Father John Tolkien Accused of Child Molestation

  • Thread starter Thread starter MugenOne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MugenOne

Guest
Father John Tolkien, son of JRR Tolkien, accused of child molestation. The accuser said that Father John Tolkien molested him some 40 years ago. Unfortunately, Father John got ill and passed away before he could defend himself. Father Tolkien was a wealthy man, inheriting from his father JRR Tolkien. Parishioners say he was often very generous with his money, distributing it to a number of local charities.

The Sunday Mercury has more liberty to publish the latest claims now because in law you can not libel a dead person.

A statement from the Catholic Church has again denied the allegations, stating there was insufficient evidence to bring any charges against Father Tolkien.

The accuser finally settled the case with the diocese. No monetary information was available. The accuser is also planning to suit the Tolkien family for damage. Tolkien family is very wealthy due to the success of the LOTR trilogy.
You tell me, is this money motivated or not?
 
If this were true I doubt there would be just one person claiming it. However, now that this is public, will more people make claims just for money? You have to wonder. Money can entice people. It is a shame. I
 
mpav said:
poynter.org/article_feedback/article_feedback_list.asp?user=&id=18749

This links to a post of British article from several years ago. Tolkien was suspected of dozens of instances of pedophilia. He is cited in the article as the most prolific British pedophile priest. This is heartbreaking, but to date I have read no serious defense or refutation fo the charges.
Click to expand...

This bothers me no end. It may be that he was as they claim, it also may be that he did what they say, but, if you read the article, in fact read all the articles it comes down to ONE claimant. The statement that he was the worst pedophile in Britian is HIS statement. There is an assertion that one victim killed himself, no name, no date, in fact a totally unveriable statement, any newspaper worth its salt would be only too keen to say who, where, when etc., why didn’t they? (and pleeeeese don’t lets go down the route of protecting the victim, that’s one piece of imagination to far for any UK newspaper!!)

The article goes on:
Last night, one of his victims - still haunted by his childhood demons more than 40 years on - estimated that Tolkien had probably molested hundreds of youngsters over the decades in his unique position of trust.
Click to expand...
Is this a different victim, if so why not “another of his victims”, or are we into “clever” journalism? It’s also very convenient to use words such as “estimated” and “probably”, use of these undefined utterances lets the newspaper out of actually stating facts and figures.

I will be far more convinced when others WHO CAN PROVE THEIR CASE come forward rather than the unsubstantiated and totally unproven claims in a newspaper that was so “confident” of their story they wouldn’t publish until they no longer had to prove it in a court of law.
 
I think and hope is false, I have a lot of respect of all Tolkien family.
 
I would think that the chances that it was motivated by money are far greater than it was not motivated by Money. :hmmm:

Kathie :bowdown:
 
Regarding the article I posted above, I know it’s not the last word on the subject. It’s something that has been in the news on and off for years. I don’t have time today to do a more comprehensive search on it, but I’ll try to find more persuasive evidence.
 
As a followup, the late Fr. Tolkeien was aquitted of the charges, and Police Investegators as well as Prosecuting attornies have made public statements that the charges were not credible. That update however had not been reported on Anti-Catholic sites.
 
The terrible injustice of all this is that by merely accusing the late Fr. Tolkien of such crimes, he will be presumed guilty by most people who read the article, regardless of any exonerations and proofs of innocence. This is not a Christian attitude.
 
MugenOne said:
You tell me, is this money motivated or not?
Click to expand...
We cannot answer that question because we do not know. It is mere speculation in which we should not be engaging. We cannot know the motives of the accuser. Likewise, anything of which Fr. Tolkien was accused is also mere speculation. We cannot and should not discuss this: we do not have the facts.
 
Thanks for the update. It is a good lesson that an accusation of wrong-doing is not justification for assumption of guilt.
 
“Work of the Enemy! Such deeds he loves: friend at war with friend; loyalty divided in confusion of hearts.”

– Gandalf
 
I’m sorry I did not post a link to the page which quoted from British newspapers, and the police investigators as well as Court officials that they found the evidence to be very compelling that he was innocent of the charges. My intent in reviving the thread was to point out that those Anti-Catholic blogs which disseminate such allegations, and sadly even this thread have not been updated to reflect the later findings. A google search of the subject will find both the old allegations, and the newer vindication of Fr. Tolkien.
 
Filioque said:
As a followup, the late Fr. Tolkeien was aquitted of the charges, and Police Investegators as well as Prosecuting attornies have made public statements that the charges were not credible. That update however had not been reported on Anti-Catholic sites.
Click to expand...
There is not a shred of truth in your assertion. In the first place Tolkien could not have been “acquitted of the charges” since there was no trial of any charges. In the second place, it is a complete untruth to say that “Police Investegators(sic) as well as Prosecuting attornies(sic) have made public statements that the charges were not credible.” The fact is that the Police submitted a file to the CPS which they would not have done had the charges not been “credible”. If you mean by “Prosecuting attornies(sic)” the Crown Prosecution Service, then your claim that “Prosecuting attornies have made public statements that the charges were not credible.” is a complete falsehood. The CPS in fact delivered a finding that to prosecute Tolkien would not have been “in the public interest” and such a finding by the CPS is in fact only possible when the evidence already is sufficient to give a strong indication that a prosecution would be successful. In other words, the finding that a prosecution would not be “in the public interest” is an indication of guilt, and not as you suggest and indication of evidence. This fact is elaborated in the CPS Code for Crown Prosecutors:

4.7 In every case where there is sufficient evidence to justify a
prosecution, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a
prosecution is required in the public interest.

cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/code2013english.pdf
Filioque said:
I’m sorry I did not post a link to the page which quoted from British newspapers, and the police investigators as well as Court officials that they found the evidence to be very compelling that he was innocent of the charges.
Click to expand...
The reason “did not post a link to the page which quoted from British newspapers, and the police investigators as well as Court officials” is in fact that no such link exists. And although much of the reporting has by now been scrubbed from the web record either by time or by another less “natural” process, nonetheless many links can be supplied that further show the untruth of your claims, e.g.,

bit.ly/S3dZCd

highbeam.com/doc/1G1-105600313.html

In both of these reports you will find mention of the CPS "public interest’ finding, e.g.

"A police investigation was launched into the sex abuse allegations and the Crown Prosecution Service decided that there was enough evidence to put Fr Tolkien before the courts.

But by that time he was too ill to be charged."

Anyone can verify these matters for herself by entering the obvious searches into Google. But of course you knew all of this already.

And to the other commenters here who are so satisfied that “there is only one” victim, I’m afraid the facts must disabuse you also. In addition to Mr. Carrie it now emerges that even while it was protesting the unsullied instance of Tolkien it was at the same time making secret settlements with numerous other victims.

See e.g., PAUL BANKES, 54, NEWCASTLE UNDER LYME, UK here:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8589340.stm

Or this: “The Sunday Mercury understands that the police investigation uncovered other sex abuse victims in Birmingham and in Staffordshire. A man who lives in Canada also subsequently contacted police.”

icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/content_objectid=13198462_method=full_siteid=50002_headline=–Damages–paid-in-Tolkien-case-name_page.html

Or the mention of other settlements here in relation to events that occurred at St Peters in Eynsham (the abuse of Mr. Carrie took place at English Martyrs, Birmingham). No doubt there will be more revelations from the other jurisdictions in which Tolkien practiced in due course. Only a complete fool or a scoundrel would choose to be in the deniers camp evn now.
 
In my first para, the sentence:

“In other words, the finding that a prosecution would not be “in the public interest” is an indication of guilt, and not as you suggest and indication of evidence.”

should read:

In other words, the finding that a prosecution would not be “in the public interest” is an indication of guilt, and not as you suggest and indication of innocence.
 
TheCommenter said:
In my first para, the sentence:

“In other words, the finding that a prosecution would not be “in the public interest” is an indication of guilt, and not as you suggest and indication of evidence.”

should read:

In other words, the finding that a prosecution would not be “in the public interest” is an indication of guilt, and not as you suggest and indication of innocence.
Click to expand...
So I guess that a prosecution is in the public interest when there is an indication of innocence? Right.

Many charges against priests have been found to have been false, often brought simply for gain of money.

That people are maligning a dead person for no credible reason and with no proof is disgusting and reprehensible. This is not a Christian thing to do at all.
 
MODERATOR NOTE

Please do not resurrect old threads. Those involved in the conversation are often gone and cannot respond to new comments.

Also please note the forum rules posted at the top of the forum concerning making attacks upon clergy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top