09 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe police and the child protection services testified in court and exonerated the JW organisation? What page is that on?
The entire time the police conducted their own investigation covertly, as did child protection services and not once did they contact the congregation with any concerns making your slimy assertions of secrecy and that he was permitted contact with children, just that, pure slime.
09 Sep 12
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFIf he had remained unrepentant, he would have been removed and an announcement made to the effect that he was no longer one of Jehovahs witnesses, it wasn't and therefore after his removal of minor privileges, a rare occurrence, in fact the brother testified that it had only happened maybe three times in twenty years, the brothers and sisters would have known that he had done something untoward, but they would not know and would not want to know the details, we have faith that our elders are adequately qualified to deal with it, which they evidently are, as yet, there has not been a shred of evidence that they were negligent. I would not have had any effect on Candace Contis abuse, she did not tell the brothers of her abuse until twelve years after it had stopped, if the brothers had known, he would have been shown to have been an unrepentant wrongdoer and removed, with immediate effect. Why did the police, the social services and the child protection agency not contact the brothers although they conducted a covert operation, evidently they were satisfied with the brothers arrangements an that he posed no imminent danger to the congregation, why are they not also therefore being held culpable, if they knew of it? Hmmm, as usual I do not expect any real answers from you, I doubt you were even aware they were involved. The beautiful people of that congregation have nothing to be ashamed of, not the elders , not the parents not the brothers and sisters, they committed no abuse and no slime from you can change that fact.
So was Kendrick's repentance "secret" too? How would he have expressed his repentance and to whom? Why wasn't he counselled to confess to the congregation and to ask for their forgiveness [or offer to leave]? It could have saved Candice Conti from being molested for two years when she was just 9 and 10 years old, although it might have been a bit embarrassing fo 39:1." JW letter 1989 to elders about how to handle sex abuse cases.[/quote]
09 Sep 12
4 edits
Originally posted by FMFthey were under no duress to send a report to the police, if they had of been, they
When Gary Abrahamson, elder at the North Fremont Congregation, found out that Kendrick was a child molester, he wrote a report on him. Did he tell the police? No. What did he do? He sent the report to WTBTS HQ in New York. Did they report it to the police immediately, as they should have done? No. You concede that they sat on it - kept it secret - "for months".
would have done so, for evidently they are law abiding people or perhaps you have
evidence to the contrary, they stated that if the family wanted to they should contact
the police, it was not their duty to inform the police nor deal with criminality, they are
not policemen, they deal with sin, and as I have stated, they could not, for they were
held under confidentiality laws, as the brothers pointed out, the fact of which seems to
reverberate against the side of your skull and dissipate into nothingness. If they had
prevented the family going to the police then you may have a cause for complaint, but
as usual, your slime isn't sticking, merely stinking.
09 Sep 12
4 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobOur publications are rarely about court battles, they are focused on helping people
I do find it rather curious that you didn't know anything about this case until i brought it up. The WBTS has just lost a multi-million dollar law suit, which no doubt will be settled with money donated by it's members (if you don't win the appeal), you would have thought something of this magnitude would have been at least mentioned in one of the WBTS's publications at some point?!
overcome all manner of ills. It may yet come to print, I dunno, but I had never heard
of it, never heard of Candace Conti and never heard of Kendrick either. What we do
with our voluntary donations is our business, 10 million, while substantial could have
went to some good use, but as the brothers pointed out and you seem to forget,
paedophilia is not a problem specific to Jehovahs Witnesses, its a societal problem, as
we have been making people aware of through our publications. I doubt it will go
to appeal, it might, the brothers just might just cut their losses and crash and burn,
i dunno, but i tell you this, there is not a shred of evidence the congregation was
negligent, better watch out that you have a good child protection policy in place and
insurance against litigation at your chess club, for you could be held responsible for
the individual and covert actions of a rank and file member, even if you were
unaware of them, twelve years after they had stopped.
09 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'll try once again: The police and the child protection services testified in court and exonerated the JW organisation? What page is that on?
Why did the police, the social services and the child protection agency not contact the brothers although they conducted a covert operation, evidently they were satisfied with the brothers arrangements an that he posed no imminent danger to the congregation, why are they not also therefore being held culpable, if they knew of it?
09 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat evidence is there that Kendrick was "repentant"?
If he had remained unrepentant, he would have been removed and an announcement made to the effect that he was no longer one of Jehovahs witnesses, it wasn't and therefore after his removal of minor privileges, a rare occurrence, in fact the brother testified that it had only happened maybe three times in twenty years, the brothers and sisters would h ...[text shortened]... ch they evidently are, as yet, there has not been a shred of evidence that they were negligent.
09 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo no comment from you as to whether you think Jonathan Kendrick was "slimy"?
i certainly think you are slimy.
There is "a time to keep quiet," when "your words should prove to be few." (Ecclesiastes 3:7; 5:2) - JW letter 1989 to elders about how to handle sex abuse cases.
09 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis defence didn't work, robbie. They were found guilty of negligence and complicity.
they were under no duress to send a report to the police, if they had of been, they
would have done so, for evidently they are law abiding people or perhaps you have
evidence to the contrary, they stated that if the family wanted to they should contact
the police, it was not their duty to inform the police nor deal with criminality, they are
...[text shortened]... d, they could not, for they were
held under confidentiality laws, as the brothers pointed out,
10 Sep 12
Originally posted by FMFpure unadulterated straw, i did not state that the exonerated the brothers, a simply
I'll try once again: The police and the child protection services testified in court and exonerated the JW organisation? What page is that on?
request to produce the quotation and your strawberry Sunday is lying on the forum
floor, smouldering. If during their covert operation, had they been concerned about the
arrangement and precautions the brothers had taken, they would have surely stepped
in and taken some action, i cannot find a trace of evidence where they thought that was
necessary, can you? No, why not? because it never happened, that is why.
10 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf the police and the child protection services did not testify in court to exonerate the JW organisation, then how is their action part of your organisation's legal defence?
pure unadulterated straw, i did not state that the exonerated the brothers
10 Sep 12
Originally posted by FMFThe evidence that Kendrick was deemed to have been repentant was that he himself
What evidence is there that Kendrick was "repentant"?
stepped forward and confessed to his crime, sat during a meeting with the family at his
own home, stated that he was sorry for his actions and that it had bothered his
conscience. Had he been caught prior to confessing, it debatable whether he would
have been viewed as penitent. As neither you nor I were at that meeting, nor were we
party to the initial phone call, nor did we interview him or conduct an investigation, I
think it fair to say that ours is a position of some limited understanding. Perhaps if they
had been as assuming and cynical as you they might have forgone trying to make
restitution at all and simply condemned him as unrepentant wrongdoer, despite his
confession of guilt.
10 Sep 12
Originally posted by FMFagain this is pure straw, i have not said that its a legal defence, I have merely stated it
If the police and the child protection services did not testify in court to exonerate the JW organisation, then how is their action part of your organisation's legal defence?
as a circumstantial fact, if i have stated it as legal evidence then produce the quotation
or stop introducing irrelevancies because you cannot answer any of the questions put
to you, like why did they not inform the congregation if they were unhappy about the
arrangement put in place, do you know more of what transpired than the police and
social services who conducted a covert investigation?
10 Sep 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat evidence is there that he was "repentant" in light of the fact that he sexually molested a child again subsequently. Was the JW organisation's 'if they are "repentant" it's ok by us' procedure successful? Did it save Candice Conti?
The evidence that Kendrick was deemed to have been repentant was that he himself
stepped forward and confessed to his crime, sat during a meeting with the family at his
own home, stated that he was sorry for his actions and that it had bothered his
conscience. Had he been caught prior to confessing, it debatable whether he would
have been vi ...[text shortened]... ion at all and simply condemned him as unrepentant wrongdoer, despite his
confession of guilt.