I've posted a message with links to this on the biggest BBC messageboard:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbarchers/NF2693943?thread=8360673
This should help to get the story out.
(Sorry don't know how to make it 'clickable')
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160605/candance-conti-molested-jehovahs-witnesses-member-age-nine-wins-28milion.html.
I've posted a message with links to this on the biggest BBC messageboard:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbarchers/NF2693943?thread=8360673
This should help to get the story out.
(Sorry don't know how to make it 'clickable')
'this jury bought it'mccabe said simons "did a great job of spinning it into a policy of secrecy, and this jury bought it.".
in fact, mccabe said, the letter was a run-of-the mill reminder that some communications must be kept confidential.
he noted that a section of the letter devoted to child abuse instructed elders to report all allegations to church lawyers so victims can be "protected from further damage.".
'Both sides of this seem to have merit.'
No, no,no.
I know whereof I speak. I was a police officer, mainly detective and mainly supervisory/management for 30 years. I dealt with more child abuse cases than I want to remember (yes, I do see them in unwelcome dreams) and although I am UK based rather than US the principles are the same.
Forgive me if I get a little 'wound up' here but these are my feelings, and they come from long experience from dealing with victims.
'Report all allegations to (church?) WTBTS lawyers?' No. WTF have they got to do with anything, except minimise legal liability? No, in the first place report allegations to the appropriate authority. On one occasion, I 'blue lighted' to a school to get to a victim before the abuser did (he later got 8 years).
In most jurisdictions nowadays there is a responsibility to report these matters to the responsible authority (and that does not include some self-appointed delusional God-related amateur wanna-bes). Those responsibilities are well publicised and should be welll known and self-evident to anyone.
Those who fall short of meeting their repsonsibility may well be held to be criminally or civilly liable. Good. I hope it makes them think.
PS: Would you want to be an elder now????
the society's will probably pay out $5-$7,000.000 on this award instead of filing an appeal.
the brother was fined 60 percent of the damages, the society held 40% of the liability of this lawsuit.. .
.40 x $28,000,000 is $11.6 million dollars!.
BA: Just a factual correction.
The award against WTBTS NY was 27% of $7m in personal damages = $1.89m plus 100% of punitive damages=$21m (and a dollar). Total $21.89m.
From the financial statements submitted there should be no problems with collection.
Subject to appeal, of course, but what a can of worms that could open.
And, of course, the judgement against the KH congegation was 13% of $7m = $910,000. That may concentrate a few minds.
Edited to add: Would you really, really, want to be an elder right now?
it's taken a while, but i've finally managed to put up an article on this remarkable court case.. a link to my article is below:.
http://jwsurvey.org/general-information/the-watchtower-punished-society-loses-legal-battle-over-child-abuse-case.
i've tried very hard to make the article as factual as possible by reading and comparing the various documents available.
Cedars: Excellent job! Just one point - you use the term 'criminally liable'. Not strictly accurate, as this was a civil court ruling. 'Liable' on its own would be OK or perhaps 'Liable with malice' as per the jury decision.
Sorry, not being nitpicking but I think we all know just how nitpicking JW apologists can be!
the watch tower released a statement after the 2007 lawsuit settlement.
it's found here:.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/jehovah%27s_witnesses%27_handling_of_child_sex_abuse.
Jeffro: Agreed - it is absolute misdirection. I suspect that things may get more difficult for WTBTS in the future.
As society becomes more litigious and it becomes more profitable to establish 'vicarious liability' so that defendants with assets can be included in lawsuits, WTBTS may have to start distancing themselves from the PBI aka R&F.
In the UK, at least, there is quite a drive to identify and prosecute 'corporate liabilty' for both criminal and civil offences (cf. Health and Safety and 'corporate manslaughter' offences). The case law (judicial precedents) follows through from those cases.
I believe that this will cause problems for WTBTS as a 'high control' organisation - whether or not they have the intelligence and knowledge to realise it.
1. They issue written and verbal instructions as to how members will behave and conduct the 'publishing' work.
2. The 'work' is directed and specified ('territories', 'car groups' etc.)
3. 'Workers' are directed and briefed before being sent to do their tasks (FS meetings)
4. The 'work' undertaken is supervised and reported back on (FS reports)
5. Sanctions and discipline provisions are prescribed and can be applied in relation to the 'work'
6. The stated policy is that 'there are no clergy but all are clergy'
A good investigator/lawyer/prosecutor would not have much problem (IME) establishing a corporate liability for things that went wrong, especially using the Data Protection Act and other provisions to obtain documentation. I have no doubt that wherever possible WTBTS would leave local elders 'hanging out to dry'.
Finally, I am reminded of the apocryphal court story where having been found guilty by the jury of an offence the defendant made an impassioned plea - 'As God is my judge, I didn't do this!' The judge gave a dramatic pause and said: 'He isn't. I am. Five years.'
the plaintiff, candace conti's goal from the very beginning was to bring enough attention to this problem to incentivize watchtower to change its policy of secrecy.
the award can be explained as it was decided: separate compensatory and punitive damages.
the punitive award is established in law to punish wrongdoing - here, the conscious disregard for others - and deter that conduct in the future.
"The elders watched him after that", McCabe said.
IME&HO this illustrates a considerable degree of naivite on McCabe's (and WT's) part. I don't know whether this was developed by Ms Conti's attorney, but it's like waving a red flag.
Q: Why did they watch him? It can only be because they considered him a potential danger, to whatever degree, and even if it was on a 'just in case' basis it is an acknowledgement that there were grounds for concern. And 'grounds for concern' in child abuse matters demand that a course of action be followed, which clearly and obviously did not happen in this case.
The defendants can't have it both ways. By claiming that 'they did something about it by watching him' (my paraphrasing) they put themselves into the position of admitting that they saw danger and failed to deal with it. I am sure that Ms Conti's attorney reached for the highlighter when he saw this statement and it will provide very useful material for the appeal which will no doubt follow. I wouldn't like to be one of the elders on the stand answering questions on this point, and I'm sure there will be much spluttering, coughing and silent prayers to 'Beam me up, Scotty'.
I spent too many years dealing with too many cases of child abuse when I was a police officer for this to wash over me. And yet this case (and others like it) is in a way far worse because of the involvement of a 'malicious' (as held by the jury - absolutely correctly IMO) third party. That third party is the Jehovah's Witnesses, whether in its corporate form as WTBTS, the GB, local organisation, the elders and even down to local members of the KH who, I suspect, may have closed their eyes to what was happening (or, in theocratic terms, 'kept their eyes on Jehovah' so they didn't have to notice what was happening around them).
(I notice, by the way, that on McCabe's website he's rather coy about his JW status. There's one mention of 'Watchtower' on the home page - in other areas of the site there is only mention of 'voluntary' and 'community' work by him and his second and third sons. I've never been a JW but I was a bit surprised that a prominent, apparently successful JW family wouldn't make more of their JW-ism. Isn't it an opportunity for a 'fine witness'? I wonder if he did this job pro-bono. If so, maybe it reinforces the point that you get what you pay for.)
To Candace Conti, I add my best wishes to all those expressed here and elsewhere. This was not easy for you, no that's an understatement, it was very very hard and I salute you. You know, I'm sure, that there will be people who will make hurtful and vicious comments. Rise above them as much as you can and take comfort that you know the truth - those who can't see it are to be pitied.
i will email this around uk newspapers, even the ones i wouldn't be seen dead reading.
i have aimed for succinct and non-sensational.. please feel free to use and abuse it if you want, the more emails they all get the more it may catch their attention.. your feedback please before i send it..... .
the legal corporation that controls the activities of jehovahs witnesses, the watchtower bible and tract society of new york, has been ordered by a californian court to pay $20 000 001 in punitive damages to a victim of child sexual abuse.. the victim candace conti brought the action after the organisation refused to change its official policy of secrecy as to sexual abuse of children by congregation members.
SBF: Agreed - she may provide a good 'in'.
i will email this around uk newspapers, even the ones i wouldn't be seen dead reading.
i have aimed for succinct and non-sensational.. please feel free to use and abuse it if you want, the more emails they all get the more it may catch their attention.. your feedback please before i send it..... .
the legal corporation that controls the activities of jehovahs witnesses, the watchtower bible and tract society of new york, has been ordered by a californian court to pay $20 000 001 in punitive damages to a victim of child sexual abuse.. the victim candace conti brought the action after the organisation refused to change its official policy of secrecy as to sexual abuse of children by congregation members.
Cofty: Maybe also to Reuters/PA?
I believe that Betsan Powys is now political correspondent for BBC Wales.
More power to your elbow.
the plaintiff, candace conti's goal from the very beginning was to bring enough attention to this problem to incentivize watchtower to change its policy of secrecy.
the award can be explained as it was decided: separate compensatory and punitive damages.
the punitive award is established in law to punish wrongdoing - here, the conscious disregard for others - and deter that conduct in the future.
As far as I can see from the court documents, the claim for punitive damages was only against WTBTS NY. Thus their 'share' is 27% of $7m plus $21m = $21.89m. The financial data they filed with the court suggests that there should be no problem collecting that.
jane doe vs the watch tower in the oakland, ca case was awarded $20 million in punitive damages..
JW Facts: Re your post above - as far as I can see from the court documents, the claim for punitive damages was only against WTBTS NY. Thus their 'share' is 27% of $7m plus $21m = $21.89. The financial data they filed with the court suggests that there should be no problem collecting that.
It also suggests that had all defendants been worthy of pursuing for punitive damages the jury had in mind a figure of $80m or so.