Evidence

ekruks

I am wondering, if brave persons are bringing forth details of painful abuse cases years later, when they have grown up to be adults.... what evidence do the courts convict on? Conti was the only victim in the case? I doubt there were eye-witnesses, and it's too late to get DNA evidence. Did the pervert confess?

adamah

ekruks, Conti's lawsuit is not a CRIMINAL matter, but a CIVIL case.

The evidentiary requirements you refer to (eg DNA evidence) are those needed to prove a criminal case in court, but since since's suing in civil court for damages, the standards for evidence are much lower.

Granted, it's easier to sue for damages in a civil case if the facts have been proven in criminal court, but it's not impossible to prevail if no criminal charges had been filed.

Adam

ekruks

Adamah, I agree wit what you just said, but even for the civil courts some form of evidence is needed, otherwise anyone could just claim abuse and win. I am trying to work out what she used as evidence. It is said to be a one victim case, so it's not the testimony of various victims providing multiple witnesses. Somehow without DNA evidence or eye-witnesses, she won.

snare&racket

It still happened and there is more to criminal cases than JUST dna evidence.

Even if 60 yrs passed, if the victim felt able to only then come forward, they should and should have our support. The uk abuse scandal at the moment goes back decades to mature women who were abused as young teens long ago.

quellycatface

Hi guys.merry Christmas.

There are lots of historic abuse cases in the UK which have been successfully prosecuted.google has many examples

No one should hold back, no matter how many years ago it was.

Justice is justice..May these women see their abusers punished.

rawe

Hi Ekruks,

This link has a summary of the case...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/calif-jury-awards-28m-in-_n_1602997.html

As you'll note evidence that Jonathan Kendrick was a child molester was established in regards to a conviction for child molestation misdemeanor in 1994. Candace's claim of abuse is in the years 1995-1996. This of course is after his 1994 conviction. Thus the focus of the lawsuit is on how elders, following Watchtower backed policy, failed to protect Candace. For example, does an elder conducting a field service group, with knowledge one of the individuals has been convicted of child molestation, bear any reponsibility if he assigns the individual to work alone with a 9 year old child?

Why did elders not inform parents of young children, perhaps even privately, that a congregation member was a convicted molester? Can they really claim this is a concern about privacy, when it was public record, and they do share these details with other elders, even within different legal corporations? Did Watchtower policy that strongly directed elders to keep their mouth shut have a negative impact in this case?

Alas, if an organization seeks strict control[1] over the lives of members, it seems they cannot always escape responsibility for negative behavior of those they control.

Cheers,

-Randy

[1] Such as, where you'll go door-to-door and who you work with. The organization even assumes the right to dictate what family members a current member can communicate with either in person or via email. This well known extreme shunning policy is rationalized as required to protect the congregation. If Jehovah's Witnesses have procedures to protect congregation members from former members who openly celebrate Christmas, is it too much to ask they protect the congregation from child molesters?

Finkelstein

I think what won the case against the WTS. was numerous word of mouth testimonials by numerous people including JWS.

The court weighed that as a probable cause and justifiable liability.

The only blip in this case, speaking from my own opinion mind you, is that there was no restraining order placed

on this individual to not be in the company of minors alone (should have been)

and there is no law stipulating that all and any known people charged with pedophilia who try to attend a

church, enforcing the responsibility of the specific church representatives to make it aware to all within their church

congregates. This would add an extra safety net and protection against someone coming into a religious environment

and act as a predator for possible victims (I think this is what this cad did) exploiting the perceive goodness of the person

within that congregation.

That means all churches and religious organizations.

.

I welcome any corrections from this post. ...... Fink.

Band on the Run

Evidentiary rules apply to civil cases. We would chaos without them. Criminal cases are brought soley by the government as government. The burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Imprisonment or fines are punishments. Civil cases are cases regular people or the people bring against each other. The largest groups of cases are contracts or tort cases. The party "suing is the plaintiff and the party sued is the defendant. The burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence." It is more complicated in real life."

DNA applies to civil cases in addition to criminal cases. The civil standard is much easier to meet. I don't know CA law. One of the legal issues the appellate courts will address is whether or not the WT and the elders had a legal duty to notify the people active in the KH. Is no legal duty existed, no liability can exist. The alleged abuse happened before CA enacted a mandatory reporting requirement on clergy. Did the statute create a new duty or did it restate an existing duty. It would be far easier for Conti to prevail if the reporting requirement existed. The court will have to research what the existing law in CA required. Did an appellate court address the subject in any manner.

The jury made a factual finding that Conti was indeed abuse. Appellate courts don't' usually overturn findings of fact. Great deference is paid to the fact that a jury or judge was able to see and hear the witnesses in a courtroom. Body language, tone of voice - a whole host of reasons exist. The appellate courts reveiw legal issues. Negligence law requires legal duties to exist. Does the defendant owe the plaintiff a certain standard of care?

The problem the WT faces in Conti that is usually lacking is prior notice of abuse. Does this notice of abuse create a legal duty? I don't know if the law is clear. The moral duty is clear, IMO. If elders had warned parents and children to avoid the pedophile, it is unlikely the abuse would happen. Kendricks had no expectation of privacy when he met with the elders. It was not a confessional meeting. CA has a long history of changing laws. It will be interesting to read the final decision. The case seems to be winding its way very slowly through the system.

Apognophos

So I guess Finkelstein's mention of testimonials at court by JWs was a significant part of the evidence? In that case it was more than Conti's word against Kendrick's.

rawe

Hi Apognophos,

"So I guess Finkelstein's mention of testimonials at court by JWs was a significant part of the evidence? In that case it was more than Conti's word against Kendrick's."

I would assume that the court must have been sufficiently convinced J. Kendrick did abuse Candace, but beyond that the actions of the elders, letters regarding policy, etc, would be from other sources. A key piece of evidence, as I understand it, was a multi-page policy letter written to elders. As most here know, but in case someone doesn't, normally such policy letters are not available to congregation members in general. Thus, a congregation member may assume the handling of child abuse is aligned with what has been printed in The Watchtower, Awake! and on jw-media.org (now a section on jw.org) and other public places, but otherwise completely unaware elders are told such things as... if they lawfully must contact the authorities they should do so from a public pay phone.

Cheers,

-Randy

Evidence

Share this