At some point they get pretty old and senile, and probably harmless. But I guess - who would determine when that would be? Do you think it would be for as long as they are alive, or at least mobile?

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2013 14:46:44 GMT -5 cbs said:

Jul 24, 2013 14:35:43 GMT -5 @clearday said:

The meeting system can restrict his movements without the authorities. A fairly recent case in NZ resulted in an elder losing his position, eventually losing the meeting out of his house, is not allowed to stay overnight at convention and if I recall, has a minder at convention to monitor him while on the grounds.

This is the sort of thing that should be in place for Peter Gordon. In addition, he should not be allowed to attend fellowship meetings where there are minor children.

If none of this is happening, then Harold Bennett and Dale Schultz are being negligent in the protection of children.

There are more then just meeting children in his world.

Unfortunately, Harold Bennett can't restrict Gordon's movements beyond the meeting system and because of the Statutes of Limitations, neither can the Law. Mr.Bennett and Mr.Schultz should do what they can do though.

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2013 14:48:43 GMT -5 jondough said:

Jul 24, 2013 14:35:43 GMT -5 @clearday said:

The meeting system can restrict his movements without the authorities. A fairly recent case in NZ resulted in an elder losing his position, eventually losing the meeting out of his house, is not allowed to stay overnight at convention and if I recall, has a minder at convention to monitor him while on the grounds.

This is the sort of thing that should be in place for Peter Gordon. In addition, he should not be allowed to attend fellowship meetings where there are minor children.

If none of this is happening, then Harold Bennett and Dale Schultz are being negligent in the protection of children.

CD,

How long do you think this would be necessary? At some point they get pretty old and senile, and probably harmless. But I guess - who would determine when that would be? Do you think it would be for as long as they are alive, or at least mobile?

It should be for a lifetime as this sort of problem is rarely a simple decision by the perpetrator*. They are driven to do this and the timing of when they are too old to do it anymore is purely subjective, even with the best of medical advice.


*Edit: from what I read in this case, it was being handled in the 1990's as though it was simple bad behaviour/sin by the perpetrator. The workers showed very little understanding that this person had a deep psychological/emotional problem which wasn't going to go away. It was once commonly believed that this sort of crime was merely a sin which required repentance and forgiveness. While those are still vital, a man like him isn't going to stop being attracted to this crime every day of his life.....hence the required restricted movements. Restrictions have nothing to do with punishment, it has to do with the protection of children.

[cbs]

Jul 24, 2013 14:56:56 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Jul 24, 2013 14:46:44 GMT -5 cbs said:

There are more then just meeting children in his world.

Unfortunately, Harold Bennett can't restrict Gordon's movements beyond the meeting system and because of the Statutes of Limitations, neither can the Law. Mr.Bennett and Mr.Schultz should do what they can do though.

They could do a lot more IF they knew he was a pedophile. At least then his name goes into a DB and he has to check in with authorities to let them know where he is living. That is how it is done in most states if not all in the US.

[Christopher J.]

Jul 24, 2013 14:56:56 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Jul 24, 2013 14:46:44 GMT -5 cbs said:

There are more then just meeting children in his world.

Unfortunately, Harold Bennett can't restrict Gordon's movements beyond the meeting system and because of the Statutes of Limitations, neither can the Law. Mr.Bennett and Mr.Schultz should do what they can do though.

I am out of touch for several years, so have no idea where "Mr. Gordon" is living now, or even if he is still alive.  I do know, however, that several years ago when he moved to another area of the country, Harold Bennett wrote letters to the workers in that area to warn them about his history and to ensure he was under scrutiny.  I know that the workers in the new area followed Harold's recommendations at that time.  If there have been more recent developments in the last few years, I'm not aware of them.

[Deleted]

Thank you John for that bit of fair reporting of what you knew.

[CherieKropp]

Jul 24, 2013 16:00:56 GMT -5 Christopher J. said:

Jul 24, 2013 14:56:56 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Unfortunately, Harold Bennett can't restrict Gordon's movements beyond the meeting system and because of the Statutes of Limitations, neither can the Law. Mr.Bennett and Mr.Schultz should do what they can do though.

I am out of touch for several years, so have no idea where "Mr. Gordon" is living now, or even if he is still alive.  I do know, however, that several years ago when he moved to another area of the country, Harold Bennett wrote letters to the workers in that area to warn them about his history and to ensure he was under scrutiny.  I know that the workers in the new area followed Harold's recommendations at that time.  If there have been more recent developments in the last few years, I'm not aware of them.

  He's moved to two different states since he sold his home--both are still within HB's jurisdiction I believe.

[jondough]

Jul 24, 2013 13:37:40 GMT -5 rational said:

Jul 24, 2013 8:56:50 GMT -5 jondough said:

I guess my first reaction to your post is; Did you verify that these articles were accurate? I see this happen all the time on this board. Someone needs an argument...you can always go to google and find an article that will support your argument, no matter what side of the fence you're on.

Why don't you present the other side - how reliable events recalled from memory really are?

Then upon skimming these articles, I have found everyone of them to be irrelevant to the subject at hand.

The first article that you googled has to do with someone thinking they witnessed an event first hand when in reality they didn't witness it all, but actually someone had explained the event to them. This happens, I've actually witnessed someone doing this...but its not relevant to this case unless you think that someone actually explained this event to Debbie.

Exactly. We don't know what she was told and now believes to be true. Just as the article, and the referenced research pointed out, the teller becomes so entrenched in the story that they actually do not know if it really happened or if it was something they were told. How is that irrelevant? Unless, of course, you have access to secondary confirmation.

Maybe you missed the point of your own article. The person(s) in the article never even saw the incident. They just thought they had because someone had told them about it. It had nothing to do with their own experience, or anything they saw. It was also not a tramitic experience. I could say the road runner cartoon is relevent, and find a way to relate it if needed, but would rather use common sense. This is not relevent.

The second one you googled, compares our memory to a telephone game where a story is told from one person to the next. They claim that our memory is distorted in the same way every time we recall it. So I guess all your childhood memories by the time you are your age Rational, are completely distorted to the point of completely in-accurate. Non of us better be telling any of our grand-kids (when we have them) any of our childhood memories....or at least let them know that what we are about to tell them is completely inaccurate.

This is also accurate. The research shows that in the retelling the story slowly becomes distorted and the reality blurs as the deviation becomes to be viewed as what really happened. Again, this is an emotionally charged story and the teller has indicated that it has been retold more than once.

The third one you googled, was a car accident that happened in a very short period of time and obviously witnessed from distant, and different vantage points. Not relevant to this at all.

Really? It is the classic research demonstrating how events can be observed and the conclusions are completely at odds with the events as they actually took place,

The fourth one you googled,is the same as number two above.

No, it is additional research confirming the earlier findings.

The 5th one you googled, has to do with suppressed memories, that are recalled at a later date - many times triggered by a single event. It also talks about false memories that have been implanted by someone asking about an event. This was a single event, not something that happened over a long period of time.

The events related were a series of single events that were distributed along the time line of her life. The recall is triggered by current events and the original event is recalled. It is exactly the type of case that was being discussed. How did you come to the conclusion that it was not relevant?
Did you read the account?

I began to have uncontrollable flashbacks, nightmares and painful memories surfaced that I hadn't thought about in years. Probably, Ronnie's death triggered them. I was forced to deal with my past. I wrote my Father a letter about what he had done to me. He called to talk about it while Mom was working. He said he had hoped the past had been put behind us, and that we would not have to talk about this again. I told him that it still hurt me, and that we hadn't really ever talked about it; that I had just told him never to do it again, and he promised me he wouldn't. I reminded him that he had never even told me he was sorry. He thought he had. I disagreed. So he said he was very sorry, and asked me if we could drop it and never bring it up again. Even though I personally, didn't believe he was truly sorry, I agreed to drop the matter because I needed to get on with my life. I'd had enough pain and didn't want to dwell on it any longer.

The events were being asked about and discussed, by people who all had a vested interest in presenting a story that was least damaging to themselves.

The sixth one you googled, has to do with how a one term - single event type memory is less accurate than a repetitious type memory like learning spelling or math. Again, it has to do with a single event, not something that happened over an extended period of time. It explains how if you only recall part of the event, then the rest of it may get lost over time.

Again, a single event in the article but the story told is a series of events, many discrete, that happened over the course of her early childhood.

Without going through each one of your irrelevent articles again and re-explaining why they are not relevent, I'll just repeat something I already posted;
Unless Debbie lied about her entire story, and this is a conspiracy, to suggest that abuse did not take place here is just ridiculous. There may be memory inaccuracies in regards to details, but to suggest that all these things were fabricated in her memory to me is absurd





For the record, I was aware of more than 1/2 of these articles before I posted them. I have other references that I did not bother to post because they are unavailable on the internet. If you are so certain that a simple google search can bring to light research to support claims, why don't you find some peer reviewed research that explains how accurate memory is? Show that there is no need to examine stories from decades ago to be sure they are accurate. Show how the articles I referenced are in error.

This is just my response to your post. I hesitate to post this as you have way more time than most of us, and you will break this post up in little pieces and respond with more googles, or comments....until I finally have no more time. So I probably will only read what you respond with, but will not engage in a back and forth dialoged like you love to get into because I simply do not have the time.

I have no more time than you do.


Perhaps I am a faster typist. This would not be a compliment to you...I can type without looking tho.



And I didn't have to spend the time googling the articles I wanted to use because I already knew the author's names. You must have a good memory. I cannot claim to remember the name of authors of Blogs

[quizzer]

Jul 24, 2013 14:48:43 GMT -5 jondough said:

Jul 24, 2013 14:35:43 GMT -5 @clearday said:

The meeting system can restrict his movements without the authorities. A fairly recent case in NZ resulted in an elder losing his position, eventually losing the meeting out of his house, is not allowed to stay overnight at convention and if I recall, has a minder at convention to monitor him while on the grounds.

This is the sort of thing that should be in place for Peter Gordon. In addition, he should not be allowed to attend fellowship meetings where there are minor children.

If none of this is happening, then Harold Bennett and Dale Schultz are being negligent in the protection of children.

CD,

How long do you think this would be necessary? At some point they get pretty old and senile, and probably harmless. But I guess - who would determine when that would be? Do you think it would be for as long as they are alive, or at least mobile?

Debi mentioned a rape by her grandfather. Hoping age would fix this doesn't seem to work in that family.

[quizzer]

Jul 24, 2013 16:00:56 GMT -5 Christopher J. said:

Jul 24, 2013 14:56:56 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Unfortunately, Harold Bennett can't restrict Gordon's movements beyond the meeting system and because of the Statutes of Limitations, neither can the Law. Mr.Bennett and Mr.Schultz should do what they can do though.

I am out of touch for several years, so have no idea where "Mr. Gordon" is living now, or even if he is still alive.  I do know, however, that several years ago when he moved to another area of the country, Harold Bennett wrote letters to the workers in that area to warn them about his history and to ensure he was under scrutiny.  I know that the workers in the new area followed Harold's recommendations at that time.  If there have been more recent developments in the last few years, I'm not aware of them.

No effort to inform the friends, especially those with daughters?

[Christopher J.]

Jul 24, 2013 16:28:17 GMT -5 CherieKropp said:

  He's moved to two different states since he sold his home--both are still within HB's jurisdiction I believe.

I beg to differ, Cherie. He was living in another jurisdiction when I knew about him, and I read the letter HB wrote to the overseer of that jurisdiction at that time. (I was still in the work and companion of that particular overseer.)

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2013 16:00:56 GMT -5 Christopher J. said:

Jul 24, 2013 14:56:56 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Unfortunately, Harold Bennett can't restrict Gordon's movements beyond the meeting system and because of the Statutes of Limitations, neither can the Law. Mr.Bennett and Mr.Schultz should do what they can do though.

I am out of touch for several years, so have no idea where "Mr. Gordon" is living now, or even if he is still alive.  I do know, however, that several years ago when he moved to another area of the country, Harold Bennett wrote letters to the workers in that area to warn them about his history and to ensure he was under scrutiny.  I know that the workers in the new area followed Harold's recommendations at that time.  If there have been more recent developments in the last few years, I'm not aware of them.

Thanks John. I think we know his whereabouts these days.

Do you know what were Harold's recommendations? Anything restrictions other than scrutiny?

[Deleted]

Jul 24, 2013 15:06:25 GMT -5 cbs said:

Jul 24, 2013 14:56:56 GMT -5 @clearday said:

Unfortunately, Harold Bennett can't restrict Gordon's movements beyond the meeting system and because of the Statutes of Limitations, neither can the Law. Mr.Bennett and Mr.Schultz should do what they can do though.

They could do a lot more IF they knew he was a pedophile. At least then his name goes into a DB and he has to check in with authorities to let them know where he is living. That is how it is done in most states if not all in the US.

Yes, another strategy could be to require him to turn himself into the police and voluntarily register as a pedophile. This was done with the ex-worker in Canada. It is now quite complicated because he is out of state from the location of the crimes and beyond the Statutes of Limitations on the known offenses. The authorities are unlikely to have a procedure to handle such a case. Perhaps if he voluntarily registered, the State would place an injunction against his presence around children, to stay away xx yards from them or restrict areas that he can visit such as school yards etc.(including church services where there are minor children).

[rational]

Jul 24, 2013 10:12:44 GMT -5 mangochango said:

Often people's comments about things like this make me so sick. How do you think it makes victims feel when everyone is so concerned about "verifying facts" when a lot of facts are impossible to verify!!

Wouldn't the victims want the stories to be as accurate as possible? Checking the facts is in no way saying that they are in error.

If there had been other people there when Leslie White raped me then it wouldn't have happened.

A rape kit would have removed all doubt. Educating people to take the steps necessary to have criminals convicted is what is required to keep criminals from harming others. There is a need to separate criminal acts from anything to do with religion or any spiritual behavior.

While you're all to busy and taken up with "verifying facts" there are more innocent children and adults out there being abused by the very same people who've done it before.

And the way to prevent this is to come forward with facts that can be substantiated so the criminals will be removed and unable to harm others.

They are free because well after all there was no eye witness to say oh yes that child was molested,raped, abused etc. These facts are the hell we live with and will continue to live with...verified or not.

The question is whether there is enough evidence to have the person removed from society. A child can say they were molested or an adult can say they were attacked but, realistically, without more than a story to tell it is doubtful that any legal action will be successful in bringing about change. This isn't a matter of hitting someone's knuckles with a ruler. It is a matter of potentially putting someone in prison for decades.

I am certain it is frustrating for the victims. But it does point out the need to bring criminal acts to the authorities immediately.

[ts]

Jul 24, 2013 10:13:53 GMT -5 jondough said:

Jul 24, 2013 9:57:56 GMT -5 ts said:

Ram and Jondough,

You both have an obvious bias towards the victims and against the Workers. You are not impartial, therefore, your assessments are not reliable.....There are no facts...it is all a dream.....There are no facts....

Although I know you are being sarcastic here... I would rather you not insuate that I have a bias against the workers. I am professing, and appreciate all they do.

I try to see things how they are, and recognize things that are not right. What I'm not is a head wagging person, agreeing with everything because a worker said it. They ARE as human as we are.

Unless Debbie lied about her entire story, and this is a conspiracy, to suggest that abuse did not take place here is just ridiculous. There may be memory inaccuracies in regards to details, but to suggest that all these things were fabricated in her memory to me is absurd

Neither you nor I have a bias against the Workers and we both see things how they are. I may have seen some things you have not and stood up to it and been labeled as a result. But that is the way it is.

CSA is only one kind of abuse that takes place in Meeting. There are other types of abuse and to say that the source is not the same for all sorts of abuse is ridiculous, to me. Perhaps CSA could be considered a "big giant" and exclusivity/unmarried ministry doctrine a "baby giant". But because the "baby giant" was not killed, it grew up into a "big giant". Verbal abuse, spiritual abuse, emotional abuse and immorality and sexual abuse are the brothers to CSA. All giants and all need killing. Better to kill them while they are young than when they get big and strong.

I believe that Lloyd Wilson spoke on killing the baby giants. It is language that the 2x2s should understand. I hope this gives them direction in how to apply the giant genocide commandment.

[ts]

Jul 24, 2013 21:58:51 GMT -5 rational said:

Jul 24, 2013 10:12:44 GMT -5 mangochango said:

Often people's comments about things like this make me so sick. How do you think it makes victims feel when everyone is so concerned about "verifying facts" when a lot of facts are impossible to verify!!

Wouldn't the victims want the stories to be as accurate as possible? Checking the facts is in no way saying that they are in error.

If there had been other people there when [name removed] raped me then it wouldn't have happened.

A rape kit would have removed all doubt. Educating people to take the steps necessary to have criminals convicted is what is required to keep criminals from harming others. There is a need to separate criminal acts from anything to do with religion or any spiritual behavior.

While you're all to busy and taken up with "verifying facts" there are more innocent children and adults out there being abused by the very same people who've done it before.

And the way to prevent this is to come forward with facts that can be substantiated so the criminals will be removed and unable to harm others.

They are free because well after all there was no eye witness to say oh yes that child was molested,raped, abused etc. These facts are the hell we live with and will continue to live with...verified or not.

The question is whether there is enough evidence to have the person removed from society. A child can say they were molested or an adult can say they were attacked but, realistically, without more than a story to tell it is doubtful that any legal action will be successful in bringing about change. This isn't a matter of hitting someone's knuckles with a ruler. It is a matter of potentially putting someone in prison for decades.

I am certain it is frustrating for the victims. But it does point out the need to bring criminal acts to the authorities immediately.

The problem is that the Workers are hiding behind the law and requiring the same degree of proof as the law of the land before taking action within their ministry. They are hiding behind the law when it is convenient for them when they do not require that same level of proof in order to keep their people safe. They are hiding behind the law because it is more important for them to protect themselves than to protect the weak and vulnerable among them.

There were many accusations laid against Leslie White over several years and Barry Barkley and others simply protected him by requiring so much evidence and essentially playing dumb to the evidence presented. That all changed when the law was actually involved.

No argument with going to the law first and quickly. You know as well as I do that the shame and guilt of the incident often prevents that no matter how much training there is.

I heard in Ireland that they have a policy that if someone is accused of a deed unbecoming of a Worker, they are put out of the Work until the facts can be verified. If they are found innocent, then they are let back in the Work with an apology. If guilty, then they are let go. That makes a lot of sense and it protects the innocent. If such had happened to Leslie White (and Barry Barkley and other Overseers had actually been honest) Leslie would likely have been out years ago even before he allegedly raped someone.

[rational]

Jul 24, 2013 15:06:25 GMT -5 cbs said:

They could do a lot more IF they knew he was a pedophile.

From what has been written, it seems doubtful that pedophile would be a correct diagnosis.

At least then his name goes into a DB and he has to check in with authorities to let them know where he is living. That is how it is done in most states if not all in the US.

What he would have to do and to whom he would need to report would be determined by the court.