The trial was suppose to start today Tuesday, 2/7/17) at 11 am, does anyone have any updates?
Stephanie Fessler v Watch Tower - Trial on Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2017 in Pennsylvania
BTTT. Any news on this trial?
I wonder if it has been settled out of court ... with a gag order.
I hope it goes all the way
What is most interesting if I understand this correctly, the JW cult is wholly responsible for the final actions since they provided the support to the elders who are also guilty in their own right. This is very, very good news!
It does seems strange that there have apparently been NO updates what so ever - and even more puzzling partly due to the OP's reference to 'daily updates.'
I understand the jury selection was all completed on Friday 3 February 2017, with the actual trial therefore ready to start on Tuesday 7 February 2017.
There was a 'pre-trial' story published early on Tuesday morning setting out a brief overview of the case, including the fact that the plaintiff had refused to settle prior to the trial
That pre-trial story also stated that it was expected to last for five or six days.
Therefore, IF it keeps to that timescale, and the IF those days are consecutive without breaks - and allowing time for jury deliberation to reach their verdict?? - it would seem that we are looking at any time from Wednesday 15 February 2017 for a verdict??
I do not know what the reporting restrictions for court cases are in the State of Pennsylvania - for example reporting on an 'on-going' court case, or even if this case is being held incamera - although we have not been told that.
Incamera hearings are not unique to Pennsylvania. They are hearings where information is kept under seal by the judge. Normally incamera sessions is when a judge will review material outside the presence of the attorneys and their clients to determine if one party is allowed to get information that is being requested. Such as if a discovery demand requests documents that the opposing party claims as privilege, the judge will conduct an incamera review of the material to determine of the moving party has the right to that information.
In camera hearings can be for a variety of reasons. Hearings in relation to whether a party can access information (including discovery) are usually heard pre-trial, and are not normally "in-camera", so this is not the likely explanation, here.
Sometimes the public might be excluded from a hearing, for a variety of reasons, but this is unusual. It is also possible the plaintiff has been advised not to discuss the matter in public.
The most likely explanation, however, is that settlement negotiations of some sort are taking place, or have taken place. If so, we may never hear what the outcome was.
Could be the weather conditions affecting those who plan to observe.
CBS: Winter Weather Alerts Remain In Effect
Fessler, according to the suit, meets the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder and faces a life-long risk of mental health issues due to the trauma.
She is seeking punitive damages. The suit denotes a $1.9 million demand against the church's $100,000 offer to settle the suit.
The parties did not settle, though, leading to the trial, which is expected to run five or six days.