Are we restricted to only live-action Batman? Because if not, my vote for best Batman is KEVIN CONROY in Mask of the Phantasm!
Teary Oberon
JoinedPosts by Teary Oberon
-
27
Who was the best batman?
by FL_Panthers init seems that batman has been portrayed by more actors than any other superhero.. who do you think has played the best in the role of bruce wayne/batman?.
-
-
-
8
Conti Case Updated 5/20/14?
by Teary Oberon inhttp://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=a136641.
if you notice, there is now a new entry under the docket tab: .
"filed additional cites for oral arguments - richard simons".
-
-
Teary Oberon
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=A136641
If you notice, there is now a new entry under the Docket tab:
"filed additional cites for oral arguments - Richard Simons"
Anybody know what this entry means? Does it mean that the oral arguments have already happened and he is sending the judge his cited references, or is it just preparation for arguments?
-
74
Convicted paedophile allowed to grill his victims at Jehovah's Witness meeting
by Sapphy inhttp://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/convicted-paedophile-jonathan-rose-grilled-7151197.
oh my goodness, i'm so angry i can't even speak!
"women who complained that former jehovahs witness elder jonathan rose, 40, had molested them as children relived their nightmares in front of him after he was released from jail".
-
-
Teary Oberon
Thank you for your calm and reasoned replay Konceptual. I will try to respond in kind.
"There are numerous examples of where individuals have faced kangeroo JCs, accused of some sin yet never known who their accusers (forming the legendary two witnesses) are let alone had the opportunity to grill them."
This is again heresay and conjecture. Better would be to find official written rules governing these meetings, and then we could judge how well individual bodies of elders either stick to the rules or disobey them (provided we actually had accurate information about what went on during the meeting).
"There is still the fact that during the trial witnesses are called to present evidence. I've not read the transcripts and I don't know how much of the witnesses' evidence was accepted but it was certainly enough to convince a jury to convict."
The problem I have with cases like this is, there is no evidence other than heresay and he-said she-said. The jury cannot help but make a decision based on emotion and subjective value judgments, because that is often all they are left to work with. The trial essentially becomes a popularity contest between Plaintiff and Defendent.
These cases also run into issues with memory and the extreme temptation to 'tweek' the narrative to make oneself look more sympathetic or victimized, because really who else was there that could challenge it? We saw this prominently on display when a judge picked Vikki Boer's story to pieces and came very close to calling her a flat out liar. There is also Candice Conti claiming that she was abused over a period of many years, when it was brought out pretty clearly in the briefs that the only possible window for abuse would have been about 2 weeks.
" The elders are perfectly free to take that evidence into account."
Perhaps they already did take the trial examinations into account, and simply found them lacking. I am sure that some people disagreed with the original 1995 acquittal of Rose too, but do you call them stupid for disagreeing with the jury? I suppose the real question is: are people obligated to accept jury decisions without question, or can onlookers legitmately disagree and form their own opinions? If the Candice Conti verdict is reversed on appeal, for example, are you going to quietly accept the judge's decision or are you going to protest and argue against it? Be careful to avoid double standards when discussing these things.
Perhaps that is what the elders in this case did (form their own opinion), and when the three women learned about it, they confronted the elders and pushed for them to reverse their decision. And the elders replied "if you want us to change our opinions, then you are going to have to give us something better," which then led to the strange cirumstances of these meetings. In any case though, it is implied in the sources that the women were the ones pushing for these meetings, not the elders.
But that is just my two cents. Take it as you will.
-
74
Convicted paedophile allowed to grill his victims at Jehovah's Witness meeting
by Sapphy inhttp://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/convicted-paedophile-jonathan-rose-grilled-7151197.
oh my goodness, i'm so angry i can't even speak!
"women who complained that former jehovahs witness elder jonathan rose, 40, had molested them as children relived their nightmares in front of him after he was released from jail".
-
-
Teary Oberon
"assuming that all molestation victims are probably lying"
I assume no such things.
" assuming that the man is probably innocent"
That is a basic principle of Law. I assume innocence until I have been satisfied otherwise. Automatically assuming the reverse is, in my opinion, much more unconscionable .
" assuming that young women just love to have to relate horrific acts done to them"
1) I assume no such thing.
2) You have not convinced me that said acts actually occured.
" to confront the man who did unspeakable acts to them."
They were all grown women and voluntarily chose to confront Rose again. I am not obligated to feel pity or outrage for a free and conscious choice.
" But we know many child molesters among Jehovah's Witnesses get away with it"
That is a nonsense statement. We know such thing, and by definition we cannot know such a thing. If they, as you said, "get away with it" then that means that they have not been found out. But how do you know they "got away with it" unless you've already found them out? Schrodinger's Cat paradox.
" victims are discouraged from contacting the authorities"
Unsupported and unproven statement.
" that nobody wants to speak truth to power"
Elders have no power other than the power of persuasion. They have no authority to use force, unlike Government thugs. If a person doesn't want to listen to them then they do not have to.
" advocating for the poor misunderstood pedophiles in the organization"
I do not advocate for pedophiles -- I only question your evidence for labeling them as such. Lord knows somebody needs to.
" Because God knows those sick bastards need somebody to defend them"
Men accused of serious wrongdoing do indeed need somebody willing and brave enough to defend them. The world would be a much worse place if Defense Attorneys were banned and we were all left at the mercy of rogue Prosecutors and every yahoo who felt like throwing around accusations.
-
74
Convicted paedophile allowed to grill his victims at Jehovah's Witness meeting
by Sapphy inhttp://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/convicted-paedophile-jonathan-rose-grilled-7151197.
oh my goodness, i'm so angry i can't even speak!
"women who complained that former jehovahs witness elder jonathan rose, 40, had molested them as children relived their nightmares in front of him after he was released from jail".
-
-
Teary Oberon
"To protect the other children in that KH from becoming victims due to the 'don't ask don't tell' policy the WTBTS seems to require."
With all due respect, your theory does not make any sense. It was a public trial and according to reports, the entire congregation was aware of the proceedings. Additionally, Rose was placed on a public sex offenders list and was on court imposed restricted access to children. He was also stripped of his elder status prior to trial and will not be able to regain it. Elders are also allowed to consult and warn parents of children privately if there is a potential threat attending public meetings.
With all of that in mind, I simply do not see how the womens' post-trial efforts at disfellowshipping accomplished anything, aside from simply drawing more attention to themselves. If you notice, they did run straight to reporters immediately afterwards to give statements. You all are still here talking about it aren't you? If that was really their intention, then it was probably a success.
" Surely the court testimony should be sufficient to see this guy df'ed."
It is dangerous to make such assumptions when we don't even know what is in the court transcripts. We don't know any arguments that the Defense made or any of the lines of questioning that they pursued.
If your sole argument is: "the jury convicted, therefore the evidence and testimony must be damning," then you should keep in mind that a jury also acquitted Rose of sexual indecency in 1995 (a jury also acuitted O.J. Simpson in 1995) If you think that the first verdict might have been wrong, then you also have to accept that there is an equal chance that the second verdict might also have been wrong. Any good lawyer will tell you that juries can be unpredictable and emotional. It is much safer to get the actual transcripts and read the arguments of the Prosecution and Defense for yourself, and then form your own opinion.
" Notice that you are advocating for a child molester"
That is a fallacy. I have not yet accepted that he is a child molester, therefore I logically cannot be advocating for one. I'll form my final opinion when and if I get my hands on the court transcripts. And even then if I side against him, that does not invalidate a single word that I have written. I still strongly support questioning all sides, no matter how 'sacrosanct' or emotional the issue might be. When you try to shut down honest questioning and discussion, and try to insult and bully people into accepting stories and articles on faith and at face value, you are no better than Watchtower.
But that is just my two cents. Take it as you will.
-
74
Convicted paedophile allowed to grill his victims at Jehovah's Witness meeting
by Sapphy inhttp://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/convicted-paedophile-jonathan-rose-grilled-7151197.
oh my goodness, i'm so angry i can't even speak!
"women who complained that former jehovahs witness elder jonathan rose, 40, had molested them as children relived their nightmares in front of him after he was released from jail".
-
-
Teary Oberon
"I am curious as to why parents would consent to elders questioning their children. It could interfere with law enforcement and healing from trauma."
They aren't children. Two of the women are in their 20's and the third is probably in her 30's if she was a teenager in 1995. It is just journalistic sensationalism -- they get more interest if they never make it clear how old anyone is. Notice they fooled you with that technique Band
-
74
Convicted paedophile allowed to grill his victims at Jehovah's Witness meeting
by Sapphy inhttp://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/convicted-paedophile-jonathan-rose-grilled-7151197.
oh my goodness, i'm so angry i can't even speak!
"women who complained that former jehovahs witness elder jonathan rose, 40, had molested them as children relived their nightmares in front of him after he was released from jail".
-
-
Teary Oberon
" But this does not extend to that SOB elder who posed the Q" did you enjoy it"?"
Always remember to question context and source my friend. Isn't that the reason why so many left the Witnesses in the first place, because they questioned everything instead of accepting on faith? Are we now expected to close our minds and keep quiet about difficult issues?
1. Where does the quote come from? The only place it could come from is one of the female accusers after the fact. But that makes the statement heresay and subject to substantial bias.
2. What was the context around it? Why was it asked and who was it asked in reference to? If it was asked of Jane Doe 0 (see my previous Parties and Facts post), then things get much more complicated. Reposting the notes on her:
"Jane Doe 0 - made the recent Facebook allegations against Rose that led to prosecution for crimes committed against Jane Doe 2 & 3. Jane Doe 0 and her family apparently left the congregation after the 1995 allegations, with elders at the time dismissing their complaint “as something that happened between teenagers.” [also heresay, also from the same source as the quote we are examining] Trial court apparently agreed. Articles did not mention any explicit disfellowshipping of the family, only that they left."
So we know that something happened between Rose when he was 21 or younger and Jane Doe 0 when she was a teenager. The question posed from the elder ("did you enjoy it") only makes sense to me if he was questioning what he thought might have been a consentual act between two teenagers (the original 1995 allegation was dismissed by elders as "something that happened between teenagers). It simply doesn't make sense to ask that question of someone who was 5 and of someone who was 10 at the time.
Whatever really happened between Rose and Jane Doe 0, we know that Jane Doe 0 tried to frame it as assault and a jury did not believe her. Rose was acquitted of all charges. That is telling, because usually women have a very large advantage in sexaul assault accusation cases. The elders from 1995, from that perspective, might have had good reason to not believe Jane Doe 0; and if those same elders were present at the most recent post-trial meeting, they might still not have believed her and thus asked the infamous question: "did you enjoy it?"
But those are just my random shower thoughts. Take them as you will.
-
74
Convicted paedophile allowed to grill his victims at Jehovah's Witness meeting
by Sapphy inhttp://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/convicted-paedophile-jonathan-rose-grilled-7151197.
oh my goodness, i'm so angry i can't even speak!
"women who complained that former jehovahs witness elder jonathan rose, 40, had molested them as children relived their nightmares in front of him after he was released from jail".
-
-
Teary Oberon
I think is good that were trying to get to the facts of this case and others before we make an ruling. This case of the elders putting the woman through the paces with the pedophile present may be a he said she said coments since the news could not get the elders to confirm this. Its very important that all facts come out and are investigated before things are said.--CrazyGuy
I concur with your opinion.
On this case especially I have a lot of unanswered questions as to motives, communications and time lines. The question of whether or not the women were actually still Witnesses at the time of the post-trial meetings, is one of those important questions. If none of them were actually still Witnesses, then it reduces this whole issue to a bunch of substanceless hype, because it would mean that they all attended 100% voluntarily without any possible coersion, threat or pressure.
Even better than just news articles and heresay though, if I could find a copy of the actual court transcripts, or more specifically, the witness examinations and cross-examinations, then I could get a much clearer picture of both sides and thus form a more balanced opinion. Would anybody know about the availability of such things in England?
-
162
...The WBT$ Theft of Kingdom Hall Bank Accounts and JW Elders...
by OUTLAW in.. the new wbt$ donation arrangement/ jw kingdom hall bank account theft... is a very hot topic right now... the wbt$ is literally going to clean out kingdom hall bank accounts,filled with donations from jws... that theft is going to happen world wide..the wbt$ is going to steal from 7 million plus jw`s... .. we have jw elders here on jwn,that know whats going on... they "serve" in kingdom halls,they are "supposed" to be looking after the welfare of the average jw... they know there is a 4 page letter,only one page will be read to the congregation..the rest will be kept secret... they know the wbt$ is about to steal jw donations..on a world wide scale!!!...
.. i would like to know what you active jw elders are going to do about this??!!...
are you going to let "your" congregation know about the other 3 secret pages?...
-
-
Teary Oberon
During my years, the only actual resolutions I saw were uncontroversial and practical. Nobody ever voted against them because there was no reason to.
Now on something like a meeting time vote, you will see a lot of split opinions. A few years back, a body of elders in a local congregation put forward a motion to change the meeting time to 7:00 pm from 7:30 pm, and it was actually defeated by about a 60-40 margin.
I would say that if you do not want to donate the chosen amount, then do not vote for it. But your vote cannot override the vote of the majority, simple as that.
The publishers also have say in this matter in that the new monthly donation resolution will be based on an anonymous survey of family heads. If you do not agree with the new donation arrangement and do not wish to participate, then simply do not vote or put 0, and your share of donations will not count.
-
74
Convicted paedophile allowed to grill his victims at Jehovah's Witness meeting
by Sapphy inhttp://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/convicted-paedophile-jonathan-rose-grilled-7151197.
oh my goodness, i'm so angry i can't even speak!
"women who complained that former jehovahs witness elder jonathan rose, 40, had molested them as children relived their nightmares in front of him after he was released from jail".
-
-
Teary Oberon
Teary Oberon, Could you post the source of your information please?
Both original news articles and partially from Cedar's blog. It is unwise to blindly accept news articles and blogs at face value. To really understand a case, you have to try to pull out undisputed facts from multiple sources and then arrange them in a logical fasion, like so:
PARTIES & FACTS
Name: Jonathan Rose
Current Age: 40
Age During Alleged Incidents: 21, 27
Congregation Status During Alleged Incidents: non-elder during Jane Doe 0 allegation, unknown status during Jane Doe 1 & 2 allegations but presumed to be non-elder due to young age.
Current Congregation Status: became an elder at some point after 2001, disfellowshipped recently after new allegations came to light.
Current Marital Status: Married w/children
Notes: never admitted guilt, continues to protest his innocence.
Name: Jane Doe 0
Current Age: unknown
Age During Alleged Incident: “teenage”
Age of Defendant During Alleged Allegation: 21 or younger
Year of Alleged Incident: 1995
Allegation: “indecent assault,” i.e. groping
Court Ruling: Acquitted
Notes: made the recent Facebook allegations against Rose that led to prosecution for crimes committed against Jane Doe 2 & 3. Jane Doe 0 and her family apparently left the congregation after the 1995 allegations, with elders at the time dismissing their complaint “as something that happened between teenagers.” Trial court apparently agreed. Articles did not mention any explicit disfellowshipping of the family, only that they left.
Name: Jane Doe 1
Current Age: ~22-23
Age During Alleged Incident: ~5
Year of Alleged Incident: ~1996-1997
Allegation: 1 count “indecent assault,” i.e. groping
Defendant Plea: not guilty
Court Ruling: guilty
Sentence: 9 months prison, banned from contact with children, sex offender registry.
Notes: contacted Jane Doe 0 in 2010 over a comment on a Facebook post involving Rose. Father was apparently not a Witness at that point in time, indicating that the daughter might no longer have been one either.
Name: Jane Doe 2
Current Age: 23
Age During Alleged Incident: 10
Year of Alleged Incident: 2001
Allegation: 1 count “indecent assault,” i.e., inappropriate kissing
Defendant Plea: not guilty
Court Ruling: guilty
Sentence: 9 months prison, banned from contact with children, sex offender registry.
Notes: Contacted Jane Doe 0 & 2 in 2012. Accused of indecent sexual behavior by elders as a teenager. Apparently disfellowshipped some time prior to trial. Apparently the one who started the court ball rolling by coming forward first. Other girls joined after. Coordination and interaction between Jane Doe 2 and Jane Does 0 & 1 prior to the police reports is unknown, but in some accounts implied.
I have my own inferences and opinions on the case, but I am not done writing and reviewing those yet.