I think Rick did cover the prostitution question good enough, when he said that these things are not determining factors in the case because child abuse leads to self medication and other behaviors that have no bearing on the case and so no need to go into these details in depth. Candace said that that was the the farthest thing from the truth.
Part 2 of the 2013 Conti and Simons interview now on YouTube (questions posed by JWN members)
by cedars 54 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Chaserious
Rip - I disagree that it would have been used in the trial. Under evidentiary rules, usually only convictions are allowed to be introduced to discredit a witness. So if she was convicted for drug crimes, it could be asked, but (and totally hypothetically) if they had evidence she engaged in prostititution they probably would have not been allowed to ask about it at trial since there are no convictions. I am not reading anything into it or perpetuating anything. I'm just pointing out that before I saw the interview I would have thought the accusation was totally BS, but the way she answered it seemed very strange to me. I agree 100% that it doesn't change the facts of the case. That's why I said I would not have dignified it with an answer.
Cedars - The more unequivocal way that I would expect most people to answer a false charge like that is something like "That is a lie. I have never engaged in prostitution." Don't you think that would have been more clear and simple? I agree that Rick was very direct, and certainly different people might perceive it differently.
Mindblown - I don't know what postings you are referring to, if any, other than this one. You can suspect me all you want. Just pointing out my own observation.
-
truthseekeriam
Candace clearly stated that the last allegation was the furthest thing from the truth...I call that clearly answering the prostitution allegation.
I was very happy with the answers :) As a mother of a teenager who was also sexually abused by a fellow JW when she was just 9 I truly applaud the bravery of Candace and look forward to what this case along with possible future cases will do for the protection of young JW children.
-
rip van winkle
Rick Simons answered:
..."During the trial and the discovery phase leading up to the trial, every single corner of Candace's life was examined and every piece of dirt that the Jehovah's Witness lawyers could find on her was turned up.
None of that included the remotest claim that she ever engaged in any kinds of activity, including prostitution, as the question says...
...those kinds of attacks on her are where people who don't want to deal with the truth and that's child sex abuse is rampant.
Jehovah's Witnesses policies of secrecy add to that frequency of children being molested and that these kids are innocent victims of an Organization that should know better and is hiding the truth."
---------------
The question was answered by both Candace and Rick. It was a question that did not require an answer. However, it was answered because there was nothing to hide.
Stop perpetuating the lie.
-
Chaserious
If I'm perpetuating the lie, then making her answer the question on the interview is perpetuating the lie. I don't understand why Simons would have her answer these questions that have nothing to do with the case. Maybe it is more of a denial than I originally conceded. But the direct denial is from Simons, and there is a big difference between denying something and your lawyer denying it. There are no consequences if the lawyer is wrong.
Also, the question included allegations about stolen goods and selling drugs. I still don't know exactly what their position is on these two things. Candace only denied the "last thing", which I assume means the prostitution, but Simons' statement also seems to deny anything non drug related, which I assume means receiving stolen property as well. And neither of them said anything about selling drugs, as opposed to just using them. Personally, I don't care if she did any of these things. She is a brave victim regardless and deserves compensation. It just seems like a bad PR move by Simons to take that question that she is not obligated to answer and then not really fully answer it in the end.
-
rubadubdub
I have been trying to follow the Candace Conti case as well as Steven Unthank's work in Australia. If memory serves me (and please forgive me if this question has been asked and answered or if I have my facts wrong), the original judgement was for 28 million dollars. That judgement was reduced to $17 million dollars by agreement between the parties. How is it that the WTB$ can get a settlement and reduction of the damages awarded and still have the legal recourse of an appeal. It just doesn't make sense to me. How can they have it both ways? Can someone explain the judicial process here?
Thanks, Rubbity
-
rip van winkle
People with nothing to hide, hide nothing. So, goes the saying.
You seem to want to leave a negative thought or idea lingering in the minds who may doubt or try to conceal the truth about what happened to Candace.
Yes, chastise and blame the victim, Chaserious. You don't like her answer. Oh well.
This was not an interrogatory. This was a voluntary Q & A to shed light on a ground-breaking civil case against the Watch Tower's blatant disregard for the safety and welfare of innocent children in the midst of sexual predators that the WT hides and protects in the congregation, rather than the children who are in danger and voiceless.
The WT policies of protecting the pedophile is what is at the core of this lawsuit. Needing 2 witnesses as an implemented policy by the WAtch Tower is at the core of this lawsuit.
It is not Candace that needs to explain. It is the Watch tower that owes an explanation for their warped policies that protect the pedophile and disregard protecting innocent children.
Yes, you are perpetuating a lie with every statement you make.
-
Chaserious
Show me where I chastized or blamed the victim, Rip. I'm sorry that I'm not allowed to look at this objectively and state an opinion that I think her lawyer made a mistake with the handling of that question. My point is that what they said is probably not going to satisfy an apologist who has heard these rumors but is open to having his or her mind changed. Will it satisfy the exJW community? Yes, but so what. We were satisfied already. I don't mind if you disagree with me, but I will call you out every time you keep mischaracterizing what I'm saying.
-
cedars
Chas - there was no mistake with the "handling of the question." The question was answered, period. You can argue that it shouldn't have been asked in the first place, but once asked you cannot blame the one accused for answering it. I know if similar false accusations were made against my character, or the character of a loved one, I would be the first to issue a rebuttal in the strongest possible terms. Stooping to the question in order to deny it does not imply guilt. I think you're reading way too much into things to reach that conclusion, for whatever motive you may have - be it argumentative or otherwise. Apologists asked the question, Candace and her lawyer answered it. End of story.
Cedars
-
Chaserious
Cedars, maybe I'm off since everyone else seems to disagree. But what was the answer to the questions about selling drugs and receiving stolen property? I honestly want to know. I watched the video a couple of times and I couldn't figure it out. Perhaps I am missing something that you all who note that everything was answered clearly picked up upon.