by hawkaw 35 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
I am not Sarah .. I am a distant relative to the Palmer Line you decend from..As a Palmer ( like I said before) it is sad to see family tearing eachother apart. The He said, She said, is vindictive and doesn't solve the situation.
Nor is this Board for tearing up a victim ( regardless on how you feel about her behavior). By doing so you insult the survivors of abuse, rape, etc, who post here.
S. Palmer
aka Xandria
UNDF'd! You did it again! Thanks for those excellent WT quotes re: Mt. 18:16!
No im not blowing smoke,its on paper.So its ok for you to speculate and not me,the difference being?You people can come on here and say stuff about Vicky,her case and her father freely,why dont you take your opinions to court.Dont worry this stuff is all coming out in court.This is a free forum and I have a right to defend whats right.Many of you have a man already guilty yet he hasnt never been charged,you are baing your opinions on whats in the paper or what Vicky had told you personally,you arent reading the facts or even know the facts.Most importantly You are infringing upon Mr Palmers rights.
Sorry we only have one S Palmer in our family line. ALSO THE ONLY ONE WHOS TEARING VICKYS FAMILY APART IS VICKY.She tore her family apart when her mother was dying,thats when I started to lose respect or her but bet she doesnt talk about that to any of you no beacause then you would see what shes made of.Long before I knew she was suing the WTC.
Honestly,
I asked you a number of questions on another thread which you did not answer and which need to be answered for anyone to take your criticisms of Ms. Boer seriously. I will ask them of you yet again:
Honestly,
I am by no means pre-judging this case, as I would like to hear the defendants defence, but do you feel that Ms. Boer is wrong to bring this suit against the WTS and the elders concerned? If so what do you recommend that she does to attend to these alleged criminal acts that she obviously has not felt any emotional closure over?
Ms. Boer, may indeed have made a decision many years ago not to pursue this case. Does that preclude her being justified in changing her mind about bringing the issue into the open and dealing with it?
You further noted that Ms. Boer 'refused' to press charges originally, stating this as if she made an unhindered decision swayed by no emotional constraints. Was this the case?
Best regards - HS
Honestly,
We're waiting...........................
Oh, so much family squabbling... Yes, Sarah is a smart girl; that is why she can look at this unfortunate case objectively. Neither Gower nor Vicki deserve to be attacked here.What good will that bring? And, I don't think that is Vicki's objective. Vicki does deserve justice via this lawsuit. She deserves someone telling her that what happened was wrong and that she didn't provoke the abuse or that she isn't crazy. And Gower needs to admit that he needs counseling. There is a lot of mending that needs to take place in the Palmer family. Certainly, Honestly, could use some counseling, too. Her life is more screwed up than anyone's, as is evidenced by her anger.
Yes, she's right. There is only one S. Palmer in the family (living anyway). I doubt that Xandria is a Palmer.
This "honestly" person obviously doesn't know what he or she is talking about. I know enough of what's going on to be able to state this with full confindence.
For example, "honestly" claims that Vicki is only interested in getting money. That this is false is easy to prove: at the preliminary for the trial, held three months ago, both sides agreed to settle for $50,000 (Canadian), with the proviso that there be no gag order on Vicki. Watchtower lawyers later refused that there should be no gag order, so the case went to full trial. The fact that Vicki was willing to settle for a far smaller sum than she is suing for now, and that the gag order provision was the sticking point, proves that money is not the issue. The issue is one of principle: Watchtower should be held accountable for its deliberate dereliction of duty, which occurred when Toronto Bethel leaders forced local elders to cover up the abuse.
AlanF
Edited by - AlanF on 14 September 2002 22:9:6
Alan F. is right. Vickie's character is irrelevant. In cases like this there is only one way for the courts to hold a religious organization responsible for its' conduct: awarding damages in the form of money. Invariably the churches will claim in cases like this that the plaintiff is only motivated by money (and in some cases that may be true) but the fact remains that our legal system is based upon the award of money damages to compensate victims and punish wrongdoers. Vickie is not responsible for this, and she is not responsible for the WT's obscene policy of covering up abuse to protect its' "clean image". Even if everything Honestly says is true, this does not change the fact that Vickie suffered as a result of this disgusting policy and she deserves to be compensated.
