by jaydee 46 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
............those who question her integrity.
The video makes what seems to be criminal and other accusations. The accuser's integirity is not being challenged, but the truthfulnes of her accusations cannot be determined based on accusations; accusations do not legally determine or establish guilt or legal liability; that is for a Court of competent jurisdiction to decide.
I pose no judgement except to say that her witness is absolutely consistent with thousands of other cases involving children abused in the context of the Jehovah's Witness religion and how the WT instructs the elders to deal with it. That being said, BEFORE she put it out in the open in a public forum, she should report the case to the judiciary authorities and seek legal counseling, because we are talking about serious criminal accusations against her father and serious signs of covering up by the WT. Her father appears to be one appaling case of a sick abuser narcissist invested and kept in an authority role by the WT.
consistent with thousands of other cases involving children abused in the context of the Jehovah's Witness religion and how the WT instructs the elders to deal with it
It has already been established by Richard Oliver in another thread that in the US, WT has been complying and is complying with US law; so, consistently, how does the video show that WT is not complying with US law?
What do you mean by covering up by the WT since WT complies with US law?
Violating state mandatory child abuse reporting law is a crime or a violation of said statute. Can you cite one case filed against the WT in the US where wt was found guilty of violating a mandatory child abuse reporting statute as you are suggesting below that wt may be guilty of?
serious signs of covering up by the WT
Her father appears to be one appaling case of a sick abuser narcissist invested and kept in an authority role by the WT.
What you have said above can be interpreted as or contrued to mean that WT is keeping a known child abuser in a position of authority.
Fisherman: What you have said above can be interpreted as or contrued to mean that WT is keeping a child abuser in a position of authority.
Would that be a first? The case against Gonzalo Campos, in San Diego, CA:
"Campos was a Jehovah’s Witness who sexually abused at least seven children in San Diego congregations in the ’80s and ’90s. During that time, Watchtower leaders knew Campos was abusing children but did not report him to law enforcement, according to testimony by congregation elders. Instead, they promoted him to the position of elder." - from KPBS http://www.kpbs.org/news/2016/dec/12/how-jehovahs-witnesses-leaders-hide-child-abuse-se/
"Can be interpreted or construed" ?? Are you effin kidding me? That IS exactly what I am saying. So sue me for having an informed opinion. Your WT apologetic BS and your "alternative facts" are wasted on me.
I have a friend who was abused by an Elder in South Africa for years as a teenage girl. Her father who was also an Elder, was aware of her accusations and nothing was done. The only "justice" she got was that the bastard was later killed in a car accident, but until today she suffers chronic depression from it.
That IS exactly what I am saying.
OK
The information shared on both her Youtube videos has been confirmed to me by a friend that was in the same cong. as both her dad and myself. Again as mentioned previously her video's have the ring of truth and are consistent with her Dad's personality. I've never met the woman personally asides from travelling to an int. convention in the same bus. I have heard her bother give a talk and met most of her family. He was the type that liked to be in control and is a true Kool-Aid drinking company man that thoroughly enjoyed the status and position of eldership and PO for over a decade believing that the WT is God's earthy organization. That said he mellowed considerably with age and I must say I was fond of him. She did go to the police after trying to go through the congregation and being brushed off, ignored and given the go-around.
Labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.)
Interesting. So my opinion isn't really my opinion unless it's a verifiable fact? In that case, I can hold the opinion that you're an idiot; it could be construed or interpreted that it would be an insult. But because it's not a verifiable fact (one can argue that there's no scientifically sound evidence for what constitutes an "idiot"; the etymology of the word suggests someone who has ideas, but there's no consensus as to its more colloquial use. Since it CAN be demonstrated that you have ideas - albeit bad ones - that effectively makes you an idiot). But that will not be my opinion because you will challenge the said fact, perhaps in court. In that case you would be of the opinion that my statement would be just an insult; but of course, that would be merely YOUR opinion, because, naturally I would challenge that as a matter of fact, and I doubt you could provide empirical evidence to the contrary that you're an idiot and that what I meant by my statement was simply stating anything other than the ethimological sense of the word. And in all this mess of fallacies, the courts will EVIDENTLY be very interested in my non-opinion and in your non-opinion. Capice, was it clear, or shall I draw it for you?
