Incomes relative to Religions in USA.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
a verdict is not proof in itself is it.

The verdict was based on the evidence. The evidence is in the transcripts. Read the transcripts. The verdict was correct. You don't have to agree with me.

Originally posted by FMF
Read the transcripts. WTBTS lost the case.

I am reading the transcripts, as you may or may not be aware they are quite lengthy, you have provided nothing in any shape or form which may be termed evidence.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Is it? which one? what day? please give me the reference and ill shall read it.

No one needs to prove it to you, robbie. The defendants had to prove their case in the court. They were found guilty. It's all in the transcripts. You don't have to agree with the court's decision.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am reading the transcripts, as you may or may not be aware they are quite lengthy, you have provided nothing in any shape or form which may be termed evidence.

I don't have to provide you with "evidence", robbie. You asked me to look at the transcripts. The transcripts have all the "evidence".

Originally posted by FMF
The verdict was based on the evidence. The evidence is in the transcripts. Read the transcripts. The verdict was correct. You don't have to agree with me.

if it was correct what specific evidence led you to the conclusion, perhaps you could cite it here for us, citing a guilty verdict is not evidence in itself, you may or may not be aware.

Originally posted by FMF
I don't have to provide you with "evidence", robbie. You asked me to look at the transcripts. The transcripts have all the "evidence".

yes you do FMF, you have stated that you agree with the verdict, what specific evidence led you to that conclusion, please cite it here.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...no one is defending the perpetrator over the victim, no one disputed the abuse, no one disputes that Kendrick was guilty...

Just a few pages ago you were describing Jehovah's Witness brother Kendrick's sexual molestation of children as "alleged abuse".

Originally posted by FMF
Just a few pages ago you were describing Jehovah's Witness brother Kendrick's sexual molestation of children as "alleged abuse".

nothing, you have nothing, you cannot demonstrate why you agree with the verdict, thank you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes you do FMF, you have stated that you agree with the verdict, what specific evidence led you to that conclusion, please cite it here.

I don't have to prove it to you. It had to be proved to the court. And it was. As the transcripts show. The court found the JWs guilty. You are entitled to disagree with me, of course, but I think the court decision was the right one. The evidence is in the transcripts you asked me to look at.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nothing, you have nothing, you cannot demonstrate why you agree with the verdict, thank you.

I don't have to "demonstrate" it to you. I take the same view as the court and jury. The evidence and the arguments are all in the transcripts. You don't have to concur.

Originally posted by FMF
Just a few pages ago you were describing Jehovah's Witness brother Kendrick's sexual molestation of children as "alleged abuse".

again until i read the transcript, anything in connection with the case was alleged, as i have explained, please explain why such a stance is defending the perpetrator over the victim.

Originally posted by FMF
I don't have to "demonstrate" it to you. I take the same view as the court and jury. The evidence and the arguments are all in the transcripts. You don't have to concur.

you may have the same view but you cannot demonstrate how you came to that conclusion, oh dear, you are not doing very well FMF, one could hardly describe your stance as convincing. if you cannot demonstrate how you came to that conclusion how are we to concur that you really do understand the details of what transpired?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
again until i read the transcript, anything in connection with the case was alleged, as i have explained, please explain why such a stance is defending the perpetrator over the victim.

If you don't reckon he did it, just come out and say so. The JW organisation doesn't dispute it at all. They do not consider the sexual molestation to be "alleged abuse". You are free to see it differently from the JW organisation. Indeed, you are also free to see it differently from Kendrick who doesn't dispute the accusations against him. It is you, and you alone who has not yet fully accepted that they are rather more than just 'allegations'.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you may have the same view but you cannot demonstrate how you came to that conclusion,

I looked at the transcripts as you suggested. I agree with the court's decision. I don't need to change your mind about the court's decision.

Originally posted by FMF
If you don't reckon he did it, just come out and say so. The JW organisation doesn't dispute it at all. They do not consider the sexual molestation to be "alleged abuse". You are free to see it differently from the JW organisation. Indeed, you are also free to see it differently from Kendrick who doesn't dispute the accusations against him. It is you, and you alone who has not yet fully accepted that they are rather more than just 'allegations'.

i have already stated that he was guilty of abuse, again please explain why waiting until after considering the evidence that terming the abuse alleged is defending the perpetrator over the victim, you have not said and until you do I will ask the question again and again and again.