Candace Conti Child Molestation Case

[Anna]

On 1/17/2017 at 3:46 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

I don't know how you conclude that the police believed this was a one-time occurrence. Do you have documentation stating this?

So they let him lose knowing he would re-offend?  That he would go on to molest other children?

On 1/17/2017 at 3:46 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

As I keep saying, if they really believed that, they would not have testified that they were keeping a close eye on him. There's no need to closely watch an individual's interactions with children if you don't think the individual poses any potential danger.

And as I keep saying, they did this as an extra precaution

 

On 1/17/2017 at 3:46 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

See Abrahamson's and Clarke's testimonies on Day 1, May 29, 2012 transcript, pp. 114, 207-8. Day 2, May 30, 2012 transcript, p. 26. Their acknowledgement of Kendrick's potential to abuse again are implicit in their answers.

On Page 117 of the aforementioned transcript Abrahamson is asked : “Were they the (cong) aware of the fact that he (Kenddrick)posed a threat to children of sexual abuse?

 

Abrahamson: “We didn't see that he posed a threat to children”

 

 

Page 207

 

Q Did you consider Jonathan Kendrick, then, to be a child molester after this meeting with the family in 1993?

A. Child molester?

Q. Yes

A: Well, he abused his daughter. So, yes, he is a child molester.

This is no proof that Abrahamson believed Kendrick would molest again. He merely stated a fact, that Kendrick was a child molester because he had molested a child.

 May 30, 2012 transcript, p. 26 doesn’t indicate anything about any elder believing   Kendrick would re-offend. You must have got your page wrong

On 1/17/2017 at 3:46 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

Lamerdin said he didn't consider Kendrick to be a danger to children in the congregation (and here comes the important bit) because they were keeping an eye on him to make sure everything was fine (Day 2, May 30, 2012 transcript, pp. 179, 199). He doesn't suggest that he thought Kendrick would not try it again.

Q. Did you consider Mr. Kendrick, in 1993 until he left the congregation, to be a danger to children in your congregation?

A.No. As a matter of fact, we kept an eye on him to make sure that everything was fine, and there was no issue that came up after that, that warranted anything to lead us to think that way.

Again, it is evident that the elders did not think Kendrick would molest again or even try.

On 1/17/2017 at 3:46 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

No such legal duty to watch over Kendrick that included warning the parents. The extract continues:

Regardless whether it included warning the parents, it still stands the same, they had no legal duty to watch Kendrick. And let’s use common sense. Of course we know they had no legal, or otherwise duty to watch Kendrick. They were not Kendrick’s guardians, and neither did they have a special relationship with Kendrick.  He was free to come and go as he pleased. And after police probation he was also free to come and go as he pleased.  We did not expect the police to watch him did we?

On 1/17/2017 at 3:46 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

"Therefore, defendants cannot be held liable for negligent failure by the elders to notice Kendrick’s behavior with Conti and warn her parents that he posed a danger."

I don’t get what point you are trying to make here. Isn’t noticing Kendrick behaviour and warning the parents  the same as watching Kendrick and warning the parents? They had no duty to do either. In fact if they were under no obligation to notice Kendrick’s behaviour, how much less were they obliged to watch him? I repeat, they were under no obligation to watch him.

However, the elders were responsible to make sure that during so called "Church sponsored activities" a child would be safe.

But this is my point of contention, I do not believe that Kendrick was allowed to work in field service with a child,- as one of the elders said - to do so would have been suicide.  I have no doubt that WT would have been able to defend that part of the accusation. Unfortunately, the whole case concentrated so much on the issue of supposed duty to warn, so much so that the appellant (WT) was not given a chance to refute the field service situation. This is why WT appealed, and after wining that appeal for punitive damages, it was going to appeal again, and this time defend the field service point properly and present proof and arguments as to why it was impossible for Kendrick to have molested Candace during field service. However, before anyone could appeal, the case was settled out of court.....Interestingly...

I will address your questions regarding Zalkin later....no time right now

On 1/27/2017 at 8:11 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

 

 

On 1/27/2017 at 8:11 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

it is noteworthy that this policy is available to all members of the congregations in UK wishing to see it.

Just a question. Who is going to wish to see it, if on the whole the friends are not really aware of such policies in the first place? Or are they in the UK?

I posted about the ARC Here

(for some weird reason this comment was merged with the one above to Ann, and so I had to try and delete it, but I couldn't get rid of your quote...so I just took it out, but your name is still there, just blank)

P.S. Ok so it merged with my reply to Ann again, I have no idea why...

[Evacuated]

1 hour ago, Anna said:

Just a question. Who is going to wish to see it, if on the whole the friends are not really aware of such policies in the first place? Or are they in the UK?

All elders will have seen it.

Many ministerial servants will be aware of it and its availability.

Anyone with an interest in safeguarding children will be aware of the need for such a document as there is a considerable amount of information available on government and voluntary organisation websites relating to the need for such a policy.

Many pioneers have been confronted with the safeguarding of children issue in the ministry in view of extensive media coverage on this problem. Discussion around handling public views on the matter inevitably leads to organisation-specific issues and the existence of such a policy and its availability is a matter for free discussion if appropriate, although the content (other than specific instructions to elders in handling allegations and incidents of abuse), is freely available already in a number of publications.

The policy states that Jehovah's Witnesses  "believe that parents have the primary responsibility for the protection, safety, and instruction of their children. We do not separate children from their parents for the purpose of instruction. (Ephesians 6:4) Therefore, parents who are members of the congregation must be vigilant in exercising these responsibilities at all times and are expected to:

• have direct and active involvement in their children’s lives;
• appropriately educate themselves and their children about child abuse; and
• encourage, promote, and maintain regular communication with their children.

—Deuteronomy 6:6, 7; Proverbs 22:3."

Obviously, assistance and support in understanding and carrying out these responsibilities is provided through publications, congregational meetings and the assistance of qualified elders who will all be aware of the policy. They are at liberty to share it with anyone in the congregation wishing to view it's content.

 

[Anna]

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Therefore, parents who are members of the congregation must be vigilant in exercising these responsibilities at all times and are expected to:

• have direct and active involvement in their children’s lives;
• appropriately educate themselves and their children about child abuse; and
• encourage, promote, and maintain regular communication with their children.

Of course this is the ideal situation and assumes that both sets of parents are spiritually mature, emotionally stable and promote a healthy and functional family environment. In such cases a predator has no chance and he knows it. The problem is that where either or both parents are spiritually immature, mentally unstable and the general family environment is unstable and dysfunctional (as was the case of the family of Candace Conti discussed above) then 1.They will fail in the three key responsibilities you mentioned, and 2.these kind of families are ideal targets for predators. They are the very families the predator will seek out. So already we have a problem, the stage is set for abuse.

So although I more than agree with the above, because it's a great recipe for prevention, and what's better than prevention instead of a cure...BUT it will not always work. Realistically, in this system, one will still be left with the "cure" and how to handle cases of child abuse focusing on helping the victim and protecting others from further abuse....

[Evacuated]

16 hours ago, Anna said:

Realistically, in this system, one will still be left with the "cure" and how to handle cases of child abuse focusing on helping the victim and protecting others from further abuse....

Sad reality....Eph 6:11-12

[Anna]

20 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Sad reality....Eph 6:11-12

I hope nobody misunderstands this as meaning human governments. This has unfortunately been the case in some instances (I think even during the ARC hearing), where some thought that verse 12 is referring to human governments and therefor Jehovah's Witnesses are mistrustful of them and do not want to cooperate with them. We know human governments are a "protection" and help to keep law and order. In the case of handling child abuse, we know government commissions set up for this purpose are doing their best to help victims and prevent abuse. The point is that "the whole world is lying in the power of the Wicked one" (1 John 5:19)  so no matter what we, or anybody else does, we will not succeed completely until  Satan is removed....

[Evacuated]

8 minutes ago, Anna said:

The point is that "the whole world is lying in the power of the Wicked one" (1 John 5:19)  so no matter what we, or anybody else does, we will not succeed completely until  Satan is removed....

But we won't stop trying ....will we??

[Anna]

10 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

But we won't stop trying ....will we??

Of course not! And it's good to see much improvement, even in our policies. It will be interesting to watch the ARC in March.....Our situation (as JWs) as opposed to other institutions is that many of our cases involve incest, and that is so much harder to identify and deal with, especially when the families themselves are not very active in the congregation....

[Ann O'Maly]

On 1/30/2017 at 11:45 PM, Anna said:

 

On 1/17/2017 at 8:46 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

I don't know how you conclude that the police believed this was a one-time occurrence. Do you have documentation stating this?

So they let him lose knowing he would re-offend?  That he would go on to molest other children?

You don't have documentation, then. You do not know what the police concluded. No matter what they concluded, they could only act according to the law at the time.

Quote

[Ann] As I keep saying, if they really believed that, they would not have testified that they were keeping a close eye on him. There's no need to closely watch an individual's interactions with children if you don't think the individual poses any potential danger.

[Anna] And as I keep saying, they did this as an extra precaution

An extra precaution for a non-existent danger? Your conclusion doesn't make sense. We shall leave it there as we cannot agree on this point.

Quote

[Ann] See Abrahamson's and Clarke's testimonies on Day 1, May 29, 2012 transcript, pp. 114, 207-8. Day 2, May 30, 2012 transcript, p. 26. Their acknowledgement of Kendrick's potential to abuse again are implicit in their answers.

[Anna] On Page 117 of the aforementioned transcript Abrahamson is asked : “Were they the (cong) aware of the fact that he (Kenddrick)posed a threat to children of sexual abuse?

Abrahamson: “We didn't see that he posed a threat to children”
Page 207
Q Did you consider Jonathan Kendrick, then, to be a child molester after this meeting with the family in 1993?
A. Child molester?
Q. Yes
A: Well, he abused his daughter. So, yes, he is a child molester.

This is no proof that Abrahamson believed Kendrick would molest again. He merely stated a fact, that Kendrick was a child molester because he had molested a child.

Abrahamson acknowledged the possibility that Kendrick would molest Andrea again on page 114.

Q. What did you do to protect Andrea from further abuse?
A. We removed Jonathan as a ministerial servant. And at that meeting, we tried to comfort Andrea and let her know that she was simply a victim. She wasn't at fault. She wasn't the reason. But we are very sad that she had become a victim of child abuse.
Q. Because this abuse occurred in the home of a congregation member and members, how would removing Mr. Kendrick as a ministerial servant have protected Andrea from further abuse?
A. Well, we hoped that our meeting protected Andrea from further abuse.
Q. Did you provide any advice to Evelyn Kendrick in how to keep Andrea safe in the future?
A. I can't -- it is hard to remember everything way back there. But I would assume that I told her that it is important to set propriety in the house, rules of conduct, and that it would be inappropriate for Jonathan to be in a room alone with Andrea. But I can't remember saying that. But I hope I would have.

Despite Abrahamson's further testimony on p. 117 that the elders didn't consider Kendrick to pose a threat to children, when questioned, the other elders indicated otherwise (references already cited).

Quote

... there May 30, 2012 transcript, p. 26 doesn’t indicate anything about any elder believing   Kendrick would re-offend. You must have got your page wrong

Here is Clarke's testimony on p.26 of the May 30, 2012 transcript:

Q. Now, you mentioned that you and Mr. Abrahamson and the other elders were going to keep a close eye on Jonathan Kendrick, after you learned in 1993, of his abuse of his stepdaughter. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you took it upon yourselves to protect other children in the congregation from further abuse by Mr. Kendrick?
A. I don't think that is a fair statement.
Q. Okay. You don't agree with that?
A. No. We don't just take it upon ourselves. We educate the families. They have to be aware too.

Note that Clarke does not contradict Simons' assessment that the elders considered there was a potential for further abuse. Clarke objected to Simon's assessment that the elders were taking it upon themselves to prevent it. Therefore, Clarke implicitly agreed that there was potential for Kendrick to further abuse the congregation's children.

Quote

[Ann] Lamerdin said he didn't consider Kendrick to be a danger to children in the congregation (and here comes the important bit) because they were keeping an eye on him to make sure everything was fine (Day 2, May 30, 2012 transcript, pp. 179, 199). He doesn't suggest that he thought Kendrick would not try it again.

[Anna] Q. Did you consider Mr. Kendrick, in 1993 until he left the congregation, to be a danger to children in your congregation?
A.No. As a matter of fact, we kept an eye on him to make sure that everything was fine, and there was no issue that came up after that, that warranted anything to lead us to think that way.

Again, it is evident that the elders did not think Kendrick would molest again or even try.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from what Lamerdin answered. He answered that the elders were keeping an eye on Kendrick (unnecessary if he posed no further danger).

The reason for Lamerdin's belief that Kendrick posed no further danger to congregation children was expressed on p. 199:

Q. Now, you mentioned that you did not consider Mr. Kendrick to be a danger before the molestation of his stepdaughter?
A. Right.
Q. And you did not consider him to be a danger to molest other children afterwards because you were keeping an eye on him?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you consider him to be a danger to molest children after 1993, after the stepdaughter report, at times when you, perhaps, didn't keep an eye on him?
A. I really couldn't comment on that.

Lamerdin confirms that the reason Kendrick posed no further danger, in his view, was due to the elders 'keeping an eye on him.' He refused to comment on whether he or the elders considered Kendrick to be a danger when they weren't looking. That refusal to answer is also an answer.

Quote

[Ann] No such legal duty to watch over Kendrick that included warning the parents. The extract continues: ...

[Anna] Regardless whether it included warning the parents, it still stands the same, they had no legal duty to watch Kendrick. 

I provided the extract of the appeal judgment that says the opposite.

Quote

However, the elders were responsible to make sure that during so called "Church sponsored activities" a child would be safe.

Right.

Quote

But this is my point of contention, I do not believe that Kendrick was allowed to work in field service with a child,- as one of the elders said - to do so would have been suicide.  I have no doubt that WT would have been able to defend that part of the accusation. Unfortunately, the whole case concentrated so much on the issue of supposed duty to warn, so much so that the appellant (WT) was not given a chance to refute the field service situation. This is why WT appealed, and after wining that appeal for punitive damages, it was going to appeal again, and this time defend the field service point properly and present proof and arguments as to why it was impossible for Kendrick to have molested Candace during field service. However, before anyone could appeal, the case was settled out of court.....Interestingly...

The case was not settled out of court. It was settled in a trial by jury. Watchtower (as was their right) appealed, and a panel of appeal judges overturned a part of the trial judgment. An appeal focuses on trial procedures and points of law, that they were applied properly in the trial. They don't determine again the validity of the evidence and testimony by witnesses. 

The bare bones of the matter are these:

Candace testified that,

- her dad would sometimes drop her off at the KH to meet with the FS group (who officiated at the KH group?);
- sometimes Kendrick volunteered to take her to meet with the FS group (so they arrived together - were they ever split up?);
- the FS groups were predetermined by the elders (FS is, therefore, an elder-directed activity);
- they would get their territories and go out (who assigned the territories?).

Carolyn Martinez verified that,

- Candace and Kendrick were together in FS on more than one occasion;
- people knew where to go for FS because the elders made the assignments (therefore, it's an elder-directed activity).

The elders testified that,

- there was a written policy that prohibited molesters working with children in FS (although this claim could not be substantiated);
- the congregation would never have allowed Kendrick to partner Candace in FS (indicating they had control over who Kendrick paired up with);
- Kendrick was not allowed to go out in FS without an elder present (again, indicating they personally monitored Kendrick's FS activity).

Conclusions:

If the elders had the level of monitoring they claim they had over Kendrick's interaction with children during congregation-sponsored FS, yet Kendrick and Candace were seen together in FS, then logically, the elders must have assigned Candace and Kendrick to perform FS together. Grossly irresponsible.

If the elders did not assign Candace and Kendrick to perform FS together, yet they ended up together, then they were not properly monitoring him. Grossly negligent.

[Anna]

On 2/5/2017 at 3:41 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

On 1/30/2017 at 6:45 PM, Anna said:

Anna:So they let him lose knowing he would re-offend?  That he would go on to molest other children?

Ann:You don't have documentation, then. You do not know what the police concluded. No matter what they concluded, they could only act according to the law at the time.

What did the police conclude then? And thank you for bringing attention to changing laws. Changing laws have a bearing not only on what the police did and what they do now, but also what the elders did and what they do now.

On 2/5/2017 at 3:41 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

The case was not settled out of court. It was settled in a trial by jury. Watchtower (as was their right) appealed, and a panel of appeal judges overturned a part of the trial judgment. An appeal focuses on trial procedures and points of law, that they were applied properly in the trial. They don't determine again the validity of the evidence and testimony by witnesses. 

You are wrong. The entire case ended up being settled out of court, despite Candace claiming money was of no interest to her and that all she wanted was changes to WT policy, lo and behold, when WT appealed, and the court threw out the punitive damages  award, both Candace and the WT could have appealed again, (Candace to reverse the court’s decision about the punitive damages and WT to throw out the entire judgement), but before either of them filed ANY briefs, the parties entered into a confidential settlement.  Which means that Watchtower agreed to pay an undisclosed amount to Candace and drop its appeal, and in exchange Candace agreed to dismiss the case and not to attempt to enforce the jury verdict.  Those ARE the facts. You can check them out. What is evident in all of this is that Candace would have ended up with next to nothing, if anything, and was advised to drop the case.  There is no other reason why, after saying she would fight to the end, she didn’t..... you can form your own conclusions on that, but to me it is evident she did so because it was unwise to carry on as WT in all probability would have won the case. Why do I think WT would have won the case? Because they would be given the chance to defend the duty to watch “during church activity” and would be able to prove that indeed Kendrick was NEVER assigned to work alone with Candace in field service.

On 2/5/2017 at 3:41 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

If the elders did not assign Candace and Kendrick to perform FS together, yet they ended up together, then they were not properly monitoring him. Grossly negligent.

This would have be thrown out of court immediately as it was established that the elders had no duty to watch Kendrick. And it makes logical sense as the elders could not be expected to constantly monitor Kendrick. Very silly to even suggest that this would have been gross negligence.

We will just have to agree to differ I’m afraid. It is evident to me that the elders felt confident that they had matters regarding Kendrick under control, whether they really had Kendrick under control in every aspect of Kendrick's life is not the issue here. The issue here is; is it believable that the elders purposefully arranged for someone whom they believed to be a danger to children, to be assigned to be alone with children in the congregation and in field service? This assumption is illogical and NO ONE in their right mind would even suggest otherwise except of course if you have ulterior motives; such as opposers, certain news reporters, and certain lawyers….

[Ann O'Maly]

 

10 hours ago, Anna said:

On 2/5/2017 at 8:41 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

The case was not settled out of court. It was settled in a trial by jury. Watchtower (as was their right) appealed, and a panel of appeal judges overturned a part of the trial judgment. An appeal focuses on trial procedures and points of law, that they were applied properly in the trial. They don't determine again the validity of the evidence and testimony by witnesses. 

You are wrong. The entire case ended up being settled out of court, ... ... ... ...

I'm not really a fan this new era of 'alternative facts' so I'll just say this: 

The case was tried in court; the case was appealed in court; both Watchtower and Conti decided not to appeal the Appeal Court's decision. There has been no 'out of court settlement' because the entire case was settled in court.

10 hours ago, Anna said:

On 2/5/2017 at 8:41 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

If the elders did not assign Candace and Kendrick to perform FS together, yet they ended up together, then they were not properly monitoring him. Grossly negligent.

This would have be thrown out of court immediately as it was established that the elders had no duty to watch Kendrick. And it makes logical sense as the elders could not be expected to constantly monitor Kendrick. Very silly to even suggest that this would have been gross negligence.

Have you forgotten the Appeal Court's judgment? Here it is again:

"We therefore conclude that defendants had a duty to use reasonable care to restrict and supervise Kendrick's field service to prevent him from harming children in the community and in the Congregation." - p. 23

[Anna]

16 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

The case was tried in court; the case was appealed in court; both Watchtower and Conti decided not to appeal the Appeal Court's decision. There has been no 'out of court settlement' because the entire case was settled in court.

As far as I am aware, a confidential settlement is a private agreement between parties, involving their respective lawyers only, and not the court. As you see in the docket  link it says: “letter dated June 22, 2015, notifying the court that petitioners, Watchtower and Fremont Congregation have reached a settlement with respondent, Conti”.  In any case whether settled in or out of court the result is exactly the same. Candace gave up on her “noble” quest to change WT policies. Why?

16 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

"We therefore conclude that defendants had a duty to use reasonable care to restrict and supervise Kendrick's field service to prevent him from harming children in the community and in the Congregation." - p. 23

Yes, supervise Kendrick's field service, and as I said, I believe they DID supervise Kendrick's field service by NOT assigning Candace to work with him in field service. This portion was the next step WT would have appealed/ defended as that is the only thing the the court concluded, as you said. The elders could not be expected to monitor Kendrick after field service. They were not expected to watch Kendrick's every move in his private life. The only way Kendrick's movements could have been totally controlled is if he would have been incarcerated, but of course as we know, the police "could only act according to the law at the time".

So, I say again: " Is it believable that the elders purposefully arranged for someone whom they believed to be a danger to children, to be assigned to be alone with children in the congregation and in field service? This assumption is illogical and NO ONE in their right mind would even suggest otherwise except of course if you have ulterior motives; such as opposers, certain news reporters, and certain lawyers….

[Ann O'Maly]

8 hours ago, Anna said:

As you see in the docket  link it says: “letter dated June 22, 2015, notifying the court that petitioners, Watchtower and Fremont Congregation have reached a settlement with respondent, Conti”. 

You are correct. I was mistaken. My apologies.

Quote

In any case whether settled in or out of court the result is exactly the same. Candace gave up on her “noble” quest to change WT policies. Why?

She could have settled out of court at the very beginning but she made it crystal clear that she wasn't going to do that. She wanted them publicly accountable which she hoped would put pressure on them to change their policies. She saw it through. Straight after the appeal, Candace stated in interview with Lloyd Evans, 

"that she is prepared to take this matter all the way to the Supreme Court if she must in order to see children protected and justice fully served.

"Referring to the ruling on Monday [4/13/2015], Candace told me: 'This is just another step. It will not change the amount of money but it might help change the laws. And you know me, I’m all about the laws. We have the chance to make positive changes in the Supreme Court for how children are protected. We may have another year and a half to go.'

"When I pressed her on whether she is definitely taking her case to the Supreme Court, Candace replied: 'It’s questionable now but we are trying to make the best case, and we might only take it to the Supreme Court if Watchtower takes it there. Other than that we are waiting. The ball is still unfortunately in their court.'” - Source

According to the docket, Watchtower petitioned to have the case reviewed at Supreme Court but withdrew it after a settlement was reached. Candace was also willing to carry on fighting. Why did Watchtower give up the fight to exonerate themselves of all liability? I'm guessing that pursuing it further would have benefited neither party in the end.

So. The Appeal Court's final decision that Watchtower and Fremont Congegation were negligent stands.

9 hours ago, Anna said:

 Yes, supervise Kendrick's field service, and as I said, I believe they DID supervise Kendrick's field service by NOT assigning Candace to work with him in field service. This portion was the next step WT would have appealed/ defended as that is the only thing the the court concluded, as you said. The elders could not be expected to monitor Kendrick after field service. They were not expected to watch Kendrick's every move in his private life.

This was addressed in p. 22 of the Appeal Decision:

 

Quote

So, I say again: " Is it believable that the elders purposefully arranged for someone whom they believed to be a danger to children, to be assigned to be alone with children in the congregation and in field service? This assumption is illogical and NO ONE in their right mind would even suggest otherwise except of course if you have ulterior motives; such as opposers, certain news reporters, and certain lawyers….

And I say again: If the elders did not assign Candace and Kendrick to perform FS together, yet they ended up in FS together, then they were not properly monitoring him. Grossly negligent.

The Appeal Court affirmed that Watchtower and Fremont Congregation were indeed negligent here. 

OK. I'm sure we've picked over the remains of this dead horse more than enough now. Time to move on.