Jury: Jehovah's Witnesses must pay $34M to abuse survivor

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press


Matt Volz, Associated Press
Updated 12:36 pm CDT, Thursday, September 27, 2018

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana jury has ruled that the Jehovah's Witnesses organization must pay $34 million to a woman who says the church covered up her sexual abuse as a child at the hands of a congregation member.

Neil Smith, an attorney representing the 21-year-old woman, says the jury's verdict in the lawsuit Wednesday sends a message to the New York headquarters of the Jehovah's Witnesses to stop prioritizing church secrecy over children's safety.

Jehovah's Witnesses officials did not immediately respond to a call and email for comment. The monetary award must be reviewed by the trial judge.

The jury dismissed claims by a second woman who alleged abuse by the same man in Thompson Falls in the 1990s.

Read more: https://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/2nd-West-Virginia-Supreme-Court-justice-faces-13119627.phphttps://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Jury-Jehovah-s-Witnesses-must-pay-34M-to-abuse-13263088.php

[sandensea]

1. And guess who ran interference for the Jehovah's Witnesses in an earlier, similar case:

None other than Rachel Mitchell, sex crimes prosecutor extraordinaire.

[Judi Lynn]

6. Whoa! Small world. Thank you, sandensea. n/t

[sandensea]

8. Sure, Judi.

Don't get me wrong: I have nothing against Jehovah's Witnesses.

Growing up at home, we once had three JW ladies come by with their usual "sharing the good news" - and we ended up becoming friends. They'd come over once a week or so just for coffee and homemade cookies, knowing we weren't really interested but enjoying our company just the same (it was certainyl mutual).

That said, in 2011 she prosecuted a very serious case of child rape - and opted to prosecute it as atwo relatively minor crimes, rather than six felony rape charges, despite the preponderance of evidence. The family and community involved were outraged, as you can imagine.

I'm amazed the GOPee let her through just the same just from a PR perspective, and that Democrats didn't make more of an issue over this very serious blemish in her career (and character).

[Dr Rise]

2. Wow

[SWBTATTReg]

3. Good luck in getting the money. I know that we're not at that stage, but I have ...

dealt w/ the witnesses on a personal basis, and I'd get the money and run. Don't trust them, never will.

Maybe this is also one small step in those religious institutions to monitor their selection of pastors, and pay a little more attention to their congregations a little more somehow, in order to prevent this kind of abuse. Sad for the abused victim, being that a church is supposed to be a place of refuge/shelter.

[erronis]

4. Oh, I thought that a church was a place where powerful people took control and got their way.

Maybe somewhere in some document there are nice statements about taking care of the flock, but if any of the major organized religions (western only?) are an example, the first order of business is taking care of the church and their leaders/profits (or prophets.)

[SWBTATTReg]

5. Sadly, it seems this way. Take care. NT

[Racerdog1]

7. I love it when these morons show up at my door

Gives me great satisfaction to tell them exactly how I feel about their bullshit in person.

[Andy823]

9. Just as bad as the Catholic Church

The JW organization is not as big as the catholics, but they are just as bad when it comes to covering up child abuse. The boys in New York have total control, and the main objective is to protect the "good name" of the organization. They do that by covering up child abuse when it is reported to their local "elders".