Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

by Chaserious 111 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Ruby456

  I think Candace's lawyer's arguments revolved around that the elders did not fulfill their duty of care towards Candace sufficiently.  I think this came out when Candace Conti's lawyer questioned the elders regarding what safety measures they had put in place to prevent Kendrick from ever working in the field service with children. Furthermore wt headquarters did not address this asspect of protecting children in their guidelines and instructions to elders either) If this aspect is significantly important then surely it would not matter so much that Candace did not (and was not asked by her lawyer directly enough to)  testify to being assigned to work with Kendrick?

  I hope that this is the case and that watchtower will be forced to ensure that they fulfill a duty of care towards children in all group activities that are presided over by an elder once this issue has been decided in order that they may not be legally vulnerable (if not for more caring reasons).

  Apart from that I think the warning aspect is only relevant in so far as it would have suggested that the elders and watchtower society were at least thinking about their duty of care towards vulnerable children carrying out group activities presided over by elders.  This case, imo, made clear that the elders simply forgot about Kendrick.  Candace Conti trusted that she was reasonably safe to be assigned to work with anybody.

  Okay yes Kendrick did only commit one act of violation but I think Candace's lawyer's questioning did make sufficiently clear that the elders did think Kendrick was an offender and that they did think he was a liar (which they failed to report to headquarters) and therefore, it could be argued, an individual who could not be trusted. Fingers crossed and hoping that the duty of care aspect, which yes would be trailblazing, does bring about a dismissal of wt and body of elders appeals. 
• 

  Chaserious

  I think Candace's lawyer's arguments revolved around that the elders did fulfill their duty of care towards Candace sufficiently.  I think this came out when Candace Conti's lawyer questioned the elders regarding what safety measures they had put in place to prevent Kendrick from ever working in the field service with children.  If this aspect is significantly important then surely it would not matter so much that Candace did not (and was not asked by her lawyer directly enough to)  testify to being assigned to work with Kendrick?

  I think you may be missing that there are two alternative theories of liability at play here: misfeasance and nonfeasance. What you are describing sounds like nonfeasance; that they didn't do enough to warn or protect her.  You are correct that the attorneys do not have to show that they were assigned together in field service to prevail on that theory.

  But Rick Simons also argued on appeal that even if there is no such duty, the verdict should be upheld due to misfeasance, and the only evidence he points to for that is the field service issue.  I was only commenting that there had to be enough evidence at trial for a jury to conclude there was misfeasance for the judgement to be upheld on that basis.

  Conti's team doesn't have to show a basis for both theories; only one. Since juries don't have to explain themselves, if the court finds one of the two theories viable under the law (and assuming the WT doesn't win on one of its other arguments) the jury verdict will stand, assuming that the jury accepted that basis.

  I agree that it's sad that only the threat of legal liability works to force their hand to protect their children.
• 

  Ruby456

  chaseirous, thanks for replying. i have been plying between your opening post and composing my own while making coffee as well, sorry. but my post above is now complete.

  chaserious said

  But Rick Simons also argued on appeal that even if there is no such duty, the verdict should be upheld due to misfeasance, and the only evidence he points to for that is the field service issue.  I was only commenting that there had to be enough evidence at trial for a jury to conclude there was misfeasance for the judgement to be upheld on that basis.
  

  okay I understand why Candace Conti needed to have been asked directly by her lawyer about being assigned by an elder to work with Kendrick.
• 

  cofty

  The thing is the elders were aware of only one single instance, the one involving Kendricks step daughter. Although they were aware this was molestation, they did not view Kendrick as a pedophile - NIttyGritty

  Then they are dangerous idiots.
• 

  OzGirl

  Thanks for explaining this information, Chaserious.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  @ Nitty-Gritty

  The Elders are only "experts" at following procedure that trickles down from HQ, and regurgitating the GB's latest idea. They don't have any special training to spot pedophiles or to recognize when they are being deceived. 

  They only have the "Holy Spirit"/ trial and error. 

  DD
• 

  JW GoneBad

  Misfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance...no matter!!!  The WTBTS, the elders and the congregation are guilty of all three!
• 

  Nitty-Gritty

  @ DATA-DOG
  

  You might find this interesting:

  http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/24/in-plain-view
• 

  flipper

  Does anybody have ANY current information from the court room activities that actually occurred yesterday January 14th ? Hopefully ? Peace out, Mr. Flipper
• 

  Nitty-Gritty

  Looking at things objectively, while researching various scholarly and secular essays and articles, dealing with pedophilia and how to protect our children, what struck me the most, was that all seemed to concentrate on “understanding” and identifying a pedophile, at the same time admitting that this is usually possible only after the pedophile has already had victims. The other method was for parents to learn to ask the right questions of institutions such as day care providers etc. However, we know that a pedophile is an expert at hiding who they are, and an expert at infiltrating such institutions. And an expert at grooming their victim. On top of that, we know that most pedophiles pray on those they know, i.e. family, relatives and friends. Then also there is advice on reporting suspicious behavior on the one hand, but advising caution of “over suspicion” and being wary of false accusations on the other hand…..

  What I find odd, is that rarely do these articles address the obvious first line of defense: the dynamics between a (good) parent and a child, (mutual trust and open communication) and the education of the child as to “bad touch” “good touch” (even from parents), etc. In my opinion the various Awake articles and other WT publications have produced excellent advice as to this first line of defense. Just my observation…..

  http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/activities/help-community/safeguarding-children-sexual-abuse/#?insight