Day 2 - Fessler vs. Watchtower – Thomas Jefferson Jr takes the stand in Jehovah’s Witness Child Abuse Trial
what is that stuff that comes out of a bull's rear end?
"Plaintiff's" wanted never to be sexually abused, actually.
B. "Plaintiff's" wanted help. They got blamed, instead.
3. WT is a cult that ruins lives.
Fisherman: 1.Colorful commentary has no legal merit.
2. No injunction was sought; Plaintiffs only wanted money money.
3. Moot. It is the Court's ruling and findings that is law; case settled without jury's adjudication; Plaintiff's settled for what they wanted- money..
I am really sick of hearing how victims are supposedly money greedy people. That is an accusatory position that does not take into account that the victims deserve that money. Of course they want money. Money is how our society functions - the victims require money for redemption and restitution.
Yes. The victims want money. What the f*** else would they be going to court for???
There is nothing wrong with a victim asking for financial restitution. Their lives have been destroyed and a bag of jelly beans doesn't do anything for them.
Fisherman- Colourful commentary has no merit
It would seem that this is the hard lesson that the Watchtower is learning, or should that be the CCJW, or the GB, or the JW Clergy or the nonexistent clergy, or the secret JW writers?
Fisherman - Plaintiffs only wanted money, money.
Would you believe it, that's exactly what the Watchtower voluntarily and freely gave them and then they complain.
Who's victim? WT liability was not legally established -no verdict.
Do you not have a brain nor any critical thinking skills? WT obviously has now admitted she is the victim and they are at fault or why else would they had settled out of court?
Read that rediculous transcript the WT people have no clue how to come into a court room and tell the truth. What a joke.
The word is RESPECT if about a 100 years ago this organization started showing proper respect for children and women they might not be in this situation today. Just a Wordly Woman's point of view.
Fisherman: WT liability was not legally established -no verdict.
They settled. They accepted liability with the settlement.
They accepted liability with the settlement.
That is not true. Did you read the terms of settlement agreed to by both parties? A settlement does not establish legal liability.
Fisherman: Plaintiff's settled for what they only wanted- money..
... and the Watchtower paid, early, without much of a defense, and paid possibly much more than they hoped. At least the Conti case in California reached the appeals phase before settlement
What does that tell you?
Colorful commentary? Perhaps - we will let everyone be the judge of that.
There is no legal necessity here. This was a civil jury trial, and Watchtower and the other defendants were being judged by a jury of 10. We did not need an "injunction" - we needed a resolution for the victim, who was traumatized by the failure of elders to report abuse. The victim took the chance that she would receive zero money, after she turned down Watchtower's pre-trial offer of $100,000. She wanted justice, and to let the world know exactly what she went through.
If you want to read the facts leading up to this case, there are 3,000 pages available from the state of Pennsylvania. Study them. You can read them without passion, and without "colorful commentary."
When you read these documents, return with your opinion.
Regardless of the outcome, I can tell you that I personally interviewed the jury - and they were convinced of Watchtower's guilt. Their decision was unanimous, settlement or not
What does that tell you?
Are you stating that WT is legally liable in this case?