PAGE 1 PAGE 2 PAGE 3 PAGE 4 PAGE 5 PAGE 6 PAGE 8
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.
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.
"[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."
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. 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.
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 WITNESSES AND THE D'HAENES
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.
WHY VICTIMS DON'T TELL
... 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.
"FATHER'S TOUCH" Excerpt:
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.
"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.