Just a few points on Monday's events at the trial:
(appologizing in advance for the length, but hoping some will be interested in details)
Frank Burns was called by the Defence. He is a lawyer and worked at Bethel for awhile with Glen Howe. He also co-authored the 1989 Canadianized version of the WTS 1988 BOE letter on handling abuse cases.
The morning went bad in that Burns' testimony contradicted Saunders' previous testimony of having worked in Legal and of writing a draft letter for the Canadian version of the BOE letter adding the suggestion that victims not be made to confront their abuser, which was ultimately omitted from the final Canadian version. Burns said Saunders didn't work in Legal at that time and couldn't have been involved, and sadly, Mr. Mark did not pursue Burns' statement as a lie.
Mr.Mark tried to ask Burns about the suggested procedure of handling abuse accusations stated by the WTS that says: "having a witness confront the accused is not advisable". Burns bristled and asked what he was talking about. Mr. Mark retrieved a photocopied version of the "Flock" book from Mr. Mott-Rill in the audience and Defence councel jumped up protesting of having no knowledge of this book. He showed it to Burns and Burns looked at it sneering, saying "What is this? Its just some photocopied pages. It says on the front, its some Kingdom Ministry School Guidebook from 1991." Mr. Mark then produced a hard copy of the book and tried to find the corresponding page and it couldn't be found. In the ensuing flipping back and forth of pages, Mr. Mark couldn't find the reference again and spent many agonizingly long minutes flipping pages trying to find it and the whole thing was quite awkward.
The annoying thing for us is that Burns knew exactly what that book was and acted dumb about it. And Mr. Marks should have had the correct description of it as the official (secret) elders guidebook on how to handle congregation and judicial matters,and the exact reference clearly marked. So what could have been a valid contribution to Vicki's case ended up not accomplishing its purpose.
Then Frank Toth's testimony didn't come across well first of all, because he tried to make statement right at the start about how he believed more would come forward to talk about abuse cases like Vicki's but are afraid of the consequence of being shunned. He was quickly directed by the Judge to stick to just the facts he is there to present, which I feel will be discounted by the Judge because of how he came to his knowledge and it can't be proved.
Toth stated he overheard a conversation at a wedding between Didur and Stan Shoshack (sp?) where Didur says he felt Mott-Rill should have been df'd and Didur was angry he was only removed as elder. He also said during his job as a mail carrier, he had a letter to get signed and while waiting alone in Didur's office, he admitted to giving in to sneaking a peak at a large pile of letters on Didur's desk and read some of them. They were letters and notes on Mr. Mott-Rill. So nothing more was presented, no points were made about why this evidence was pertinent and the Defence councel only asked 1 question about Toth's mode of leaving Bethel, which was he da'd himself because he couldn't agree with WTS policies.
Frank Mott-Rill was re-called and it seemed every question he tried to ask was objected to as being previously covered and the Judge had to agree, upon reading back the exact questions and answers previously covered. Mr. Mark seemed to be trying to pinpoint places where Didur had lied in his testimony. He finally got to follow through with one question about Didur having notes of Longworth (the first elder in TO that Vicki went to for advice and was the only elder who kept his notes on his discussions with Bethel and the elders.) and that Didur offered to discuss them and share them with Mott-Rill over lunch but that lunch never did take place.
It seems all this testimony was trying to show that Didur had notes and letters, part of which was discussing the 3yr limitation rule, that Didur testified he didn't have because Legal Dept had them. But this point seemed so clouded in its presentation, it's significance to Vicki's case was not made.
So that was the negative side of the day.
Now for the brighter side: The afternoon improved a little once we saw the format of the summary presentations. As Mr. Mark would make a point, the Judge would discuss it in front of us trying to clarify each point. For example:
Mr. Mark submits as a torte of negligence on the elders' part that when Vicki first went to Longworth, (which was on record that it was because she couldn't deal with the knowledge of her father's abuse and she felt he should be held accountable instead of his being viewed as a pillar in the congregation), Longworth had to made several calls back and forth with Bethel as elders are instructed to do and then had to tell Vicki to go to the elders in Shelburne. Mr. Mark proposes that had the elder had been allowed to report to CAS immediately, she would not have had to endure the confrontations in Shelburne.
The Judge asked: If CAS would have been involved immediately, how would it have been different?
Mr. Mark answered;
- she would have received proper treatment by psychiatrists and CAS in TO would have better facilities that in small place like Shelburne.
- she would not have been forced to confront her father due to WTS rules
- she would not have been forced to face another confrontation in the judicial committee, for which she was emotionally unable and suicidal.
- the treatment she endured contributed to her inability to function at her job which led to her feeling the need to leave it.
Judge asked: What is WTS's fiduciary relationship with Vicki?
Mr. Mark answered:
- she did as she was told - she acctepted this as it was taught to her from her youth-she relied on them
- she was brought up to believe that the curch is what counted and that the world would be rejected by God
He submitted that the process is unfair to Vicki because:
- she was required to participate
- she was made to feel guilty
- the JC's purpose was for the sinner's repentance not for helping her heal
- due to the 'light sentence' her father received from the elders, Vicki was made to feel more upset over the congregation's interpretation of that to mean she had fabricated the charges, thereby causing more distress to her.
Mr. Mark again summarized his main points of argument and included again a reference to how Vicki did not feel she was free to object to the elders' requirement of her confronting her father in a judicial committee.
He used the case of Weinburg as a casepoint of reference. The doctor was unqualified and a hypnotist. The patient had to submit to the sexual advances of the ductor because she was addicted to drugs from him. Mr. Mark compared Vicki's compulsion to obey the elders as similar to the patient's in that she is the entrustee and looked to the WTS as a voice of authority. She may have had free will, but she trusted the WTS in fiduciary trust. The result of disobediance to their authority has the serious result of df'ing.
He submitted that the upbringing of only being social with JWs leaves you dependant on doing whatever you have to, to not be shunned. Therefore they are responsible for her. Because of how she was treated by the church, she was left with no outer protective shell by the time she left to go out west. The pain and suffering she has now is direct cause of their requirements of her within the secluded structure of the church.
This is when the Judge asked: "Does everything a church does to a person make them responsible for the damage? If one is willing to go through it, how is it their responsibility?"
Mr. Mark answered with an example of the WTS's responsibility in the effects of their punishment as in the Moyle case in Rutherford's time. The WTS had to pay damages for their actions.
The Judge also seem to discount the WTS's witness Dr. Silver. She acknowledged that he did not go into Vicki's re-traumatizing by the forced confrontations, with her. He only relied on written reports. The Judge remarked how Silver's conclusion that the JC's did not cause significant damage and that his chronology of events was in error. The Judge stated her recognition of the fact that Vicki became rebellious after all the meetings took place which was the result of re-traumatizing.
Mr. Mark also made the point that in following the BOE's "alternative directive" to get a third party to report, allowed the elders to prompt the father to report to the CAS. As a result, we don't know what Palmer reported. (As an added note...we never will know because the Shelburne CAS lost the file) So if Didur, hence the WTS, had told Longworth to report immediately instead of insisting the Shelburne elders handle it, then perhaps the true facts, rather than Palmer's history of minimizing, would have been a surety.
The Judge is not letting the WTS Defence Councel slip in any wrong statements in his summary presentation I'm happy to see.
During in the the short half hour he had to just present the basic format of his presentation, she corrected him several times on his supposed facts. For example:
She corrected him by saying the fact was that Vicki went to Longworth for councelling and she felt she would be held blood-guilty if she let the congregation remain in an unclean state at Armageddon.
Defence also tried to say that Longworth's notes say Vicki was told to go to your father and get thim to go to the elders. The objective was to get the father to go to the CAS not that Vicki was to apply Matt.18.
The Judge corrected him again saying that it is in Longworth's notes that Vicki was told she had to evoke Matt 18 even after she pleaded not to and that she went to Mott-Rill then asking why she had to apply Matt 18. Judge saw the first elder's meeting with Brown and Cairns to be the confrontation applying Matt 18.
So as others have said, its still hard to tell where this will all lead but I have high hopes in the sharp Judge.
Hopefully someone is there today to fill us in on the antics of the WTS's Defence summary.
Had Enough
