by jwleaks 212 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
- that Rick Simons (and the court system) is targetting JWs; he and the Plaintiff are only doing this for the money.
Like that is some kind of condemnation?
Of couse Rick Simons is doing it for the money. He's a lawyer. That's his job. He gets paid to do it.
Do you think your doctor is just a benevolent person or could have something to do with that bill he sends to your insurance company?
Doc
That "money making scheme" defense is actually common, but ineffective. I had the same thing thrown at me in a lawsuit. That it was a moneymaking scheme to defraud the respondant. No one bought it.
AnnOMaly; Again, you are re-hashing the same ol' baloney here as you did on beliefnet, that the WTS and the elders were not liable for Candace's abuse because (according to what your comments were implying in post #1),
I'm simply addressing the respondent’s brief prepared by the plaintiff's attorneys. If that entails bringing up some aforementioned point, so be it.
-eye-witnesses could not corroborate, and Candace did not tell the truth, about the opportunities for and circumstances of her abuse; she wouldn't have been assigned to work with Kendrick in FS; it was not normal to sit on an unrelated grown man's lap at the meetings and so,
What you're stating doesn't make any sense. All a person can go by is the eyewitness accounts of others. Even the “medical professional's” opinion about the plaintiff's PTSD claims is based on observation. There was no physical diagnosis. If the testimony of eyewitnesses is “baloney,” why should I believe in the testimony of the plaintiff and Carolyn Martinez? As for eyewitnesses, I have reason to doubt the plaintiff's claims and that of Carolyn Martinez (Neal Conti's ex-wife), because of their ridiculous nature and the counter testimony of every other eyewitness in this case (several witnesses before the jury trial commenced, nine other witnesses during the actual jury trial). Not to mention, the claims of the plaintiff and Carolyn Martinez conflict with each other.
The claims are not plausible. If a grown man started holding hands with someone's minor daughter in front of a bunch of people, or if something like this was relayed to the parent(s).... that's a good way to get your arse kicked by someone's Dad. If Carolyn Martinez was the only person to witness such a thing and she didn't convey her observations to the right person(s), it's certainly not grounds for liability.
Even if the claims were true, if inappropriate activity (bear hugs, lap sitting, holding hands) in a church auditorium was any kind of deal breaker for a civil lawsuit, you would have seen this as grounds for liability before. All churches have an auditorium.
In criminal law, a violation of the law and associated punishment is defined by statute.
In civil law (whose emphasis is more on dispute resolution and victim compensation than on punishment), legal statutes may be referenced, but grounds for liability is defined by prior lawsuits.
- her parents consented to Kendrick's odd behavior with Candace and facilitated the abuse, therefore they should be liable;
“Odd behavior?” Try highly inappropriate. It is highly inappropriate for any parent to allow their minor daughter to hang out with a thirty to forty year old unrelated man for no good reason. No one in the organization is asking, recommending or even suggesting that a parent do such a thing. Judging from the parent's trial testimony and track record, I don't believe the parents ever did this. I believe the parent's testimony, not the plaintiff's.
If the plaintiff's claims were true and her parents were comfortable leaving their daughter with this man for no good reason, the organization did not contribute to any alleged abuse.
The grounds for liability for any successful lawsuit filed in the United States pertaining to child abuse has always been cut and dry.
A third party can only incur liability if they contributed to any alleged abuse.
- that Rick Simons (and the court system) is targetting JWs; he and the Plaintiff are only doing this for the money.
Essentially though.. Candace may have been abused by Kendrick during/after a meeting or whilst travelling to/from the ministry without anyone paying enough attention to remember.. Watchtower brief says: 'This case turns on the answer to one fundamental question: Did Fremont Congregation owe the Plaintiff a duty of care? The simple answer is "No" ' Judge says: '..Judge McGuiness ruled that a special relationship existed between Fremont Congregation and the Plaintiff that resulted in a duty of care to protect her' ..We await the next step. You still haven't answered my question though.. If YOU were in those elders position back in the early 90's, and you didn't have to report an incident you knew to be molestation to the police..Would you have reported it anyway, rather than leave an abused girl and her mother who wanted to preserve her marriage at that time above the safety of others (not judging her, btw) to go to the police, if they ever would? Or not? Please give a direct answer and explain why you would act/ why you would not, based on what moral principle. No doubt you'll ignore me again, but what can I do..
Essentially though.. Candace may have been abused by Kendrick during/after a meeting or whilst travelling to/from the ministry without anyone paying enough attention to remember.. Watchtower brief says: 'This case turns on the answer to one fundamental question: Did Fremont Congregation owe the Plaintiff a duty of care? The simple answer is "No" ' Judge says: '..Judge McGuiness ruled that a special relationship existed between Fremont Congregation and the Plaintiff that resulted in a duty of care to protect her' ..We await the next step. You still haven't answered my question though.. If YOU were in those elders position back in the early 90's, and you didn't have to report an incident you knew to be molestation to the police..Would you have reported it anyway, rather than leave an abused girl and her mother who wanted to preserve her marriage at that time above the safety of others (not judging her, btw) to go to the police, if they ever would? Or not? Please give a direct answer and explain why you would act/ why you would not, based on what moral principle. No doubt you'll ignore me again, but what can I do..
I'm not sure of what I would have done if I were in the position of those elders in 1993. There was a competent adult (Evelyn Kendrick) in the home monitoring the family situation. Shortly after the elders were informed, there was some sort of domestic disturbance, the police were called and Evelyn Kendrick told the police about the abuse that happened four months prior. According to the police report and the letter the elders sent to the Watchtower Society in 1993, what was conveyed to the police by the Kendrick family was much worse than what was told to the elders. Nonetheless, Kendrick was offered a plea bargain in exchange for a guilty plea, what would have normally been a felony charge was dropped down to a misdemeanor and he was allowed to carry on as a free man.
When speaking of the safety of others, you're speaking in an indefinite sense, that he may repeat this crime sometime in the indefinite future outside of his home and immediate family. Nobody can make that determination, not even a criminal psychologist. If they could, the court would not have offered Kendrick a plea bargain, albeit he was never charged again until ten years later and then severely punished by the justice system. He was never formally charged with anything related to Candace Conti.
I really don't care who goes to jail, as long as it's not me. If someone commits a felony and has to do some time, the laws exist for a reason.
"I'm not sure of what I would have done if I were in the position of those elders in 1993." .. That's okay, you can get back to us when you've had more time to think about it..(' don't know' wasn't an option for them, would you act if you were in the same situation today, but with the old laws which didn't require an elder to report..or not?) Prime also said: "what was conveyed to the police by the Kendrick family was much worsethan what was told to the elders." .. Which highlights the need to report even suspected abusers to police immediately, how can an elder possibly know what such a man is capable of, or how to get him/her help (until it's too late)?
"I really don't care who goes to jail, as long as it's not me." .. I had a feeling your true colours would show themselves eventually. You don't care if your brothers are unjustly imprisoned, by a 'false witness' and a judge that's just out to get Jehovahs Witnesses, when they had 'no duty' to protect Candace anyway?
What you're stating doesn't make any sense.
You can't make sense of your own position? That figures. How the heck do you expect your readers to make sense of it?
According to the police report and the letter the elders sent to the Watchtower Society in 1993, what was conveyed to the police by the Kendrick family was much worse than what was told to the elders.
According to Evelyn Kendrick, the elders were told the full extent of the abuse. She says they weren't "overly concerned" and blamed her for her husband's behavior because she wasn't "performing her wifely duties" in bed! According to Andrea, although she couldn't recall meeting with the elders, she testified that she always stuck to the same story with everyone she told, and that she never felt she had to lie to cover up for Kendrick. So it was the elders who played the whole incident down to the WTS. Nevertheless, it was still recognized as 'child abuse.'
When speaking of the safety of others, you're speaking in an indefinite sense, that he may repeat this crime sometime in the indefinite future outside of his home and immediate family. Nobody can make that determination, not even a criminal psychologist.
Then why did the elders insist under oath that they were keeping an eye on him, that they counseled him against having close contact with children in the congregation, that he wasn't allowed to do FS without an elder present? Why make those claims if they didn't determine there was a danger Kendrick may repeat his crime?
If the testimony of eyewitnesses is “baloney,” why should I believe in the testimony of the plaintiff and Carolyn Martinez?
Determining credibility is precisely why we have a jury system.
Multiple people take the stand and tell conflicting stories. The jury is tasked with determining who is credible (who is lying and who isn't) based on each witness's testimony and demeanor in light of the rest of the evidence.
In this case, it seems the jury sent an incredibly clear message as to whom it thought was lying. ; )
Candace was a child who was molested. The Shepherds of the flock, the stars in Jesus' right hand, the Elders, blamed the victim and her Mother. When they say a**hole comments like " It's your fault, you were not rendering the marriage due", they deserve to lose. You might pull that crap in the good o'l boys club with women that are brainwashed to " wait on Jehovah ", but normal people are going to call you out. It's about time it happened..
