Nitty-Gritty

Joined

• started 3 topics
• posted 215 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Nitty-Gritty

• 
  111

  Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

  by Chaserious in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.

  i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.

  it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nitty-Gritty

  @ Chaserious

  Thank you or your reply and for the explaining the definition of legal “recklessness.”

  Putting the law aside, and just looking at this from a common-sense point of view, anyone who has been a JW knows that the elders will do whatever those higher up in the chain of command tell them to do, whether that's the CO, letters from the branch, WT legal, etc.  So whether or not they believed he was going to re-offend, I think that the most reasonable assumption is that they would do whatever they were directed to do

  
  

  Yes, I know the elders would do as they are directed by the WTS, but if the elders were worried, wouldn’t this have come across in their letter to the WTS?  I have not seen the correspondence between the Fremont cong and the WTS but it seems like the WTS had to base their decision on something (since they were not personally involved with the situation). Is it possible that the WTS also believed things were taken care of?

  People who are trying not to bring shame on their organization and are trying to minimize liability - that's who.

  That’s what I don’t get. How does one “minimize liability" by not reporting cases of child molestation? Please explain that to me in legal terms, as a lawyer.

    What is the purpose of letters to the bodies of elders telling them to call Watchtower legal when child abuse occurs?  Is it really to protect anyone besides the Watchtower?  They don't have to call legal in cases of fornication or drug abuse, do they?
  

  From reading the new instructions to the BOE (2012) I would say that the purpose of that would be to protect the congregation, so that if anything goes wrong, the WTS is liable and not the congregation because it had merely followed the directions of the WTS. So any responsibility of future cases of child molestation rests squarely with the WTS. My thoughts anyway.

   A reasonable conclusion (and I think the one that was arrived at in this case) is that this process was in place to attempt to protect the organization from bad publicity and legal liability, with any concern for protecting children a distant  afterthought, even though headquarters knew or should have known that its policy was not in the best interests of the children.
  

  .....it disregarded a significant risk of harm, and put concern for its image above legitimate safety measures.

  I know what you are saying here, but I don’t understand how telling others in the congregation about a pedophile in their midst (the safety measure) would have been bad for WTS image? I believe most members of the congregation are aware that there are some among them who bring reproach to the Witnesses (ranging from sins such as fornication and adultery to crimes such as theft and murder. There was a “brother” who ran a brothel in one European country).  Elders do not stop anyone from going to the police if that someone thinks a crime has been committed. For instance if a “brother” broke into my home I would call the police. It goes without saying. Then I would tell the elders. So I honestly do not understand why not informing that there is a pedophile in the congregation has anything to do with image and bad publicity. (Unless there is another reason).  Perhaps you can explain that to me.

  I apologize for asking all these questions, and I appreciate your patience in answering.
  

   

   
• 
  111

  Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

  by Chaserious in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.

  i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.

  it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nitty-Gritty

  @ splash

  I don't know about the video. I have not seen it. Have you? Was there anything in it suggesting she was not allowed to go and see a doctor?
  
• 
  111

  Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

  by Chaserious in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.

  i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.

  it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nitty-Gritty

  @Chaserious

  From what I remember from reading the transcripts was that; because the elders didn’t believe Kendrick when he said “it was an accident” implied that they were aware this was child molestation. The elders agreed with that, and that was partially what incriminated them, as I understand.  Had the elders believed Kendrick that it was “just an accident”, then perhaps the court would have found them less liable (I don’t know) The elders gave reasons why they didn’t believe Kendrick....but then they stopped there and merely told him to not go near any children and that they would be watching him. I believe they thought the matter had been handled right, and that Kendrick would not re- offend. I know you are a lawyer and thus you understand the case much better than me, a lay person.  I am just looking at it from a point of view of common sense. Common sense tells me that; IF the elders believed in any way that Kendrick was going to re-offend, they would have put in place some other provisions where this would be minimized.  Who in their right mind would WILLINGLY allow such a danger to exist? (same goes for the WTS)  I know the haters on here believe so.  But you and I and any reasonable person can surely see that this was not deliberate.  Yes, the elders and WTS made a BIG mistake. Evidently. Because sadly a child got molested again.  I am not trying to minimize things or to defend the elders and WTS. I am just saying that crying "hang them all"! by haters is unfair. (I am not talking about the jury) Yes, I agree with the verdict of negligence..  It seems that WTS has changed their policy and that Candace has succeeded. Of course no policy on earth will be perfect and foolproof against these disgusting persons. The only fool proof way would be to incarcerate them for life. But no justice system will do that. So they will unfortunately remain part of the fabric of society until they die....

  Just one question: when you said that the jury found that “the Watchtower was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of its actions, but deliberately and willfully failed to avoid those consequences”   can you explain what that means in practical terms? And what was the evidence of that if you can remember. Thank you.
• 
  111

  Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

  by Chaserious in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.

  i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.

  it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nitty-Gritty

  Ruby 456

  Its ok, I am happily re- married again.But thanks.
  

  To answer your question, as far as I am aware, the society will not recommend any specific treatments or in this case going to a marriage councilor in writing. It would be foolish to do so. What if the treatment or marriage counsel doesn't work? Then one could point fingers and say "they told me I should". All in the congregations are free to go and see anyone they want if they think it will help. (as long as it has nothing to do with spiritism). They do not have to consult with the elders first.
  

  
  
• 
  111

  Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

  by Chaserious in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.

  i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.

  it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nitty-Gritty

  @Ruby 456

  As far as I am aware, and from personal experience, elders have not stopped anyone from seeking "professional" help. And yes, I know of elders who have advised others to get professional help. The elders are of course first and foremost spiritual  guides. Although the Bible's guidance and principals are very practical in all areas of life, some things only a professional in the field can help with, for example a doctor or a psychiatrist. The brothers recognize this. As for marriage councilors, well, from personal experience, our marriage councilor didn't do our marriage any good and we ended up getting a divorce. We were both spiritually low at the time. That seems to say a lot. At least in my experience.
  

  As regards children, the elders generally do not interfere with what is the parents responsibility. They may offer advice but ultimately the parents are responsible for their children. Actually, the elders do not generally interfere with the private life of others period, unless others come to them, or a problem becomes apparent which can affect others.  I have already stated on here somewhere in a post that I agree that the elders of Fremont should have warned parents about Kendrick. I can say that because if the parents of Candace had been warned, then most likely Candace would not have been molested. The only reason I can think of why they didn't was because they believed the case was closed. They believed that Kendrick would not re-offend. I can say that because logically (and if we are honest and fair and not haters) they would not feel comfortable about a predator running around in their midst either. The elders have kids. And only two elders knew about Kendrick. The other elders with kids did not. Kendrick could have molested any of the kids.

  Are you familiar with the  entire Candace Conti case? I have read all of the over 3000 pages of court transcripts covering the 10 day trial. Very insightful.
  

  
  
• 
  111

  Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

  by Chaserious in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.

  i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.

  it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nitty-Gritty

  @
  

  DATA-DoG

  Don't get upset. My response was to @Separation of Powers because he/she said that members of a congregation are "told that they should approach the elders for counsel on everything from marital problems to depression". I was saying that Elders are supposed to advise others only as regards spiritual matters in these areas using the Bible. Once they start giving out personal opinions and advice then they are wrong and are going against the instructions in the hand book for elders. I was not necessarily referring to any specific case.
  

  The meaning of "special relationship" in legal terms I understand is not the same as the "special relationship" you are talking about. I am no lawyer but I understand a "special relationship" to mean that one entity (in this case an elder or body of elders) is responsible for the actions of another entity (in this case a member in the congregation).

  Also you are misunderstanding what is involved in bringing reproach upon JW organization. Anyone acting in contrary to the Bible brings reproach on the organization, naturally. But it has never been the policy to hide the fact that there are some who live contrary to the Bible, and most JWs are well aware that there are individuals who do act contrary to the Bible and those are usually disfellowshipped when found out, unless genuinely repentant. People on the outside are also made aware of this as the magazines are distributed to the public also. The WT 1986/1/1 page 13 says this: "Shocking as it is, even some who have been prominent in Jehovah’s organization have succumbed to immoral practices, including homosexuality, wife swapping, and child molesting. It is to be noted, also, that during the past year, 36,638 individuals had to be disfellowshipped from the Christian congregation, the greater number of them for practicing immorality". 

  The thing is, these people remain anonymous for the most part. We do not have a list of names of all those who have committed these crimes and the details there of. But I agree, child molestation IS different.  And this is basically what this case is about. Making public the names of child molesters so that members of the congregation can avoid them....
  

  P.S. The kind of reproach in the sense you are talking about is when one brother takes another brother to court over something which they could have resolved by themselves (this of course does not include criminal actions).
  

  
  
  
• 
  111

  Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

  by Chaserious in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.

  i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.

  it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nitty-Gritty

  @Separtion of powers
  

  "as you know the ORG is all that matters to a witness" No, a relationship with God is what matters.

  "you tell them that they should approach the elders for counsel on everything from marital problems to depression" - this was supposed to apply only in as far as it affects a persons spiritual well being. The elders are not and never have been marriage councilors nor psychologists nor doctors and have not claimed to be such, or should not have claimed to be such. Elders who take it upon themselves to act in these capacities are not following counsel.
  
• 
  111

  Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

  by Chaserious in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.

  i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.

  it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nitty-Gritty

  @OrphanCrow

  Awake! 1993-10-08 “Prevention in the home...... It is not  the stranger in a trench coat, the loner lurking in the bushes, who poses the greatest threat to children. It is a member of the family. The vast majority of sexual abuse occurs in the home. So how can the home be made more resistant to abuse?.....”

  http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g19931008/prevent-child-sexual-abuse/

  Awake! 1981-02-08 Incest—The Hidden Crime

  October 1, 1983, issue of The Watchtower – Help for the victims of incest
  

  January 22, 1985, issue of Awake -…. “Sadly, much sexual abuse occurs right within the confines of the family. The following article will discuss how you can make your family a safe haven in an abusive world”.

  October 2007 issue of Awake! –“ “My father was a cold, angry drunk,” Heather says. “He beat me terribly, and he molested me and my sisters.”
  

  And so on

  http://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=child+abuse
• 
  111

  Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

  by Chaserious in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.

  i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.

  it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nitty-Gritty

  @ DATA-DOG

  No, ultimately it doesn't matter what the police did or didn't do. I was just answering a poster who said "In all of this, ask yourselves one question,  How interested were the elders in Fremont with the well-being of Kendricks step-daughter"? I was implying that it had nothing to do with not being interested in someone's well being.

  First of all why should it matter who I am, and why do you think I am a JW apologist? Just because I don’t scream hang them! Like the rest? I am interested in intelligent, logical and reasonable arguments. For or against, it doesn’t matter. I ignore anyone who passes judgments without even being familiar with the case in question. That’s just dumb. (I am not necessarily saying you are one of them). The fact that I am on here just when the WTS is starting their oral arguments is just a coincidence.

  
  
• 
  111

  Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

  by Chaserious in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  with hopefully a good deal of interest here in the conti appeal tomorrow (or later today, depending on where you are), i thought that on my ride home from work tonight i'd preview what to expect and what i think the key issues are for any who are interested.

  i have had a busy few weeks and haven't had time to read everything, but i had some time to look at the appeal briefs during my work commute the past couple days.

  it'll be interesting to see what develops out of the network news coverage of this case.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Nitty-Gritty

  @ Separation of Powers

  Also, ask yourselves; how interested were the CPS, the Police and district attorney who all sent Kendrick back home to live with his step-daughter in her well-being?