Published February 28th, 2017

Trial Summary – Part Two

On a blistering summer morning in Reading Pennsylvania.  I crossed the railroad tracks, then Penn Street – coffee, briefcase, and boxed lunch in hand.

Just a few steps away from the Sovereign Convention Center, something caught my eye. On the corner of Penn and 7th avenue, a solitary man stood quietly with a large poster that read: “A Jehovah’s Witness elder molested me.” 

It was 8.30 a.m. Thousands of badge-wearing, convention-bound Jehovah’s Witnesses streamed into the main entrance, sliding past this man as though he were invisible.

His sign quietly proclaimed that he had suffered the ultimate injustice, but no one stopped. No one seemed to care; their minds were intently focused on entering the air-conditioned building, escaping the heat which was building outside.

I don’t remember what I wore that day. I don’t remember which restaurant I went to that evening. I don’t recall which hotel I stayed in. But I remember the man with the sign.

His presence haunted me. Why was he there? Why would no one speak to him? What had he done wrong? Why was he treated as a man with leprosy?

Meanwhile, just a short distance away, a young girl named Stephanie Fessler was being abused by a Jehovah’s Witness woman more than three times her age. When the relationship was discovered, congregation elders in two states were informed. These elders contacted their legal department in Patterson New York. The elders privately, then publicly reprimanded both Stephanie, and her assailant, Terry Monheim. The police were never notified.  Child protective services was never informed. The parents of Fessler were caught between the rock of their religion and doing the right thing. Stephanie’s father, Kevin Fessler, was an elder.  Unfortunately, no one did the right thing.

Seven years later, Stephanie Fessler, at the age of 22, summoned the courage to tell her story to the police. As a result, Monheim was arrested, pleaded guilty to multiple charges, and was sentenced to prison and probation. Monheim was placed on Megan’s list.

Unfortunately, the damage was done. The mental anguish, the destruction of a childhood, the lack of protection from her own parents and congregation elders left Stephanie Fessler traumatized and permanently injured. Unless you are a victim of childhood sexual abuse, you may never fully understand what she has been through.

Stephanie did not want to see this happen to anyone else. The elders for Jehovah’s Witnesses along with their managing corporations, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, and the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, were served notice in a civil trial which began February 7th, 2017.

On February 13th, the Witness corporations, together with the Spring Grove Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, reached a financial agreement with Fessler after just four days of testimony.

Using Watchtower’s own language, Fessler’s attorney Jeffrey Fritz stated “The matter with the Jehovah’s Witnesses has been resolved.”

Trial Day 2: Enter, Eric Hoffman

It is difficult to fathom which is worse – an elder molesting a young child, or an entire group of elders learning of an accusation, but ignoring their responsibility to inform the authorities and get help for a victim.  As I sat on the rickety wooden chair at City Hall in Philadelphia, that question entered my mind. My pondering was interrupted at 1:15 PM, when Spring Grove PA elder Eric Hoffman entered the room, and was sworn in by the court officer.

Attorney for Ms. Fessler, Gregg Zeff, wasted no time in questioning Mr. Hoffman, beginning with his position as a Jehovah’s Witness elder.  Hoffman has been an elder since 1994.

Zeff: An elder is a member of the clergy?

Hoffman: We are not labeled clergy. We are not paid.

Despite the denial that elders are clergymen, Zeff continues his questioning:

Zeff: Sir, would you agree that clergy must report sexual abuse of children to protect the victim from additional harm?

Hoffman: Yes.

Zeff: Would you agree that clergy may never keep sexual assault of a child a secret to protect the congregation?

Hoffman: Yes

Zeff: You don’t have any training in interviewing children who are victims of sexual abuse, do you?

Hoffman: No.

As our readers may recall from a prior article on this case, Watchtower representative Thomas Jefferson had testified for 2 consecutive days that Jehovah’s Witness elders are not clergymen, with the implication that the laws which apply to members of the clergy do not apply to Witness elders. Mr. Hoffman upheld that statement. Zeff began a new line of questions related to elders’ strict requirement to follow the direction of their corporate headquarters, or face consequences:

Zeff: You received the letters from the Watchtower, don’t you?

Hoffman: That’s on their letterhead, correct.

Zeff: And you rely on those letters of instruction from the Watchtower to perform your
duties as an elder, don’t you?

Hoffman: We do.

Zeff: Okay. If you don’t follow the letters of instruction the Watchtower may remove you as an elder; isn’t that true?

Hoffman: They could, yes.

Zeff: And the Watchtower directs the activity of elders, doesn’t it?

Hoffman: We receive direction from them, correct.

Zeff: You don’t receive direction from anyone else, do you?

Hoffman: No.

Establishing that elder Hoffman took his marching orders directly from Watchtower headquarters, Zeff then asked a critical question which revealed that Hoffman was well aware of the allegation of child abuse:

Zeff: In the fall of 2005, you knew that there was suspected child abuse involving Stephanie Fessler, didn’t you?

Hoffman: In the fall of 2005?

Zeff: Yes

Hoffman: Yes.

Zeff: Okay. And you, along with Neal Cluck, who was another elder, learned of this and a committee was formed, wasn’t it?

Hoffman: I believe, yes, it was.

Zeff: Okay. And you don’t really remember anything specific that Stephanie’s father or mother told you, do you?

Hoffman: That’s correct.

Zeff: Okay. During the first meeting — you had two meetings, didn’t you?

Hoffman: Yes.

Zeff: Okay. So, you don’t really remember when the first meeting was?

Hoffman: According to my notes, the first meeting was towards the end of September in 2005.

Zeff: Okay. Well, what note are you talking about, Sir?

Hoffman: We had a few notes written down.

Zeff: Let’s look at those notes.

At this point, attorney Zeff called for the notes of Eric Hoffman to be projected on screen for the jury. As stated by the defense in opening arguments, Watchtower had hoped their elders would testify that they had no real knowledge of any physical or sexual relationship between Fessler and Seipp [Monheim] in 2004, and did not learn of the relationship until 2005.

Zeff: And are you aware that Stephanie Fessler and Terry Seipp are anticipated to both testify that they were reproved and disciplined in 2004?

Hoffman: No, I did not.

Zeff: Okay. So, when you say you have two meetings, are you sure that your first meeting took place in 2004 — 2005 rather than 2004?

Hoffman: Correct.

Zeff presses Hoffman harder:

Zeff: Are you aware that Jodee Fessler has testified or will testify in this case that the
first meeting occurred in 2004?

Hoffman: May have, but I have no notes and I have no recollection of any meeting in 2004.

Hoffman begins to weaken, his memory suddenly becomes fuzzy:

Zeff: So, it’s possible that happened, she might be right?

Hoffman: Could be, but I do not remember anything about it.

Zeff: Okay. And the second meeting, the meeting that took place in 2005, you have notes from that one?

Hoffman: Correct.

Zeff: So, if Stephanie Fessler, Jodee Fessler and Terry Seipp all testified that they were
involved with judicial committees in 2004, you wouldn’t have any reason to doubt them, would you?

Hoffman: Yes, because there’s no notes from a judicial committee in 2004.

Zeff: Well, aren’t you told to destroy any unnecessary notes?

Hoffman: The only notes I have are what’s there.

Hoffman, clearly rattled by the barrage of questions, is unable to recall Watchtower’s policy related to what they can and can’t destroy – so Zeff focuses on the one thing that becomes crystal clear to the jury – Hoffman knew that Stephanie was being abused:

Zeff: So, in 2005, at least, you were told that a 16-year-old girl was making out with a 50-year-old woman?

Hoffman: Correct

Zeff: Okay. You were suspicious, at that point, that this might be child abuse, weren’t you?

Hoffman: We were suspicious that something was going on that shouldn’t be.

While Hoffman attempted to evade the admission that this was a sexual relationship, Zeff put it to him in a slightly different way:

Zeff: It was explained that they were kissing romantically?

Hoffman: Right.

Zeff: Like a boyfriend and girlfriend might, right?

Hoffman: Um-hum.

Zeff: Like a husband and wife might?

Hoffman: Right.

Zeff: And you didn’t find that to be suspicious of child abuse?

Hoffman: Well, that’s why we formed the committee then.

Zeff: Okay. So, you formed the committee because you were suspicious?

Hoffman: Because we were suspicious.

The testimony of Hoffman flowed like a math problem where so many different equations all pointed to the same undisputed answer. But there were more parties involved, and attorney Zeff brought them into the equation:

Zeff: When you formed the committee, did you contact the Watchtower about it?

Hoffman: We contacted the legal department.

Zeff: Okay. Well, that’s after you learned whatever you learned. But in forming the committee, did you seek any guidance from anyone regarding what you should do and how you should ask questions?

Hoffman: No.

Attorney Zeff next questions inconsistencies in Hoffman’s previous testimony when he was deposed prior to trial, but when Hoffman fails to provide a concise recollection of his deposition, Zeff finally tells the court: “I’ll move on, Your Honor.” Instead of quietly accepting this statement, the attorney for Spring Grove Congregation, Jud Arron makes the mistake of joking with the court:

Aaron: No objection.

Judge Mary C. Collins: No. Enough!  I don’t want any snide, unnecessary irrelevant comments from any lawyers participating in this trial.

Jud Aaron, embarrassed and red-faced, apologizes to the judge and the court.

Zeff gets Hoffman to admit that he had consulted the elders’ letters and the elders’ manual when handling the Fessler case, then says:

Zeff: In addition to the kissing and making out, Stephanie Fessler told you that there was some improper hugging, didn’t she?

Hoffman: Yes:

Zeff: And touching of the breasts?

Hoffman: Yes.

Zeff follows these questions by asking Hoffman to read his notes from the 2005 Spring Grove judicial meeting, where among other details, Hoffman wrote:

“It was later learned during the meeting that there was touching of the breasts on more than one occasion..”

Zeff: Did you have a concern that there was a 50-year-old woman in another congregation that was making out and touching the breasts of a 16-year-old?

Hoffman: We did.

Zeff: Okay. Did you warn anybody about that?

Hoffman: Just talked to Stephanie.

Zeff: Okay. You didn’t tell the other congregation that Stephanie said that her breasts were touched and that she was making out with a 50-year-old woman?

Hoffman: I believe we had conversation with them just to make sure the stories were the same.

Zeff: Did you let the Watchtower know?

Hoffman: Yes. We called the legal department.

Tensions escalated as testimony from Hoffman had just clearly shown that elders in two congregations were aware of the abuse, that the relationship was undisputed, and that Watchtower was a party to this knowledge. It was further revealed that while all of this was going on, Terry Seipp [Monheim’s] husband Dana had hired a private investigator to follow Terry, suspecting what his wife was doing.

Suddenly, in a desperate move, Watchtower attorney John Miller cuts in and calls for a sidebar with the judge:

Miller:  I’m sorry, Your Honor. You already ruled. I was too late to ask, but
unless this is breaching the attorney/client privilege, that’s the format you followed, the
instruction you got from the legal department. That’s asking for the legal advice given.

Zeff: Judge, it’s been waived. It was asked in deposition and answered. These
questions were asked. They were answered in deposition. You can’t turn around after not asserting the privilege and turn around and assert the privilege at trial, when it’s already been waived. There is plenty case law on that.

Miller: We didn’t raise it there?

Zeff: Nope. It wasn’t raised at all. I can show you the pages, 19, 20, 21, 23 of the
deposition.

Miller: I’ll trust you if you’re —

Zeff: Here they are — where are the numbers on the pages?

Miller: So, we missed it on him great. Well, then, I’m wasting your time.

Judge Collins: All right. Let’s go back.

Fessler’s attorney Zeff left no stone unturned, as he pressed Hoffman even harder:

Zeff: The reason you contacted the legal department was regarding trying to find out what your obligations were regarding reporting sexual abuse. Isn’t that correct?

Hoffman: Yes.

Zeff: And after you spoke to the legal department, you didn’t report sexual abuse to any
authority in Pennsylvania, did you?

Hoffman: We did not report to the police, no.

Zeff: You never received any instruction that there was any legal authority in Pennsylvania to report suspected child abuse, did you?

Hoffman: No.

Zeff: And you didn’t tell Stephanie Fessler’s parents that they could go to the police either, did you?

Hoffman: We may not have, no.

Zeff: Okay. You didn’t.  Thank you. I have nothing further.

Zeff, satisfied that he had extracted enough truth from Hoffman to make his case, yielded the floor to Spring Grove’s hired trial attorney Jud Aaron. Aaron proceeds to discuss Hoffman’s prior deposition in which Thomas Jefferson was mentioned – with little effect – then asks Hoffman about his position as elder, and gets Hoffman to describe the humble simplicity of a typical Kingdom Hall.

In Aaron’s examination of Hoffman, it was interesting that he mentioned that Stephanie’s parents came to him in 2005 seeking help in his position as an ordained elder of Jehovah’s Witnesses. At this point in the trial, this is of consequence since Hoffman and Watchtower were still claiming on the 2nd day of trial that elders were not members of the clergy. It seems he was reasoning that if Hoffman were not a clergyman, then he would have no obligation to report the relationship to the police.

Aaron: Were they [the Fesslers] coming to you as an elder?

Hoffman: Yes.

Aaron: Okay. Did they tell you that Stephanie Fessler and Terry Seipp were having some sort of a relationship?

Hoffman: That’s the way I remember it, some sort of a relationship, correct.

Aaron: And what were you expected to do? What did you do as an elder?

Hoffman: First time we met with Stephanie just to determine what was going on, to give her some biblical help, some counsel to, hopefully, help her change her ways, to find out what was going on.

Aaron: What do you mean “biblical help,” generally?

Hoffman: I’m just showing her some scriptures, some verses on the type of conduct she was leading, that it was going against biblical principles and how to help to — how to go against that.

Jud Aaron next gets Hoffman to testify that in 2005, the Fesslers never told him that there was a sexual relationship between Stephanie and Terry. This was clearly a conflict given that it would be somewhat unusual for Witness parents to seek help from elders if the relationship was a routine mother-daughter type relationship. Aaron attempts to prove that Hoffman knew nothing until he personally confronted Stephanie in 2005.

Aaron: You said that you met with Stephanie in the fall of 2005?

Hoffman: Yes.

Aaron: Okay. Did you try to determine what the nature of the relationship was?

Hoffman: Yes, we did.

Aaron: Did you try to determine whether or not it was sexual?

Hoffman: Yes, we did.

Aaron: And in the course of meeting with Miss Fessler in the fall of 2005, did you learn that there had been some sexual contact between them?

Hoffman: Yes, we did.

Of interest, Aaron questions Hoffman on whether he had asked the victim if she had been naked with Monheim, or had participated in oral sex. Incredibly, Hoffman states that he had no information from Fessler that there had been any touching of the genitals, or that the two had been naked together, despite having just testified that he knew there was an ongoing sexual relationship.

Aaron returns once again to his 2014 argument, this time asking a hypothetical question:

Aaron: If, a year earlier, 2004 — I’m asking about your practice now — a year earlier in 2004, a 15-year-old female congregant had told you that she and a 49 or 50-year-old woman were involved in a relationship that involved intimate kissing, open-mouth kissing, french kissing, romantic kissing, whatever you want to call it, would you
have called the legal department for advice?

Hoffman: Yes, we would have.

Aaron: Okay. Do you have any recollection of doing so a year earlier, in the fall of 2004?

Hoffman: No.

Aaron: Well, let me ask you about yourself. Did you ever tell Mr. and Mrs. Fessler that they should not report this relationship to authorities?

Hoffman: No.

Aaron decides to conclude his questioning of the witness, and yields the floor. John Miller from Watchtower has no questions for Mr. Hoffman, and redirect returns to the plaintiff, and Mr. Zeff.

Zeff: Did you have a specific memory, sitting here today — what is it, ten, eleven,
eleven-and-a-half years later of asking Stephanie Fessler whether or not she had oral sex?

Hoffman: Well, according to my notes, we asked her if there was anything else involved and she said no.

Zeff: Okay. So, you asked her if there was anything else involved?

Hoffman: Right.

Zeff: You didn’t ask her if she had oral sex. You didn’t ask her if she was naked?

Hoffman: We may not have, no.

Zeff: And do you consider making out and touching breasts to be a sexual act?

Hoffman: Yes.

Zeff: And when you went to the legal department, you really weren’t sure what to do with this situation, were you?

Hoffman: That’s correct.

Zeff: And you relied on the legal department?

Hoffman: Yes, we did.

Zeff: And the legal department is part of the Watchtower?

Hoffman: Yes.

Zeff: Okay. If the legal department told you to report the matter, would you have done so?

Hoffman:  Yes, we would have.

Zeff completes his examination by asking Hoffman to explain Stephanie Fessler’s public reproof by the congregation elders, then turns the witness over one last time to the defense. This time, Watchtower attorney Miller decides to ask Mr. Hoffman a question:

Miller: Mr. Hoffman, just briefly. You said that the legal department was part of the Watchtower. Do you know whether it was part of the Watchtower or the U.S. Branch or some other entity? Do you know?

Hoffman: We just get the information on the letterhead. I am not sure what department it’s with, what branch it’s with. It’s with the United States Branch.

Miller: Okay. That’s all. Thank you.

By the end of Hoffman’s testimony, he had admitted on the witness stand that a member of the clergy should report allegations of child sexual abuse, but he denied being a member of the clergy. He further admitted that his instructions came directly from the Watchtower, but seemed confused as to the difference between Watchtower and the US Branch. Hoffman acknowledged that he was well aware of a sexual relationship between Fessler and Monheim no later than 2005, but lost all recollection of the 2004 meeting with Fessler, in which she was privately reproved. Finally, Hoffman admitted that he failed to contact any authorities, and did not advise Fessler’s parents to contact these authorities. He yielded his decision-making power to the Watchtower legal department, testifying that if they had told him to go to the police, he would have. This never happened.

Elder #2: Donald Hollingworth

On the other side of the Mason-Dixon line lies the Freeland, Maryland congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  This small, tight-knit congregation in rural Baltimore County has little money, and a simple Kingdom Hall. I recall donating and installing sound equipment at this location after congregation member Terry Monheim had abused Stephanie Fessler, but three years before her arrest. I was unaware that a predator lurked nearby.

Little did I know that in a few short years, I would sit inside a Philadelphia courtroom, observing legal powerhouse Jud Aaron attempt to defend the outrageous actions of elders Gary Neal, Scott Wagner, and Donald Hollingworth. In a thousand years, they could not summon the money to pay for his services, but there he was.

Donald Hollingworth is now elderly, wears a hearing aid, and lives in Toms River, New Jersey. A loyal Jehovah’s Witness for over 50 years, Hollingworth has been an elder for 40 of those years. But for all his loyalty to the Jehovah’s Witness religion, Donald and his fellow elders made a critical error in 2004 and 2005 which cost their parent corporation, Watchtower, a significant amount of money. It also damaged the reputation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are under intense global scrutiny for their mishandling of child abuse cases, and for their practice of shunning, and denying members the right to certain life-saving medical treatments.

Attorney for Stephanie Fessler, Gregg Zeff, began the questioning of Hollingworth with the same query he put to Eric Hoffman:

Zeff: I’d like to know would you agree that clergy must report sexual abuse in children to protect the victim from additional harm?

Hollingworth: Do I agree with that?

Zeff: Yes.

Hollingworth: Yes.

Zeff: And do you agree that clergy may never keep sexual abuse of a child the secret to protect the congregation?

Hollingworth: Oh, yes, yes.

Zeff: Thank you.

After confirming that Hollingworth has no professional training in the investigation of sexual abuse matters, Zeff gets specific:

Zeff: Okay. Did you have any understanding in 2004 or 2005 of your obligations regarding reporting suspected child abuse in Pennsylvania or in Maryland?

Hollingworth: Yes.

Zeff: What was your understanding back then?

Hollingworth: For — that there was no duty to report it as far as from a procedural standpoint.  That doesn’t mean I don’t feel a duty, but there was no legal duty to report it.

Zeff: Sir, you received that understanding from the legal department?

Hollingworth: That’s correct.

Zeff: Okay, and the legal department of what?

Hollingworth: Jehovah’s Witnesses.

At this point, it is noteworthy that Hollingworth had testified that members of clergy must report sexual abuse allegations to the authorities and not keep them secret, but moments later stated that according to Watchtower’s legal department, he had no legal duty to report, despite his own feeling of duty to report. Hollingworth hid beneath the double cloak of justification – the notion that he was not a member of clergy, and the counsel from his own organization that he had no obligation to report.

It seems unthinkable that any Witness elder could make the statement that church leaders from other religions have an obligation to report, but Jehovah’s Witnesses are somehow exempt. Witnesses teach that all religions are “false” religions, except theirs. It must have baffled members of the jury to reconcile how an organization that claims to abhor child abuse could be so delinquent in helping victims.

Zeff continued his questioning of Hollingworth, describing the letters from Watchtower to the elders. Hollingworth seemed confused when Zeff stated that prior to 2001, these letters came from the Watchtower corporation. Hollingworth said “I’m not sure of that…Right now I wasn’t prepared for that question, sir.”

When pressed about the relationship between Monheim and Fessler, Zeff asked:

Zeff: You never found out the age of the girl she was kissing, did you?

Hollingworth: I knew she was a teenager, and the approximate age of this other lady’s children, because she associated with them. I knew she wasn’t 19. I knew she wasn’t 13, but somewhere in between.

Zeff: And when you learned of this, a committee was formed, wasn’t it, a judicial committee?

Hollingworth: Yes.

Zeff: Okay. You were the chairman of that committee?

Hollingworth: It wasn’t me. It was either one of the other two brothers. I can’t tell you for a certainty today.

Zeff: Okay.

Hollingworth: I believe it was Gary Neal, but that’s not for a certainty.

Zeff: And one of the primary functions of your committee was to determine whether or not you had an obligation to legal authorities relating to this matter.

Hollingworth: An obligation to do what?

Zeff: To report to legal authorities in this matter.

Hollingworth: I don’t know if I had that — I don’t know if that — I went in to find out what was going on, and so I didn’t start thinking about a lot of other things I’d have to do until I could find out what was going on.

Zeff: But you did consult with the legal department?

Hollingworth: Yes, I did.

Zeff: And you were told you didn’t have any duty under Maryland law, correct?

Hollingworth: I didn’t have any duty to report; is that what you asked me?

Zeff: Yes. You had no duty to report?

Hollingworth: No legal duty.

Zeff: Right.

Hollingworth: There was no law that said I had to report.

Zeff: And, in fact, you didn’t report anything, did you?

Hollingworth: No, I didn’t.

Zeff: And neither did any member of your committee, to your knowledge?

Hollingworth: To my knowledge.

Hollingworth Admits to Shredding Notes

The examination by Zeff then took an interesting turn. Zeff calls for the presentation of Hollingworth’s notes, taken in 2005 when meeting with the abuser, Terry Seipp:

Zeff: Why did you take these notes?

Hollingworth: Because I don’t have a very good memory over the years, business and meetings that I go to, and so I take notes in case there’s a reason to recall, in case there’s a discussion later, in case there’s another meeting. I always take notes. It’s my habit as a businessman, I always took notes.

Zeff: And with regard to being an elder, you had a practice of making notes and tearing them up and shredding them on occasion, didn’t you?

Hollingworth: Yeah, shredding is in a — yeah, I had a shredder, but I don’t know. I — yeah, I didn’t keep them. I didn’t keep them. I didn’t want them laying around or anything.

Zeff: That was something that the letters to elders suggest that you do or instructed you to do, in fact, don’t leave notes around, destroy them if they’re not necessary?

Hollingworth: Well, that’s possible. I always, even be — I, if a confidential nature, I would have enough sense not to leave them laying around.

Hollingworth revealed a critical detail that the Watchtower organization does not want the public to know – that elders often discard, shred, move, hide, and destroy notes, not only in cases where lesser offenses are concerned, but even when accusations of child abuse are on the record, contrary to their official policy.

Hollingworth Invokes Clergy Privilege – He Learned it on Television

Attorney Zeff continued to gain momentum as he called attention to his next exhibit: the notes taken by Donald Hollingworth during the Jehovah’s Witness judicial hearing for Terry Monheim. Zeff displayed the notes for the jury:

Hollingworth:  (reading his notes)  It says: “After assurance the committee members would not testify in a legal case, she was relieved and more forthcoming.”

Zeff: So, did you tell Terry Seipp that no member of the committee was going to testify against her?

Hollingworth: Well, I think you know — you’re thinking of something different than I’m thinking of. The legal case we’re talking about and she was worried about her husband divorcing her or thinking she would — and we were telling her that anything that she told us, we wouldn’t use in her divorce case against her husband, or vice versa. And we had thought we had a right to do that.

Zeff: Did you learn that from the legal department?

Hollingworth: Pardon?

Zeff: Did you learn that from the legal department?

Hollingworth: No. I learned that from watching television, I guess…

Zeff: You learned from watching television that if she tells you something in your committee that you don’t have to testify in a divorce proceeding?

Hollingworth: Well, not as member of the clergy, I would think it would become — well, you know, maybe I’m wrong but I would think it would be confidential.

At this point, Hollingworth is trapped-  painting himself into a very tiny corner with no way out, without making a mess. In 2005, he interviewed a sexual predator, but instead of contacting the authorities, he assured Terry Monheim that her admissions to the elders would not be used against her in any divorce proceedings. Somehow he invoked clergy privilege while denying that he is a member of clergy. Furthermore, he is completely unaware that clergy privilege does not exist when a sizable group of elders and additional individuals have been made aware of Monheim’s crimes.

To be blunt, Hollingworth appeared extraordinarily ignorant. What is more bizarre is that he claims Watchtower’s legal department advised him that he had no duty to report such allegations, or confessions of sexual abuse. Maryland law at the time mandated the reporting of child abuse, but the exemptions for members of clergy were somewhat vague, which likely prompted Watchtower’s legal department to suggest that he had no obligation to report the abuse.  In most states, child abuse exemptions become null and void once clergymen broadcast the private confessions to other members of the elder body, along with the additional individuals, i.e. the legal and service departments of the Jehovah’s Witness organization.

The questioning continued as attorney Zeff called attention to Hollingworth’s notes from his phone call to Watchtower’s legal department

Zeff: What are they about?

Hollingworth: That was my notes about when I had — I called, contacted the legal department to discuss the matter with them and I wrote down some notes with regard to that call.

Zeff: Okay. Did you ever contact or did anybody on your committee ever contact the Spring Grove congregation where Stephanie Fessler was a member?

Hollingworth: No.

Zeff:  Did anybody on your committee contact them to let —

Hollingworth: Yes

Zeff: Okay. And they let them know there was an investigation into a possible sexual abuse?

Hollingworth: You’d have to ask them what they let them know.

Zeff: Okay. I want to go to the section toward the bottom where it says “want us to review society’s letters with all seven elders.” Do you see that?

Hollingworth: Yes, I do.

Zeff: What do you mean by that?

Hollingworth: What it says, review the letters –with the whole body of elders, all of
the elders in the congregation.

Zeff: It says “with all seven elders,” is that everybody?

Hollingworth: What does it say?

Zeff: It says “Want us to review society’s letters with all seven elders.”

Hollingworth: Yes, that would be our elder body at the time.

Zeff: Okay. And that has to do with your investigation into Terry Seipp?

Hollingworth: Well, it’s in — my telephone call was an investigation that had to deal with that, yes. And what exactly they told me to read those letters for, I don’t remember.

Zeff: Who told you to read those letters?

Hollingworth: Whoever I was talking to at the legal department. And I am assuming that because, that’s the notes of that. I don’t know for a fact today who told me to do it, but I’m assuming that’s what it would be. And I shouldn’t be making assumptions, should I?

Zeff states that he has copies of those letters, and tells Hollingworth that he will now review them, beginning with the July 1, 1989 letter to the body of elders.  Hollingworth admits that he likely would have reviewed this letter at that time, acknowledging that it was a very important document to review.

Another revelation came when Zeff references the January 1, 1997 Watchtower article titled “Let us abhor what is wicked.”  Under the topic “What of a Child Molester?” the Watchtower stated:

 If, for example, an individual makes immoral advances to another adult, the adult should be able to resist his or her advances. Children are much easier to deceive, confuse, or terrorize. The Bible speaks of a child’s lack of wisdom. (Proverbs 22:15; 1 Corinthians 13:11) Jesus used children as an example of humble innocence. (Matthew 18:4; Luke 18:16, 17) The innocence of a child includes a complete lack of experience. Most children are open, eager to please, and thus vulnerable to abuse by a scheming adult whom they know and trust. Therefore, the congregation has a responsibility before Jehovah to protect its children.

Zeff questions Hollingworth:

Zeff: Okay. Do you remember reviewing this? And I’ll read it to you so you
understand it. Do you remember reviewing this at the time of the judicial committee? It says “Children are much easier to deceive, confuse or terrorize.”

Hollingworth: I don’t remember at the time of the committee but, sir, I mentioned before, I had a lot of children and I’m very conscious of this need.

Zeff: Okay. And had the legal department told you to, you would have called the police, called child services?

Hollingworth: I don’t need to be told.

Zeff: Okay.

Hollingworth: I — I don’t mean to be fresh or anything but, no, I told you, I — abhor is a word that’s worse than hatred and I don’t like this thing and I don’t like being involved in it even now, to come being asked about it.

Zeff: Right. You don’t really need to be told to call the police, do you? You could have done it anyway?

Hollingworth:  Would I what?

Zeff: You could have called the police even if the legal department told you not to?

Hollingworth: Yes. In hindsight, yes.

Zeff: But you didn’t?

Hollingworth: Pardon?

Zeff: You did not?

Hollingworth: It’s already been answered.

Zeff: Okay. You didn’t talk to Stephanie Fessler’s congregation about her version of the
story, did you?

Hollingworth: I said no, I didn’t talk to anybody.

Zeff questioned whether the Maryland congregation had any meaningful discussions with the Spring Grove Pennsylvania congregation regarding the welfare of Stephanie Fessler:

Zeff: One more time, Sir. You had concerns about the welfare of the teenaged girl that was involved with Terry Seipp? You were concerned about her?

Hollingworth: Yeah, I have concerns with all young people, absolute — yes. Would I say no? Of course, I would be an ogre to say no to that.

Zeff: And but you wanted to follow the legal department’s advise rather than doing anything else; isn’t that correct?

Hollingworth: You know, I wasn’t dealing with a teenage girl. We were dealing with Terry Seipp at our congregation. Please, there was — another congregation was dealing with the teenage girl. It doesn’t mean — my feelings in the matter and my thoughts in the matter don’t apply to what would have been — how it would have been handled. So, you’re confusing me and you’re confusing the issue.

It seems that the invisible boundary between Maryland and Pennsylvania, along with Hollingworth’s instructions from the Watchtower legal department overruled his better judgment, permitting him to ignore the fact that a crime had taken place, and that he was obligated to report this crime. Hollingworth admitted that he was also aware that Terry Seipp [Monheim’s] husband Dana had learned of the relationship, and hired a private investigator to confirm his suspicions.  Mr. Seipp wasted no time in sharing this information with the Freeland elders:

Zeff:  You had a suspicion that she might be abusing a child?

Hollingworth: I wanted to know the facts.

Zeff: Okay. Well —

Hollingworth: Her husband wouldn’t say, and he was not a member of our congregation. I only knew him once to say hello to him. He comes up and says “I’ve got pictures, but I won’t tell you what they’re about, but you’d better do something about it,” that kind of — what are we supposed to do? 

Zeff: Call the police?

 

Despite a sustained objection from defense attorney Jud Aaron, Zeff had landed a knockout punch with this last question, which lingered in the courtroom while Mr. Aaron made his way to the lectern to cross-examine Mr. Hollingworth.

In what seemed to be a desperate move, Aaron rested his argument of the claim that elders are, in double-negative fashion, not told not to report:

Aaron: Are you aware of any Jehovah’s Witness policy not to report child sexual abuse to authorities? Are you aware of any such policy?

Hollingworth: No.

Aaron: In any of the letters to elders that you read or KS schools that you’ve attended — have you attended those schools?

Hollingworth: Yes, Sir.

Aaron: In any of those letters in those KS schools, have you ever been instructed or directed not to report sexual abuse to authorities?

Hollingworth: No way. No way.

Aaron: What have you been instructed to do if a report of sexual abuse comes to your attention?

Hollingworth: Contact the legal department.

Aaron never once asks Hollingworth if elders are instructed to report any allegations of suspected child abuse; instead he diverts attention from that critical question – first by allowing Hollingworth to testify  that he is a family man, with many children and grandchildren. Aaron questions Hollingworth on what he recalls Terry Seipp admitting during the elder’s judicial hearing with Seipp, then goes back to the procedure these men followed after that hearing:

Aaron: After the judicial committee met with Terry Seipp, you reported to legal?

Hollingworth: Yes.

Aaron: Did you feel that you were following the correct procedure and doing that?

Hollingworth: Yes.

After referring to the March 23, 1992 Letter to Elders regarding child abuse, Aaron calls attention to page 3 of that letter where further abuse of children can be prevented by contacting the legal department of the Watchtower organization.

He then links “further protection” to Hollingworth’s earlier statement that elders are not told not to report abuse:

Aaron: Have you ever been advised as an elder or are you aware of any direction that, in order to protect the Jehovah’s Witness religion, child abuse should not be reported to authorities?

Hollingworth: To the contrary. The reason I’m a Jehovah’s Witness today — I wasn’t always one — was because of their concern for the truthfulness and taking care of people and taking — the whole thing, it just made so much sense. No, that would
never happen.

Aaron: Thank you.

Aaron rests his line of questioning and yields the floor to his fellow defense team members. Watchtower’s Miller has no questions, and CCJW attorney Louis Lombardi continues his legal vow of silence by offering nothing. The plaintiff is offered redirect.

Victims Discouraged from Group Therapy

Attorney Zeff directs attention back to the March 23rd Letter to Elders, this time to the section where Jehovah’s Witnesses are cautioned against participation in group therapy as a means to help victims of child abuse.

Zeff: Sir, can I direct your attention to the very last paragraph of the page that we just put in front of you where it says “Some medical professionals,” and it goes onto the next page. I just wanted to ask you some questions about that, because you just said some
things that, I guess, were a little disturbing to me. “Some medical professionals and therapists offer group therapy to those suffering from the effects of child abuse. While participating in group therapy by a professional therapist is a personal decision, there could be problems of revealing confidential facts about other members of the Christian Congregation during such therapy if a Christian does not exercise discretion. Thus,
elders can give cautions to their brothers and sisters, just as outlined in October 15, 2008 issue of Watchtower, page 29, under the subheading Talking Therapy.  “They can be helped to see that talking indiscriminately to others about child abuse may result in circulating damaging and harmful talk.”  Sir, what do you understand that to mean?

Hollingworth: I may be missing some details here, but my — I’m focusing on the last sentence here. We don’t go talking about it and gossiping about it and –It’s not something to be broadcasting.

Zeff: Sir, my question is talking about child abuse may result in circulating damaging and harmful talk, so they don’t — isn’t this telling you — by the way, this is one of the documents you had that were referred to?   What do you understand – they can be helped to see that talking indiscriminately to others about child abuse may result in circulating damaging and harmful talk? What do you understand that to mean?

Hollingworth: To be careful and think about it. Think before you speak. It makes sense to me.

Hollingworth dodges the question, reflecting his inability to comment on Watchtower’s position on group therapy, so Zeff moves on. Zeff next asks Hollingworth to explain “KS” schools, and Hollingworth describes the elder’s training program. Zeff then asks:

Zeff: On the occasions is the issue of child abuse brought up at those schools?

Hollingworth: I’m sure it has.

Zeff: And these schools are conducted by the Watchtower?

Hollingworth: They’re conducted by a Jehovah’s Witness. I’m not sure why — they’re conducted by a Jehovah’s Witness instructor.

Zeff: Okay. And where does that instructor come from?

Hollingworth: They come from a lot of different places. Sometimes it’s our circuit overseer who comes from — we have apartments for them in the local Kingdom Halls. Different instructors, different times over the years, there’s been — they come from a lot of different places.

Zeff: Do the documents that you review in these schools come from the Watchtower?

Hollingworth: I don’t know. I don’t know that the Watchtower sends out documents. They give us literature. They give us some literature. We get — they take care of our printing of our literature. I don’t know. I just can’t answer that question. You would have to ask somebody that comes from there.  Would it be all right if I have some
more water?

Zeff: I have nothing else, Your Honor.

In response to Hollingworth’s testimony, Watchtower attorney Miller cross-examined the witness to clarify just one thing: while warned against the dangers of group therapy, Jehovah’s Witness abuse survivors are not excluded from individual therapy. It seemed somewhat inconsequential to mention this, but Miller appeared intent on making the jury aware that Witnesses do accept some types of professional therapy.

Of course, Miller overlooks the fact that much of Stephanie Fessler’s extreme trauma was, in the first place, caused by the elders and the organization which treated her as a sinner and not a victim.

The tired and thirsty Hollingworth seemed confused and unwilling to give concise and lucid answers to questions that were quite simple – particularly for a man who has spent the past 40 years of his life as an appointed elder.  To be fair, Watchtower’s key witness Thomas Jefferson was even more evasive, as seen from his testimony during the first two days of this trial.

As anyone who has studied Jehovah’s Witnesses understands all too well, leaders in the organization are less than willing to divulge information to anyone they feel is “not entitled to know” such information. How ironic for a religion that describes all of its teachings and practices as “The Truth.”

For readers of this site, whether they are Jehovah’s Witnesses or not, I can’t underestimate the value of this term, truth. At the outset of this trial, Judge Mary C. Collins told the jury that they are the sole determiners of truth in this case, and it was up to them to decide on which information is factual, based on the evidence presented.

While this case was settled after four days of testimony, we have, as global citizens, been given the opportunity to judge the evidence for ourselves, and draw our own conclusions. Thus far, we have covered the statements of three Jehovah’s witnesses, including two elders and one high-ranking member of the organization. In our next article on the Fessler case, I will review the testimony of the abuser, Terry Monheim, and the detective who charged her for her crimes, Lisa Layden.

Having seen the evidence presented in this case, I think back to that hot summer morning in Reading Pennsylvania, when I saw the man with the sign which read “A Jehovah’s Witness elder molested me” – and if there was ever a doubt that he was telling the truth, that doubt no longer exists.

---

 

 

Published February 19th, 2017

Trial Summary – Part One

“The matter with the Jehovah’s Witnesses has been resolved”

-Jeffrey Fritz, attorney for abuse victim Stephanie Fessler.

Using language echoing the public announcements that Stephanie Fessler, now 28, was subjected to as a teenager, Fessler and her legal team have effectively turned the tables on Watchtower and issued a “public reproof” to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Witnesses notoriously reprove and disfellowship members of their faith, even if that member is a child, and has experienced a sexual encounter. Following four days of intense testimony at City Hall in Philadelphia Pennsylvania, Watchtower’s defense strategies collapsed. Despite spending tens of thousands of dollars and nearly 3 years in preparation for this case, by noon on Monday February 13th, Watchtower yielded to the plaintiff, packed up their briefcases, and agreed to an undisclosed settlement.

A strong message has been sent to the Watchtower organization: You can’t break the law when you learn of an accusation of inappropriate behavior with a minor. It must be reported to the police and child protection authorities.

Jehovah’s Witness leadership dismiss nearly every opportunity to report suspected abuse. Witness clergy mandate that when “wrongdoing” is discovered, they must immediately convene an internal tribunal of several elders, who are briefed on what happened. If the “sin” is serious, they form a Judicial Committee of three elders, then bring the victim before this committee to answer for her involvement. In this case, trial evidence showed that Jehovah’s Witness elders in the Spring Grove PA congregation were aware of a “consensual” relationship between 49-51 year old Terry Seipp, who attended the Freeland Maryland Congregation,  and the victim, Stephanie Fessler. For 3 years Seipp played the role of surrogate mother to Fessler, all the while taking sexual advantage of Stephanie, a matter brazenly overlooked by both congregations.

Or did they overlook it? In 2004, elders were informed that there was inappropriate kissing and touching between Seipp and Fessler, yet they failed to report this under the Pennsylvania mandatory reporting laws which apply to all clergy, or elders who learn of suspected abuse. By 2005, elders had significant evidence of extensive sexual encounters between the victim and her abuser, yet continued to apply their own internal measures – a decision which forever damaged Stephanie Fessler, preventing her abuser from facing justice and ending the relationship.

 

Detective Lisa Layden of the Southwestern Regional Police department in York County PA testified that any physical contact which might rise to the level of sexual abuse must be reported to the authorities, including Pennsylvania’s Childline, a well-organized resource for victims and potential victims. But that is not how Jehovah’s Witnesses operate. All matters of “sin” are referred to the congregation elders, who then contact the legal department at Watchtower’s Patterson New York complex if a case of sexual abuse comes to light.

 

Watchtower claims to inform congregation elders of individual state child abuse reporting laws, but seldom if ever do elders contact the police and file a report. To say that elders rarely reports such matters is a significant understatement.

Thomas Jefferson Beffudles Jury

 

On the afternoon of February 7th, 2017,  plaintiff co-counsel Gregg Zeff called the first witness, Mr. Thomas Jefferson Jr. This was a significant moment in the first day of trial, only the second time in Watchtower’s history that its organization has faced a jury in a child abuse trial.

And it did not go well.

From the moment Thomas Jefferson took the stand on behalf of Watchtower and the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (CCJW), there was an air of bedlam, confusion, and frustration. The jury of seven women and three men sat facing Jefferson in disbelief, as he struggled to answer questions – and the ones he did answer left the entire courtroom scratching their heads.  Jefferson replied to questions from plaintiff’s attorneys with a defensively arrogant stance, speaking in a slow and deliberate manner, repetitively ending his answers with the word “counselor.”  Attorney Gregg Zeff pounded Jefferson with question after question in an attempt to clarify the tangled web of corporations and committees which manage the affairs of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Jefferson admitted that he was a member of the CCJW, the US Branch Committee, and the Worldwide Order of Special Full-Time Servants of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but denied any involvement in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York. When asked for the name of the president of Watchtower New York, he told the court “I don’t recall” despite admitting he was sent to represent CCJW and Watchtower. Jefferson spoke in circles and riddles when asked about leadership of the JW organization, refusing to answer the simple question “Who is in charge?” The day one exchange with Jefferson was so outrageous, Judge Mary C. Collins was seen restraining both anger and laughter at the same time. Mr. Zeff, in a moment of exasperation raised his voice to Jefferson and asked whether there were “human beings” in charge of this organization.

Jefferson replied:- “Are you serious?”

The questioning intensified when Mr. Zeff pressed Jefferson on the source of all of the letters sent to bodies of elders, asking him again whether any “human beings” actually wrote these letters, and if so-who are these persons. Jefferson once again dodged the question and stated that anonymous persons compose these letters, and that the persons involved may or may not be a part of the Watchtower or CCJW corporations.

Attorney Zeff, visibly irritated by the intentional obfuscation, asked Jefferson whether the CCJW was responsible for ANYTHING; Jefferson responded by asking what he meant by “responsible.” Judge Collins was unable to restrain herself any longer and turned to the witness and demanded that he answer the question. Shaken and nervous, Jefferson told the court that he must take time to pause…and think. Following a lengthy silence, Zeff posed the question once again, to which Jefferson said “I imagine they have to.”

Before changing his line of questioning, Zeff displayed the signature on an elder’s letter which read “Watchtower Bible and Tract Society,” forcing Jefferson to acknowledge the corporation responsible for the policies enforced by Jehovah’s Witnesses prior to the 2001 creation of the Christian Co

Attorney Gregg Zeffngregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Zeff linked multiple Watchtower documents with policies that have restricted Witness elders from reporting child abuse to the proper authorities, making it clear which organization is responsible.

Moments later, Thomas Jefferson unbelievably denied that Watchtower writes anything, stating that they only “publish” and distribute these letters, but have nothing to do with their production. (referring to all letters before 2001)

Zeff questioned Jefferson on whether elders are sanctioned if they disobey the contents of these letters, which was followed by a song and dance from Jefferson and the indecisive and false statement that elders “may or may not” be censured for disobedience.  When Jefferson mentioned that a Governing Body-appointed Circuit Overseer may be involved in disqualifying an elder, Zeff did not miss the opportunity to ask whether the Jehovah’s Witness Governing Body are associated with Watchtower or the Christian Congregation. Jefferson’s response: NO.

As if to say “I’m not done scrambling your brains just yet, jury” – Jefferson responds to the next seemingly simple question posed by Zeff, which was ‘should clergy report child abuse?’ After an objection from the Watchtower defense team, Jefferson states that he cannot answer the question because Jehovah’s Witness elders are not clergymen. This question set off a debate that lasted for two days. (more on that later)

Attorney Zeff then followed a line of questioning forcing Jefferson to admit that elders investigate accusations of child abuse using their own judicial process. Jefferson further had to confess that Witness elders have no professional training in counseling, psychology, or other relevant levels of expertise; yet amazingly he insisted that they did receive “training.” Zeff followed up by telling Jefferson that elders are in no way qualified to judge the genuineness or seriousness of an allegation of child abuse.

Jefferson arrogantly replied: “incorrect”

Zeff asked Jefferson whether he had any evidence from Watchtower publications to back that statement up. After a non-answer from junk-testimony Jefferson, Judge Collins stepped in and scolded Jefferson, telling him the question is “perfectly clear”. Zeff pressed the witness hard, asking him for his beliefs on this subject, to which Jefferson replied: “Are my beliefs on trial?”

Again, Judge Collins rebuked Jefferson adamantly and warned him to refrain from making any such comments, advising him to just answer the question. Unbelievably, Jefferson responds by saying that Watchtower is a corporate entity and does not “believe” anything.

Continuing his salvo of questions, Zeff asks Jefferson if he is aware that professionals exist in the field of child abuse detection and counseling, to which Jefferson reluctantly agrees. He then asks Jefferson if he is aware that the state of Pennsylvania wants those professionals involved whenever an accusation of child abuse occurs. Jefferson states that he was not aware of this, aside from when Judge Collins stated this to the jury at the outset of this trial. I remember thinking that Jefferson testified that he was in court on behalf of the legal department of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and to defend Watchtower and the CCJW – yet somehow after years of preparation for this trial, having been prepped by Watchtower’s extensive legal team, he is suddenly unaware that Pennsylvania has a mandatory law requiring the reporting of accusations of child abuse. Clearly the jury was not buying this.

Attorney Zeff then puts Jefferson on the spot regarding the matter of elders reading all letters from Watchtower; Jefferson stated that reading all letters is not required, but that elders would be expected to read all directions on child abuse from Watchtower prior to beginning an investigation. He was then asked whether elders could be sanctioned or stripped of their positions if they failed to follow Watchtower’s counsel. Reluctantly, Jefferson admitted that this is “possible.” Zeff followed by asking “has this ever happened?” Jefferson’s reply: “I don’t know.”   As anyone with any experience in the Jehovah’s Witness organization knows very well, if an elder fails to follow directions from headquarters, his position as an elder will vanish instantly. Jefferson knows this very well.

Nearing the end of the first day of trial, Zeff calls Jefferson’s attention to one of the most damaging pieces of evidence in this case, the July 1, 1989 letter to elders. This six-page letter was stamped CONFIDENTIAL – and Watchtower meant it. This letter was so damaging to the defense, that when it was subpoenaed, Watchtower redacted nearly the entire document, with few exceptions. The plaintiff’s legal team only learned of the full contents of this letter by searching sources outside of Watchtower, and when the contents were revealed, this case was sealed.

Zeff calls Jefferson’s attention to the purpose of this letter, as stated on page 2:

“Hence, a growing number of vindictive or disgruntled ones, as well as opposers, have initiated lawsuits to inflict financial penalties on the individual, the congregation, or the Society. Many of these lawsuits are the result of the misuse of the tongue.”

He rephrased this paragraph by emphatically telling Jefferson that the real meaning is “Keep you mouth shut or you might get sued.”  Jefferson disagreed, but the damage was done. The jury begins to understand the cloak of secrecy surrounding Watchtower. Protection of the organization and its assets has increasingly become the motivation behind the Jehovah’s  Witnesses’ legal strategy, placing corporations ahead of the welfare of its own children. Day one ends in disaster for Watchtower, with final testimony from Jefferson looming on the horizon.

Day 2 – The Return of Thomas Jefferson

Wednesday morning brought Thomas Jefferson Jr. right back to the witness stand, but not before Spring Grove defense attorney Jud Aaron strongly objected to the presence of Detective Lisa Layden, who was scheduled to testify the next day. Aaron cried “Unfair,”  claiming that the presence of the detective on day 2 would affect her day 3 testimony. Judge Collins rejected the sequestration order and stated “I’m done with this issue, I’ve ruled on it. It’s a clear issue.”

Trial resumes with Plaintiff’s attorney Gregg Zeff calling attention again to Exhibit 18B, the July 1, 1989 elder’s letter on confidentiality. Watchtower attorney John Miller immediately objects on “First Amendment” grounds but is overruled by the judge. Zeff looks at Miller, then the judge, and says “First Amendment your honor?” – Judge Collins tells Zeff to move on. Zeff grills Jefferson on the meaning behind the letter, the intended secrecy, and confidentiality, and the prevention of lawsuits due to “misuse of the tongue.” Zeff makes his point, and Jefferson is left offering no concise explanation.

The subject now changed to the persons in charge of Jehovah’s Witnesses:

Zeff:     Do you remember when I asked you for the names
of the humans?

Jefferson: I do

Zeff: You didn’t give me the name of any, did you, sir?

Jefferson: I did not

Zeff: Is the reason you didn’t give me the names of any humans is because they’re secret?

Jefferson: No. The answer to that question —

Zeff: That’s all I asked you, sir.  Is the reason you didn’t give me the
names of any humans is because you wanted to protect them from lawsuits?

Jefferson: No

Zeff then re-introduces Jefferson’s prior testimony on the matter of whether Witness elders are clergymen:

Zeff: Do you remember earlier in the questioning I asked you about this statement: Clergy must report sexual abuse of children to protect the victim from
additional harm?

Jefferson: I do, counselor.

Zeff: And your answer was you could not agree with that?

Jefferson: That’s correct, counselor.

Zeff: And you said you couldn’t agree with that because elders are not clergy. Is that a fair statement?

Jefferson: That’s a correct statement.

Zeff: Okay. What is your definition of clergy?

Jefferson: Clergy meant, as I understand it, are those who are recognized, if you will, as the leader of a church or an organization and that is something that elders are not.

Zeff follows up by displaying Websters dictionary on screen, then says:

Zeff: Can I show you Webster’s Dictionary’s definition of elder and see if you agree with that? The first definition is a group of ordained to perform pastoral or sacerdotal functions in a Christian church. Is that a reasonable definition of a clergy?

Jefferson: I don’t know the answer to that.

Zeff now proceeds to connect Jehovah’s Witness elders to the clergy using Jefferson’s own words:

Zeff: Can you define for me what an elder is?

Jefferson: Sure. An elder is a man who is appointed by means of the Holy Spirit to care for the interests of the sheep entrusted to him. Those responsibilities are described
in various places in the Bible. For example, first Peter 5, one and two, where elders are urged to care for the interests of the flock entrusted to them.

Zeff: Elders act as shepherds in the local congregations?

Jefferson: They do.

Zeff: And provide spiritual education and assistance from the Bible to congregants?

Jefferson: They do

Zeff: And they oversee the congregational meetings?

Jefferson: They do

Zeff: And they lead?

Jefferson: They take the lead also.

Zeff then brings up confession, and forces Jefferson to admit that elders are responsible for listening to confession from members of the congregation.

Zeff: And elders then receive confession of sort?

Jefferson: Elders listen to the confessions of those who may have been involved and wronged, yes.

Zeff now calls up on screen the definition of clergy once again:

Zeff: Looking at that the rule one more time, I would just like to know if you have changed your answer at all or if you think elders are clergy?

Jefferson: NO

Zeff digs deeper into the Jehovah’s Witness judicial process, hammering Jefferson with questions about the function of a judicial committee of elders.

Zeff: So wouldn’t your judicial committee, your rules, and by you, I’m not even sure who I’m talking about. Who is it that tells the elders, this is how a judicial committee should operate? Is it a governing body?

Jefferson: A group of spiritually qualified men, who remain anonymous, are selected to prepare material that’s reviewed and approved by the governing body. And then after that, it is published.

Zeff: So these anonymous men have told the elders that when there’s a matter that needs a judicial committee, here is how the committee should be set up, here is who should be on the committee, and here are the types of things you should look for. And
once you’ve done that, here is what you do if wrong has been committed. Is that a fair summary?

Jefferson: Not totally.

Zeff: Okay. Didn’t think so.

Zeff presses the uncooperative  Jefferson further, asking him to define what the S-77 form is, to which Jefferson replied:

“S-77 form is a document that’s used to report concisely the events of that judicial hearing.”

It is of interest that his answer was misleading, as the S-77 is the “notice of disfellowshipping or disassociation”  – filled out when the outcome of a judicial hearing is disfellowshipping, or if a person formally disassociates themselves. The form itself states:

“It is not necessary to provide a summary of the case. If anything of significance regarding the case needs to be shared with the branch office, please do so in a separate letter.”

Jefferson’s testimony was utterly confusing, filled with misleading and inaccurate data; he was placed on the witness stand by Watchtower’s own legal department, yet was self-destructing with every word. The jury appeared confused by his remarks, his demeanor, and his inability to answer simple questions without offering long-winded verbal detours.

Attorney Zeff now turned his attention back to the July 1989 confidential letter to elders:

Zeff: We talked briefly about section D, which was the child abuse, many states have child abuse reporting laws. When elders receive reports of physical or sexual abuse of a child, they should contact the society’s legal department immediately. Victims of such abuse need to be protected from further danger. That’s what it says?

Jefferson: That’s correct, counselor.

Zeff: In this document anywhere does it discuss how to protect children?

Jefferson: I’m not aware of any place in the document.

Zeff: But it does tell you to keep as many things secret as possible, doesn’t it?

Jefferson: It does urge confidentiality, counselor, correct.

You Can’t Have it Both Ways, Watchtower

It is of great interest that the Watchtower organization urges elders to maintain confidentiality, when they legally impale themselves by breaking confidentiality the moment they share a confession with other elders. In the Fessler case, there were at least ten elders and others who were informed of the allegations of sexual abuse, not to mention those in Watchtower’s legal and service department who learned of the case from local elders. Watchtower attempted to claim clergy privilege to protect themselves, but this was denied multiple times by the court. Evidence was presented that no confidentiality was maintained whatsoever.

Explained legally, Watchtower is subject to the legal principle of estoppel. This axiom bars a person from claiming one position, then intentionally taking the opposite position when it suits their legal case. Using Fessler versus Watchtower as an example, the defense adamantly attempted to use clergy privilege from the outset, yet denied in court for two straight days that elders are clergymen.

In lay terms, this means you can’t have it both ways.

During further intense questioning of Jefferson, Zeff pointed right back to the July 1989 letter to elders and asked:

Zeff: Let me break the question up for you. Wouldn’t you agree with me that an elder who has limited knowledge of child abuse laws, limited knowledge of criminal law, would have a difficult time understanding the difference between keeping it secret and going to the police based on this document?

Jefferson: If I answer about an elder’s limited knowledge, I’d only have to speculate. So I don’t know the answer to that question

Zeff: Sir, you’re here on behalf of Watchtower and the Christian Congregation to talk about the documents and the instructions that you’ve given to them. Would you agree that that’s confusing?

Jefferson: No, sir.

Zeff: Crystal clear to you?

Jefferson: Quite.

Zeff: And would you agree with me that the legal department, when called, should know the law in every state?

Jefferson: Again, I can’t speak for the legal department, counselor. I don’t work there.

[Now bear in mind that Jefferson has testified that he is here on behalf of a request from the Watchtower and CCJW legal department, leaving one to wonder how it is possible that Jefferson has no clue that the legal department is aware of state laws regarding mandatory reporting]

Zeff: Well, in writing this document, isn’t there an assumption by the Watchtower that the legal department is going to do the right thing by state law?

Jefferson: As for assumption, again, I can’t speculate, but what I can say with a fair degree of certainty is that when elders follow the instruction in this letter or other letters and call the legal department, they will receive appropriate legal advice.

Zeff continues his line of questioning regarding the Fessler case, and states that he has no knowledge whatsoever of the two Spring Grove PA elders, Eric Hoffman and Donald Hollingworth, except that they may have called Watchtower’s legal department.  Referring once again to the July 1989 letter to elders, Zeff asks:

Zeff: There’s nothing in that document that says do what’s in the best interest of the child, is there?

Jefferson: I don’t believe that statement appears in the document, counselor.

Zeff: There’s nothing in the document that says when in doubt, protect the child?

Jefferson: That statement doesn’t appear in the document, counselor, no.

Zeff: Is there any document that you’re aware of that’s given to elders in the United States that says elders shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that victims urgently need to be protected from further abuse and that abusers need to be prevented from finding other victims?

Jefferson: Counselor, several documents which you’ve shown here have been printed. I can’t point to any specific one in response to your question. My memory doesn’t bring up one right now.

Zeff: Will you agree there’s no instruction in any Watchtower or Christian Congregation document that says if there’s an allegation of sexual abuse, contact an overseer?

Jefferson: If there’s an allegation of sexual abuse, contact the overseer. I’m not aware of that specific statement, counselor.

Zeff then draws Jefferson’s attention to the February 15th, 2002 letter to elders, where child abuse is mentioned, and which also references the July 1, 1989 letter]

Zeff: I want to take you to number four on this document. It says: “Child abuse is a crime. Never suggest to anyone that they should not report an allegation of child abuse to the police or other authorities.” So that says, correct me if I’m wrong, that elders should never say don’t report it. That would be wrong.

Jefferson: That’s correct, counselor.

Zeff: Then it says: If you’re asked, make it clear that whether to report the matter to the authorities or not is a personal decision for each individual to make and that there are no congregational sanctions for either decision.  So it says, if you’re asked there, and I presume that these authors chose their words carefully… Do you know why they said if you’re asked instead of tell them?

Jefferson: I don’t know why it was exactly worded this way, counselor. I was not a part of the group that composed the letter, so I would only speculate to say why they might have worded it that way.

Zeff: So on behalf of Watchtower and Christian Congregation, your answer is why they ordered it that way is you don’t know because it would be speculation?

Jefferson: I don’t know exactly why the author worded it that way.

Zeff continued his questioning, with Jefferson only able to state that Watchtower’s position is “Never tell anyone that they can’t report it.” and “If they ask you, by all means, please do what you feel is right and report it, if you feel you should. ” Zeff continued:

Zeff: Would you agree with me that this instruction does not inform elders that they must, in Pennsylvania and Maryland, report suspected child abuse?

Jefferson: That’s a correct statement, counselor.

The Anonymous Men

Concluding his examination of Watchtower representative Jefferson, attorney Zeff probes Jefferson as to the very source of the judicial rules governing Jehovah’s Witness elders:

Zeff: And the rules that are followed by the elders relating to the judicial committee come from whom?

Jefferson: As stated, a group of men, spiritually mature men are appointed to prepare this material under the direction of the governing body. And after it is approved, it is published.

Zeff: And they’re anonymous?

Jefferson: The are.

Zeff: And do you know whether any of these anonymous people have any qualifications of any kind to deal with issues of child abuse?

Jefferson: If they’re anonymous and I don’t know them, then I don’t answer that question

Zeff: I have nothing further, thank you, Your Honor.

Following two days of examination by the plaintiff’s counsel, it was time for the defense to cross-examine Mr. Jefferson.

Jefferson Cross-Examined

First up was Jud Aaron, a non-Jehovah’s Witness attorney representing the Spring Grove Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Mr. Aaron began his questioning by referring to the state mandate for clergy to report suspected child abuse:

Aaron: “Clergy must report sexual abuse of children to protect the victim from additional harm. And yet there was some questions about it.” If I were to substitute the word clergy, remove the word clergy and put Jehovah’s Witnesses elders, let me read it. “Jehovah’s Witnesses elders must report sexual abuse of children to protect the victim from additional harm.” Would you agree with that?

Jefferson: I do in certain areas of municipalities and so forth, yes.

This brief and bizarre exchange echoed the earlier line of questioning in which Jefferson refused to acknowledge that Jehovah’s Witness elders are clergy, which in his mind exempted him entirely from answering these questions. Incredibly, when Aaron substituted “Jehovah’s Witness elders” for “clergy,” Jefferson still suggested that elders only have the obligation to report “in certain municipalities.”

By now, most readers will have thrown a brick through their computer monitor, or discarded their smartphone in the nearest lake when reading the lengths to which the Jehovah’s Witness organization will go to protect their own interests, instead of those of the victims of abuse.  Their destructive doctrines are stuck like barnacles on a sinking ship, and Watchtower has no desire to scrape free the decades-old requirements which have ruined the lives of thousands.

As Aaron continued his examination of Jefferson, he restated the policy whereby elders were required to contact Watchtower’s legal department in cases involving suspected abuse. However, this line of reasoning was ineffective since it was clear that Jefferson was defending an organization which fails to report abuse as a practice unless they would receive sanctions and penalty for not reporting the matter in certain “municipalities.”

Mr. Aaron further attempted to minimize the child abuse issue when he questioned Jefferson on his experience in handling child abuse cases:

Aaron: And in the 35 years that you’ve sat on judicial committees, about seven
congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses, have you sat on one that involved allegations of child sexual abuse?

Jefferson: No.

As an added “strategy”, defense attorney Aaron went so far as to imply that since there were only five lines (dealing with child abuse)  out of six pages in the July 1 1989 Letter to elders,  the relevance of this letter was minimal and that it was not intended to protect child abusers. Aaron then asked Jefferson to testify about the nature of the multitude of Watchtower and Awake! articles on a variety of subjects, including child abuse.

Aaron: Let me ask you something, Mr. Jefferson, why do these publications, the Jehovah’s Witness publication, Watchtower magazine, Awake magazine, why do they address repeatedly the issue of child abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, that type of
thing you just referred to?

Jefferson: Because in society in general, many, many people are adversely affected by the crime of child abuse and it’s the desire of the organization that I’m a part of to do everything possible to make people aware of this horrible, heinous crime and to
do everything possible to help victims first of child abuse and to assist them and assist their parents to shoulder their responsibility to protect their children. And that’s why the articles are published.

As any victim of child abuse in the Jehovah’s Witness organization will tell you, the organization and the elders obstruct justice in every possible way. The failure to report  abuse to police and other civil authorities is fast becoming one of the most insidious crimes in the past 50 years. It was clear that the jury was not buying into Watchtower’s statement that they “abhor” child abuse. It is a weak and meaningless defense, when the facts show that the very authorities who are qualified to help children are almost never contacted.

Enter John Miller, for Watchtower

In his first appearance in this trial, Mr. John Miller, attorney for Watchtower New York, and a devout Jehovah’s Witness, stepped up to question Mr. Jefferson on behalf of the defense. Miller opens by acknowledging that he and Mr. Jefferson are old friends, for at least 20 years.

One of the more interesting contradictions in testimony came when Mr. Jefferson, under examination from Miller, suddenly acknowledged that both he and Watchtower’s legal department are very familiar with differences in state laws on mandatory child abuse reporting. Note the exchange:

Miller: You testified that the laws of the states vary; is that true?

Jefferson: That’s true.

Miller: And have you worked with lawyers in the branch’s legal department to render advice to elders who call about the laws of their particular state?

Jefferson: I have.

Miller: And is it in your working with those lawyers that you have become familiar with differences of laws of different states?

Jefferson: I have.

Thomas Jefferson had just testified when questioned by the plaintiff’s attorney Gregg Zeff that he was unaware of Watchtower’s knowledge of state laws for reporting abuse. Note his earlier testimony:

Zeff: And would you agree with me that the legal department, when called, should know the law in every state?

Jefferson: Again, I can’t speak for the legal department, counselor. I don’t work there.

Incredibly, Jefferson changed his testimony, suddenly becoming aware of state mandatory reporting laws.

Jefferson was lying to the court

Further evidence of defensive backpedaling came when John Miller, for Watchtower, referred to questions posed by Mr. Zeff the day before, when Jefferson was embarrassed by not being able to recall even the name of the President of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York. In an attempt to salvage Jefferson’s reputation, Miller asked:

Miller: You were asked if you could name some of the people in Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Incorporated and you were unable to do so. Are you a member on the executive board of that corporation?

Jefferson: I am not.

Miller: Are you a member or on the executive board of the corporation Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses?

Jefferson: I am.

Miller: Can you name any of the people with that organization?

Jefferson: I can.

Miller: Go ahead. Name some.

Jefferson: The president, Allen Shuster; vice president, Anthony Griffin; secretary/treasurer, William Nonkes.

Miller: What is your role?

Jefferson: Assistant secretary/treasurer, I believe.

He believes? Jefferson seemed very unsure of his position within the CCJW organization – but his testimony continued to disintegrate as Watchtower attorney Miller then asked him to name Members of the United States Branch Committee.

Miller: Can you name a few of them for us?

Jefferson: Allen Shuster, Anthony Griffin, just to name two.

Miller: Was Leon Weaver a member of that branch committee?

Jefferson: He is.

Miller: So are the names of those persons who serve in the U.S. Branch kept secret anywhere?

Jefferson: Not at all.

Miller: Aren’t they published on the website?

Jefferson: That could very well be.

Miller: Have you seen them published in some of magazines that are sent to the public?

Jefferson: Yes, they are. The president is published every month in the Watchtower and Awake.

Miller: So there’s no secret about who is there?

Jefferson: No.

As a note to our readers, the questioning by Miller and responses of Jefferson reveal that they themselves are not fully aware of who manages and operates Watchtower, CCJW, and the United States Branch Committee. Not only was Jefferson unsure of his own position in CCJW, but his statement “The president is published every month in the Watchtower and Awake”  was false, as he was discussing the US Branch Committee and not the Watchtower Society. A simple check of the inside cover of current Watchtower and Awake magazines reveals that it is the Watchtower president who is listed inside this cover, and not any of the US Branch Committee members.

Jefferson Says: No Responsibility to Protect the Community

After testifying once again that elders are not clergymen, the defense yielded to Mr Gregg Zeff for a re-cross examination of Mr. Jefferson. Zeff asked Jefferson whether the elders have a responsibility to protect the community from predators:

Jefferson: Well, the elders have responsibility of protecting children, yes, and all the flock.

Zeff: And the entire community from predators, not just the flock?

Jefferson: What do you mean by entire community?

Zeff: Well, doesn’t an elder have a responsibility if they know there’s a sexual predator in their midst to let the entire community, the State of Pennsylvania, the people of Philadelphia, know that there’s a sexual predator in their midst?

[Watchtower attorney Miller objects to this question. Objection overruled]

Jefferson: NO.

In one of the most insidious and outrageous statements of the trial, Thomas Jefferson admitted what so many victims of child abuse already know – that Jehovah’s Witnesses have no regard for the community at large, and their failure to report suspected child abuse places the entire community at risk by failing to report a predator.

While Witnesses are an insular community, the harboring or non-reporting of a sexual predator permits such an individual to roam free, unobstructed and undetected by unsuspecting parents and children. Most “worldly” or non-Jehovah’s Witness  persons are unaware that a religious organization resides in their midst, completely insensitive to the protection of their family. Not only have tens of thousands of Jehovah’s Witness children suffered, but evidence shows that scores of sexual assaults have occurred throughout the global community because the offender was not reported to the authorities. This affects everyone, regardless of religious affiliation.

Thomas Jefferson single-handedly embarrassed the entire Watchtower organization, destroying his own credibility and that of the religion he represents. But this was a good thing. This was not a closed-door, behind the scenes, cloaked meeting, but an open, civil trial which will  forever be a part of the public record.  It is an insight into the inner workings of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are largely ignorant of the issues related to child abuse, and the tactics employed by their elders, their Governing Body, and the legal team which defends the absurd.

Please stay tuned for further reports on the testimony in this case, including that of two elders, the abuser of Stephanie Fessler, and the detective who ended any chance of Watchtower winning this case.

 

---