Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2002, Page 89
the family would have been less concerned about his bequest to the Watchtower. In short,
they felt angry and exploited by the Watchtower (W. Caughey, personal interview, Feb. 3,
1991).
The family‘s attorney was aware of the ―theocratic warfare‖ doctrine as a result of his own
research, and the author was retained as an expert witness to discuss its application. He
explained that, in contrast to the court requirement that one tell only ―the whole truth and
nothing but the truth,‖ the Watchtower teaches that it is proper to withhold the truth from
those who they believe have no right to know it, specifically those that are part of Satan‘s
system of things, which include all Watchtower opposers, all churches, and the secular
governments, including the court system.
This information was related in court to aid the jury in understanding the motives of
Jehovah's Witness Elder and attorney (but not the attorney for the case) Mr. Walter Kobil
and others in allegedly influencing Mr. Duesler to change his will. The concern of the family
was that Mr. Duesler was inappropriately coerced into changing his will. Concern over a
changing of a will after a lonely elderly person becomes involved in the Watchtower is not
an uncommon event.
The appeals court ruled on ―the question of the admissibility of evidence of a witness‘s
religious beliefs or opinions,‖ in this case the theocratic warfare doctrine. The court
concluded that ―no analysis is necessary the evidence is simply not admissible by virtue of
evid.r.610.‖ This rule reads: ―Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of
religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature his
credibility is impaired or enhanced.‖
The Ohio Supreme Court said that the plaintiff elicited expert testimony at the trial,
―concerning the beliefs and practices of the Jehovah‘s Witnesses‖ and that the plaintiff‘s
expert witness ―testified that the church engaged in a practice he termed ‗theocratic
warfare.‘ This practice allegedly includes a church policy to encourage members to perjure
themselves in order to protect the church and its followers‖ (emphasis mine). The court
also concluded that much of plaintiff's case centered on the expert witness‘s ―testimony
concerning theocratic warfare and his allegations that Jehovah‘s Witnesses would lie to
protect the congregation‖ (Redman v. Watchtower, supra, p. 100, 69 Ohio St. 3rd, p. 98,
100-101, emphasis mine).
The court also claimed that ―most of plaintiff's case was controverted by the defense. Kobil
(a Toledo attorney who, at the time of this case, claimed that he had practiced law for 35
years and was, according to the court records, a Witness for 60 years) testified that he was
a member of the Jehovah‘s Witnesses, but that lying under oath was not a tenet of their
teachings. Kobil‘s testimony was corroborated by John Schabow, an elder in a local
Jehovah‘s Witness congregation.‖ As documented below Kobil did not deny the existence of
the doctrine, but only the specifics of its application.
John Schabow testified that he became involved with the Jehovah‘s Witnesses in 1944 and
was an elder in the local congregation (Schabow testimony court transcript, p. 750). When
asked by Mr. Kolb, the attorney for the Watchtower in this case (not to be confused with
attorney Kobil, a witness in the case), if he ―ever heard of the doctrine of theocratic warfare
before this case,‖ he avoided the question by answering, ―I don‘t know what that refers to.
It‘s not something that we teach in the congregation or that we study.‖ In the next
question Shabow indicated that he did know what the doctrine referred to. Specifically, Mr.
Kolb asked, ―does it [the theocratic war doctrine] appear regularly in your writings?‖
Schabow then denied that it appears regularly, and added that the Watchtower magazine ―is
distributed freely to the public around the world, and anyone would see that. I don‘t see
that [doctrine] in the Watchtower magazines.‖ The concern is if the doctrine is taught, not
the family would have been less concerned about his bequest to the Watchtower. In short,
they felt angry and exploited by the Watchtower (W. Caughey, personal interview, Feb. 3,
1991).
The family‘s attorney was aware of the ―theocratic warfare‖ doctrine as a result of his own
research, and the author was retained as an expert witness to discuss its application. He
explained that, in contrast to the court requirement that one tell only ―the whole truth and
nothing but the truth,‖ the Watchtower teaches that it is proper to withhold the truth from
those who they believe have no right to know it, specifically those that are part of Satan‘s
system of things, which include all Watchtower opposers, all churches, and the secular
governments, including the court system.
This information was related in court to aid the jury in understanding the motives of
Jehovah's Witness Elder and attorney (but not the attorney for the case) Mr. Walter Kobil
and others in allegedly influencing Mr. Duesler to change his will. The concern of the family
was that Mr. Duesler was inappropriately coerced into changing his will. Concern over a
changing of a will after a lonely elderly person becomes involved in the Watchtower is not
an uncommon event.
The appeals court ruled on ―the question of the admissibility of evidence of a witness‘s
religious beliefs or opinions,‖ in this case the theocratic warfare doctrine. The court
concluded that ―no analysis is necessary the evidence is simply not admissible by virtue of
evid.r.610.‖ This rule reads: ―Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of
religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature his
credibility is impaired or enhanced.‖
The Ohio Supreme Court said that the plaintiff elicited expert testimony at the trial,
―concerning the beliefs and practices of the Jehovah‘s Witnesses‖ and that the plaintiff‘s
expert witness ―testified that the church engaged in a practice he termed ‗theocratic
warfare.‘ This practice allegedly includes a church policy to encourage members to perjure
themselves in order to protect the church and its followers‖ (emphasis mine). The court
also concluded that much of plaintiff's case centered on the expert witness‘s ―testimony
concerning theocratic warfare and his allegations that Jehovah‘s Witnesses would lie to
protect the congregation‖ (Redman v. Watchtower, supra, p. 100, 69 Ohio St. 3rd, p. 98,
100-101, emphasis mine).
The court also claimed that ―most of plaintiff's case was controverted by the defense. Kobil
(a Toledo attorney who, at the time of this case, claimed that he had practiced law for 35
years and was, according to the court records, a Witness for 60 years) testified that he was
a member of the Jehovah‘s Witnesses, but that lying under oath was not a tenet of their
teachings. Kobil‘s testimony was corroborated by John Schabow, an elder in a local
Jehovah‘s Witness congregation.‖ As documented below Kobil did not deny the existence of
the doctrine, but only the specifics of its application.
John Schabow testified that he became involved with the Jehovah‘s Witnesses in 1944 and
was an elder in the local congregation (Schabow testimony court transcript, p. 750). When
asked by Mr. Kolb, the attorney for the Watchtower in this case (not to be confused with
attorney Kobil, a witness in the case), if he ―ever heard of the doctrine of theocratic warfare
before this case,‖ he avoided the question by answering, ―I don‘t know what that refers to.
It‘s not something that we teach in the congregation or that we study.‖ In the next
question Shabow indicated that he did know what the doctrine referred to. Specifically, Mr.
Kolb asked, ―does it [the theocratic war doctrine] appear regularly in your writings?‖
Schabow then denied that it appears regularly, and added that the Watchtower magazine ―is
distributed freely to the public around the world, and anyone would see that. I don‘t see
that [doctrine] in the Watchtower magazines.‖ The concern is if the doctrine is taught, not
