UPDATE ON VICKI BOER CHILD ABUSE TRIAL /SEPT 13

by hawkaw 35 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • abbagail
    abbagail

    LOL @ waiting re: "legal drugs."

    Good Answer from Nathan re: Palmer, if not listed as a defendant in the lawsuit, cannot be expected to "legally" share in the blame/paying part of the judgment if (make that WHEN) granted.

    Can't say I understand what's going on, or why Jim Penton and Barb cannot testify in person, but I'm sure you'll let us know all details when the time is right to do so. (I just wonder who said they should not, or could not testify? The plaintiff's attorney(s) or the Judge or whom?) I'm also sorry to hear (it sounds like) the plaintiff's attorney is a wee bit of a fumbler/bumbler? How many WTS lawyers are there? v. how many plaintiff's attorneys?

    I'd love to "sick" my former boss (plaintiff's attorney) on to the WTS "dogs." He was known as THE BADGER 'cuz he would badger the defense witnesses until they cried for mercy. If there are ever any such cases in FLA, OH, TX, or HI, he has licenses in all of those states, last I heard. (Disclaimer: I'm not an ambulance chaser! He was good at what he did, that's all. Born/raised/lawschool in NY, obnoxious as best they come, never takes "no" for an answer, doesn't care what anybody thinks of him, etc. etc.)

    Thanks for the reports and updates from Hawk and ALL who have been or will be going to the trial; and we just THANK YOU that you ARE able to be there in person, for Vicky's sake and for all silentlambs everywhere. I sure hope this trial encourages more of them to come forward, to tie a rope around the WTS' neck.

    If anyone reading this thread missed it, please read the convoluted WTS writings as described in this other Boer trial thread... it's enough to make you sick to your stomach! http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=36530&site=3&page=1

    {{{{{{{{{{{ MORE HUGS FOR EVERYONE IN CANADA! }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

    Grits

    Edited by - Grits on 13 September 2002 21:34:36

  • Commie Chris
    Commie Chris

    duplicate

    Edited by - commie chris on 13 September 2002 23:45:35

  • expatbrit
    expatbrit

    Hi Chris:

    I was glad to see you again the other day. It is unfortunate that your offer of assistance has been declined. Some fluency would be an asset to Vicki's legal team, imo.

    You mentioned:

    If the Court relies upon those statements and decides the case in Vickie's favour, the defense could have grounds for appeal since they did not have the opportunity to cross-examine.

    A quick question: if the WT appealed on this basis, would not the fact that they caused these witnesses to be denied the opportunity to testify weigh heavily against them?

    Expatbrit

  • Commie Chris
    Commie Chris

    Expat: it was really good to see you again too.

    I'm not sure that I could be much very much assistance in this case - this is an area of law that I do not normally practise - but I will do what I can if I am asked.

    Unfortunately, I was not in court when the issue of Penton and Anderson's potential vidence was argued and decided, so I can't say much more than I have already said. I am hopeful that the decision to admit written statements rather than oral evidence resulted from the defendants' counsel agreeing to a deal to resolve the issue of admitting any evidence from Penton and Anderson - but I am just speculating at this point. If such a deal was struck, they will not have grounds for appeal. But if the defense argued against any evidence from Penton and Anderson being admitted, and no deal was made, and the Judge decided to resolve the issue by admitting written testimony against the objections of defense counsel, then I am a little worried that grounds for appeal may exist.

    You should know, however, that even if the worst case scenario actually occurrred, and the defendants have grounds for appeal, this does not necessarily mean that a victory by Vickie would be overturned on appeal. The defendants would have to establish on appeal that if not for the Judge's error the result might have been different. If the appeal court finds that the other (properly admitted) evidence strongly supports the result, it will not be overturned. Grounds for appeal does not necessarily = successul appeal.

    Finally, please remember everyone, this case is far from over - Vickie Boers seems to be a good, strong, intelligent woman, and she has a good case, and certainly deserves to win - but the defendants have not yet presented any of their evidence. I sincerely hope Vickie wins this case - it is important - but there is still a long way to go.

    Edited by - commie chris on 13 September 2002 23:41:51

  • UnDisfellowshipped
    UnDisfellowshipped

    Here is some more Information and Quotes on the "Matthew 18:15" Rule:

    The Watchtower Society's own "Organized To Accomplish Our Ministry" Book (1983 and 1989 Editions) state that MATTHEW 18:15-17 ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY SEXUAL MATTERS!

    Here are the Quotes from the "Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry" Book which I found at http://watchtower.observer.org (I believe this Book is only given to Baptized Witnesses or Witnesses who are about to be Baptized, this Book's "Nickname" is the "Organization Book"):

    Organized To Accomplish Our Ministry Book (1983 and 1989 Editions), Chapter 12, Under the Sub-Heading "NOT OVERLOOKING SERIOUS WRONGS":

    When giving counsel, Jesus outlined some specific procedures for resolving problems of serious wrongdoing, such as fraud or slander, that arise between fellow Christians. Note the steps that he set out: "Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, [1] go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, [2] take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses, every matter may be established. If he does not listen to them, [3] speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector." -Matt. 18:15-17.

    ...although serious, the offenses here discussed were limited in nature to such as could be settled between the individuals involved. This would not include such offenses as fornication, adultery, homosexuality, blasphemy, apostasy, idolatry and similar gross sins that should be reported to the elders and handled by them. When the Law covenant was in force, these sins required more than forgiveness from an offended individual. -1 Cor. 6:9, 10; Gal. 5:19-21.

    ...in view of the illustration that Jesus subsequently gave, as recorded in Matthew 18:23-35, the sins considered in Matthew 18:15-17 evidently were sins such as those involving financial or property matters--failure to make proper payment for something or some action involving a measure of fraud. The sin might damage one's reputation by actual slander. In these cases, if the offender recognized his wrong, expressed willingness to right it to the extent possible and sought forgiveness, the matter could be settled by the offended one's granting forgiveness. -Compare Matthew 5:25, 26.

    HOWEVER, in the November 1st 1995 Watchtower Issue (which is on the Official Watchtower.org Website at this Address: http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/1995/11/1a/article_01.htm ), it states the following:

    What if the sufferer decides that he wants to make an accusation? (It may also be necessary for the step outlined in this paragraph to be taken if the matter has become common knowledge in the congregation.) Then the two elders can advise him that, in line with the principle at Matthew 18:15, he should personally approach the accused about the matter. If the accuser is not emotionally able to do this face-to-face, it can be done by telephone or perhaps by writing a letter. In this way the one accused is given the opportunity to go on record before Jehovah with his answer to the accusation. He may even be able to present evidence that he could not have committed the abuse. Or perhaps the one accused will confess, and a reconciliation may be achieved. What a blessing that would be! If there is a confession, the two elders can handle matters further in accordance with Scriptural principles.

    If the accusation is denied, the elders should explain to the accuser that nothing more can be done in a judicial way. And the congregation will continue to view the one accused as an innocent person. The Bible says that there must be two or three witnesses before judicial action can be taken. (2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19) Even if more than one person "remembers" abuse by the same individual, the nature of these recalls is just too uncertain to base judicial decisions on them without other supporting evidence. This does not mean that such "memories" are viewed as false (or that they are viewed as true). But Bible principles must be followed in establishing a matter judicially.

    What if the one accused though denying the wrongdoing is really guilty? Does he "get away with it," as it were? Certainly not! The question of his guilt or innocence can be safely left in Jehovah's hands. "The sins of some men are publicly manifest, leading directly to judgment, but as for other men their sins also become manifest later." (1 Timothy 5:24; Romans 12:19; 14:12) The book of Proverbs says: "The expectation of the righteous ones is a rejoicing, but the very hope of the wicked ones will perish." "When a wicked man dies, his hope perishes." (Proverbs 10:28; 11:7) Ultimately, Jehovah God and Christ Jesus render everlasting judgment in justice. 1 Corinthians 4:5.

    Edited by - UnDisfellowshipped on 14 September 2002 0:45:39

  • honestly
    honestly

    Looks like after watching Frank Mottrile squirm on the stands and look like the idiot he is,Vicky may be losing what ever chance she had and the cas worker conveniently said that they lost the files of when her father reported the ONE-TIME abuse.So hopefully the truth is finally coming out that Vicky is a great actress and a pathetic sad human being who is only after the money.A lot of you dont know Vicky as I do but even her own brothers and sister will not have anything to do with her and none of them are witnesses.They lived with Vicky all those years and say shes added alot of non-truths to make herself look good.But thats ok she will be the loser even if she wins.Money doesnt buy happiness.And no Im not a witness.

  • Xandria
    Xandria

    Honestly:

    It sounds like you have a vendictive streak.This is sad enough to see family victimizing family, in the form of sexual abuse. You come across crass and cruel, if it was for the $$$ she would of been sueing for a hell of a sum. Not the miserly 700,000.00 she is going for. After all, we are talking about the WTS who have MILLIONS.

    An I will sign my true name to this post so if you have any qualms on wheither I should reply to this or not. AS A PALMER, I am very upset to see this go on. This person needs HELP not to be torn apart more. Hopefully any moneys gained ( or not) by this suit will go towards getting her help for the trauma she has been through.

    Xandria

    aka: S. PALMER

    Edited by - xandria on 14 September 2002 1:22:44

  • honestly
    honestly

    ACTUALLY THE DEFENCE LAWYER DID AN AMAZING JOB TO TODAY,MADE BOTH THE CAS WOMAN STUMBLE IN HER WORDS AND ADMIT THEY LOST THE FILES TO Mr Palmers stateent and Frank MOTTILE CONTRADICTING HIMSELF.IW WAS FUN TO WATCH.

  • honestly
    honestly

    NO SARAH PALMER,I DONT HAVE A VINDICTIVE STREAK,JUST WANT THE TRUTH TO BE KNOWN,,,,,JUSTICE TO BE DONE.....REALLY VICKI IS THE VINDICTIVE ONE.cmon SARAH YOU ARE A SMART GIRL!

  • larc
    larc

    As I asked on the other thread, are you going to be giving testamony in court, or are you just blowing smoke up our collective butts? Your words here have no meaning. If you have something to say, say it in court.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit