Law Jehovah’s Witness elders made teen listen recording of her rape for hours, lawsuit claims

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Elders at a Utah congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses allegedly forced a 15-year-old to listen to a recording of her rape over and over again for hours as part of a religious inquiry, a lawsuit before the Utah Supreme Court claims.

The case seeks to hold the leaders and the church at large responsible for inflicting emotional distress.

The church claims, and lower courts have ruled, that to hold them liable would violate the religious freedoms of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, since it involves weighing the appropriateness of religious conduct.

In duelling briefs, as well as oral arguments for the case on Monday (recordings of which are not yet available), the two sides wrestled over the meaning of this bedrock of American civil rights law.


Karra Porter, a lawyer representing the church, argued there was a difference between the government regulating physical harm and that of the facts in the case, according to the Desert News.

But at least one justice seems not see it that way.

“The allegation here is a mental and emotional equivalent of waterboarding,” Justice Deno Himonas said. “I’ve been a judge for a long time and a lawyer for a long time. I’ve never seen, in court, anything like this that’s alleged.”

The lawyers on the other side have previously argued that neglecting to challenge the church’s alleged actions here would set a precedent that “would give actors free rein to injure others under the guise of religious freedom—a proposition that the US Supreme Court has rejected repeatedly for over a century.”

Lawyers representing the church and the alleged victim did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The suit, originally filed in 2016, argued that the leaders of a congregation in Roy, Utah, made the teen girl sit and listen to the recordings for hours in 2008 as part of a religious inquiry. The woman in question, now an adult in her 20s, said in court documents a fellow Jehovah’s Witness, age 18, bullied her and allegedly raped her three times, including one instance in which the man involved recorded the incident.

This triggered an investigation from the church in early 2008, where the leaders called the girl and her parents into a committee which would decide whether she had engaged in sinful conduct. During the meeting, they played the recording on and off “for hours” in an attempt to extract a confession, according to court documents, as the girl “continued crying and was ‘physically quivering’ from the trauma of having to listen to her assault over and over.”

This led, her lawyers say, to anxiety, nightmares, loss of appetite, and poor performance in school, leading her to seek damages from the church.

But two lower courts found that the church couldn’t be held liable.

As the Utah Court of Appeals held in 2019, doing would require “an inquiry into the appropriateness of the Church’s conduct in applying a religious practice and therefore violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment," which bars the government from instituting particular religious practices.

Dozens of suits nationwide have accused the Jehovah’s Witnesses of mismanaging or covering up abuse inside the church, including one in early 2020, when the Montana Supreme Court reversed a $35 million judgement against the church for not reporting a girl’s abuse to authorities
 
Seems like the rape was statutory, not the jumping out of the bushes kind, and they were trying to get her to break off the relationship with her 18 year old boyfriend.

It's fucking weird but it isn't as scandalous as the headline indicates. When religious kids fuck each other things get really strange and their parents freak out because the kids made crazy promises to each other. I could go on a rant here about the whole "promise ring" manipulation thing that goes on between the older boys and the younger girls but I think most people get it.
 
Aside from "suspicious" ages, I don't understand what details would make you so sure it was only statutory and not forceful.
Because of this
a fellow Jehovah’s Witness, age 18, bullied her and allegedly raped her three times, including one instance in which the man involved recorded the incident.
If he forced her they would have said it here rather than "bullied her". "Forced her" would help them make their point better, no?
 
These are the types of cases that I don't envy the judges ruling on them. One the one hand, you have one of the strongest and most important principles of American freedom. On the other, you have a massive injustice committed against what was a child. Regardless of what you think about the claims of rape, sitting a 15 year old down and making her listen to something like that for hours is completely fucked up.

I spent a lot of time in my teenage years observing the LDS church that my friend was a member of and unfortunately something like this doesn't sound anywhere at all too unlikely. Anything involving sex and teenagers seemed to just shut the church leadership's cognitive higher functions off. Knowing how the government in Utah works I won't be surprised to hear she loses this case.
 
We have the court documents you retards.

Jehovah’s Witnesses of Roy, Utah (“Roy Kingdom Hall”), a local unit of the Jehovah’s Witnesses analogous to a local church. (R. 72, 76, 79.) In the summer of 2007, when Ria was 14 years old, she began spending time with Colin Williams, an 18-year-old fellow Jehovah’s Witness. (R. 72, 79, 259 n.12.) Ria and Mr. Williams shared a mutual friend, and Mr. Williams also knew Ria’s sister. (R. 79, 81.) At that time, Ria made plans to go to the movies with Mr. Williams and their mutual friend. (R. 79.) The trip, however, quickly turned into something far different. Their friend could not attend, leaving Ria alone with Mr. Williams. (Id.) After the movie, Mr. Williams took Ria’s cell phone and refused to drive her home or return her phone unless she kissed his cheek, which she declined to do. (Id.) In the ensuing months, Mr. Williams’s bullying continued, consistently growing more aggressive and violent. (R. 80–81.) Mr. Williams’s conduct soon escalated into sexual violence against Ria. In December 2007, Mr. Williams compelled Ria to get in his car and drove her to a “secluded area,” where he proceeded to “kiss her, and touch her breasts and between her legs over the clothes, despite [Ria’s] protests.” (R. 82.) Within two weeks of that first sexual assault, Mr. Williams raped Ria three times. (R. 82-83.) After Mr. Williams’s sexual assaults on Ria were reported to the Elders, Respondent Roy Kingdom Hall initiated an investigation into whether Ria had committed the sin of “porneia.” (R. 83.) Jehovah’s Witnesses define porneia as 5

“unclean sexual conduct that is contrary to ‘normal’ behavior”; the term includes sex between two people who are not married. (R. 78.) The Elders—Respondents Harry Diamanti, Eric Stocker, Raulon Hicks, and Dan Harper—formed a “judicial committee” to lead the investigation. (R. 83.) A finding by the committee that Ria had engaged in porneia would carry the potential disciplinary consequence of “disfellowship,” i.e., expulsion from the religious community. (R. 77.) In April 2008, the Elders summoned Ria for questioning in connection with their investigation. (R. 83–84.) The Elders first questioned Ria (who was accompanied by her mother and stepfather) for 45 minutes about her interactions with Mr. Williams, including whether Ria had voluntarily engaged in sexual activity with him. (R. 84.) Having failed to obtain the information they wanted, the Elders then played an audio recording that Mr. Williams had provided that captured the sound of one of the times he had raped Ria. (Id.) Ria had a visceral and visible reaction to the recording. (Id.) She began “crying” and pleading that the Elders “not force her to relive the experience of being raped.” (Id.) Ria’s evident distress and clear protest failed to deter the Elders from continuing to play the recording. (Id.) The Elders repeatedly played the recording (stopping intermittently to question Ria) in an effort to get Ria to confess that she had consented to the sexual activity. (Id.) This pattern continued for at least four hours, all while, in plain view of the Elders, Ria continued crying and was 6

“physically quivering” from the trauma of having to listen to her assault over and over. (Id.) As a result of the Elders’ conduct, Ria—who was then only 15 years old—suffered serious harm, including humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, nightmares, loss of appetite, and poor performance in school. (R. 86, 207–08.) Ria sought psychological counseling and medical treatment, and she continues to experience distress from the Elders’ actions. (R. 84, 86.)
 
Thanks now I'm gonna be sick. Do you happen to know if there were ever charges filed against the rapist? I've tried a sex offender lookup but came up empty handed. Not that it would be surprising to hear that he got off without punishment. The toxic mix of a young rape victims self blame mixed with a religious authorities desire to keep everything "in house" makes it likely he received 0 punishment.

SmartSelect_20201114-114908_Chrome.jpg


Sounds like she is capable of saying no.

Why is "crying" in quotes?
Young victims of sex crimes tend to not have the confidence to stand up for themselves against an authority figure, especially in a religious context. Also the quotation marks are probably because the prosecution is selectively quoting her statements about the incident.
 
Last edited:
This story is just too perfect to the point of not making sense. It sounds like she went through a bullet list of things that would get her a lot of attention on Twitter and made a story out of it.

We've got:

  • Fundies being evil for no reason
  • Men being evil for no reason
  • Muh rape culture
  • An underaged girl being tortured for no reason
  • A rapist who makes recordings of him raping women like a badly written soap opera villain
  • Blaming the victim
  • Not punishing the rapist even though he provided proof of his own crime for no reason
  • It all happened years ago so there's no evidence for or against it so you'll just have to listen and believe
  • Literally shaking
Not to mention her testimony is "he violently assaulted and raped me over and over and it never occurred to me to stop scheduling playdates with him", which makes no sense to begin with.
 
This story is just too perfect to the point of not making sense. It sounds like she went through a bullet list of things that would get her a lot of attention on Twitter and made a story out of it.

We've got:

  • Fundies being evil for no reason
  • Men being evil for no reason
  • Muh rape culture
  • An underaged girl being tortured for no reason
  • A rapist who makes recordings of him raping women like a badly written soap opera villain
  • Blaming the victim
  • Not punishing the rapist even though he provided proof of his own crime for no reason
  • It all happened years ago so there's no evidence for or against it so you'll just have to listen and believe
  • Literally shaking
Not to mention her testimony is "he violently assaulted and raped me over and over and it never occurred to me to stop scheduling playdates with him", which makes no sense to begin with.
The lack of any context regarding what happened to the accused rapist afterwards is one of the things bugging me as well. Having a recording of statutory rape being committed on you seems like a prosecution slam dunk. But I think you're underestimating the defensive nature strongly religious communities have when it comes to accusations of sexual impropriety. Just look at the Catholic Church.
 
This story is just too perfect to the point of not making sense. It sounds like she went through a bullet list of things that would get her a lot of attention on Twitter and made a story out of it.

We've got:

  • Fundies being evil for no reason
  • Men being evil for no reason
  • Muh rape culture
  • An underaged girl being tortured for no reason
  • A rapist who makes recordings of him raping women like a badly written soap opera villain
  • Blaming the victim
  • Not punishing the rapist even though he provided proof of his own crime for no reason
  • It all happened years ago so there's no evidence for or against it so you'll just have to listen and believe
  • Literally shaking
Not to mention her testimony is "he violently assaulted and raped me over and over and it never occurred to me to stop scheduling playdates with him", which makes no sense to begin with.
Weird fundie religious sects tend to do fucked up shit related to rape and kiddie diddling, like it or not. If this was a college or something yeah I'd be suspicious, but this sounds completely on brand for Jehovah's witnesses.

SJWs aren't the only people who use self righteousness and morality policing to distract from the army of skeletons in their closet.

I hope the girl gets justice, but with Utah who knows :(
 
Thanks now I'm gonna be sick. Do you happen to know if there were ever charges filed against the rapist? I've tried a sex offender lookup but came up empty handed. Not that it would be surprising to hear that he got off without punishment. The toxic mix of a young rape victims self blame mixed with a religious authorities desire to keep everything "in house" makes it likely he received 0 punishment.

View attachment 1729177



Young victims of sex crimes tend to not have the confidence to stand up for themselves against an authority figure, especially in a religious context. Also the quotation marks are probably because the prosecution is selectively quoting her statements about the incident.

Its plausible that they're using pseudonyms or something. "Rai" and "Collin" have the same last name on the sheet, and there are associated "John Does" under all plaintiffs. You'd have to dox your way to victory there.
 
I hope the girl gets justice, but with Utah who knows
Yeah not likely. Place is run top to bottom by the Mormon Church and I doubt they want any kind of case law being established that could potentially be used against them in the future.

Its plausible that they're using pseudonyms or something. "Rai" and "Collin" have the same last name on the sheet, and there are associated "John Does" under all plaintiffs. You'd have to dox your way to victory there.
Strange that they would use a pseudonym for somebody who was legally an adult at the time of the alleged act but I guess it makes sense if he was never formally charged or convicted.
 
Strange that they would use a pseudonym for somebody who was legally an adult at the time of the alleged act but I guess it makes sense if he was never formally charged or convicted.

It does say "alleged rape" several times, wording which suggests no prosecution.
 
The complaint skips over a lot, which is fair enough, but it does make one curious. Why did she keep getting in this guy's car after he raped her? I've never been raped, but if I were, I think I would stop hanging out with the rapist. I get that teenagers are dumb, and Jay-Dubs can be a little sheltered, so maybe she wrote off the first rape as a one-time slip-up. But surely she'd stop going back after the second rape? And why not sue the rapist for battery? Apparently the evidence exists. Maybe it's not as rapey as it sounds.

The crying and literally shaking isn't necessarily evidence of rape, it's probably evidence of being uncomfortable that a board of elders has CP of you and they're using it to coerce a confession of promiscuity. That's pretty gross, no matter how rapey the three encounters were.
 

Ria and Mr. Williams shared a mutual friend, and Mr. Williams also knew Ria’s sister. (R. 79, 81.) At that time, Ria made plans to go to the movies with Mr. Williams and their mutual friend. (R. 79.) The trip, however, quickly turned into something far different. Their friend could not attend, leaving Ria alone with Mr. Williams. (Id.) After the movie, Mr. Williams took Ria’s cell phone and refused to drive her home or return her phone unless she kissed his cheek, which she declined to do. (Id.) In the ensuing months, Mr. Williams’s bullying continued, consistently growing more aggressive and violent. (R. 80–81.) Mr. Williams’s conduct soon escalated into sexual violence against Ria. In December 2007, Mr. Williams compelled Ria to get in his car and drove her to a “secluded area,” where he proceeded to “kiss her, and touch her breasts and between her legs over the clothes, despite [Ria’s] protests.”

This Mr. Williams guy sounds like an angry incel. I don't know much about the JW. Why is the girl on trial and not the dude? He's the one that initiated everything.
 
This Mr. Williams guy sounds like an angry incel. I don't know much about the JW. Why is the girl on trial and not the dude? He's the one that initiated everything.
She isn't on trial, she's suing the church for emotional damages. Regarding the lack of punishment for the alleged rapist, he was apparently a family friend. That combined with an insular religious community probably led to lots of social pressure to just "turn the other cheek" and "let bygones be bygones" that a 15 year old likely wasn't emotionally equipped to resist.
 
Mormons and JW's came out of the same religious milieu, the "Second Great Awakening" of the 1830s. There were two main groups, the Mormons and the "Millerites", who thought the world would end in 1843 because some farmer in what is now New Hampshire did some funky math with the book of Revelation. When 1843 flopped, he moved the date to 1844, then died shortly thereafter. After that flopped too, Millerism shattered, and eventually became two major faiths, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists. SDA's generally stay to themselves, but JW's have much of the weirdness of Mormonism, including the constant shoving of their religion in your face and such beliefs as families being together for eternity, including earthly marriage being for eternity. They also share surface denial about sex that covers up all sorts of bizarre kinkiness. So, being in Utah this absolutely won't go anywhere unless the lawyers can get it out of the claws of Mormon judges, since the Mormon Church, as noted, doesn't want blowback from this because they're birds of a feather with JW's.
 
Back