Readers should keep in mind that we do NOT post a summary of every Child Molestation court case on our website. We only include pre-2001 cases, those post-2001 cases for which we have details/insights not included on other JW Child Molestation websites, and those post-2001 cases which other websites have overlooked (at least until we post such). Thus, no serious researcher of the topic of Jehovah's Witnesses Child Sexual Abuse would bypass our website. Visitors from other countries should not skip reading these INTERNATIONAL court cases since some of the best lessons about child molestation in the Jehovah's Witness Community are found within these international court cases.
***************                    ***************
***************                    ***************

ALBERTA v. TYSON JAMES DICHROW was a 2018-22 Canadian criminal court case. Tyson J. Dichrow was convicted of multiple sexual offences involving two young girls, AB and CD. At the time of the offences, both girls were 13 years of age, while Tyson Dichrow was 24 years of age. Dichrow knew the victims' ages at all material times. Both victims were Grade 8 students during the time frame covered by the indictment -- October 1, 2017, to January 31, 2018. 

Nine convictions were entered on a 13-count indictment. Six convictions related to AB: sexual interference (count 1); invitation to sexual touching (count 2); luring (count 3); sexual assault (count 4); distributing sexually explicit material (count 6); and possession of child pornography (count 7). A further three convictions related to CD: invitation to sexual touching (count 9); distributing sexually explicit material (count 10); and luring (count 11).

Tyson James Dichrow was sentenced on these nine convictions to a total of eight years imprisonment, but such was reduced to seven years by the Alberta Court of Appeals.

Tyson J. Dichrow and AB first communicated on Snapchat and continued to do so using various electronic platforms and mediums. Dichrow sent AB pictures involving fellatio -- "what he wanted her to do". Dichrow texted AB encouraging her to find a third person for a threesome. Dichrow sent AB photos of his penis. Dichrow asked for and received at least one naked photo of AB. They also met in person and had sexual intercourse multiple times. AB testified that they met multiple times a week from October to early December 2017 and had sexual intercourse on 90% of those occasions -- in Mr Dichrow's truck, in a work truck, and in his bedroom at his dad's house.

Tyson Dichrow contacted CD through Snapchat and asked if she wanted to have sex; she said no, she was only 13, and he responded that he did not care. He asked for naked pictures of her and she refused. He also sent her pictures of his penis and himself naked, videos of him masturbating, and two texts, one of him naked. Dichrow also asked CD to have a threesome with him and AB.

Tyson James Dichrow was born to his mother, Joanna Dichrow, and his father, Garret Dichrow. Dichrow described his maternal family as devout Jehovah's Witnesses, and his father's family as "atheist alcoholics". Tyson Dichrow grew up in the town of Sundre; went to high school there; played football there; eventually spent time at the University of Alberta in Edmonton; and returned to Sundre, where he became the coach of the local football team, and worked at various local jobs including working for his father at the local auto parts store.

Dichrow submitted that his parents divorced when he was seven years old. His JW Mother struggled with mental illness, while his father abused alcohol. Following his parents' divorce, Dichrow and his sister were often left in different day homes and in the care of their grandparents. Dichrow reported that during this time he and his sister were sexually assaulted and molested. Between the ages of five and ten, he was repeatedly molested by his cousin, his babysitter's son, an older neighbourhood boy, and different caregivers at several care homes. His sister also reported a history of sexual abuse on the maternal (Jehovah's Witnesses) side of the family.


REGINA v. SIMON PETER BUCKNELL was a 2019-21 British Columbia, Canada CHILD PORNOGRAPHY criminal prosecution. In March 2021, Simon Peter Bucknell, age 42, of Pitt Meadows, BC, entered guilty pleas to Possessing child pornography; Making child pornography on June 28, 2016 and June 24, 2019; Touching, for a sexual purpose, directly or indirectly with a part of his body or with an object, the body of E.K., a person under the age of sixteen years, on June 24, 2019; Touching, for a sexual purpose, directly or indirectly, with a part of his body or with an object, the body of B.E., a person under the age of sixteen years, on June 28, 2016. A custodial sentence of two years less a day, followed by a probation order of 20 months with reporting and protective conditions, was adjudged by the typically "harsh" liberal Canadian judge.

Simon P. Bucknell, father of an autistic six year-old male child, was reared as a Jehovah's Witness by devoted JW Parents, and Bucknell is currently one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Simon Bucknell has the public support of his construction company employer, Bucknell's JW Mother, and all but the youngest of his seven JW siblings and step-siblings. Typically, this was Simon Bucknell's first run-in with the law. The two female "toddler" victims (not children of perp) were both victimized while Simon Bucknell changed their diapers while babysitting for their two JW mothers. Simon Bucknell denied downloading and distributing such on the internet. Bucknell also possessed other child pornography.


EDMONTON v. LOUISA WALLIS was a 2019-21 Canada criminal prosecution. Louisa Wallis, age 27, was arrested following a 2019 Edmonton police sex trafficking investigation into two underage girls who were advertised online for sexual services. Wallis and her boyfriend initially faced a total of 34 charges including sexual interference, trafficking a minor, and making child pornography, BUT in 2021,Wallis plea bargained to only three crimes -- sexual exploitation, making child pornography, and procuring a child for sexual services. 

TYPICALLY, the Canadian Judge apologetically sentenced Louisa Wallis to only eleven of the possible 16 years in prison. Then, the Judge deducted an enhanced amount of "time served", such that Louisa Wallis will only do a little over 9 years in prison. Louisa Wallis's co-accused, 26-year-old Michael Moffat, is scheduled to have a jury trial on eight charges in October 2022.

At trial, in September 2021, Prosecutor Danielle Fostey said Louisa Wallis used "control and manipulation" to abuse the two girls for her own profit and the sexual gratification of herself and her boyfriend. Both victims were homeless and addicted to drugs when the couple recruited them. "This was the sale of children for sex," said Fostey.

At trial, Louisa Wallis's own lawyer argued that Wallis had no prior criminal record despite a "horrendous childhood" that included poverty, violence, abuse, and mental health problems. He said that Louisa Wallis had been reared as a Jehovah's Witness, and that her family moved often.

According to an agreed statement of facts, the boyfriend met the first victim in the summer of 2018. The girl was a "victim of abuse and neglect" and was often homeless or living in group homes. In early 2019, the boyfriend invited the then-16-year-old to his Queen Mary Park apartment to meet his girlfriend -- Louisa Wallis. They gave the girl crystal meth and began to include her in sexual activity. Eventually, Wallis told the girl she could make money escorting. They took photos and posted ads offering themselves online as a "duo". Wallis told the girl to pretend she was 18, and assured her she would be in the room for all appointments. Wallis was in charge of logistics for the girl, including arranging appointments, transportation, prices and payment. Wallis and Moffat also provided the girl with a regular supply of meth.

Wallis told the girl she didn't have to do anything that made her uncomfortable. In reality, Wallis manipulated the youth, using Wallis's own pregnancy as an excuse to guilt the victim into performing. On one occasion, the girl broke down in tears, trying to leave the apartment and telling the couple she didn't want to have sex with a client. In response, Wallis locked herself in the bathroom and made sounds like she was throwing up. "She told [the girl] she was stressed and the baby was going to die," court records state. "[The girl] complied with the accused."

Wallis's activities came to light in early 2019, when a government social worker working with at-risk youth found advertisements featuring the 16-year-old. Edmonton police eventually visited the apartment, where they found Wallis with another girl, aged 15, who they apprehended under child protection legislation. Wallis later told police she was an escort working to raise bail money for her boyfriend, who she said "tried to help girls he found on the streets." A police detective eventually seized Wallis's phone and found child pornography involving Wallis, her boyfriend, and both girls, including seven videos and 24 photos. Court documents describe one of the girls in the videos as "lethargic ... making no movements and not speaking."


QUEBEC v. JW PARENTS was a September 2018 child custody hearing which involved unidentified legally separated Jehovah's Witness Parents. In July 2018, while visiting overnight with JW Father, 13 year-old daughter awoke to a partially naked JW Father standing over her while masturbating. Teen daughter suffers with ADHD, Tourette's Syndrome, and an anxiety disorder. Later disclosure of the incident to JW Mother and siblings led to daughter's hospitalization, and problems between JW Father and his estranged family. This decision mentions no criminal prosecution of JW Father. Instead, this decision notes that as JWs, both father and daughter believe that masturbation is wrong. JW Father admitted that he was wrong to masturbate where and when he could be discovered by his daughter. Quebec tribunal established six months trial period giving JW Mother full custody of daughter, with JW Father receiving supervised visitation.


ONTARIO v. P. DAVIS was a 2008 Ontario, Canada prosecution of a once prominent INTERNATIONAL Jehovah's Witness who was charged with repeatedly sexually molesting three of his Jehovah's Witness NIECES when they were young girls from 1966 through 1974. What makes this case more significant than other similar cases within the WATCHTOWER CULT is the fact that while P. Davis was committing these sexual assaults, in 1969, the "FAITHFUL & DISCREET SLAVE" selected P. Davis and his wife, G. Davis, to be trained at the WATCHTOWER BIBLE SCHOOL OF GILEAD in 1970, and thereafter sent the JW Couple to serve as missionaries in Paraguay. (Founded in 1942, the original name was "Watchtower Bible College of Gilead" in the WatchTower Cult's routine modus operandi of exaggeration. In 1947/48, the WatchTower Cult was forced to change "College" to "School" because "Gilead" did not meet the New York Department of Education's standards for use of the label, "College".) Davis allegedly continued to opportunistically sexually molest his Nieces when Davis and his wife temporarily returned to Canada for 26 days in 1972, and after Davis and his wife returned permanently to Canada in 1973. Before being selected to train as missionaries at the WATCHTOWER BIBLE SCHOOL OF GILEAD, the Davises also served as "Special Pioneers" for the WATCHTOWER SOCIETY OF CANADA, and possibly also may have served as a "Circuit Overseer" couple. P. Davis is "white", and is originally from South Africa. P. Davis first arrived at WATCHTOWER INTERNATIONAL HQ in Brooklyn, New York, in 1963, and shortly thereafter was sent to an unknown assignment in Canada -- possibly as a BETHELITE at the WATCHTOWER SOCIETY OF CANADA -- where Davis lived and eventually met and married G. Davis (deceased 1994), who was from a large extended JW Family living in Ontario.

Charges of sexual molestation against P. Davis were first made by then 26 year-old Niece#1 (cousin to sisters Niece#2 and Niece#3) in 1988 -- after she had married and had experienced intimacy problems with her husband. Niece#1 testified that the sexual assaults began around 1966, when she was only four years-old, when P. Davis exposed himself to her and invited her to touch him (which she did not do) while she was brushing her teeth. Thereafter, over the years until 1973, P. Davis allegedly opportunistically touched or fondled Niece#1's genital area 40 to 50 times -- both from inside and outside of her clothing. In 1988, Niece#1 first told her JW Husband, and together, they confronted P. Davis, who denied the charges. Niece#1 and her JW Husband then informed P. Davis' fellow JW Elders in his congregation. A meeting was held before 2-3 fellow Elders of P. Davis, during which Davis denied purposefully "touching" Niece#1, but admitting that he "might" have "accidentally" and "innocently" touched Niece#1 on occasion while interacting with her. Not only was nothing done to P. Davis by his fellow JW Elders based on the "two witness" rule established by the "Faithful & Discreet Slave", but Davis was even permitted to continue serving as a JW Elder. The leading JW Elder of that "judicial committee" was eventually promoted by the "Faithful & Discreet Slave" to being a "Circuit Overseer" for 20 years in Canada.

In 1993, Niece#1 and her JW Husband once again approached the by-then "new" JW Elders in P. Davis's congregation and asked them to re-open Niece#1's allegations of sexual assault against P. Davis. A new "judicial committee" was eventually formed to re-investigate the matter. This time, after learning that some JW family members and other JWs did not believe Niece#1, Niece#1's cousin, Niece#2, admitted to her JW Husband that P. Davis also had sexually molested her in similar ways, in similar situations, during the same time that Niece#1 claimed that Davis had molested her. Niece#2 testified to the "judicial committee" that at times when she would be sitting in Davis's lap that he would slip his hands and fingers beneath her skirt or other clothing into her underwear, and that Davis would then fondle her genitals. JW Elder P. Davis was eventually "privately reproved", and made to step down as an "elder".

It was not until 2004 that Niece#1 notified the Ontario Provicial Police with her allegations regarding P. Davis. Davis was eventually arrested and eventually tried in 2008. At that 2008 trial, Niece#3 (younger sister of Niece #2) also testified, BUT testified that she only could recall Davis putting his cold hands inside her pants on multiple occasions over the years. P. Davis even admitted to doing so -- supposedly in order to warm himself. Not only did INSANE Canadian Trial Judge TURNBULL rule in favor of Davis on the two criminal charges relating to those incidents, but the STUPID Canadian Judge TURNBULL even stated for the record that P. Davis's explanation for placing his hands in the pants of Niece#3 had "the ring of truth". (How the HELL could any sane person -- much less a criminal court judge -- believe that Davis HAD sexually molested Niece#1 in the exact same manner at the exact same time, while also believing that when Davis had stuck his hands inside the pants of Niece#3 that Davis HAD NOT sexually assaulted Niece#3, but rather had done so to simply warm his hands???) The Canadian FOOL Judge Turnbull also dismissed the two criminal charges relating to the incidents involving Niece#2 because at age 46 in 2008, Niece#2 could not recalled exactly how many incidents had happened or exactly when they had happened back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, PLUS the fact that Niece#2 had not told anyone of the assaults against her until 1993.

In his/her TWISTED reasoning, Judge Turnbull did somehow manage to rule P. Davis to be GUILTY of the two criminal charges relating to those assaults alleged by Niece#1. Sentence unknown, but given Canadian standards probably light, if not suspended.


CROWN v. VICTOR LYNCH-STAUNTON was the 2008-12 Ontario, Canada criminal prosecution of a former BETHELITE at the WATCHTOWER SOCIETY OF CANADA, where he had served for over 11 years, from 1986 until 1997, as the Overseer of the Sheetfed Press Room Department. Victor Lynch Staunton, of Ottawa, Ontario, was an extremely active internet CHILD PORNOGRAPHER whose online moniker was "Uncle Victor". From October 2008 through January 2009, Victor Lynch Staunton emailed child pornography from both his home and work computers to an Ottawa undercover police officer. Victor Lynch-Staunton was arrested in February 2009. Lynch-Staunton was then 53 years-old, married with a four year-old son, and had been employed as a Software Programmer for twelve years with the same Ottawa based computer consulting company.

Electronic data from seventeen different devices was seized, amounting to twenty-one computer hard disk drives with a total data storage capacity of 2.1 terabytes, plus a digital camera and other data storage devices. Just from the "unencrypted portions" of the twenty-one computer hard disk drives, a total of 2097 child pornography pictures, 1763 child pornography stories, and 574 child pornography movies were counted. This child pornography cache amounted to a total of 12.1 gigabytes of data from all devices.

Analysis by the police forensic investigator revealed a long history of online accessing and referring to child pornography dating back to January 1998. Victor Lynch-Staunton had organized all his data into neat folders, sub-folders, and file structures, and had regularly backed it up, and had encrypted much of it. Victor Lynch-Staunton was a very frequent user of Internet newsgroups, channels, discussion forums, and chatrooms. Notably, Victor Lynch Staunton's collection contained a higher proportion of "very young" children, including babies, than that of other similar cases on which the police forensic investigator had worked, and included a focus on younger children and acts of full intercourse, digital penetration, oral sex, ejaculation, forced sex, sex between children, pain on a child's face during sexual intrusions, and incest.

Many hundreds of online chats between 2000 and 2008 revealed copious amounts of chatting time where "Uncle Victor" advocated incest and all kinds of sexual acts with children. In some emails, he publicized his interest in having sex with teenage children. However, no evidence was found indicating that Lynch-Staunton had ever produced any of the child porn that he distributed. Victor Lynch-Staunton also had exchanged chats and emails with a limited number of underage females, and had even sent them pornography, including child porn, but there was no evidence that he had ever attempted to meet with them. The police forensic investigator did find on Lynch-Staunton's digital camera and three computing devices pictures of his own 4 year-old son's "naked genital area" (but could not prove pornographic intent).

Amusingly, like several other documented instances of Jehovah's Witnesses who have been jailed for sex related crimes, Victor Lynch-Staunton refused to go through phallometric testing, because such involved the viewing of sexually explicit materials, which violated the dictates of his WatchTower religion, which he was once again attempting to live by now that he had been caught.

Victor Lynch-Staunton pled "not guilty" and maintained his innocence up until one day before trial, when he changed his plea to "guilty". The Canadian "hanging judge" first thoroughly condemned Lynch-Staunton and his crimes, before then doing everything that he could possibly do to reduce Lynch-Staunton's time in jail. The judge started out by sentencing Victor Lynch-Staunton to only five years in prison; then allowing non-mandatory double-timed served credit, which reduced Lynch-Staunton 's jail time to 2 years and 29 days; then reducing that to 2 years MINUS one day, so that Lynch-Staunton could qualify to go to a specific facility with a treatment program, which meant that actual jail time was probably less than 12 months. Victor Lynch-Staunton also received one year's probation after release, during which further treatment was mandatory.


QUEBEC v. ANDRE ROBERT NAURY was a 2003-04 Quebec criminal court case in which a Jehovah's Witness Elder named Andre Naury, then age 57, of Laval, Quebec, was prosecuted for allegedly sexual assaulting an 11 year-old boy who was a previously-sexually-abused foster-child of a fellow Jehovah's Witness family.

Andre R. Naury was accused of first befriending and grooming that young boy, and after gaining the friendship of the boy and the trust of that boy's Jehovah's Witness Foster Parents, then inviting the boy alone on a camping trip. Both Naury and the boy agreed that at a point during the camping trip that they both swam and bathed naked in a nearby river. Andre Naury admitted that he noticed what he perceived as an abnormality with the boy's penis, and that he proceeded to examine such -- with no sexual intent. After returning from that camping trip, the JW Foster Mother noticed that the boy no longer felt about Naury as he had prior to that camping trip. On questioning the boy, he related that Naury had touched his penis during the trip, but further related that Naury also had tried to get the boy to touch Naury's penis, which Naury later denied.

After the matter was reported to the police, and after their investigation, Andre R. Naury was charged with one count of sexual assault, one count of sexual touching for sexual purpose, and one count of inviting the child to touch him for sexual purpose. The trial occurred in March 2004, and the Quebec court found Andre Robert Naury "Guilty" of sexual assault, but "Not Guilty" of counts 2 and 3, because the court ruled that such touching, nor the invitation to touch, had been for a "sexual purpose". Like most readers, we do not understand how a person can be convicted under Quebec law of "sexual assault" if the "touching" was deemed not to have been for a "sexual purpose". Possibly, it is a difference in the amount of evidence/proof required for the different charges. We are assuming our inability to figure this one out is due to the decision being published in "French". Sentence unknown, but Naury likely did not do any prison time whatsoever, but rather had such probated by the court. Possibly, Naury was still added to Quebec's sex offender registry. (This Editor once seriously considered attending a "French Law School" at which he had been offered entry, but wisely decided to study English common law instead.)


ONTARIO v. ELDERLY JW GREAT-GRANDFATHER was a 2012-15 Ontario criminal prosecution of an unidentified elderly Jehovah's Witness Great-Grandfather on charges that he sexually molested multiple young family members over several decades. In May 2012, during an evening bath, a 4 year-old great-granddaughter of JWGGF (then 82 years-old) related to her Mother, who was a granddaughter of JWGGF, that JWGGF and she sometimes played a "secret game" during which they touched each other's genitals. After hearing of his 4 year-old sister's revelation, the 13 year-old son of Granddaughter alleged that JWGGF had sexually molested him and other children whom the great-grandparents had been babysitting back around 2001-03, when the great-grandson was 2-3 years old. When confronted with that allegation, JWGGF denied such. However, the matter was reported to police two weeks later -- apparently after two more unidentified family members came forward and also alleged instances of being molested by JWGGF.

JWGFF was eventually charged with 9 sexual offences against four children. At the trial in June 2015, the prosecution was unable to prove the four counts allegedly committed against the two unknown alleged victims, and those charges were dismissed. In October 2015, JWGFF, age 85, was found "Not Guilty" on the two counts involving the alleged molestation of the great-grandson, but he was found "Guilty" of the three counts involving the molestation of the great-granddaughter. Sentence unknown.


SASKATCHEWAN v. S. L. M. was a 2007-08 Saskatchewan CHILD MOLESTATION prosecution of a by-then 45 year-old Jehovah's Witness Minister named SLM. SLM resided in a small town east of Saskatoon of about 500 people. Other family members living in this very small town are also Jehovah's Witnesses. SLM married in 1986, and the couple had their first son around 1989, and a second son around 1992, who suffers from autism. SLM's wife separated from him in 2007, so they may be divorced by 2014. SLM was a self-employed contractor prior to being jailed.

In 1991, two female second cousins of SLM -- J. M., then age 16, and R. M., then age 14 -- reported to their JW Parents that SLM had been repeatedly sexually assaulting both of them over the previous four years when they visited his home. The JW Parents reported the matter to their local JW Elders, who gave SLM unspecified "sanctions". Neither the JW Elders nor the JW Parents reported the matter to the police or other authorities. At trial, the two victims testified with regard to having years of resentment against their JW Father, JW GrandMother, and other JWs for how they were treated at the time.

In 2007, the two then adult sisters decided to report the prior sexual assaults to the authorities, who investigated, charged, and prosecuted SLM. Despite the fact that the sexual assaults included multiple fondlings and digital penetrations after SLM had plied them with alcohol, the Prosecution agreed to a plea deal in which SLM pled guilty to only two counts of sexual assault in exchange for a sentence of only 18 months in jail. Seven fellow Jehovah's Witnesses provided the court with written character references for SLM.

Interestingly, it was noted during the trial that back when these molestations occurred during the latter 1980s that SLM's Jehovah's Witness Wife sold "lingerie" (and probably sex toys and videos) as a side business, and that then mid 20s SLM would have his pre/early teenaged cousins model such for him. Something tells me that there was more going on in this JW family and their local JW congregation than even what was revealed during this court case.


CROWN v. C.C. was a 2009-13 Toronto, Ontario, Canada criminal court case in which a 45 year-old black illegal immigrant male from St. Lucia was convicted of sexually assaulting and impregnating a 21 year-old non-relative black female immigrant also from St. Lucia. The victim was the mentally retarded daughter of the perpetrator's neighbor. One expert testified that she functioned intellectually only at the level of a normal three to five year old child. The court ruled that the victim did not have the legal capacity to consent to sexual intercourse, nor did the perpetrator have an honest but mistaken belief that she had legal capacity to consent to sexual intercourse.

This case is posted here because the victim, who was deemed to not even understand sex or pregnancy, nor understood the fact that she was pregnant, was taken to Toronto's Mount Sinai Hospital on June 12, 2009, by her 24 year-old "JEHOVAH WITNESS" sister, where the 14 weeks-old BABY was ABORTED. JW Sister lied to her retarded sister and told her that she was being taken to the hospital because she was "sick". The victim did not understand what was done to her at the hospital, much less the consequences.

The victim had been cared for by her JW Sister most of her life. They had lived with relatives in St. Lucia after their Mother moved to Toronto in 1990. The two sisters joined their Mother in Toronto in 2007. In the court opinion, the victim's sister was identified as a busy "Jehovah Witness". The same judge who didn't know that the correct term is "Jehovah's Witness", also described the victim's Mother as a busy "Christian", who went to "church" on Sundays, and who, when home, "she was reading the bible or studying and praying to get ready for teaching Sunday school". I'm guessing that the Mother was also a "Jehovah Witness", and that this was a "Jehovah Witness" family who decided that ABORTION was preferable to rearing their own daughter/sister's child.


R. v. P. is another overlooked 2000 court case from the Newfoundland Supreme Court which aptly demonstrates exactly how cooperative (or uncooperative) were the Jehovah's Witnesses in exposing the Cult's problem with child molesters before the breaking of the flood of American child molestation court cases a year or so later.
In Fall 2000, a Jehovah's Witness ELDER from the Aspen Cove, Newfoundland Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses was served a subpoena requiring him to appear in criminal court to give evidence against a recently disfellowshipped member of the Aspen Cove congregation regarding allegations of "indecent assault" against two onetime minor females who were or were once members of the Aspen Cove congregation. Instead of welcoming the opportunity to assist in the criminal prosecution of this individual whom the Body of Elders felt was sufficiently guilty to be deemed worthy of being disfellowshipped, the JW ELDER(undoubtedly following orders from the legal department at WatchTower HQ) sought that this subpoena be quashed in its entirety, or be limited in its scope. The grounds? Clergy-penitent privilege.

"[JW ELDER] submits that any evidence that he could give in this matter would fall within the ambit of privileged religious communications and he should be protected from having to disclose these communications."

Here is the Newfoundland Supreme Court's "Application to Facts of This Case": [edited for clarity]

Initially it is important to address and resolve two issues: (1) Were the communications which passed between the two complainants, the Accused[, and] the Applicant of a religious or spiritual nature? (2) Did one or more of the communicators or "confiders" have a reasonable expectation or confidence that their communications would not be disclosed?

On the first issue we have, of course, only the evidence of the Applicant as to the nature of the discussions between the two complainants, the Accused, and him. We know that [original complainant's] husband called the Applicant on December 13, 1998. We presume he called the Applicant recognizing his position as an Elder and overseer in the congregation. This was not directly addressed in the evidence, but I am prepared to make that assumption. At that initial meeting there was an allegation made that someone had assaulted her. The Applicant asserts that the communication was made in "confidence" to us. All three of them then prayed and read the bible. (Edit: Two Elders and original complainant. It is assumed that complainant's husband was also present.) There was no other evidence of what transpired at that initial meeting.

All we know of the communications between [original complainant] and the two Elders is that she told them that someone had assaulted her. There is no suggestion that she was, in her view, blameworthy of any immoral or improper conduct. One is then forced to ask oneself why would she need religious comfort or assurances. She had nothing to be ashamed of. Granted, she may have need emotional support and it is possible that she needed spiritual comfort. However, the evidence shows that she had already discussed "the allegations with at least one other individual". The Applicant said he was not the first to know. The evidence did not disclose the identity of that other person, but I think it is safe to assume that it was not an Elder of the church.

The Applicant and at least one other met with the other complainant [original complainant's sister] and the Accused prior to the meeting of the judicial committee. It appears that these meetings were initiated by either the Applicant or other Elders. There is no evidence that any of these communications were of a spiritual or religious nature. The other complainant [original complainant's sister] is not a baptized adherent of this church. It is difficult to understand why she would engage in conversations of a religious nature, especially where she did not originate the contact.

I have similar difficulties about the participation of the Accused in any of these meetings. The Applicant reiterated on a number of occasions that the Accused either said nothing or if he did say anything to them, it did not amount to an admission or confession. My feeling is that the Accused was less than a willing participant in any of these proceedings.

On the second issue of an expectation of confidentiality, I have concluded that this did not exist. To begin with, [original complainant] had obviously discussed matters with someone else. Obviously, her husband also knew of the allegations. In addition, she was apparently a long-time member of the congregation and would no doubt be aware of the process which would be used by the Elders once such an allegation came to light. I cannot see how she could have, under the circumstances, any expectancy of privacy or confidentiality.

Even if she initially might have had some expectation of confidentiality, it is difficult to see how this could have continued beyond the initial contact. From the evidence of the Applicant, it is clear that as many as eight or probably more Elders, some of whom were from outside of the congregation, were aware of the allegations and aware of the parties involved. In my view, even if there had been some initial expectation of confidentiality, that was quickly dispelled once the Applicant and others commenced their investigation and their gathering of evidence.

The same is true for the other complainant [original complainant's sister] and the Accused. It is unrealistic to assume that a non-adherent of the faith would expect confidentiality. Likewise, it is not plausible that the Accused would expect it. Even if there could have been any expectation of confidentiality at the beginning, obviously, this disappeared once the Elders became involved. The Applicant himself confirmed that the ultimate aim of the judicial committee was to "establish guilt". The Elders pursued an active investigation; they interviewed people; they advised people of the charges and the names of those involved; they brought in outside Elders from Botwood and then finally, after all of this had been discussed, an announcement was made that the Accused was "disfellowshipped from the congregation". In my opinion, all of this activity, including the act of pursuit of "evidence", is the exact antithesis of confidentiality.

I am convinced that the touchstone of confidentiality required to bring in to play the four criteria enunciated by Wigmore is not at all present in this case. This is a far cry from the situation referred to in Fosty by Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dube when she talks of disclosure "to a spiritual counselor in total and absolute confidence".

In my view, the Applicant has failed to discharge the onus on him to justify the quashing of the subpoena and he must obey it.

CROWN v. JEFFERY LYNN ANDERSON. In May 1980, a 26 year-old Canadian Jehovah's Witness divorced mother of two small children, named Kim Kostelniuk, traveled to Maui, Hawaii, to vacation and husband-shop at a bed-and-breakfast that catered to Jehovah's Witnesses (probably owned and operated by Jehovah's Witnesses). There, Kim Kostelniuk met Jeffery Lynn Anderson, a mentally ill and troubled 20 year-old Jehovah's Witness from Conroe, Texas, who had recently relocated to Maui to avoid a shoplifting charge back in Texas. By the end of that week, Jeff Anderson had declared his love for Kim, and told her he would like to move closer to her to continue their relationship. Kostelniuk agreed. Anderson relocated from Maui to the Tacoma, Washington area, where he regularly crossed the border to date Kostelniuk. The couple were married in Texas in August 1981, and they and Kim's son and daughter settled in Houston, Texas. Kim Anderson quickly concluded that the marriage was a mistake, and she returned to Canada in October 1981.
After two failed attempts while visiting Canada in 1982 and 1983, Jeff finally convinced Kim to reconcile with him in March 1984, after he received a visa which allowed him to live and work in Canada. However, by July 1984, Kim was convinced that Anderson was sexually abusing her seven year-old daughter, and she reported such to the Elders at her Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Anderson denied Kim's accusations, and he was believed by those Elders, who chastised Kim for both the accusation and her failure to do her part in making the marriage work. Kim reported her suspicions to the Ministry of Social Services, and she separated from Anderson in late July 1984. When Kim failed to obey the Elders' order to moved back in with Anderson, the Elders placed Kim on "private reproof" -- a WatchTower Society "discipline" that is just short of excommunication. After a few months of discipline, Kim was eventually restored to her status as a JW "in good standing", despite her refusal to move back in with Anderson, who continued to live in a nearby apartment. Kim thereafter sought to avoid Anderson's repeated attempts to contact her and the children.
Around 11:00 AM, on August 29, 1985, Jeff Anderson went to Kim's apartment, where he found her door unlocked. Anderson found Kim sitting at the kitchen table talking on the telephone with her mother. When Kim finally noticed Anderson, he told her to hang-up the telephone so that they could talk. Before she hung-up, Kim calmly repeated twice to her mother, "I have to go. There's a shotgun pointed at me. Call the police."
While the RCMP surrounded the apartment, Jeff Anderson ushered Kim to the children's bedroom, and there for more than an hour discussed their failed relationship in an attempt to convince her to accept him back. When Anderson finally realized that his efforts were futile, he first shotgunned Kim in the face. Anderson then shotgunned 8 year-old Lindsey in the face. Anderson then shotgunned 10 year-old Juri in the face. Anderson then again shotgunned Kim in the head. Jeff Anderson then walked outside and surrendered to RCMP. Jeffery Lynn Anderson was sentenced to three concurrent life sentences for first-degree murder. Anderson will be eligible for parole in 2011. Anderson reportedly has both admitted and denied that he had sexually molested Lindsey Kostelniuk on multiple occasions.

CROWN v. C.L. was a 1997-98 Supreme Court of British Columbia case in which a 45 year-old Jehovah's Witness Minister and father-of-three was found guilty of having sexually assaulted his 5 year-old twin nieces on multiple occasions when they spent the night at his home in 1987 (because their parents were having marital problems). The JW Perp was sentenced to one year each on two counts of sexual assault, to run concurrently. Apparently, C.L. was reported to police after one of the victims reached 15 years or so age, which means she probably was suffering from psychological damage. 


CROWN v. LOUIS JOSEPH DAIGLE was a 2012-13 Ontario, Canada criminal prosecution. In June 2010, the unnamed daughter of Louis J. Daigle, age 78, of Surrey, British Columbia, reported to RCMP that she had been sexually molested as a child by her father when the family lived in Georgina, Ontario, between 1956 and 1973. After an investigation by the York Regional Police, Louis Daigle was charged in 2012. In January 2013, Lou Daigle was convicted of incest, rape, and three counts of indecent assault on a female. Daigle was sentenced to 8 years in prison, followed by three years supervised release, including typical sex offender requirements. Public comments have alleged that Daigle was a longtime Jehovah's Witness, who may have served as both a Ministerial Servant and an Elder. Daigle is also alleged to have once been a member of the Marine Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses in Vancouver, B.C., where his home was the used as a Congregation Book Study location.


CROWN v. UNIDENTIFIED JW FATHER MOLESTER was a 2000 Supreme Court of British Columbia decision. R.J.H., age 21, and wife L.L., age 16, were married in 1973. Daughter S.M. was born in 1974, and daughter R.Y. was born in 1976. Nine other children were later birthed or adopted up until 1996. The family became Jehovah's Witnesses in 1975. The oldest children were all home-schooled. RJH allegedly injured his back in 1985, and was not employed thereafter, (although such did not stop him from fathering more children).

Throughout the marriage, RJH dominated and controlled every aspect of his family's life. "He ruled with an iron hand." The oldest children were not allowed to go to school. They were not allowed to have friends outside their WatchTower religion, and they had little exposure to the outside world. Any views or opinions contrary to those of RJH were simply not tolerated. RJH spanked, and sometimes beat, all of the children using a belt. All of the other children were required to observe the spankings. One "spanking" of the oldest son resulted in his lower back, buttocks, and the backs of his thighs being covered with bruises. At times, the adopted son would be chained to his school desk in the basement of the home.

In August 1998, Wife left 4 year-old daughter "A.H." alone with RJH while she delivered newspapers. When she returned home, she found RJH and their 4 year-old daughter naked together in the bathtub. Later that same day, Wife told married-with-children, 23 year-old S.M. about such, who in turn told her married sister, 22 year-old R.Y. SM and RY began discussing the situation, and RY admitted to SM that over the past couple or so years that she had been recalling memories of being molested by their father when she was around 8 or 9 years old. RY's admission triggered SM to also begin recalling her own repressed memories of being molested by their father around the same time and place that RY claimed that she had been molested.

Both daughters revealed their memories to their mother, and she and the few remaining younger children moved out of the family residence. Wife reported the situation to the local JW Elders, who after speaking with the two oldest daughters, advised Wife to speak with Social Services, which she did. Social Services notified local police, who interviewed Wife and the daughters.

RJH was arrested, but pled not guilty. At the 1999-2000 trial, RJH was convicted on one count each of having sexually molested daughters SM and RY between the years 1983 and 1985, and was sentenced to two years in prison. In January 2000, RJH was also disfellowshipped from his local Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.

This was a lengthy decision in which the judge discussed the fact that the perpetrator was being convicted based on the credibility of Accusers who had no memory of the Accused's abusive conduct for a number of years, until it was triggered by a somewhat similar sexual event. Dissociative Amnesia, or "recovered memories", and the reliability of such, were key to this conviction. The judge noted that both JW Daughters were "deeply religious, naive, somewhat uninformed and very private persons. I am satisfied that they would have been even more so at the material times. They did not share their problems concerning their father with each other, with their mother, or even with their husbands. Instead, prior to August 9, 1998, they steadfastly attempted to forget, or put out of their minds, what their father had done to them. While there were unable to do so, it may well be that had the incident with their younger sister not occurred, they would have continued to remain silent, fighting the memories which would simply not go away."


ONTARIO v. VANCE SALMON was a 2007 Ontario, Canada criminal prosecution for possession of CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. In April 2007, Vance Salmon, then age 33, of Parry Sound, Ontario, pled guilty to possessing child porn that he had downloaded from the internet. Salmon was sentenced to only 9 months in jail, but thereafter served 3 years probation, plus will be a registered sex offender for 20 years. Vance Salmon reportedly is an on-again/off-again Jehovah's Witness who was reared as a JW by devout Jehovah's Witness Parents, Bob Salmon and Evelyn Salmon. Salmon operates Picture Perfect Property Services, a property contracting business, in Nobel, Ontario.


NOVA SCOTIA v. MARK ANTHONY SIMPSON was a 2003-?? Canada criminal prosecution of then 26 year-old Mark A. Simpson, who had been REARED in Ontario as a Jehovah's Witness by Jean Marc and Charlene Simpson. Mark Simpson, age 24, had been disfellowshipped for "adultery" in Fall 2000, and thereafter was divorced by Megan Simpson Villeneuve. Mark Simpson remarried and was reinstated in Fall 2002, after which, Simpson and his second wife, Tracy Simpson, relocated to Nova Scotia.

In June 2003, Mark Simpson abducted a 9 year-old girl walking near Nova Scotia Community College in Bridgewater. Simpson lured the girl into leaning into his automobile by handing her a map and asking her for directions. Simpson then grabbed her arm, pulled her into his car, and forced her to lie down on the floorboard. After driving around for awhile, Simpson evidently had a change of heart, and dropped the girl off in the same area where he had abducted her. Mark Simpson was arrested less than two weeks later based on the descriptions of himself and his auto that the 9 year-old girl gave police. Based on those same descriptions, which had been publicized in the local media, two other teenage girls reported to police that a person matching Simpson's and his auto's description had attempted to abduct them in the weeks leading up to this abduction.

Outcome of this prosecution is unknown but predictable, because this is Canada, and Simpson and his attorney blamed the abduction on "mental illness". Simpson "died" in January 2013 at the age of 35. Typical of Jehovah's Witness obituaries, Simpson's obituary obfuscated, "Mark was known for being a very hard working, kindhearted and generous man. He was known for his volunteering and fund-raising involvement within the community. Mark deeply valued his family and enjoyed spending his time surrounded by those he loved."


QUEBEC v. Y.R. was a 1988-1994 Quebec criminal conviction/appeal of a Jehovah's Witness (typically) identified only as Y___ R_____ on multiple counts of sexual assault committed between September 1986 and August 1987 against YR's baby daughter (born 1985). The infant's Jehovah's Witness Mother finally put two and two together after multiple incidents of the female infant speaking sexually related words/phrases and reenacting incidents of oral, anal, and vagina penetration. There also was evidence of physical harm to the child. Y.R. admitted to the police some of the sexual abuse after being arrested. It is court cases like these that cause sane persons to wonder exactly whom Canadian authorities seek to help by keeping private the names of such POSs.


ONTARIO v. DANIEL NOEL D'HAENE was the 1981-82 Ontario, Canada criminal prosecution of a then 47 year-old Jehovah's Witness Minister, named Daniel D'Haene, of Aylmer, Ontario, on nine charges relating to INCEST, along with one charge of bestiality, committed against his oldest three children (two males and one female) during the 1960s and 1970s. Daniel N. D'Haene eventually pled guilty to three charges of indecent assault of a child and was sentenced to two years in a reformatory.

This criminal prosecution revealed that the Body of Elders at the Aylmer, Ontario Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses had known of Daniel D'Haene's ongoing INCEST against his children since 1973, when Daniel D'Haene was "disfellowshipped" after the eldest son reported his father's "sins" to the BOE shortly after the son's baptism. (See previous DAVID BODEMER MURDER coverup at the Aylmer, Ontario Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses.) DJW Wife and Mother, Jeannette D'Haene, was "publicly reproved" for keeping her Husband's "sins" a secret from the Elders. Hypocritically, the BOE at the Aylmer, Ontario Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses also decided to keep the disgraceful matter a secret from Canadian authorities. As a result of such, Daniel D'Haene resumed his "sins" against some of his four children until the family finally separated in 1976. Interestingly, after the eldest son finally reported the matter to Ontario Police in 1981, the JW Elders then came running to tell all that they knew and anxiously wanting to assist in the criminal prosecution. The trial judge noted the disgraceful conduct of the BOE and the WatchTower Society during the sentencing hearing, in part:

... although the church officials at The Watchtower Society knew in 1973 of these activities, they were not reported. As a result, the family reconciled upon the accused giving a promise to his wife that he would cease such activities in the future. Apparently, these activities ceased for a short period of time, and then they began again. It has been suggested, ... , that perhaps the [Watchtower] Society should bear some part of the blame for the continuation of these activities after 1973, since these activities at the time were known, or made known, to responsible members of the [Jehovah's Witness] community, who failed to act on that information. ... ... [O]ne of the sons reported these matters to the police as a result of the psychological counselling process which he underwent and ... not from the pressure brought upon him by The Watchtower Society.


Donald's Story

Two decades ago (1980s), I was among the first men to break the barrier of silence and come forward to speak openly about being sexually abused as a child. ... After more than a decade of sexual abuse, my siblings and I finally came forward and told ministers, police, doctors, and therapists. And we took the perpetrator, our father, to court. ...

We were Jehovah's Witnesses, and my father used our religion -- its patriarchal structure and ideology -- to manipulate and control the rest of the family. My father, Daniel D'Haene, was a man who lusted for power and craved complete control over those around him, especially his family, and he used the theology of the Jehovah's Witnesses to support this craving and to subject his children to years of abuse. Initially he instructed us that if we disobeyed him in any way, we would be disappointing God. Indeed, he assured us that his authority over us was God-given, a claim that did seem to be supported by our religion. All four of the children in my family -- including my two brothers and one sister -- were involved in the abuse over a period of thirteen years. ... 

Why would we question our father's authority when God had made him head of the household? If we loved God, wouldn't we obey his servant's wishes? In the ensuing years, our father used his fanatical interpretations of church doctrines on male authority, discipline, and obedience to perpetuate his crimes. When he was finally busted and brought before church authorities and, much later, the criminal justice system, he mustered every excuse to justify his crimes. In letters, tapes, and testimonials, he tried to diminish his culpability by claiming that his wife wouldn't give him his marital due, that his faith in the Jehovah's Witnesses had confused him, that he was an alcoholic or a drug abuser, that we was possessed by demons or had experienced nervous breakdowns. To this day, he has refused to admit that the molestation of his children was calculated and premeditated.


The Jehovah's Witnesses cite scriptures from the Bible to back all their beliefs, and in turn believe that every word of the Bible is directly inspired by God. While conceding that some parts of the Bible are symbolic, they take other verses quite literally. Thus, for example, when it comes to dealing with errant members, they follow the example of the first-century Christians as reported by the Apostle Paul: A member can be removed from the congregation for sinning and not repenting, and once someone is "disfellowshipped" all must ostracize this person until he or she repents. If a member does associate with the excommunicated, that person is to be ostracized as well. (However, in the late 1970's the Witnesses' Watchtower Society counseled members to have limited contact with an erring member if it concerned family matters.)

A common practice of the Witnesses is to berate someone publicly who fails to show repentance for committing acts contrary to church doctrine. This denunciation can be part of the sinner's penitence, as an ex-member is permitted to continue attending meetings even after he's been disfellowshipped. The congregation is not allowed to acknowledge his presence and goes on denouncing him as if he weren't there. Once he repents, an ex-member can be reinstated within six months.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the world as we now know it is coming to an end. Only a few people will survive Armageddon, namely those who believe in its imminent reality, which is to say the Witnesses themselves. In this respect, the life of a Jehovah's Witness is comparable to that of someone on the Titanic in its final hour. Everyone knows that the ship is going down, but only some people have access to the lifeboats, of which there are too few, while the rest of the passengers face the prospect of certain doom. The Jehovah's Witnesses believe they have been chosen to bear witness to the truth of God's Plan, even as the rest of humanity drowns in ignorance all around them. This belief gives the Witnesses an inevitable if seldom acknowledged air of superiority. For my part, I always felt like an alien sent from another galaxy and dropped on earth. Why me? Why had I been chosen to bear this terrible Knowledge? Was I being tortured now as penance against some future reward? The sense of being a freak became at times overwhelming.

"We are in the world but not of the world," the Witnesses are fond of saying. The everyday world in which others are immersed is something separate, temporary, illusory. Holding such a view, the Witness organization is loath to become involved in civil affairs; problems within the congregation are handled internally by a local body of Elders. Thus when it came to the attention of the Elders of our church that my father was sexually abusing the entire family, there was no talk of contacting the police, reporting our disclosure to the Children's Aid Society, or the like. Instead, the Elders met and held what had many of the trappings of a court trial, allowing each family member to tell his or her story, albeit under conditions that did more to intimidate the children than to encourage their honest testimony.

The church's separation from worldly affairs led to an unspoken taboo against outside interference and also a desire to remain innocent" of the world. This created problems in how the Witnesses dealt with our particular case. In general, if someone has clearly broken a civil law, the Elders encourage him or her to go to the appropriate law enforcement officials. For example, a murderer had recently been encouraged by the Elders to confess his guilt to the police. But it appears they applied a double standard in our case. While recognizing the seriousness of his incestuous behavior, the Elders did not encourage Daniel D'Haene to turn himself in to the civil authorities.

This murder case -- and the fact that our case followed closely on its heels -- undoubtedly worked against us. One of the Elders handling our father's case, Elder Sum, was married to a relative of the murder victim. So here were four physically healthy children coming before him to testify against their father. We were seen not as victims but as participants in a series of sinful acts. And we were alive; what right did we have to complain? Such was the depth of ignorance of sexual abuse within the Witness society of 1973. (Still, Elder Surin wasn't completely naive. He later told me, "I warned my wife to keep our children away from your father.")

The case was conducted by the Elders as a trial of sorts. Each of the children was questioned individually by the Elders in a highly structured format that didn't really allow us to tell our story. In the end, the Elders' decision was to disfellowship our father -- a severe punishment from the standpoint of his immortal soul, but scarcely satisfactory for those of us who still had to live with this man. They also reproved our mother -- who had known about the situation for two years (courtesy of my younger brother) -- for not having reported it to the church authorities.

I wished at the time that someone would take us away from my father, but the Elders' judgment seemed final and irrevocable. I was twelve years old and scarcely understood the legalities of the situation. If anything, the whole family now suffered from guilt by association with our excommunicated father. A condescending attitude from certain ministers -- God's chosen Elders -- fed the feeling that a kind of negative energy was descending upon us from God. One traveling Witness overseer told me that from the moment he heard about our father's crime, he vowed never to touch another glass or cup in the Aylmer Kingdom Hall -- because it was tainted by "your father's touch."

For a while at least, father was chastened by the Elders' decision -- or at least by the fact that the secret was now out. "We have to stop," he said to us at one point. But even at age twelve I found that statement laughable. "We" have to stop? The implication was that we had been consensual sex partners. His excommunication had him sufficiently worried that he decided to lay low for a while, but I guess we all knew that eventually he'd be back. The abuse soon resumed and continued for another three years, ending only in 1976 when our parents got divorced.


... Since 1982, the year in which I and four other victims charged our abuser in court, scores of men have confided their history of sexual abuse to me. Yet few have gone public with their story. A more pressing question is why victims don't report the abuse while it's going on. For boys at least, perhaps the most common reason is the culturally imposed shame they experience when the contact is homosexual. While most victims are not gay, the very fact that they were targeted for abuse somehow raises questions about their masculinity. Beyond that, victims of sexual abuse, however innocent of wrongdoing themselves, are often made to feel like "damaged goods" by the larger community. Thus, for example, after hearing about our case an otherwise sympathetic minister recommended that I change my name, "because there is a bad sound to it now. It's connected to the abuser. People will think of him, not of you as his victim."

... In our case, even after the situation had come to the attention of our mother, the family was reluctant to rock the boat by setting in motion the Witnesses' top-heavy judicial apparatus. To report our abuse would have involved the Children's Aid Society, which would have removed us from our father's reach--but where would we have ended up then?

Finally, there's no guarantee that a satisfactory outcome will be reached once one goes public. Nine years after our foray into the Jehovah's Witnesses' system of justice, we brought our father to a criminal court and expected to have a chance, at last, to testify publicly and tell our story to a judge. But we never got that chance because the prosecutor arranged a plea bargain with our fathers' lawyers before the case went to trial. So while we did get a conviction and our father was sentenced to two years in a reformatory, it seemed a Pyrrhic victory by the time our ordeal had ended.

One point we had tried to make was that our father was a sick individual who needed to be isolated from society and treated for mental illness. In a final statement, the judge acknowledged that our "childhood must have been a hell on Earth," but he also found that our father "is not now, in my opinion, in need of rehabilitation or reformation and is not now a danger to any member of the public." The judge said he based this on a psychiatric report that "shows clearly that there is no overt sign of mental illness." And so, even as the rest of us were going through a victim recovery process that would entail years of therapy, sexual confusion, and terrified flashbacks, our abuser was deemed perfectly sane and given no therapy. A final irony was that the judge cited the Watchtower Society, as he called it, as a factor in his lenient verdict. While acknowledging "that perhaps the Society should bear some part of the blame for the continuation of these activities after 1973," the net effect was that the church was serving yet again as a shield for our father's sins.


Ronny knows he has to do something. He promised he would. But as he is a baptized Christian now, he can't physically hurt his father. Instead he reaches out and cries for help. He decides to confide in the Elders of the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Mama says, "Don't tell."

Papa says nothing, as though this disclosure is inevitable. God knows he plays The Game. Now God's Elders will find Out. His silence at this major crisis is a brilliant and calculated turn.

Me, I am ecstatic. No more secrets and lies.

And Ronny? As the oldest son, the pressure on him is unbearable. He fears physical retribution from his father, not only for himself, but for us, too. But now he also has to deal with another unknown factor--how will the Elders react to the news?

He breaks down, confiding in the men of God, that our father has played with us sexually for years. Their reaction: a mix of detachment, curiosity, and confirmation.

Within the Witness society, spiritually weak males are suspect. Perhaps for only lacking faith. Where there is no sign of progress, there is genuine concern. During his fourteen years as a Witness, my father's involvement with Jehovah's Witnesses had been sporadic at best. The Elders "know" there is something wrong with him. Now they have the "evidence" on him.

Papa is called into a meeting with three Elders. Mama is angry with Ronny for breaking the silence. Her private humiliation is about to go outside her inner circle. The four of us are told we must testify before the Elders. Ronny is fifteen, I'm twelve, Marina is ten, and Erik is seven.

Papa confesses to the accusations. How could he not? Why would his four children lie? Why would Mother? Besides, his silence upon Erik's disclosure had been an admission of guilt two years earlier. His quiet admission of guilt now is really not that surprising. Perhaps his silence serves a purpose. Wouldn't a self-defensive posture or an antagonistic approach add to an already explosive situation?

My naivete and innocence are thrown into the public arena for the first time. I feel like a witness for the prosecution. I'm excited that our secret is finally coming out. "My life will change for the better," I tell myself. "God's Elders will hug me and tell me God loves me just like Jesus did to his disciples."

We four children are called to the hall to tell the Elders about Papa's abuse of us. I am nervous but not frightened. After Ronny leaves the room at the end of the Hall, I am called in. I walk into a tiny room with five chairs. I sit before three men of God. I completely believe that these men are God's chosen Elders. I know Mama believes in them. Even Papa believes in them. I cannot, will not, lie to God's helpers.

"You realize how important it is to tell the truth? It is God's will that you do," one Elder tells me.

"Yes!" I promise.

"Describe the sexual acts with your father. What did you do exactly? How often? How many years?"

As odd as I feel, l am enjoying this attention. Thinking Donald describes The Game perfectly. I've repeated this monologue before. Explaining Erik's disclosure to Mama is a rehearsal for this revelation now. After all, she asked the same kinds of questions but when we told her, she cried. I am on a stage again, but this time God is listening. I know what I say has significance. Why, I do not know, but I know just the same.

No one asks me how I feel or how I felt. No one touches me. The questions are cold, blunt, and matter of fact. I haven't the nerve to ask questions. As always, Thinking Donald has no tears.

"Thank you. We'll call you back later." I am dismissed.

An Elder steps out of the small room. "Next, Marina."

The assembly line of D'Haene children continues into the back room. I sit on a chair in the main hall. To say I have no comprehension of what is happening to me is an understatement.

"Papa is bad and he's going to be punished," Mama tells me.

I'm involved in something very bad. I feel like I'm in a television courtroom drama and the show is long and boring. I can't turn the channel! Erik is sitting next to me waiting his turn. I kick the legs of the chair in front of me, waiting and waiting.

Finally Mama is called in to answer questions.

"I did not tell anyone because I was embarrassed for the kids, for me, even for Daniel. What would you Elders think of us? I kept everything to myself for so long, I didn't know what to do or how to feel. I know that Daniel influenced me to keep everything quiet."

"It was very wrong of you not to report the situation to us."

"I truly feel horrible and guilty and pray God will forgive me. I am ashamed. Yes, at first I was shocked and angry at Ronny for telling and then I knew it was the best thing to do. But still I was ashamed and did not want many to know."

Within days, another meeting is called. Once again, I'm in the little room with the big men. This time Mama and my brothers and sister are with me. One of the men starts talking: "Your father will be disfellowshipped and your mother publicly reproved for conduct unbecoming a Christian. When your father comes to meetings, he will sit at the back of the hall. You will sit with him and your mother. Remember, you must still honor your father as head of the household."

I am dizzy. Mother publicly reproved. Sit at the back of the hall. Honor your Father. I can't hear the rest of what this Elder is mumbling.

I am happy. I understand Papa's excommunication will mean he is no longer a Jehovah's Witness. That makes sense. God's people do not play The Game with their children. They also don't ask their children to lie about it to their Mama.

I am confused. How shall we "honor" our father? He never talks to us unless we play The Game. Does God expect my siblings and me to honor our father in some things but not in others?

I am sad. Mama's being punished because of my testimony. Why? I don't understand! Mama's hurting and Papa has something to do with it. I have something to do with my mother's pain.

How can I feel sad yet happy at the same time? The big secret is out, but a dark cloud continues to hover over us. I am afraid of these men, but God must have told them to do this.

As we drive home, Mama talks first.

"It's God's will. I made a mistake. I should have told the Elders."

Again Papa says nothing.

We're driving to the big four-bedroom house on top of the hill with the barn, silo, and chicken coop. Nothing's changed. People know and we're still living with Papa as one family. Will the abuse continue? I believe it will. I know it will.

On Sunday, we go to the congregation meeting and the public announcement is made.

"Daniel D'Haene is disfellowshipped for conduct unbecoming a Christian. Jeannette D'Haene is publicly reproved. Now, let us stand and sing song number."

We're at the center of a sick kind of circus and yet no one looks at us. I don't understand why. I feel nothing. What am I supposed to feel?

Excerpted/edited from: "Papa was a Jehovah's Witness", Donald D'Haene, 2002.

***************                    ***************


***************                    ***************

CROWN v. IAN CHARLES ROSS was a 2014-15 criminal prosecution of a prominent, highly respected Jehovah's Witness Elder at the Billingham Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, named Ian C. Ross, age 65, of St. Oswald's Crescent, Billingham, Scotland. Ian Ross owned and operated a video and audio/visual equipment business, and for years managed the audio/video departments at WatchTower Conventions. In 2015, at Teesside Crown Court, Ian Ross pled "Guilty" to having used his A/V and computer skills to download and copy child pornography from the internet from May 2013 until May 2014. Ross apparently somehow came to the attention of UK law enforcement when he did business with them in early 2013. Authorities discovered on Ross's computer hard drive 593 pornographic still and video images of young girls -- ages 3 years-old to 16 years-old -- including images of adults engaging in sexual acts with children as young as 3 years-old. As part of Ross's plea deal, a 6 months jail term was suspended conditioned on Ross's completion of a Sex Offender's Treatment program. Ross will also have to register as a Sex Offender for 7 years, as well as be banned from unsupervised contact with girls under 16 years-old for 7 years. Ross's internet access also will be monitored by police.


CROWN v. DAVID DENNIS is 2014's latest criminal court case in a flood of British Jehovah's Witness child molestation court cases. In November 2014, David Dennis, age 60, who until charged was an ELDER at the Launceston Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses, PLEADED GUILTY to all 25 Counts relating to his having sexually assaulted his own GrandDaughter at his then Harrowbarrow residence for at least six years, from the time GrandDaughter was around 5 to 6 years-old until she was around 12 years-old, from around 2000 through 2006. The years of opportunistic sexual assaults included everything from fondling to penetration to even making the young girl perform sex acts on her GrandFather. The victim kept her molestation a secret until 2013, when she finally confided such to her older sister, who relayed the matter to their Mother. Mother and victim agonized for a year over the matter before finally reporting their father and grandfather to the authorities.

Purportedly, David Dennis still has the complete support of his own wife -- the victim's GrandMother, and he reportedly was not even disfellowshipped from the Launceston Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, but was merely "reproved" and made to "step down" as an Elder. At the November 2014 sentencing, the judge branded David Dennis as "EVIL" and "DEPRAVED". Reportedly, the "manipulative" David Dennis repeatedly BLEW KISSES in the direction of his granddaughter victim and his daughter during and after the proceedings. David Dennis was sentenced to a total of 12 years in prison.

Dennis's daughter and the two granddaughters are reportedly now outcast from both their own JW family and the local Jehovah's Witness community. The victim suffered greatly from her years of abuse. She suffers from depression, anxiety, insomnia, and obsessive compulsive disorder. Child molestation is apparently so widespread amongst the British JW community that the victim's mother also has alleged that she herself was molested as child by a JW Ministerial Servant.


CROWN v. JOHN C. DRURY was a 2004-12 CHILD PREDATOR prosecution of an elderly Jehovah's Witness Minister who had assaulted multiple children of his fellow Jehovah's Witnesses throughout much of the 1990s. Although widely reported, we have not seen any such reports which asked the OBVIOUS questions. WHY did none of these JW Children say anything to their JW Parents about this pedophile's perverse behaviors, and why did none of their JW Parents find this pedophile's modus operandi suspicious???

John Drury, who was a "trusted and respected" member of the Colchester Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses, would have been a 65 year-old retired Grandfather in 1990. John Drury and Christine Drury lived in what was described as a six bedroom "luxury" house in Colchester. Christine Drury suffered from polio which limited her mobility in the large home. Throughout much of the 1990s, John Drury opportunistically lured JW girls ranging in age from 4 years-old to 13 years-old, singularly and in groups, to his home using the promise that they would be permitted the "freedom" to play anywhere they liked and make as much noise as they liked. As the opportunities presented themselves, Drury would grope, kiss, fondle, and even sexually assault his young visitors. Sometimes, Drury even would have them grope and fondle him. Some girls were even convinced to take off most or even all their clothes and prance around naked -- sometimes with Drury himself also being naked. Yet, none of these JW Girls said anything to their JW Parents, and some, in fact, returned to Drury's home.

Finally, in the mid 2000s, one of the by-then adult JW Girls finally reported what had occurred to the authorities. After an investigation, John C. Drury was charged with 12 counts of indecent assault and two of indecency with a child under 14 (the number of incidents which might be proven in court) against 8 different girls (the number of cooperating victims). In 2005, John Drury was found guilty on all but one count, and the by-then 81 year-old Drury was sentenced to 8 months to 4 years in prison.

John C. Drury was paroled in 2008 after spending 28 months in prison. Drury was arrested in November 2011 and spent 4 months in jail for violating a court order which prohibits him from having contact with minors under 16 after Drury ask a young girl to repress the button at a crosswalk light. Notably, in 2012, Drury requested that he be permitted to attend various churches in Colchester so that he could find another church for himself.


CROWN v. JW ADULT MALE was a 2011-13 British criminal prosecution of a then 47 year-old Jehovah's Witness male businessowner then living in Long Rock. In December 2011, the first of two adult females reported to police that she had been sexually assaulted by the specifically identified JW, in 2001, when she was less than 16 years-old, and that the sexual assaults continued until 2006. In February 2013, Male JW was charged with three counts of indecency with a child, one count of indecent assault, one count of sexual assault, and one count of assault by penetration. After Male JW was arrested, a second adult female also came forward and accused male JW of sexually assaulting her in 2008. Male JW was charged with one count of sexual assault and one count of assault by penetration. Male JW denied all charges made by both adult females and pleaded "not guilty" to all criminal charges.

At the December 2013 trial, the prosecution claimed that Male JW had plied both "girls" with alcohol before "touching them" and having them "touch him". Male JW was even accused of punching one girl in the pelvis during one of his initial assaults after she initially refused his advances. The prosecution also presented evidence that Male JW had been "disfellowshipped" by his local Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Amongst multiple apparent mistakes made by the prosecution, no local JW Elder provided exact testimony. Male JW himself explained that he had been disfellowshipped merely for "adultery". After hearing all the evidence, a Truro Crown Court jury returned "Not Guilty" verdicts on all 8 counts.


CROWN v. RUDOLFO ALBERT DELEON was a 2000 British criminal court case which involved a then 24 year-old Hispanic-American Jehovah's Witness who is now living back in the United States. In 1998, the then 22 year-old Rudolfo A. Deleon had relocated to live in Scarborough, England after meeting a presumably-female Jehovah's Witness from Scarborough who was vacationing in the United States. After having lived for 18 months in England, in March 2000, Rudolfo Deleon was arrested and subsequently charged with 28 counts of indecent assault against an unspecified number of underage girls over the previous 12 month period -- presumably children of local Jehovah's Witnesses. Deleon pleaded guilty to 14 charges. He was sentenced to three years and 11 months in prison in August 2000. Rudolfo Deleon is reported to have been a WATCHTOWER BETHELITE.


NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN NICOLL (2005) and CROWN v. JOHN NICOLL (2010) are multiple criminal cases in the United States and Scotland involving John Nicoll, who was reared with a strict Jehovah's Witness upbringing. John Nicoll's Scottish parents immigrated to Wendell, North Carolina in 1983, when he was one year-old. John Nicoll graduated from East Wake High School in 2000. In March 2005, John Nicoll was convicted in North Carolina for sexually assaulting a 10 year-old girl as the child slept in her own bedroom. Nicoll broke into the sleeping family's home in August 2004 for the sole purpose of attacking the child. Nicoll was sentenced to state prison for a period of 19-23 months, but his prison sentence was suspended -- possibly because of his status as a "Jehovah's Witness". Nicoll was placed on probation and ordered to reside at a state-run specialist residential unit for a 12-month period. However, Nicoll failed to comply with the conditions of probation, and he was sent to prison to serve out the full term of his original 19-23 month sentence.

After John Nicoll's release from prison and placement on the sex offender's registry list, Nicoll moved to Scotland, in 2008, to be with his father, who had returned there after splitting with Nicoll's mother in 2003. In February 2010, John Nicoll pled guilty in Scottish Court to entering a local home without permission. Although details are unclear, Nicoll evidently entered a stranger's home during an ongoing party, and he was discovered snooping through the bedrooms. Thereafter, in mid 2010, John Nicoll was sentenced to 12 months in Scottish prison on possession of child pornography charges that resulted from a police investigation that grew out of the aforementioned criminal case. The court was told that John Nicoll had been assessed as posing a "very high risk" to the public by both social workers and psychologists who had worked with him.


CROWN v. OLIVER CONNER, CROWN v. OLIVER CONNER and CROWN v. OLIVER CONNER are separate 2012 and 2014 British convictions of a presently 73 year-old African-British Jehovah's Witness named Oliver Conner. Before retiring, Conner had worked as an electrician in multiple different UK communities -- including Sussex, Crawley, and in Sompting. Apparently, as Conner relocated from one Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses to another, he also went from one sexual molestation victim to another.

In February 2012, Oliver Conner was first convicted in Reading Crown Court of assaulting and raping multiple times a 12 year-old girl in Slough and Burnham Beeches between 1979 and 1982.

Later in 2012, Conner was also convicted of assaulting and raping multiple times an 8 year-old girl in Slough between 1979 and 1980.

In May 2014, while serving a 12 and 1/2 year sentence on the above convictions, Conner was convicted in Lewes Crown Court of sexually assaulting a 12 year-old Jehovah's Witness girl who lived in Crawley in 1994.

Who knows how many other child victims the infamous WatchTower Society "pedophile's paradise" afforded this monster???


CROWN v. WILLIAM ROGERS and CROWN v. WILLIAM ROGERS are related 2014 and 1997 British court cases. In May 1997, a 63 year-old British Jehovah's Witness Elder named William Rogers was convicted in Harrow Crown Court of six sexual assaults on two young girls under the age of eleven. Rogers was sentenced to seven years in jail, but he received early release on October 30, 2000. Rogers moved to Suffolk, where he was managed by officers in Ipswich's public protection unit. Under the Sexual Offences Prevention Act, Rogers was required to follow the notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Prevention Act, which required Rogers to notify police if and when he intended to travel abroad for three days or longer. In May 2006, Ipswich's public protection unit discovered that Rogers had secretly moved to the Dominican Republic in January 2006. Rogers returned to the UK in January 2014, where he was immediately arrested and jailed for violation of the aforementioned notifications requirements. At trial, in Ipswich Crown Court, Rogers admitted that as a Jehovah's Witness Minister that he had been doing missionary work in the Dominican Republic, which involved making house-to-house calls and also teaching children. In February 2014, the now 79 year-old William Rogers was sentenced to two years in jail.


CROWN v. DUNCAN McCORMICK was a 2005 Scotland criminal prosecution of a 24 year-old Jehovah's Witness Ministerial Servant named Duncan McCormick, of Thornliebank, Glasgow. In late December 2004, McCormick, who was a member of an online dating website, received a random message sent by an admittedly underage 13 year-old girl from Fife. Instead of ignoring or rebuffing the teenie bopper, McCormick began sweet-talking her, and eventually proposing that she meet him at a local motel for sex, which is what eventually happened in February 2005. The victim typically boasted of the encounter with her own girlfriend, and eventually admitted such to her mother and law enforcement. In November 2005, Duncan McCormick was found guilty of unknown charges and sentenced to one year in jail, and designated as a registered sex offender. McCormick was also made to participate in a mandatory 3-year sex offenders' class after release from jail


CROWN v. IAN DAVID WEBB. In July 2003, a Welsh Jehovah's Witness named Ian David Webb, age 30, by then of Merthyr Tydfil, England, was convicted in Cardiff Crown Court of three charges of indecent assaults, one charge of attempted rape, and one charge of indecency with a child. The offences were committed in 1998-9 against then 11 year-old Hayley Jones in her own Ebbw Vale home. Ian D. Webb pleaded "not guilty", which forced the by then 16 year-old victim to have to relive her multiple assaults and testify against her abuser in court. Ian Webb was convicted, but only sentenced to four years in prison. On the prosecutor's appeal, Webb's sentence was increased to seven years in December 2003.

Hayley Jones' Jehovah's Witness Parents had divorced in 1997, when she was 10 years-old. Hayley's mother received custody of Hayley and her two younger sisters, while Hayley's father received weekend visitations. Shortly after the divorce, Hayley's father took in as a boarder then 25 year-old single Ian David Webb, who was a fellow Jehovah's Witness at the Ebbw Vale Kingdom Hall. Hayley's father would sometimes allow Webb to care for his three daughters when he had weekend visitations. Within a matter of months, Webb began sexually molesting eleven year-old Hayley. The molestations progressed from kissing to fondling to more serious attacks. Early on, Hayley told her mother that Webb had been kissing her, and Hayley's mother told Hayley's father, but he dismissed such as simply being stories made up by a child. When the older Hayley Jones eventually reported Webb to the police in 2003, she alleged that Webb eventually regularly sodomized and even raped her. However, at trial, Webb was only convicted of "attempted rape" for his most serious attacks.

Hayley Jones says that Webb made her believe that what he was doing was normal. "He played a mental torture game. He isolated me from my parents and told me they didn't love me and that what he was doing was out of love. I focused on the one person who said they loved me. ... It might sound strange but when I was eleven wasn't the worst time. It was when it hit me when I was 14, when I took my first overdose."

Hayley claims that after Webb's trial and conviction that she was shunned by many of her Jehovah's Witness relatives and nearly all of her former JW friends and acquaintances. Her first suicide attempt in 2001 was only the first of several attempts of self-harming in the following years. Hayley struggled with anxiety, depression, and paranoia. Hayley had problems in normal school, and a later attempt at college failed. Hayley was unable to hold down a job. Hayley was eventually declared mentally disabled, and received a disability pension.

Ian David Webb was NOT disfellowshipped after his conviction, and his JW friends and family reportedly visited him regularly in prison. In 2006, as Webb's early parole was approaching, London England WatchTower Society spokesperson, Steven Papps, told the media that Webb's last congregation, Merthyr Tydfil, would be handling the matter of Webb's status as a JW after his release. Papps explained, "In cases where the individual was incarcerated, the investigation would be subsequent to their release. ... Because an individual is convicted in a court of law or not, does not mean the congregation would reach the same conclusion."


CROWN v. TERENCE BARTON. In January 1999, a British Jehovah's Witness minister named Terence Barton, age 60, of Coleshill, England, pleaded guilty at Warwick Crown Court to a total of 11 charges of indecent assault committed against underage girls, between 1971 and 1990. Two other charges resulting from an unspecified 1998 incident were not considered. Barton was sentenced to five years in jail.

In 1971, Terence Barton was visiting a home where the female resident's 7 year-old granddaughter was also visiting. Barton sat the little girl on his knee, and when the woman left the room, Barton indecently assaulted the child. In 1972, unidentified parents of another 7/8 year-old girl were all three visiting Barton in his home. Barton somehow slipped away from the parents and went into another room where the child was playing alone. The child came running out and told her parents that Barton had made some unspecified inappropriate "sexual remark". Barton apologised, and surprisingly, nothing more was made of the incident.

From the mid-1970s until 1981, Terence Barton carried out a series of sexual assaults on another young girl, beginning when she was only 6 years-old. Barton repeatedly abused her until the girl became old enough to realize that what Barton was doing was wrong. Apparently, she stopped allowing the assaults, but did not tell on Barton. Terence Barton also sexually assaulted a girl in her early teens during this same period. In 1990, Barton once again sexually assaulted one of the aforementioned victims. In 1998, Barton was arrested for an unspecified incident, and one of his early victims finally reported Barton to the police.


CROWN v. GEORGE BELMONTE. In April 1997, residents of Haddington, East Lothian, Scotland, learned that their new neighbor, Helen Belmonte, had lived a sordid criminal past before she returned to live in her former home town as a door-knocking Jehovah's Witness. Before their divorce, Helen Belmonte had been jailed three times over the years for procuring under-age girls for her husband, George Belmonte, who was then known as "Scotland's Most Notorious Paedophile". Helen Belmonte's secret sordid past was revealed only after she agreed to testify in the latest criminal prosecution of her former husband in exchange for her own immunity from prosecution for her own culpability in that same case.

George Belmonte had a horrifying record of sex attacks on young girls. He had been jailed six times previously dating back to 1961 -- some times there being multiple victims. Helen Belmonte testified that on Christmas Eve, in 1970, that she had lured a 13 year-old girl to the then couple's home in Maryhill, Glasgow. Helen Belmonte testified that the girl begged her for help as she pinned the girl to the bed while her husband raped the girl. George Belmonte, age 65, was convicted and sentenced to three years in jail by the High Court in Glasgow.

Helen Belmonte had been convicted and done her own jail time as a co-conspirator in sexual assaults against multiple underage girls in 1969 and 1971. It was unclear whether Helen Belmonte's third jail time occurred in prosecutions occurring in 1966, 1981, or during this latest 1996-97 prosecution.


CROWN v. MICHAEL BIRD was a 2008-09 British UPSKIRT VIDEO VOYEUR case. In June 2008, 54 year-old, married-with-children Michael Bird, of Newcastle, was arrested by police after a female shopper in a local supermarket notified the store's security staff that Bird had maneuvered a tennis racquet bag between her legs. Mike Bird was not as crafty as some video voyeurs. Bird's digital camera protruded from the sports bag, and was only partially concealed by a piece of clothing. Police discovered only two days of edited versions of the tapings, which were performed at various local supermarkets and department stores, on Bird's home computer. Michael Bird blamed his actions on his overly strict rearing as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Amazingly, local police allowed Bird off with a formal warning. However, the arrest did cost Bird his career as a Sex Abuse Counselor and Senior Social Services employee. By the time this matter was finally disposed in November 2009, Michael Bird had reportedly moved to another country.


CROWN v. ALLAN SCOLLAY. In April 2005, limited media coverage reported that a Jehovah's Witness Minister in Inverness, England had been convicted of using his position of trust to sexually molest two underage girls in his congregation between 1992 and 1995. Allan Scollay was sentenced to four years in jail. Allan Scollay's own lawyer described him as "somewhat of a Jekyll and Hyde". The JW Minister was himself a father of three children, who reportedly used his position as a JW Minister to befriend two single-mothers who had young daughters, ages 11 and 12. Scollay reportedly kissed and fondled the two victims.


CROWN v. JOHN MILLER. In December 1998, a Jehovah's Witness Elder named John Miller, then age 57, pleaded guilty in Bradford Crown Court to five charges of indecency and three charges of indecent assaults, which were committed between 1994 and 1998, on two underage girls. Miller was sentenced to a mere three years in jail. Although John Miller was required to resign as an JW Elder, he was NOT disfellowshiped.

In 1997-98, John Miller, of Thornton, England, had traveled several times to Bridlington to assist with the construction of the Bridlington Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses. Sometime during those visits, Miller had managed to sexually assault a JW minor once, plus he committed four acts of indecency on that JW minor -- probably while staying at the home of a local JW during the construction work. That JW Minor eventually told her mother. John Miller eventually confessed to not only molesting that JW Minor, but he also confessed to having sexually molested another underage girl, on at least three occasions between 1994 and 1996, while performing "field service" (door-knocking).


CROWN v. JOHN HARVEY. In December 2002, a British Jehovah's Witness Minister named John Harvey, age 54, of Westbourne Crescent, Buckley, England, was found guilty by a jury at Chester Crown Court of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl. Harvey, who owned a gardening business, reportedly admitted indecent assault and attempted rape involving the girl. Sentence unknown.


CROWN v. RICHARD SINGH. In November 1992, a Jehovah's Witness Elder and Pioneer, named Richard Singh, then age 62, of Weymouth, England, was convicted of eight charges of indecent assault against three young girls, ranging in age from three years-old six years-old, between 1989 and 1992. Singh was sentenced to five years in jail.

At trial, Richard Singh testified that he had retired from working as an Accountant to devote all his time to his Jehovah's Witnesses religion. Singh reportedly referred repeatedly to his religious convictions when attempting to convince the jury of his innocence. Singh asserted that if the three girls had been sexually molested, then the authorities should investigate the three girls' fathers. Singh proclaimed, "I am a minster. I preach the good [news] of God's Kingdom. I am an Elder, and I go out with the Bible every day." Singh's Jehovah's Witness family steadfastly supported his innocence, and reportedly waved goodbye to him as he was led off to jail.

Richard Singh's wife operated a daycare center out of the couple's home, and she would sometimes leave her husband alone to care for the children. Early on, the first victim, whom Singh had been molesting for some time, eventually became old enough to begin protesting being taken to the Singh's home. The child eventually told her parents about Singh's abuse, but her parents refused to believe that Singh was capable of such behavior, and continued to leave her with the Singhs. Richard Singh had attempted to keep that first victim quiet by telling her not to reveal what he was doing because his wife would get angry. Singh obtained the second victim's silence by bribing her with candy. Singh had forced that second victim to engage in a series of humiliating sex acts. Singh apparently was not concerned with being reporting by the third victim, whom Singh had repeatedly fondled, due to her young age.


CROWN v. JAMES BARRATT was a 2002 British criminal prosecution of a Jehovah's Witness Elder who was and still is a widely known Doctor of Homeopathy. In 2002, James Barratt, then age 45, a married father of two who then lived and practiced in Rugby, Warwickshire, was convicted by a Jury at Warwick Crown Court of using his position as a Jehovah's Witness Elder during the late 1980s and early 1990s to befriend two different young teenage males whom he eventually sexually molested. James Barratt was sentenced to two years in prison, with one year suspended. Barratt was also placed on the Sex Offender Registry for 10 years. Thus, James Barratt is currently free and clear of this past criminal sex conviction. James Barratt's JW Wife has died, and he has relocated to a new area where he has been reinstated as a Jehovah's Witness, and he currently actively practices as a HOMEOPATH. James Barratt has a significant internet presence -- selling homeopathic concoctions on both eBAY and his own online website.

James Barratt is NOT the only Jehovah's Witness HOMEOPATH to be convicted as a CHILD MOLESTER. See REX PETERSON case in the Australia section above.


CROWN v. PETER STEWART was a 1995 British criminal court prosecution of a Jehovah's Witness Minister named Peter Stewart, then age 66, of Loughborough. Peter Stewart was convicted of sexually abusing a minor female and a minor male. Stewart was imprisoned until 2000, and died in June 2001 (probably of suicide), at the age of 72, just before local police arrived to place him under arrest for having sexually assaulted another child back in the 1980s and 1990s.

LOUGHBOROUGH VICTIM v. WATCHTOWER SOCIETY. That unidentified victim filed a civil lawsuit against the WatchTower Society in 2015 alleging its failure to protect her from Peter Stewart. That third victim alleges that Peter Stewart sexually assaulted for five years -- from the age of 4 through age 9 -- when she attended the Loughborough Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses -- including before, after, and sometimes during Watchtower study sessions. The victim reported her assaults to the Body of Elders at the Loughborough Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses after she learned of Peter Stewart's impending release from prison in 2000. The Loughborough BOE apparently did little or nothing about the victim's accusations, including not reporting such to police. The victim reported such to police in May 2001, and an arrest warrant was issued in June 2001. When police arrived at Stewart's home, they found him dead.


CROWN v. WILLIAM GEORGE FEAR (1980) and CROWN v. WILLIAM GEORGE FEAR (1988). A serial pedophile and Jehovah's Witness Minister named William G. Fear, age 50, was convicted in 1988 at Winchester Crown Court of raping a 10 year-old girl on three separate occasions. William Fear already had been convicted of three sexual assaults on another young female victim back in 1980.

***************                    ***************

***************                    ***************

LOSTE v. FRANCE was a 2012-22 ECHR case in which a FOSTER CHILD wrongfully reared as a Jehovah's Witness finally received a small token of justice after years of neglect by French Social Services and rejection of her claims by multiple French courts and the French government.

Born in February 1971 to a Muslim family, Tarn-et-Garonne Children's Social Aid placed the 5 year-old girl with a foster family of Jehovah's Witnesses, in 1976. Thereafter began 13 years of sexual molestations committed by the Jehovah's Witness Foster Father. Additionally, while French law theoritically required her foster parents to rear her as a Muslim, she predictably was reared as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Loste remained with her Jehovah's Witness foster family until her twentieth birthday, in 1991. During her 15 years in the system, Social Services visited the foster family only six times. Existing records indicate that SS workers did the least work required during those six surveys. There is no record that the girl's schools nor teachers were ever visited. In 1985, when the girl was 14 years-old, she revealed to a fellow Jehovah's Witness that she was being sexually molested by her JW Foster Father, but nothing was done. Details unknown. 

In September 1988, when the girl was 17 years-old, she was seriously injured in a traffic accident. Her JW Parents formally requested that the girl not be given needed blood transfusions because Loste was a "Jehovah's Witness". Social Services failed to document such in their November 1988 report, and they failed to inform the Judge about such in the December 1988 hearing which extended the foster care arrangement until February 1991.

In 1994, as a married Jehovah's Witness, Loste, age 23, reported her childhood of sexual molestation to JW Elders, who apparently repeated what has occurred thousands of times worldwide. A limited "investigation" was performed by the BOE, but when no  "witness" to any of the molestations was available, and after the perpetrator denied such, the matter was dropped. Thereafter, Loste cut her ties with both her foster family and the WatchTower Cult. 

In 1999, Loste finally reported the matter to French authorities, who refused to prosecute after an investigation in which JW Foster Father allegedly admitted to minor offenses against his foster daughter. In 2001, a civil lawsuit was filed, but it was dismissed for SOL time reasons in 2003.

In 2004, Loste brought an administrative action against the government, and was awarded 22,000 Euros. A French appallate court reversed that decision. In 2007, Loste brought an administrative action against Social Services, but it was dismissed.

This action was initiated in 2012. Finally, in 2022, the ECHR ordered the government of France to partially compensate the victim in the ridiculous amount of 55,000 Euros for having repeatedly failed to provide any amount of "justice" to this now 51 year-old French national female.

FINLAND v. WATCHTOWER SOCIETY MISSIONARY - CIRCUIT OVERSEER. In April 2008, Finnish media reported the conviction of an unnamed 75 year-old Jehovah's Witness Elder who soon after the fall of the U.S.S.R. during the early 1990s had been sent by the WatchTower Society to Estonia to work as a Missionary, Congregation Organizer, Circuit Overseer, and Hospital Liaison Committee Chairman. This WatchTower Henchman was convicted of sexually assaulting four girls, ages 5 years-old to 11 years-old, between 2003 and 2005, while at their family's homes in Estonia and Finland, as well as while on a family vacation to Spain. Two of the four victims were WatchTower Henchman's own granddaughters, while the other two victims were daughters of JW associates. WatchTower Henchman was sentenced to three years in prison. How many victims went unreported in decades past?
O'CONNOR v. BALLARD was a 2009?-10 Ireland civil DEFAMATION court case which resulted from allegations of child sexual abuse. In March 2004, apparently at a Circuit Assembly being held in Carlow, Adam Ballard approached one of the Body of Elders of the New Ross Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, named Peter Curley, with allegations that Ballard had been sexually molested and raped by Congregation members William O'Connor and his three sons back in the early 1980s, when Adam Ballard was only 7-10 years old and an attendee along with his Jehovah's Witness Parents at the New Ross Kingdom Hall. Peter Curley apparently transmitted that allegation to other members of the New Ross Body of Elders. New Ross Elders Tony Walsh and Oliver Hegarty then informed William O'Conner, who at that time held unknown "privileges" in the New Ross congregation, that there was a "problem" involving him and Adam Ballard, and that such would be addressed after the Assembly was over at a meeting to be held at the New Ross Kingdom Hall.
At that meeting with Tony Walsh and Oliver Hegarty, Adam Ballard accused William O'Conner and his three sons, Michael O'Connor, John O'Connor, and Gerard O'Connor, of all sexually molesting him and raping him at various times over a multi-year period back in the early 1980s -- apparently not long after this "settled" Irish Traveller family had converted to the "Jehovah's Witnesses". William O'Connor denied Ballard's allegations, so the New Ross Body of Elders did NOT pursue Ballard's allegations any further per the WatchTower Cult's infamous "Two Witness Rule", which requires either an admission or "two witnesses" to an alleged wrongdoing -- even if the wrongdoing is the type of activity where there would NEVER be "two witnesses". However, at trial, O'Connor alleged that unspecified congregation "privileges" were removed thereafter anyway.
Shortly thereafter, in April 2004, Adam Ballard went to the local Police with his allegations. O'Connor and his sons were arrested and questioned in June 2006, but as of the time of this civil court case had not be criminally charged. William O'Connor and family relocated to Wexford, where William, but not all his sons, is still an active Jehovah's Witness.
This civil defamation lawsuit was brought sometime thereafter, and was heard at Wexford Circuit Civil Court in 2010. It is not clear from the published media reports whether there were more defendants than just Adam Ballard. The O'Connors were also highly upset with the New Ross Body of Elders, particularly Tony Walsh and Oliver Hegarty. In March 2010, the trial court ruled against the O'Connor clan. The trial judge upheld Ballard's "qualified privilege", that is, that Ballard believed his allegations to be true, that Ballard had made his allegations in good faith and without malice, and that Ballard had transmitted his allegations to only those whom had an interest in the matter.
BELGIUM v. DANIEL XXXXX and BELGIUM v. NADINE XXXXX were related 2005-06 criminal prosecutions of a married JEHOVAH'S WITNESS COUPLE living in Belgium, who had preyed on children -- one victim being only 4 years-old -- to satisfy the perverted sexual appetite of Daniel for at least two decades or more. In May 2005, two adult females who had been victimized when they were children finally reported these JEHOVAH'S WITNESS PREDATORS to Belgium authorities. The following investigation turned up shocking results.
For decades, Daniel and Nadine used the cover of respectable Jehovah's Witnesses to prey on children living in their community by caring for children while their parents were at work. Daniel also used the internet to find and entrap teenage victims. One or more victims related that Daniel had posed as another teenager and then lured them to meet up with him. The investigation managed to turn up approximately 20 victims dating back to 1986. There were probably more. Many of the victims were brought to the couple's home where Nadine passively sat by while Daniel molested and raped them. During the investigation, one victim committed suicide after they were identified as one of this JW Couple's victims.
In June 2006, Daniel was sentenced to only six years in prison. Nadine was sentenced to merely three years probation. Nadine issued a statement of support for Daniel saying that she "forgave him" (why? -- you were present for most of his crimes), and that she looked forward to resuming their marriage after this was over.
"Belgium is still reeling in the aftermath of the sexual abuse of six girls and the murder of four of them by a rapist who was out on parole." -- "The Tragedy of Youthful Deaths", AWAKE! magazine, September 8, 1998, page 3, paragraph 2.
BELGIUM v. MARC DUTROUX, BELGIUM v. MARC DUTROUX, and BELGIUM v. MICHELLE MARTIN were Belgium criminal court cases which involved the JW-CONNECTED PERPETRATORS whom the above AWAKE! magazine article hypocritically failed to identify by name.
In the 1990s, Marc Dutroux was Europe's most notorious and infamous PEDOPHILE, KIDNAPPER, RAPIST, MURDERER, and SEX TRAFFICER. Europeans already know who is Marc Dutroux and Michelle Martin, and still recall their crimes. Others around the world who are unfamiliar with these characters can learn the lurid details of Marc Dutroux's torture dungeons and international sex trafficking of children and teenagers by googling the names of the defendants.
The WatchTower Society apparently has worked hard to successfully keep as quiet as possible Marc Dutroux's connection to the Jehovah's Witnesses. The JW connection DOES exist, but many of the specifics have been kept quiet by the JWs in the know. It has been reported that Marc Dutroux was reared within the WatchTower religion -- probably by his mother, Jeannine Dutroux. It is not known exactly at what point in Marc Dutroux's formative years that the Jehovah's Witnesses became his religious influence, thus it is not known if Dutroux's divorced father, Victor Maurice Dutroux, also had a connection to the Jehovah's Witnesses. It is INTERESTING that Victor Dutroux and Jeanine Dutroux moved to the Belgian Congo shortly after Marc was born and worked as "teachers" for a couple of years before returning to Belgium when Marc was 3 years-old. Were the Dutroux's WatchTower "needgreaters"? Neither is it known whether Marc Dutroux's stepfather, Daniel Lebrun, might have been a JW.
During his adult years, Marc Dutroux has publicly claimed to be a "Jehovah's Witness". It is suspected that due to Marc Dutroux's continuous criminal activity and repeated interactions with the criminal justice system that Marc Dutroux also has been repeatedly "inactive" or "disfellowshipped". It is not known whether Marc Dutroux's first wife, Francoise Dubois, was a Jehovah's Witness.
Marc Dutroux's accomplice, longtime "mistress", mother of his three children, and eventual second wife, Michelle Martin, also practiced as a "Jehovah's Witness" at various times during the 1980s and 1990s. It is not known if Martin was a JW before meeting Marc Dutroux, or whether Marc Dutroux converted her to his own WatchTower religion. Martin's mother, Henriette Puers, reportedly also was a Jehovah's Witness.

***************                  ****************
******************                  ******************

ARGENTINA v. PEDRO MATIAS VARGAS and ARGENTINA v. VITO LUCIANO PANZA were 2020-23 CHILD MOLESTATION prosecutions of a Jehovah's Witness Ministerial Servant, named Pedro Vargas, age 41, and his brother-in-law, Vito Panza, for having separately sexually abused two female cousins -- one from age 8 to 11 years old in 2005-08; and the other when she was between 10 and 11 years old in 2010-11. The two perps and their two victims were all four members of the St. Helena Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Both men were found guilty during a 2021 criminal trial, and VARGAS was sentenced to 12 years in prison. However, because PANZA had been a minor at the time (age 16) that he had assaulted his victim, his conviction was referred to the juvenile court. Sentence is unknown. Both men had been released during their appeals, but VARGAS was finally jailed in October 2023.

The oldest victim disclosed her previous abuse in 2017, when she was 21 years old -- initially on Facebook, and later to her Body of Elders. Her three-years younger cousin then revealed that she too had been abused by the same perps. Only VARGAS was punished publicly. Vargas was disfellowshipped and removed as a Ministerial Servant. Both victims became irritated when PANZA was permitted to remain as a JW in good standing, and VARGAS was eventually reinstated. So, in 2020, the victims reported the crimes to the police.

At the 2021 trial, the prosecution attempted to present testimony from the Circuit Overseer and three Elders who were all involved with the Judicial Committee which had initially investigated the accusations of the two victims. The three ELDERS were: Lucas Matias Pedernera, Aldo Exequiel Cordoba, and Pablo Gabriel Paunero. Jose Oscar Gularte was the Circuit
Overseer. However, all four Jehovah's Witness Ministers REFUSED to provide specific incriminating information disclosed during the JC's inquiry -- claiming protection by Argentina's version of "clergy confidentiality" laws. Instead, the three JW Ministers merely acknowledged that VARGAS had been disfellowshipped around the same time that the two victims had begun accusing him of having sexually abused them, but refused to reveal their reason for disfellowshipping Vargas. One attorney even accused the three JW ELDERS and Circuit Overseer of uncovering additional victims in the St. Helena Congregation, but failing to report such to the police.


PARAGUAY v. CARLOS ALCARAZ is an ongoing 2017-18 criminal prosecution in San Antonio, Paraguay, of Carlos Alcaraz, age 62, whom media described as the "Pastor" of the local San Antonio Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. In 2017, the 10 year-old daughter of a JW Mother whom attended that Kingdom Hall told her JW Mother that Carlos Alcaraz had been sexually fondling her since she was 7 years-old. INTERESTINGLY, the 10 year-old alleged victim learned from instruction at school, rather than instruction at her Kingdom Hall, that being regularly felt-up by her elderly "Uncle" was wrong. However, the victim made the mistake of not also informing school officials. JW Mother reported the matter only to the BOE -- not to police. Carlos Alcaraz reportedly was disfellowshipped, but his crimes were not reported to the police. In late 2017, "someone" finally reported the matter to police. Carlos Alcaraz has been arrested, but has denied the allegations. Outcome pending.


TRINIDAD & TOBAGO v. NEIL BISSESSAR is an ongoing September 2016 criminal prosecution. A Jehovah's Witness Minister and secularly employed taxi driver named Neil Bissessar, age 29, of Longdenville, was arrested and charged with "sexual grooming" of an 11 year-old girl under the Children's Act of 2012. Specifically, on two occasions on September 15, 2016, Neil Bissessar is alleged to have engaged in conversations via telephone and social media with the alleged victim telling her to send him pictures of herself, and asking to come to her home. When Neil Bissessar did go to her home, Neil Bissessar was met by a crowd of neighbors who proceeded to beat him up. Nissessar was denied bail despite the fact that his attorney portrayed Neil Bissessar as a 10 year long Jehovah's Witness minister whom had never previously been criminally charged.

BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS v. OLIVER LEWIS was a 2013-16 Royal Virgin Islands criminal CHILD MOLESTATION prosecution of a 34 year-old African-Guyanese Jehovah's Witness Minister and "IT Specialist" named Oliver Lewis. In early 2013, an unidentified BVI Jehovah's Witness Father discovered that one of his children -- his 13 year-old son -- had been sexually molested on multiple occasions by a fellow Jehovah's Witness whom the family had known for about three years. At some point in the relationship, Oliver Lewis had befriended the JW Family's 13 year-old son, and had began to "groom" the child for the eventual sexual molestation. Initially, Lewis asked that the boy be permitted to assist him with various employment duties that seemed to require two persons. Eventually, Lewis began picking up the child directly from school.
After the boy "confessed" that Lewis and he had been engaging in sexual relations, including oral sex, the JW Father followed WatchTower Cult dictates and personally confronted Oliver Lewis. Lewis "confessed" and asked for "forgiveness". Lewis further requested that JW Father continue to follow WatchTower Cult dictates and handle the matter within the congregation. However, in June 2013, JW Father reported Lewis to the Royal Virgin Islands Police Force, and Lewis was arrested and charged with four counts of indecent assault and four counts of indecency with a child.

Despite Lewis's previous confessions, Lewis pleaded "Not Guilty". After a November 2015 trial, Oliver Lewis was convicted on four counts of gross indecency with a minor. In October 2016, Oliver Lewis was sentenced to only 42 months in prison. Lewis also was ordered to pay $10,000.00 in restitution, but optionally could spend an additional six months in prison to avoid such.
TRINIDAD v. TABEEL LEWIS was a 2003-12 MURDER case. In October 2002, on the Caribbean island of Trinidad, a 62 year-old retired female schoolteacher and Jehovah's Witness Minister, named Dayah Ramsook, started a secret sexual relationship with a 17 year-old boy, named Tabeel Lewis, who also attended the same Siparia Trinidad Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses. That illicit affair ended a year later, in November 2003, when Lewis killed Ramsook.

Living next door to her brother Dipnarine Ramsook, Dayah Ramsook directed Lewis to stealthily come to her home at around 4:00-5:00 AM for their ongoing sexual encounters. By November 2003, Tabeel Lewis decided to end the potentially embarrassing affair with the elderly Ramsook before it was discovered. However, on the morning that Lewis informed Ramsook of his intention to end their affair, Ramsook became extremely upset and threatened to make their affair public if Lewis broke up with her. Lewis was observed driving away from Ramsook's home later that day in Ramsook's car. When Ramsook was not seen for two days, local police were notified, and they found Ramsook's corpse hog-tied, gagged, and wrapped in a piece of cloth inside her house.

At the 2006 trial, although Ramsook had also suffered manual strangulation to her neck and severe blunt force trauma to her head, the forensic pathologist testified that Ramsook died as a result of asphyxiation due to the gagging and hog-tying. After a nine day jury trial, Tabeel Lewis was convicted of "murder", and given the mandatory death penalty. In Lewis's failed 2007 appeal, he did not deny the killing, but asserted that he was merely guilty of "manslaughter" because he had not intended to kill Ramsook or cause her any serious bodily injury. In Lewis's successful 2011 appeal, Lewis argued that the trial judge should have allowed the jury to consider the mitigating factor (under British law) whether Ramsook had "provoked" Lewis into losing his self-control and committing the violent assault by her threat to publicly expose their secret sexual relationship, which would cause Lewis's great distress and embarrassment. Such could dictate a lessor conviction than "murder" and its mandatory death penalty. The case was remanded for reconsideration on this issue. Outcome unknown.
ZAMBIA v. DENNIS BWALE is an ongoing 2012-13 Rape prosecution criminal court case which is illustrative of the internal workings in Kingdom Halls all over the world. Dennis Bwale, age 28, is an Elder at the Kanyama Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses. Bwale is "single", but reportedly was engaged to a fellow JW at the time of the alleged rape. The alleged Victim is the unmarried daughter of JW Parents who are also members of the Kanyama Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.

The Victim alleges that in July 2012 that Bwale telephoned her and said that he needed to talk to her, and asked her to meet him and his nephew at their local Kingdom Hall. Once there, Bwale asked the Victim to go for a walk, where they could talk away from the nephew. When alone, Bwale allegedly initially attempted to seduce the Victim, and when that failed, he forcibly raped her.

TYPICAL of WatchTower-indoctrinated Jehovah's Witnesses all over the world, instead of reporting her rape to local police, the victim reported her alleged rape only to her local JW Elders.

TYPICAL of WatchTower-indoctrinated JW Elders all over the world, the JW Elders not only did NOT report the alleged rape to local police, but even instructed the Victim that she was NOT even to tell her JW Parents, and that if she did, she would be Disfellowshipped.

In September 2012, the pressures of keeping the Rape and the Kingdom Hall Judicial Hearings a secret from her own JW Parents became too much for the Victim, and she ran away from home and went to stay with an older sister, and eventually a friend's grandmother. Failing to convince his daughter to return home, JW Father decided to telephone the Coordinator of the Body of Elders to ask the Body of Elders to help find out why his daughter had ran away, and why she refused to return home.

To JW Father's surprise, the Congregation Overseer told him that the Elders were in fact preparing to telephone him for a meeting to inform him that his daughter had accused one of the local JW Elders of having raped her. The Congregation Overseer also instructed JW Father not to say anything to anyone "as the matter could be sorted out quietly without people knowing". JW Father, still having a few un-indoctrinated brain cells, reported the alleged rape to the police.

JW Father and Mother were thereafter able to reconcile with their JW Daughter, who told them about being threatened with "disfellowshipping" by the local JW Elders. JW Daughter explained that she could not keep her rape a secret from them while continuing to live with and see them constantly.

Unbelievably, even during official court proceedings in December 2012, the Lawyer for the accused JW Elder attacked JW Father for having reported the alleged rape to police, since the local JW Elders were "capable of sorting out such matters".
NIGERIA v. JACOBSON CHIBUZOR was a 2008-09 Nigeria criminal case which involved a 37 year-old SchoolTeacher named Jacobson Chibuzor. Jacobson Chibuzor rented a room from a respected female professional in Lagos, Nigeria, who later claimed to have rented the room to him only because he was also a Jehovah's Witness Minister. In September 2008, neighbors responded to the screams of the teenage housekeeper who was being raped by Chibuzor in his room after the other adults had left for work. The 7 year-old daughter of the landlord later revealed that Chibuzor had also been sexually molesting her. The two girls were discovered to have contracted a STD from Chibuzor. Chibuzor later pled "not guilty" and was released on bail. Chibuzor thereafter fled Lagos, and failed to appear in court.

***************                    ***************


***************                    ***************

<<<------PREVIOUS PAGE----------HOME PAGE----------NEXT PAGE ------>>>