Sex Offender Missionary Charged with Crimes Against Children

[Giraffe]

Convicted sex offender who moved to Kenya to be a missionary in an orphanage has been charged with assaulting children at the orphanage. A Kenyan woman is the whistle blower after a couple of the girls escaped and told their story. Evil man's wife complicit. She took the girls to get birth control implanted in their skin so he could do what he wanted without risk of pregnancy. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55947570

Edited February 5, 2021 by Coconut Flan

[hoipolloi]

The woman who brought him to justice is a dual citizen of the US & Kenya. She is a nurse & had come to Kenya to care for a family member when she learned about the abuse perpetrated by Dow. Turns out he actually lived in her US home town in PA.

It's a horrific story and it appears that the man's wife aided and abetted him in abusing the children, and their crimes possibly include murder. Inexplicably, the FBI did not go after her. She was charged, tried & found guilty in Kenya but got off with a fine. 

 

[Howl]

Hard to describe how angry this makes me, both for what he did and why his wife, who directly aided the abuse, is not also in prison. 

[Marmion]

Quote

Gregory Dow, an American missionary who sexually abused young girls at an orphanage in Bomet county has been sentenced to 15 years and eight months in jail.

The pedophile who had set up the children's home in 2008 and run it together with his wife, Mary Rose Dow, admitted to having committed the heinous act between 2013 and 2017.

According to the New York Times, a federal court in the State of Pennsylvania on Thursday, February 4, in addition to the prison term ordered him to pay KSh 1.7 million in restitution and a lifetime of supervised release.

According to the charge sheet, the 61-year-old began abusing the girls when two of them were 11 years of age, one was 12, and the other one 13.

The prosecutors added that Dow had sexually abused three of the girls knowing that his wife had taken them to have birth control devices and so was able to perpetrate these crimes without fear that the abuse would result in pregnancy.

 

The American man fled Kenya in 2017 after authorities issued a warrant of arrest against him when his children's molestation acts were unmasked.

He was later arrested in July 2019, where he pleaded guilty to four counts of abusing the girls.

His Dow Family's Children's Home which was being funded by the US-based Elizabethtown church was shut down in 2017.

TUKO.co.ke established he had earlier been charged and convicted with children sexual harassment charges in the US.

He was charged with lewd acts with a child in August 1996, 12 years before he traveled to Kenya

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/gregory-dow-us-court-sentences-mzungu-missionary-who-abused-bomet-girls-to-15-years-in-jail/ar-BB1dplEX 

[samurai_sarah]

26 minutes ago, Marmion said:

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/gregory-dow-us-court-sentences-mzungu-missionary-who-abused-bomet-girls-to-15-years-in-jail/ar-BB1dplEX 

Will you please stop just posting links? Please give some context and content!

[Marmion]

1 hour ago, samurai_sarah said:

Will you please stop just posting links? Please give some context and content!

What are you talking about  ? There is a quote right above it .

[hoipolloi]

5 hours ago, Marmion said:

What are you talking about  ? There is a quote right above it .

That's not context.

Using your own words (and you can be brief), give readers a reason, or not, to click on the new link you provided.

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by hoipolloi
Clarity

[samurai_sarah]

2 hours ago, Marmion said:

What are you talking about  ? There is a quote right above it .

You just posted a link without giving any content, without explaining how your link is relevant. Not everyone likes to click on a random link without knowing what it's about. And also, you do realise that this is an international forum? Not everyone actually has access to some sites. So: Please be considerate and write a few words.

[AnnaSofia]

11 minutes ago, samurai_sarah said:

You just posted a link without giving any content, without explaining how your link is relevant. Not everyone likes to click on a random link without knowing what it's about. And also, you do realise that this is an international forum? Not everyone actually has access to some sites. So: Please be considerate and write a few words.

 Just above the link there's a box with "read more" at the bottom of it, if you click "read more" and expand the box, the whole article is right there. There's no need to even click the link.

[Coconut Flan]

2 hours ago, Marmion said:

What are you talking about  ? There is a quote right above it .

You didn't say anything.  That's the point.  You need to personally have something to say about it.  

[nelliebelle1197]

17 hours ago, Marmion said:

https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/gregory-dow-us-court-sentences-mzungu-missionary-who-abused-bomet-girls-to-15-years-in-jail/ar-BB1dplEX 

Here is a link  to an MSN article on this topic. It goes into more detail on the history of the abuse if anyone is interested in taking a look. It also discusses how Dow and his wife set up a children’s home.

 

@Marmion

The above took me 30 seconds including skimming the article and embedding the link. It gives context, link source and allows people to decide whether or not they want to click a link from a stranger on the internet. This is not a rule but it is a general internet-wide posting convention in well- run blogs and forums. It is good manners and it is respect for your fellow members. Members and staff have asked you repeatedly to please follow this convention over the last few months/ years, yet you seem determined not be polite. I don’t get it.

[Marmion]

9 hours ago, nelliebelle1197 said:

 

 

@Marmion

The above took me 30 seconds including skimming the article and embedding the link. It gives context, link source and allows people to decide whether or not they want to click a link from a stranger on the internet. This is not a rule but it is a general internet-wide posting convention in well- run blogs and forums. It is good manners and it is respect for your fellow members. Members and staff have asked you repeatedly to please follow this convention over the last few months/ years, yet you seem determined not be polite. I don’t get it.

I actually do frequent other message boards , most notably this one forum , which as the name suggests is mainly for discussing news stories of political interest .  https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/  And there most everyone reposts articles from pertinent websites .   I have never heard of anyone on any internet forum being called out for not providing a summary of an article in question .  I would have thought that such an expectation would be considered to be superfluous in the least , and at worse be seen as assuming that the audience is either too lazy to bother to read the article , or even too dimwitted to comprehend it, i.e.  being condescending .  The rule I was taught in school , when it comes to deciding whether or not a composition is worth reading , given the subject , is to first read the  beginning and last paragraphs . This is incidentally what I do to people's posts concerning me , in order to avoid potentially viewing a barrage of ad hominems , which are of no worthwhile benefit to me . But if it's that much of a big deal to you , and your entourage of amen chorusers , I suppose that in the future I could oblige a description of any linked articles of which I may sometimes post .   Now might we cease from dumping on me , and resume the matter at hand , concerning the convicted sex offender missionary ?  I would hate to wind up detracting from the topic thread . 

[Marmion]

22 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

You didn't say anything.  That's the point.  You need to personally have something to say about it.  

I happened to check the terms of use for this website , just to be diligent , and no I don't . There is no such rule in the list .  If , in the future , such an amendment were to be added , I would of course abide by it . But as it currently stands , I may quote citations from news articles I have found , in order to update the forum on the latest developments . The development in this case being that the missionary in question has subsequently been convicted , rather than merely accused , and charged . The first line in the referenced article had said as much . So I do not know where the supposed ambiguity , in my post , would  supposedly come from . 

[Coconut Flan]

39 minutes ago, Marmion said:

I happened to check the terms of use for this website , just to be diligent , and no I don't . There is no such rule in the list . 

If it were a rule, you'd be sitting in the prayer closet for flagrantly and repeatedly violating it instead of having the mods trying to herd you to a more board friendly position.  

You said above you'd consider the more friendly, polite approach.  Thank you.  

Edited February 7, 2021 by Coconut Flan

[hoipolloi]

1 hour ago, Marmion said:

So I do not know where the supposed ambiguity , in my post , would  supposedly come from...I suppose that in the future I could oblige a description of any linked articles of which I may sometimes post . 

If you actually read the example provided by @nelliebelle1197, the ambiguity of your previous post  should be clear.

She has also given you a good model for composing future posts with links -- please follow it. Thank you.

 

 

[nelliebelle1197]

12 hours ago, Marmion said:

I happened to check the terms of use for this website , just to be diligent , and no I don't . There is no such rule in the list .  If , in the future , such an amendment were to be added , I would of course abide by it . But as it currently stands , I may quote citations from news articles I have found , in order to update the forum on the latest developments . The development in this case being that the missionary in question has subsequently been convicted , rather than merely accused , and charged . The first line in the referenced article had said as much . So I do not know where the supposed ambiguity , in my post , would  supposedly come from . 

Just so you know, the reason it is not a rule is because we have never had trouble with people doing this in the past. Every rule on FJ comes about because someone acts like an ass. It is not a rule, which is what I said clearly in my post above, which you would understand if you bother to read it - or maybe you did and you don’t understand it. It is considered good manners around here not to post links without descriptions.

Do we need to make it a rule so you will stop doing it? When you have half the mod team asking you to stop, why do you keep mansplaining and arguing? Just stop and be a grown up. If we have to contact Curious about modifying a rule a just for you, it says a lot about your character or lack thereof.

Edited February 7, 2021 by nelliebelle1197

[Destiny]

13 hours ago, Marmion said:

I happened to check the terms of use for this website , just to be diligent , and no I don't . There is no such rule in the list .  If , in the future , such an amendment were to be added , I would of course abide by it . But as it currently stands , I may quote citations from news articles I have found , in order to update the forum on the latest developments . The development in this case being that the missionary in question has subsequently been convicted , rather than merely accused , and charged . The first line in the referenced article had said as much . So I do not know where the supposed ambiguity , in my post , would  supposedly come from . 

Interestingly, most of our rules have been because one person who refuses to work within the conventions of our culture here. 

It's just plain polite and expected to give information on the links you post. No one wants to click on links when they have no idea where they go. If you have time to find and post a link, you have time to say, "Hey, I found this interesting article about x." It's not that hard not to be rude. You might consider trying that instead of arguing about it.

[Mrs Ms]

On a forum a bunch of years ago I was reading a post that was shredding a movie (can’t remember which one) and did something I normally didn’t/don’t do: clicked on a link with no description.

 

 The result? I ended up looking at a page suggesting that they could maybe turn you into a human leather wallet or bag after death. Very vague apparently for legal reasons. Still don’t know if it was legit or a spoof. I now have looking into turning myself into leather goods in my search history. I LOVE the FJ expectations of adding SOMETHING to a link!!!

Edited February 7, 2021 by Mrs Ms
Wonky tenses

[Marmion]

2 hours ago, Mrs Ms said:

On a forum a bunch of years ago I was reading a post that was shredding a movie (can’t remember which one) and did something I normally didn’t/don’t do: clicked on a link with no description.

 

 The result? I ended up looking at a page suggesting that they could maybe turn you into a human leather wallet or bag after death. Very vague apparently for legal reasons. Still don’t know if it was legit or a spoof. I now have looking into turning myself into leather goods in my search history. I LOVE the FJ expectations of adding SOMETHING to a link!!!

Even if someone gives a description of a link , it still might be deceptive .  It's part of the well known internet prank , called "Rickrolling"   ( link contains a description of the term ) . I would never do such an immature trick myself .  But it is known to happen , so I would understand why it would be a concern , and not be allowed .  And , as to the other comments made to me , by other posters , some of whom I have only just now realized hold moderator powers ,  I never wanted to cause any contention , but in all fairness , you cannot expect someone to follow a rule that is not specified from the start .  I have never run into any trouble over this sort of thing on any other message board  , so it would seem strange to me that I should have  to give an explanation of what a linked article is about , when I would would have thought that it should be self evident .  As a common Latin expression goes , " Res ipsa loquitur " . ( The thing speaks for itself ) But whatever you all say . ( shrug ) 

[Destiny]

As I mentioned before, most of our rules are in place because people refuse to follow FJ's established norms. To that end, posting only links with no context is now officially against the rules. Like most of our rules, repeated breaking of the rule will result in points, and eventually a trip to the prayer closet. 

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by Destiny

[samurai_sarah]

59 minutes ago, Marmion said:

Even if someone gives a description of a link , it still might be deceptive .  It's part of the well known internet prank , called "Rickrolling"   ( link contains a description of the term ) . I would never do such an immature trick myself .  But it is known to happen , so I would understand why it would be a concern , and not be allowed .  And , as to the other comments made to me , by other posters , some of whom I have only just now realized hold moderator powers ,  I never wanted to cause any contention , but in all fairness , you cannot expect someone to follow a rule that is not specified from the start .  I have never run into any trouble over this sort of thing on any other message board  , so it would seem strange to me that I should have  to give an explanation of what a linked article is about , when I would would have thought that it should be self evident .  As a common Latin expression goes , " Res ipsa loquitur " . ( The thing speaks for itself ) But whatever you all say . ( shrug ) 

Says a lot about you that you'd only be polite to mods.

[Destiny]

Any further discussion on this topic should go here please.

[WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo?]

I found an article from October 2016 from Lancaster Online titled "Lancaster County couple sells everything, moves to Kenya to build, run orphanage". (It has a paywall, but I was able to open the article 2 or 3 times for free.)

I don't have the attention span and emotional capital to read it very closely right now, but the 9 pictures at the top of the article of the Dows with small children in Kenya are particularly disturbing, given what we now know. (Most of the pics wouldn't have caught my attention before knowing that Gregory Dow is a sicko, but the picture of the couple bathing a naked baby would still have caught my eye.)

The aforementioned picture:

Spoiler

I was also able to find all the pictures from the article by doing a Google image search for "Gregory and Mary Rose Dow". 

And now I feel like I need to bleach my brain.

[hoipolloi]

7 hours ago, WhatWouldJohnCrichtonDo? said:

I don't have the attention span and emotional capital to read it very closely right now, but the 9 pictures at the top of the article of the Dows with small children in Kenya are particularly disturbing, given what we now know.

Using an incognito tab, I was able to access the article. The fact that these two, pig-ignorant Christians could establish an orphanage in Kenya with so little or no oversight is horrifying, especially in light of what is now known.

Also, Gregory & Mary Rose Dow initially brought their 6 children with them when moving to Kenya in 2008, although the oldest two eventually left to return to the US. Judging from the surnames given, the children appear to be from two different birth families -- it's not clear if some were Mary Rose's from an earlier marriage or if the Dows adopted them at some point.

Then there's this information from the NYT article about Dow's sentencing:

Quote

The four girls at the orphanage were not Mr. Dow’s first underage victims, prosecutors said, noting that he had pleaded guilty in 1996 to sexually abusing a minor in Iowa. 

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by hoipolloi

[Giraffe]

The more that comes out on the them the more furious I am that the wife only got a slap on the wrist!