WT policies don't need to " EVOLVE " they need to CHANGE ! What a piece of excrement this WT attorney is ! I hope the WT society has to pay through the nose on this and many other child abuse cases. With attorneys this stupid- they deserve whatever fate comes to them
Candace Conti v. Watchtower Society - Closing Argument by WTBTS Attorney
by jwleaks 84 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
flipper
I also see that Mr. Brilliant was told to use the argument that these JW child molesters were not allowed to " serve as elders, Ministerial servants, or pioneers ". So his point is ???? That still doesn't stop these molesters from being child molesters with blood pouring through their living carcasses of bodies and scoping out new child abuse victims ! Unbelievably idiotic
-
earthfire
This is so disgusting. I am bloody sick of organizations, (both religious and non) covering up sex abuse. It truly makes me sick to my stomach. When I was about 9 there was an older brother in our hall who took a liking to me. My dad really respected him and I liked him too. It hit me when I was older what he was doing but no adults noticed at the time. So we had a game where he would give me a really hard word to spell and then I could have all the change in his pocket. He always had a lot of change But as a kid I was happy about that! So I'd spell and get money. Then it started to be that I had to reach into his pocket to get the money. I did that a couple of times but it didn't feel right. Then he started to kiss me on the cheek whenever I saw him. My dad would see it and never thought a thing about it. (But heaven forbid a boy in the congregation give me a piggy back ride!) Finally one day he came up to me after the meeting when I was with some friends towards the back of the hall. He had no qualms about kissing me half on the lips and half on the cheek in front of everyone! I mad a huge deal about it and yelled at him and told him to never touch me again! He was horrified and he never did talk to me again. My dad saw the whole thing and did nothing. Looking back on it, it looks like there was a subtle grooming going on but I don't know that for sure. I do know that he didn't act this way to any of the other girls in the hall.
I'm willing to bet that this kind of inappropriate conduct happens far and wide in the organization with no thought or action taken. Part of that is the automatic respect that is given to anyone who is a JW and especially when they are an older brother. I mean, they are only a step under the angels....
-
yourmomma
Frankly, im a little suprised that the watchtower lawyers made such ridiculus argumentation. anyone think that this could be partly why they lost so badly? i really think it hurts them that the lawyers are also JW's. i mean this shows how clueless they are. who the hell would listen to this and be like "oh ok, no problem, zero on the punative". LOL
i admit, i enjoyed reading that because i know that the jury heard that and then rammed it up watchtowers ass in an all time manner. you dont get satisfaction like that often in life.
-
OUTLAW
The Jehovah's Witnesses Church is not the Catholic Church, that it has had verdict after verdict after verdict over the years. It's been in the press. We are all aware of it. This is the first verdict that the Jehovah's Witnesses church has faced. So, again, it is not the Catholic Church with multitudes of cases over a couple of decades.
And we feel bad for Ms. Conti. But I can assure you, and I can assure her, that Watchtower's policies continue to evolve. And I can safely say that, with her verdict yesterday, Ms. Conti has succeeded. I encourage you to award no punitive damages in this case.
So the reason the WBT$ shouldn`t pay Punitive Damages is because:
(1)..They `re not the Catholic Church..They are the Jehovah`s Witness Church..
(2)..The WBT$ feels bad about Candace Condi but,WatchTower policies continue to Evolve (New Light)..
This Watchtower Lawyer wants You to Know..
We`re not like the Catholics!
.............................
...OUTLAW -
Scott77
LOL @ Outlaw.:D
Scott77
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
So this is their strategy for protecting children from molesters?
"'It would be appropriate to talk very frankly with the abuser that he should never be in the presence of a child without another adult being present.'"
Yes, and talking frankly to the dog that he should not eat that steak lying on the kitchen floor is really gonna protect that steak from the dog as soon as you leave the house!
"And it's, indeed, the first one we are all aware of that has ever found liability on a congregation in a church based on a congregation member causing harm to the child of another member."
So he's going with the argument, "Look, this happens a lot in our organization but you can't find us guilty this time because we've always gotten away scot-free before!"
"But I can assure you, and I can assure her, that Watchtower's policies continue to evolve."
Evolve? What a dumbass way of saying, "we have no intention of changing anything until the very laws of survival require it." Maybe multi-million dollar lawsuits will help their "evolution".
-
rebel8
How can it be verified that this is the real closing argument? thanks
-
Refriedtruth
How can it be verified that this is the real closing argument? thanks
-
nugget
The lawyers closing arguments did the best he could to say the organisation were innocent. However the jury probably were unimpressed with the reitteration that the policies are sound and therefore the society has been punished enough.
He highlighted that elders should protect the child from further abuse and they need to assess whether the person is a danger to others. What the lawyer failed to appreciate is that it is not the job of the elders to assess whether someone is a danger to children nor to monitor him, that is the job of the authorities who are qualified to do this. To speak of this as if it is an internal congregation matter like any sin is the failing.
The suspect should be questioned and the child should not be present UNLESS another adult is present. This again highlights the problem with unqualified men dealing with a sensitive matter. The child should not be in the presence of their abuser regardless of how many adults are present. The child has been traumatised enough surely without the added trauma of being questioned about it by men with no idea how to talk to victims of child abuse and in the presence of a man who abused them. He probably told the child no one would believe them and the elders enforcing a 2 witness rule would be reinforcing this idea. Authorities would approach the child far more sensitively and use forensics to establish facts.
The final straw to suggest that they are not like the catholics was arrogant and duplicitous. Some of the jury may well have been catholics. This was the first case where the society was held accountable but it certainly wasn't the first witness child abuser to be prosecuted. Nor did he mention the other cases with gagging orders that never made it to court.
Lies, double talk and arrogance it is small wonder they weren't fined for every penny they had.
...OUTLAW