Hmm, good point. Are these for real?
Letter from elders to WT about Jonathan Kendrick and the WT response
by wolfman85 44 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
Diest
The could be genuine letters if they came from the case files. The WTS would have to agree that they were genuine. Wolfman do you know where they came from?
-
smiddy
Many years ago I have had personal correspondance to and fro with the society , and I too question why their is no Watchtower letterhead ?
just saying
smiddy
-
vanyell
No letterhead means Plausible deniability.... but it's already submitted as court evidence by the defense, so either they are perjuring themselves or it's true. Then they can tell their R&F that it is Theocratic warfare.
-
Muddy Waters
In the book, Crisis of Conscience, by Ray Franz, he produces letters from the Society also without letterhead, the reason being that they are copies, by way of copy paper.... what the heck is that copy paper called... it's sort of bluey-purple and you put it in between two sheets of paper. These letters are dated from 1993, when the society could still have been using this (very now outdated) mode of copying. Even the type font suggests the use of a typewriter. (AHA! The word just came to me -- CARBON PAPER!) You younger ones here may not know what carbon paper is, but it was a very common way of making paper copies when one was typing a letter.
-
JW GoneBad
Muddy Waters very good point. Lets' hope that the use of carbon paper is the case here.
-
Witness My Fury
Carbon paper requires the use of an impact printer (dot matrix, daisy wheel) or even a type writer. That doesnt look like a scan or photocopy (2nd 3rd 4th hand) of any of those types of print to me.
I'm not passing judgement on the letter, just passing comment on the carbon copy angle...
-
Joe Grundy
Lack of a letterhead is no problem if the WT letter is a copy from their files.
It's common office practice if you are keeping a hard copy of a letter to print two copies - one on letterhead paper to send and one on plain paper (cheaper) for the file.
-
nugget
Truly shocking, there was no mention of contacting the authorities, there was no effort to talk to the two girls concerned, it only came to light at all because he had touched a second girl and her mother was likely to make a fuss. All the signs were there that he was unable to control himself and had learnt nothing from his previous family talk. There was no counsel regarding limiting his contact with other young girls or monitoring his behaviour.
This is not a case where a stern talking to was an appropriate response. It shows the danger of relying on untrained men to make complex decisions about crimiinal acts.
-
MidwichCuckoo
The WT's response (paragraph 2) suggests that Kendrick should only be deleted as an MS BECAUSE the incident was known outside the family. So, are we to believe that, if the 'incident' was contained, then he would have kept his position in the Congregation?