I was out shopping this weekend, reading of Candice Conti too.
There's a few Walmarts nearby in Skeeterville. One nearest me is pretty safe, but the other is closer to the Interstate and jail, and you always feel wierd at it. It is so bad, that Walmart has a security guard just to patrol the parking lot.
I was reading of Candice Conti's newspaper and the JW comments. One thing struck me. The JWs were arguing that the court decided wrong becuase the pedophile was just a follower and the WTS couldn't be held liable for follower-on-follower attacks. Therefore, they reasoned, the WTS would win on appeal. Well, their reasoning isn't bulletproof. First, the pedophile was a WTS appointed Minesterial Servant who was later removed, I beleive, after molesting a child (his stepdaughter). With the Catholic priests and clergymen, courts hold the Catholic church responsible for not warning followers. Here, the "fired" person remained in the group and in "good standing." The average follower of the Jehovah's Witness have a very high expectation of what "good standing" would mean.
Now, let me return to Walmart. The law holds businesses responsible for the crimes that occur in their land (parking lots, stores, etc) or where business takes place; especially if the store knows it's a dangerous area with known criminals lurking or previous attacks happening. It does not matter if it's a Walmart patron-on-Walmart patron crime. Walmart can not get out of a legal duty by blaming the criminal. Rather, the landowner has duties (varies by State) to help assure that those who come upon it are foreseeably safe and that invited people/patrons are warned, especially of latent dangers.
Here, we have a Jehovah's Witness congregation. The business is the church and there is land of the church. In fact, the business activity extends outward from the land due to the door-to-door and (old) Tuesday night book study. There is a "fired" unpaid volunteer who represented the congregation. He is demoted with cause, but the congregation does not know the reason. In fact, the reason is kept latent (not patent) from other followers and children. The other followers only assume that the situation is safe, but it is far from it. In fact, the business has a memo that shows it purposefully HIDES such latent dangers from the followers, to whom it has a duty to protect from foreseeable danger.
And, there you have it. Why, follower-on-follower crimes have been a liability for many businesses - and now Jehovah's Witnessess too.
*This is not a legal opinion. It's just me making an analogy.