Part 2 of the 2013 Conti and Simons interview now on YouTube (questions posed by JWN members)

by cedars 54 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  cedars

  Chas, yes I think you are off on this occasion. The allegations of prostitution and drug use were answered clearly and emphatically, as indeed Candace has a right to answer them (or have them answered by her lawyer). Arguably the issue of being in posession of stolen goods wasn't dealt with (as I recall) but it is left to the imagination that the theft convictions were connected with Candace's period of drug use, which in turn constituted her efforts at "self medication" - which is common among victims of childhood sexual abuse. Apart from the stolen goods issue, I don't see any ambiguity at this point in the interview.

  Cedars
• 

  rip van winkle

  No, Chase, It is I who have called you out.

  No need for me to reiterate. Read your own words where you question the truthfulness of the answer given.

  You are digging your heels in Chaserious. You may not like the answer. So what?

  Your argument is similar to the WT that a victim of rape has to scream and fight.

  Because you think someone should react to a question the way you would and not the way it was answered, you disbelieve.

  Please don't try to tell me or others that you are concerned over how apologist's will read into the answers.

  I think Candace's lawyer, Rick Simons is in a better position than you to decide what is or is not a question to answer.

  Perhaps when you get your law degree, are practicing law, have had the biggest monetary judgement awarded to your client against the Watch Tower machine, then maybe I will take your words into consideration.

  In the meanwhile, stop perpetuating a lie.
• 

  Chaserious

  OK, Rip, you are right. Rick Simons can do no wrong and everything he does is beyond questioning.

  How do you know what my qualifications are to make these observations? Usually when someone attacks the person and not the argument, it is a crutch. If you read and comprehended what I said, you would not need to put words in my mouth and make nonsense straw man comparisons between me and the WT. I clearly said in my first post on this topic that these accusations are "blame the victim" tactics.

  I have no agenda other than objectivity.
• 

  rip van winkle

  No strawman here, Chaserious.

  Your statement that you are concerned how apologist's may view the video speaks volumes.

  No, I do not know your credentials. You are correct. However, if you had credentials, I believe you would have stated them.

  I may be right.

  I may be wrong.

  I am willing to be wrong.

  Are you?
• 

  Chaserious

  I have no need to state my credentials, because calling them into question is a cop out.

  What do you mean, my concern about apologists speaks volumes? It says in big red letters in the video that those accusations are from apologists. Why would the video give apologists a voice, if the answer was not meant as a rebuttal to them? I merely questioned how effective of a rebuttal it was.

  Besides, what lie is it that you keep saying I am perpetuating? Is receiving stolen goods a lie? Is selling drugs a lie? I wish I knew, and I suspect at least the stolen goods accusation is, but the intro made me want to know the answers to these questions that I didn't think much about before. Why raise questions and pique people's interest? You cannot with any degree of objectivity watch the video and find a direct answer to these questions, unless I have missed something. In which case I welcome someone to point it out.
• 

  rip van winkle

  The video series parts 1-3 were made to provide some answers to questions from jwn members. Some questions were about the legal process and some were personal questions directed at Candace.

  Candace has answered questions in the way in which she expresses herself.

  She may not have answered to your liking. Too bad.

  Personally I think you are FOS, but that is just my personal opinion based on your responses and back peddling.

  You are attacking the victim with accusations that have been asked and answered.

  Time to move on Chaserious.

  Stop perpetuating a lie.
• 

  flipper

  CEDARS- Great job. Very good production. Very important information shared. I look forward to part 3. Thanks for posting this. Long live Candace and her attorney. May they continue to win this battle for justice and hopefully many more battles for other abused children as well
• 

  144001

  <<< Perhaps I am being a bit cynical here, but I can't help but wonder why Candace did not directly answer the prostitution question.>>>

  Chaserious,

  Based on your posts, it appears that you either have legal background or legal knowledge, so I'm surprised that you made the comment above. It's important to remember that the interview wasn't a deposition. Candace answered the questions in accordance with her lawyer's advice, and such advice was given with the understanding that if the WT is successful on its appeal, the case may have to be retried. I see nothing suspicious about her response and nothing about it that supports in any way the WTBTS' position in this case.
• 

  LisaRose

  I have been trying to follow the Candace Conti case as well as Steven Unthank's work in Australia. If memory serves me (and please forgive me if this question has been asked and answered or if I have my facts wrong), the original judgement was for 28 million dollars. That judgement was reduced to $17 million dollars by agreement between the parties. How is it that the WTB$ can get a settlement and reduction of the damages awarded and still have the legal recourse of an appeal. It just doesn't make sense to me. How can they have it both ways? Can someone explain the judicial process here?

  Thanks, Rubbity

  It's apples and oranges. The punitive damage amount was reduced because the court felt the award was excessive. Candace could then either accept the lower amount or she could retry the punitive damage part of the trial. She choose to accept the lower amount, which ended the trial. The Watchtower then filed an appeal to have the entire judgement overturned. At least that is how I understand it, maybe one of our legal experts could explain it better.
• 

  Juan Viejo2

  I'm going to step in here for just a moment to answer one part of Chaserious' questions and remarks.

  If you look at the credits at the end of each video you will see that along with Kathleen Conti, I was filming the interviews. I was running the main camera and offscreen asking the questions.

  When we came to that particular question I was so offended by its tone that I wasn't going to ask it. As "director" by default, I made a snap decision NOT TO ASK that question and just move on. Candace objected and told me to go ahead and ask. I looked at Rick Simons for support of my position and was shocked when he looked at Candace and then back at me and said, "If Candace is OK with it, so am I." So overruled by both of them, I read the question and turned on the camera. What you see in the video is their response as given.

  Even though my involvement in this affair has been limited, mostly as videographer and editor of the first set of Conti videos, I can assure all of you of two things:

  1. Candace has never backed down on answering a question. Although Mr. Simons was present at both tapings, I never once saw him coach Candace or tell her not to answer a question. She has never worked from prepared notes, but has always answered truthfully and straight from her heart.

  And this answer is directed to responders like Chaserious:

  2. Both Candace, and to an even greater extent for her mother, Kathleen, hurtful and non-supportive questions are painful and strike to their hearts. Honest questions about facts and legal issues are fine, but for some reason those who seem to have some problem with the outcome of the case do not go after the questions of law - but prefer to attack the reputations and personal life stories of Candace and Kathleen. Those kinds of questions completely miss the point of the case: The women are not on trial for any actions they may have taken or events in their lives. Jonathan Kendrick is a convicted child molester who is listed on local offender lists and also on the national Megan's Law listings. The elders at North Fremont have admitted that they failed to notify the authorities or to warn the other members of the congregation that a molester was in their midst. There is hard and undisputed evidence that the elders at North Fremont were following existing Watchtower policy and were getting direct orders from the Service and Legal departments in New York. Candace Conti's personal life was not on trial and never will be.

  I believe in forums like this because they give us all a chance to vent, respond, and ask questions of our own. I don't believe this is the place to pass on gossip or question the reputations of others (except publicly exposed criminals).

  Miss Conti answered the question and answered it well. Rick Simons clarified some of those issues as they related to the trial. Let's leave it at that.

  Please, Chaserious, do us all a favor and show some respect for the Contis and just drop it. I can assure you that you've got it all wrong.

  JV