In my case against my abuser the elders refused to cooperate with the police after my abuser had disclosed that he had made a confession to the elders.

This is common practice for JWs to not cooperate. The following illustrates this.

Each congregation is run as a seperate charity, it’s actually clever business. The trustees of each of these charities are the elders. As a charity they have to adhere to the Charity Commission’s structure.

From 2014 until earlier this year the Charity Commission were looking into a case with one of the congregations.

You can read about it here

Their conclusions were very interesting:

The Commission has concluded that the charity’s trustees did not deal adequately with allegations of child sexual abuse in 2012 and 2013 against one of the trustees. This is because they did not:

  1. Identify one allegation as potential child sexual abuse, believing it to be merely ‘a matter between 2 teenagers’.
  2. Properly take account of an earlier allegation of child sexual abuse when considering new allegations made in 2012.
  3. Fully enforce the restrictions the trustees decided to place on Mr Rose’s activities in February and July 2012.
  4. Consider and deal with potential conflicts of loyalty within the trustee body.
  5. Keep an adequate written record of the decision making process used to manage the potential risks posed by Mr Rose to the beneficiaries of the charity.

The Commission has also concluded that the charity’s trustees did not deal adequately with a misconduct appeal hearing against Mr Rose in 2014 following his release from prison. This is because victims were effectively required to attend the misconduct appeal hearing and repeat their allegations in the presence of the abuser, and the abuser was permitted to question the alleged victims. Although the trustees did not themselves conduct the hearing, they remain responsible for ensuring that the charity’s procedures do not expose its beneficiaries or others to significant risks of harm, and they failed to do this.

It is the inquiry’s view that the charity’s trustees did not cooperate openly and transparently with the Commission. In particular, they did not provide accurate and complete answers to the Commission regarding the earlier allegation of child sexual abuse and the conduct of the misconduct hearing against the former trustee. The inquiry was concerned that the charity trustees did not report a serious incident to the Commission.

The above matters constitute misconduct or mismanagement in the administration of the charity.

The Charity Commission are continuing their investigation into the Watch Tower as a whole in the UK, I wonder if the JWs are still with holding information and being liberal with the truth? Ironic as self proclaimers of truth.

Going back to my case, the police told me that ‘no comment’ was the usual response they are met with when investigating such cases and I should have nothing to do with JWs. They said it would have been great to have them as witnesses but not needed as my testimony was enough to prosecute. It would not surprise me if my abuser returns to the JWs once released from prison, he is still one of them after all.