"The elders watched him after that", McCabe said.
IME&HO this illustrates a considerable degree of naivite on McCabe's (and WT's) part. I don't know whether this was developed by Ms Conti's attorney, but it's like waving a red flag.
Q: Why did they watch him? It can only be because they considered him a potential danger, to whatever degree, and even if it was on a 'just in case' basis it is an acknowledgement that there were grounds for concern. And 'grounds for concern' in child abuse matters demand that a course of action be followed, which clearly and obviously did not happen in this case.
The defendants can't have it both ways. By claiming that 'they did something about it by watching him' (my paraphrasing) they put themselves into the position of admitting that they saw danger and failed to deal with it. I am sure that Ms Conti's attorney reached for the highlighter when he saw this statement and it will provide very useful material for the appeal which will no doubt follow. I wouldn't like to be one of the elders on the stand answering questions on this point, and I'm sure there will be much spluttering, coughing and silent prayers to 'Beam me up, Scotty'.
I spent too many years dealing with too many cases of child abuse when I was a police officer for this to wash over me. And yet this case (and others like it) is in a way far worse because of the involvement of a 'malicious' (as held by the jury - absolutely correctly IMO) third party. That third party is the Jehovah's Witnesses, whether in its corporate form as WTBTS, the GB, local organisation, the elders and even down to local members of the KH who, I suspect, may have closed their eyes to what was happening (or, in theocratic terms, 'kept their eyes on Jehovah' so they didn't have to notice what was happening around them).
(I notice, by the way, that on McCabe's website he's rather coy about his JW status. There's one mention of 'Watchtower' on the home page - in other areas of the site there is only mention of 'voluntary' and 'community' work by him and his second and third sons. I've never been a JW but I was a bit surprised that a prominent, apparently successful JW family wouldn't make more of their JW-ism. Isn't it an opportunity for a 'fine witness'? I wonder if he did this job pro-bono. If so, maybe it reinforces the point that you get what you pay for.)
To Candace Conti, I add my best wishes to all those expressed here and elsewhere. This was not easy for you, no that's an understatement, it was very very hard and I salute you. You know, I'm sure, that there will be people who will make hurtful and vicious comments. Rise above them as much as you can and take comfort that you know the truth - those who can't see it are to be pitied.
