Candace Conti Settles (page 6)

Nitty-Gritty

@sir82, no,they don't have to be literal eyewitnesses. If forensic proof was produced by the police, do you think the WT would insist on the accused ones innocence!??

For the record, WT policy already has changed with the Oct 2012 letter. Pedophiles are not allowed to go door-to-door anymore alone; elders have to take care they are assigned to work with someone else and are to be supervised.

Watchtower-Free

Listener

Nitty gritty says mistakes have been made. It's obvious that the wtbts doesn't think this is the case at all. If they did they would not only be apologising but also pulling out their list of reported cases and trying to make amends.

sir82

If forensic proof was produced by the police, do you think the WT would insist on the accused ones innocence!??

Yes absolutely!

There is nothing - NO THING - written in the WTS elders manual about accepting forensic evidence for judicial hearings. It emphasizes - many times - that ONLY "confession" or "two or more eyewitnesses" are acceptable.

Still waiting to see evidence for your assertion that "most of the time" the police are unable to prosecute if there are not 2 eyewitnesses.

Incognito

My question is, how exactly has the organization clearly shown no interest in protecting or assisting in the protection of children?

Interesting reply often taken by active JW's defending the org. Not answering a question but instead posting another question which has been answered many times previously. While I'm not going to restate that already stated within other threads and court proceedings, I will restate WT's claim in court, that it has no duty of care for the people within the congregations.

If WT enacted a true policy that congregants are to report abuse to authorities or that Elders are to independently contact the applicable authorities immediately upon receiving a report of molestation, that would then permit those trained in proper interrogation and investigation procedures, to proceed to properly question the abused and the accused, and possibly collect evidence in support of a crime having occurred.

While that policy would be a zero cost method to lessen the liability placed upon WT and its Elders, it could also be viewed by all, including the general public, as a no nonsense, no cover up approach to child sexual abuse within Jehovah's chosen organization.

Finkelstein

However, if there is a known predator in the congregation the parents of all minor children are discreetly informed of who he/she is. That’s better than announcing it from the platform.

Really since when have they been doing that and what resources do you have by the WTS to act in this direction.?

If so it hasn't been instituted throughout the organization in general.

The elders are clamed shut on conduct resulting toward a person being DFed.

One of the problems with pedoifllia is that this behavior tends to repeat itself, particularly when the individual

has not been openly identified as such.

Why is it in most modern civilizations that its designated a serious crime worthy of extreme penalties ?

StrongHaiku

The equivocations from apologists of the Organization speaks volumes. Taking a pedophile and at worst, covering it up, and at best disfellowshiping him does absolutely nothing for the rest of the world and society unless you consistently report it to authorities. JWs go door-to-door with "love in their hearts" to "save" people but then turn around and let a monster lose in the world. By the definition, this makes you a hypocrite.

OrphanCrow

nelim: For the record, WT policy already has changed with the Oct 2012 letter. Pedophiles are not allowed to go door-to-door anymore alone; elders have to take care they are assigned to work with someone else and are to be supervised.

That is a good start and I can see that this changed policy is likely directly related to the outcome of Candace's court case.

This is where it should start - by taking a look at policies that can be changed. Eliminating the two witness rule is another, and making mandatory reporting for elders - directly to the police and not to the WTS - is another place.

I think that all elders or anyone in the congregation who works with children (and this applies to all churches) should be required to take a course given by professionals that educates them on how to deal with suspected cases of child abuse and how to monitor convicted sex offenders for possible infractions. The elders don't know what they need to know - they are ignorant about the issue. And they are not going to learn about it from the WTS. Won't happen.

The entire mindset of the JWs has to change - there is so much systemic abuse, that occurs within, that the victims are often the ones who are defending the perpetrators - so many JWs that I have encountered don't even know what abuse is. It is all they have ever known - it is normalized.

I also think that it is unrealistic to expect or demand that the elders make "an announcement to the congregation" about a sex offender in their midst. Their responsibility is to monitor behavior and report - to the proper authorities - any infractions. Requiring announcements from the platform in a KH would open a whole can of legal worms that would have repercussions across a wide swath of our society.
The responsibility to be self-informed, I am afraid, is sometimes the only recourse for safety that we have.

For example, i live in a city where there is a known sex offender who carries the "high risk to re-offend" label. The police post updates on a regular basis, both in the newspaper and online. His photo has been circulated publicly for years. He has violated his conditions several times and each time he is re-released, the police issue another public warning, letting the public know where he is living. I know a lot about this guy's movements and who he is - he works for a construction company that I am familiar with - and he is often at the house across the street from where my daughter lives. The bastard is far too close for my liking - he stepped onto the property the other day when I was outside having a smoke and I just got up from the step, and went back inside and locked the door. There isn't much else you can do - I carry a knife on me whenever I am over there and we all keep a strict watch on his movements. The neighbor lady called the cops when she recognized him and they just said that they can't do anything unless he violates his parole conditions.

Well, whatever. If he gives me trouble, he won't emerge unharmed.

Finkelstein

Getting back to the CC case, let it be clearly understood that the reason the WTS, was deemed liable was because of the irresponsible actions between the two congregations of which Jonathan Kendricks was transferring from and to.

To refer someone who was said to be good with children and completely avoiding this individuals past behavior is negligently irresponsible, lying and devious to the facts.

If the original congregation had openly stipulated that JK had prior misconduct with children and that he should be watched and perhaps not put with children alone., then this particular court case would have been squashed and never made itself into court.

Candace Conti Settles

Share this