Hawkaw said, "There are many more accounts as well as BOE letters that prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the WTS by its policies tried to hide these cases. The victims opinions are not biased. They are factual. They were told to be quite or face dfing. The pedophiles denied the accusations and nothing was done because the elder hide behind clerical privilege as instructed in BOE letters from the WTS and the two witness rule. These are facts and they are out there for all to see - Erica, Heidi, Berry girls etc."
This is a very dishonest effort to falsely characterize my previous statements. I have never accused the victims of these cases of being "biased"; please provide a quote to support this implication. You stated that the victims in these cases would agree with the characterization of the Watchtower as a "pedophile paradise." I responded that these victims would likely be biased in expressing such an opinion because the extreme harm they have suffered would likely taint their ability to be objective on this issue. I have never expressed an opinion here or anywhere else regarding the Watchtower's conduct in these cases, as I believe such an expression of an opinion would be inappropriate given my ignorance of the facts presented at trial.
"And quite frankly you by using a questionary style hinted that Bill may not be on the up and up. All I ask is that if those truly are your questions why didn't you contact Silentlambs and ask for a copy of the statements rather than making those questions public the way you did. If you don't get them then come back and tell the board. Last time I checked its a toll free call and seeing Bill doesn't post here unlike the certain Counsel you refer too then maybe you should contact him."
A question is not a hint. Go back and read the original comment. gcc2k said, " I'm sure that Bill's mission (or mission in life?) is genuine and heartfelt . . . " Seeing as how no evidence has been presented to support that assertion, I questioned its basis by asking whether anyone knew the extent of Bill's compensation, if any, from Silent Lambs, and whether there were audited financial statements available. Questioning the validity of an assertion for lack of basis does not equate to "hinting that Bill may not be on the up and up." You are the one providing such hints by your extraordinarily defensive posture on this issue.
Additionally, when I read a quote such as the one attributed to Bill Bowen at the inception of this thread, I can't help but question the motives of the person who made it. Sensationalizing the WT's use of routine discovery tactics and stating that these acts are for the benefit of Paul Berry (the convicted molestor) is dishonest, in my opinion. Their purported payment of Mr. Bowen's expenses are for their own benefit, not Mr. Berry's. According to the quote attributed to Mr. Bowen, he has already been convicted. The case at issue will have absolutely no effect on Mr. Berry's conviction. I'd like Mr. Bowen, you, or anyone else here to explain to us exactly what sort of benefit Mr. Berry would derive from the Watchtower escaping legal liability in this case.
"I think if you applied Calf. law to the Bowen/WTS service department call you would note that Bill as the PO was phoning on behalf of the elders in the congregation to see what would have to be done in the case. The WTS person was expecting Bill to pass the message on to the other elders and thus, even applying California law, Bill was still okay since the response was to be relayed ot others - http://www.rcfp.org/taping/"
Your interpretation of the California statute is absolutely inaccurate, but debating that point is moot since the matter is not subject to California law. Also, criminal liability is not the only issue; there are possible civil implications as well (e.g., invasion of privacy). But putting legalities aside, do you believe it is proper to use deceit to accomplish your objectives? .
I think it's safe to assume that both of us would like to see the Watchtower punished for the grief we've personally experienced or seen others experience. However, it appears we differ on the approach that should be used to accomplish that objective. I don't believe ethics should be compromised to achieve this goal or any other goal.
