Candace Conti v Watchtower Society | June 3, 2013 | Respondent's Brief - prepared by Rick Simons | A136641

by jwleaks 212 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Prime

  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.'

  I'm aware of what was stated by Evelyn Kendrick and Andrea.

  Jury Trial Day 2

  Mr. Simons: Now, sometime later, there was a meeting in at your home in which your mother and stepfather and two elders from the Jehovah's Witnesses were present. Were you there for all of that meeting?

  Andrea: No.

  Mr. Simons: When that meeting was going on, were you there at all?

  Andrea: I don't recall being there at all.

  Mr. Simons: Your mother and the elders said that you were there for at least part of the meeting. Do you recall any of that?

  Andrea: No, I did not.

  Evelyn's daughter Andrea didn't corroborate anything. If she had no memory of the 1993 home meeting with the elders, why would she have any memory of keeping quite while the adult's talked, corroborating or contradicting anything that was stated during that meeting? I believe she remembers the 1993 meeting and what was stated just like her mother and the two elders that were present. She's taking the 5th because she can't incriminate her mother (because it's her mother) or the elders (because she knows they're telling the truth).

  Even if you scratch what I just said, it's strictly one person's word against another. There still evidence that what was told to the police was more serious than what was told to the elders.

  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?

  For the same reason the court put him on probation upon the 1994 misdemeanor conviction. Standard procedure. The point I made is that law enforcement obviously couldn't predict his future actions with any real certainty.
• 

  The Quiet One

  "For the same reason the court put him on probation upon the 1994 misdemeanor conviction. Standard procedure." -- @PRIME.. As you mentioned earlier, though, legalities (adherence to legal procedures in this example) are based on a moral principle. The elders knew he could be dangerous and had to be watched, and so did the police. That the police or the system may have failed to warn people, whilst possibly a fair point, is irrelevant to this case for now as it is the elders and organisation that are being charged. And besides, the procedures of Jehovahs earthly organization should be far superior to those of Satan's wicked system, surely? I notice that you still haven't answered my earlier question (what would you have done).. Perhaps you can't do so directly and honestly?
• 

  punkofnice

  Prime - A simple question for you.

  What person/s do you support in all of this? (Jehovah is not an option)
• 

  S EIGHT

  Neither elders nor the bethel "child abuse" helpdesk have any idea on how to handle such matters. Elders do not receive any kind of professional training and at most, the helpdesk is experienced in just "listening" to reports of abuse.

  This case is really quite simple. Enough people knew but did nothing to protect the local children. As a result, another child was abused. It's not hard to assume that this problem exists on a worldwide scale.

  The argument is about "who in the know" should take some form of responsibility.

  The WTBTS party line is that did not have a duty.

  Funny that - in every other aspect of my life they believe they do have a duty to step in and show "care" where they deem appropriate.

  • What I should wear.
  • Who I should associate with.
  • What I should eat.
  • What music I listen to.
  • Where I put my willy.
  • Who I marry.
  • What I think.
  • What I say and how I say it.

  And so on...

  Contravene any of their "rules" in relation to the above and their level of care will be fully exercised especially in regard to their "duty" to deal with you.

  Now they've been bitten on the bum they're running a mile.

  I'd also like to point out that in my view it's fraud to post a sign above a collection box soliciting money to support the preaching work when in reality a large proportion of the money collected has been paid out in legal fees and compensation as a result of their ineffective Child Protection Policy.

  S8
• 

  jgnat

  Prime, a jury of peers found the girl's testimony credible.

  Evidence is not revisited on appeal. All that can be questioned is procedure and interpretation of the law.

  Why would you revisit witness credibility? Is it damage control for when the Watchtower loses the appeal and current Witnesses need some sort of straw to hang on to? The girl used drugs when she was a teenager. The parents were negligent. The lawyer is only in it for the money.

  All smoke screen for the negligence of an elder body that allowed a pedophile to continue in the ministry, with access to children.

  ...and oh, yeah. The appeal fails and the Watchtower will be on the hook for all the other cases where elders had a confessed pedophile in their midst and did not take adequate care to protect children in the congregation. Can we spell c-l-a-s-s a-c-t-i-o-n?
• 

  Prime

  Prime, a jury of peers found the girl's testimony credible.

  Evidence is not revisited on appeal. All that can be questioned is procedure and interpretation of the law.

  Why would you revisit witness credibility? Is it damage control for when the Watchtower loses the appeal and current Witnesses need some sort of straw to hang on to? The girl used drugs when she was a teenager. The parents were negligent. The lawyer is only in it for the money.

  All smoke screen for the negligence of an elder body that allowed a pedophile to continue in the ministry, with access to children. ...and oh, yeah. The appeal fails and the Watchtower will be on the hook for all the other cases where elders had a confessed pedophile in their midst and did not take adequate care to protect children in the congregation. Can we spell c-l-a-s-s a-c-t-i-o-n?

  Interpretation of the law is an issue. You take a legal statute like "a legal duty of care" that doesn't specify anything definitive. Meaning the statute is broad in scope and application and a judge and jury decide what constitutes a "legal duty of care."

  With such a premise, a legal duty of care can mean anything you want it to. If an organization is being held to a level of accountability that no one else is subject to, there's obviously injustice in such a procedure and interpretation of the law.

  The courts have also been known to make prejudicial decisions on the basis of race, religion and sexual orientation. You would think you could put that aside.
• 

  Tylinbrando

  If an organization is being held to a level of accountability that no one else is subject to, there's obviously injustice in such a procedure and interpretation of the law.

  If that organization is taking on actions of accountability that no other organization has done or is being called out for then justice is served when precedent is set.

  That organization's policies must be amended and other organizations that could fall under the same scrutiny will also have to follow suit.
• 

  Vidiot

  Tylanbrando - "If that organization is taking on actions of accountability that no other organization has done or is being called out for then justice is served when precedent is set. That organization's policies must be amended and other organizations that could fall under the same scrutiny will also have to follow suit."

  Bingo.

  In fact, in cases where the offenses are particularly egregious and/or the organization in question has a demonstrable history of resistance to accountability, justice can also be served by the legal system making an example of said organization, and smacking them hard. In fact, it often sets a more effective precedent.

  I have suggested this before.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  WTBTS says, We are the boss of you. If you don't listen to the Elders and do what they say, you will be sorry. If you get molested by someone who snuck through on our watch, THEN we are NOT the boss of you, and not accountable."

  The Jury said, " You say you are the bosses, so you are accountable." Special relationship and control exists. Duty to protect members exist.

  I can't wait. The WTBTS will be forced to change. Hopefully they will be humbled, but I won't hold my breath. I would not be suprised to see a new theocratic arrangement come from all this. Only Elders and approved persons will be " ordained ministers ", forms will be given to the sheep, the signing of these forms will release the WTBTS from all liability from any harm experienced while in service and you will sign away your right to ever sue the WTBTS or any member of the WTBTS. Refusal will be "brazen" conduct and grounds for DF'ing.
• 

  besty

  they like clergy-penitent privilege and they like attorney-client privilege

  their challenge is to square that off with the courts whilst keeping their existing judicial procedures