Candace Conti Child Molestation Case

[Anna]

10 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

the proof is in the Australian Royal Commission for one, which under oath admitted by each member defending the wt had confirmed that they allowed known perpetrators to remain a member and serve within the organization. Also, it wasn't just lay people within the org, but Mr. Jackson a gb member. 

another is the Candice Conti case in California and another Gonzalo Campo in Linda Vista ca. there are plenty more, but this should suffice to answer your concern. 

I am sure this has been discussed elsewhere, but nevertheless I will address a couple of things and leave it up to admin to move it under the appropriate topic if they want.

Evidence in the Conti case shows that the perpetrator was not known as a pedophile to the elders at the time he allegedly molested Conti. The elders had handled a “situation” several years prior  regarding his promiscuous teenage step daughter. The perpetrator voluntarily confessed to having  “accidentally” touched his step daughter’s breasts on one occasion. This did not lead the elders into believing, rightly or wrongly, that he was a danger to other children in the congregation, and they considered it a “one time, never to be repeated” occurrence based on evidence presented to them by the perpetrator’s wife and the daughter.  Also, the wife took the matter to the police shortly thereafter. So the police were just as informed as the elders and evidently saw no need to take the matter any further. 

(I would like you to be aware that I am quite familiar with the Conti case, having read all the available court material on it -about 1000 pages of transcripts - and other background information. So you might want to be careful with where you want to take this).

As regards evidence presented to the ARC, much of it runs along the same lines as the Conti case. Other cases included elders being unaware of the problem in the first place, elders being presented with insufficient evidence and having to rely on ambiguous information. Much of the mishandling of individual cases was due to the naiveté and inexperience of those handling such cases. This is nothing surprising since the average person, especially 30, 20 even 10 years ago had no clue. This is why institutions such as the ARC have been put in place. To identify the problem, and educate the people.

As regards the Gonzalo Campos case, that was a fiasco, as WT were not allowed to defend themselves because they had miffed the judge by not coopering with her demands, which WT felt were unqualified. And frankly, Zalkin, the victim's defense lawyer is an egotistical attention seeker, and is only interested in exposure for his law firm and $$$$$ for himself, as most lawyers are...as a side issue, apparently Zalkin said "he believes that state and federal law enforcement agencies have a moral obligation to investigate the Watchtower’s child abuse policies and seize its files" however, "The Center for Investigative Reporting made repeated attempts to interview officials from law enforcement agencies who could potentially obtain search warrants for the documents, the New York and California attorneys general and U.S. Department of Justice. None of the agencies agreed to talk". Why do you think that is? Also, Bill Bowen of Silentlambs  has been on a long term mission to get the FBI involved, with no success. Why do you think that is? Is it because the FBI and other law enforcement agencies don't care about abused children? Or about pedophiles running free to molest? Think about it.

There are many other cases as you mention, most of these have been appealed and won. Many have been settled out of court to the benefit of the victim. I say this because many victims don't even see the money, on the contrary, they end up owing an enormous debt to their lawyers when they pursue this kind of lawsuit. Vicky Boer is a good example.

10 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Also, it wasn't just lay people within the org, but Mr. Jackson a gb member. 

I am not sure what you mean by that.

 

P.S. I am sure you already know that a sexual child molester is VERY difficult to identify as they are usually a very nice member of the community, and they are very good at hiding what they do, so much so that one can have a child molester right under ones roof without even realizing it.  Please read the following link for insight into the typical sexual child molester  http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pages/tell_others_the_facts.html#georges_story   

[Ann O'Maly]

10 hours ago, Anna said:

Evidence in the Conti case shows that the perpetrator was not known as a pedophile to the elders at the time he allegedly molested Conti. ...  The perpetrator voluntarily confessed to having  “accidentally” touched his step daughter’s breasts on one occasion. This did not lead the elders into believing, rightly or wrongly, that he was a danger to other children in the congregation ...

Actually, the evidence shows the opposite - that the elders knew Kendrick had molested his step-daughter. This was why the court found Watchtower and Fremont Congregation negligent in their duty of care toward Conti.

In the November 15, 1993 letter from the congregation to Watchtower, the elders classified the Kendrick/ step-daughter 'incident' as "child abuse" which reflects what they testified to in court, i.e. that they did not believe Kendrick's claim it was 'inadvertent' or 'accidental' touching. Their disbelief of Kendrick's story is also reflected in their removal of Kendrick as a ministerial servant.

The elders also testified that they were supposed to be 'keeping an eye' on Kendrick's interactions with children during congregation activities thereafter. If this claim is true (other testimony casts doubt on it, however), then it suggests they suspected Kendrick may act inappropriately with children again.

Quote

Also, the wife took the matter to the police shortly thereafter. So the police were just as informed as the elders and evidently saw no need to take the matter any further. 

The police did take it further because Kendrick was convicted of misdemeanor child molestation as a result.

Like you, I am familiar with the case and have read all the transcripts and submitted evidence. I have it all stored on my computer, so if you need your memory refreshing on anything, just say.

[Ann O'Maly]

13 hours ago, Anna said:

Other cases included elders being unaware of the problem in the first place, elders being presented with insufficient evidence and having to rely on ambiguous information. Much of the mishandling of individual cases was due to the naiveté and inexperience of those handling such cases. This is nothing surprising since the average person, especially 30, 20 even 10 years ago had no clue. This is why institutions such as the ARC have been put in place. To identify the problem, and educate the people.

Oh, 10, 20 years ago, authorities and institutions knew enough to handle abuse allegations properly. Much of the mishandling from this time is often due to bad policy. Seeing as elders are lay-people, all that is needed, rather than handle it in-house, is to report an allegation to the police or child protection bodies - i.e. to those professionally trained to investigate and protect. 

13 hours ago, Anna said:

As regards the Gonzalo Campos case, that was a fiasco, as WT were not allowed to defend themselves because they had miffed the judge by not coopering with her demands, which WT felt were unqualified.

The appeal court upheld the order that Watchtower produce their key documents relating to this case, but they did set aside the amount for monetary sanctions against them for non-compliance. But Watchtower will face sanctions if they still do not produce.

13 hours ago, Anna said:

And frankly, Zalkin, the victim's defense lawyer is an egotistical attention seeker, and is only interested in exposure for his law firm and $$$$$ for himself, as most lawyers are...

I wonder: Do you feel the same about lawyers who have litigated against the Catholic Church for their child abuse cover-ups and crimes? What about those lawyers who have brought child abuse cases against the Boy Scouts of America, foster/care homes, schools? Are these lawyers self-centered, attention-seeking, money-grubbers too? When Zalkin has gone after all those non-JW sexual abusers and abuse-enabling institutions, was he doing it purely for self interest? Or do you feel differently - that other institutions are getting their just deserts and that the lawyers are trying to gain some much needed redress for the victims?

 

[Anna]

6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

 that the elders knew Kendrick had molested his step-daughter.

I never disputed that. I said "The perpetrator voluntarily confessed to (the elders) having “accidentally” touched his step daughter’s breasts on one occasion" What I also said was, and this is true, that "Evidence in the Conti case shows that the perpetrator was not known as a pedophile to the elders at the time he allegedly molested Conti". In fact, he was not known as a pedophile to the police at that time either, despite the fact that they had the same information as the elders. And as you pointed out, it went on both, the elders records and the police records that Kendrick had touched his step daughter.

6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

The police did take it further because Kendrick was convicted of misdemeanor child molestation as a result.

Didn't make much difference to the outcome for Candace did it? This is what I meant when I said the police didn't take it further, further than the elders. He was charged with a misdemeanor by secular law, and taken off as min. by "spiritual law". Evidently both, the police and the elders did not view Kendrick as a predator or pedophile and a danger to other children. However, the elders did claim they took precautions by "watching Kendrick", although they had no legal duty to do so (to watch Kendrick).

6 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

 that the elders knew Kendrick had molested his step-daughter. This was why the court found Watchtower and Fremont Congregation negligent in their duty of care toward Conti.

 It couldn't be proved that Kendrick molested Candace during field service, (duty of care). (In fact Conti's father testified that:  "he did not see Kendrick engage in any of the inappropriate behavior described by Conti....that he was always with Conti at meetings and during field service, he did not allow Conti to leave meetings with Kendrick, and did not see Kendrick hug Conti or Conti sit on Kendrick’s lap" *) Most JWs know that children do not go with other adults, especially those not related to them, unless assigned to do so by the parent. I find it very odd that anyone in the congregation would allow a 9 year old girl to be alone in a car with a brother, especially when the elders knew of Kendricks past "misdemeanor" . Unfortunately WT could not produce a written policy as proof that children do not go out with others besides the parents without the parents consent, because there is no such written policy. Also, there was no evidence to show that Candace's father either consented or did not consent to it. 

As you know, the punitive charges were dropped, because it was found that WT had no duty to warn. The reason for that is described very well in the following excerpt from the final court document, p.15 and puts in a nutshell what applies to ALL such cases:

“While it is readily foreseeable that someone who has molested a child may do so again, the burden the duty to warn would create and the adverse social consequences the duty would produce outweigh its imposition.  The burden would be considerable because the precedent could require a church to intervene whenever it has reason to believe that a congregation member is capable of doing harm, and the scope of that duty could not be limited with any precision.  For example, would the duty to warn be triggered by an accusation, or only an admission, of misconduct?  Would one warning be sufficient, or would continuous warnings be required to ensure that new congregation members are alerted to the danger?  Child molestation is a particularly heinous evil, but which other potential harms would the church have a duty to avert?  Would the duty be limited to crimes and, if so, which ones? Imposition of a duty to warn would also have detrimental social consequences.  It would discourage wrongdoers from seeking potentially beneficial intervention, and contravene the public policy against disclosure of penitential communications.  No moral blame can be cast on defendants for adhering to that public policy".

P.S. I find it very curious that Conti "executed a covenant not to execute on any judgment against Kendrick, in exchange for his agreement not to participate in the case...” 

( *All quotes from court documents filed on 4/13/15)

[Anna]

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Oh, 10, 20 years ago, authorities and institutions knew enough to handle abuse allegations properly.

Didn't make much difference to the outcome though did it? When victims and those who knew did not report it. 20, 30 years ago it was not talked about, and not taken to the authorities. (I mean by everyone, JW or non JW). That was my point.

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

But Watchtower will face sanctions if they still do not produce.

I was under the impression they already faced sanctions and were not allowed to defend themselves.

And yes, I still feel the same about Zalkin.

 

[Anna]

You might want to show that this topic was re directed to here from this topic, so that people can follow on

"what does it mean with the April 2017 study edition of the wt? Are all who were/are baptized still bound to this vow"?

[Ann O'Maly]

 

On 1/10/2017 at 9:40 PM, Anna said:

I never disputed that. I said "The perpetrator voluntarily confessed to (the elders) having “accidentally” touched his step daughter’s breasts on one occasion" What I also said was, and this is true, that "Evidence in the Conti case shows that the perpetrator was not known as a pedophile to the elders at the time he allegedly molested Conti". In fact, he was not known as a pedophile to the police at that time either, despite the fact that they had the same information as the elders. And as you pointed out, it went on both, the elders records and the police records that Kendrick had touched his step daughter.

He was known as a child sexual abuser. We agree on that. Watchtower and Fremont congregation recognized it. The police recognized it. I don't know why you think quibbling over the term 'pedophile' somehow lessens the responsibility that Watchtower and Fremont congregation had toward their children.

Quote

Didn't make much difference to the outcome for Candace did it? This is what I meant when I said the police didn't take it further than the elders. He was charged with a misdemeanor by secular law, and taken off as min. by "spiritual law". Evidently both, the police and the elders did not view Kendrick as a predator or pedophile and a danger to other children. However, the elders did claim they took precautions by "watching Kendrick", although they had no legal duty to do so (to watch Kendrick).

If the elders did not believe Kendrick was a danger to other children, why would there have been a need to watch him? And yes, upon learning about the sexual abuse of his step-daughter, they DID have a legal duty to watch him during congregation activities. It's called a 'duty of care.' This is why Watchtower and Fremont congregation were found, under law, to have been negligent in that duty of care.

Quote

It couldn't be proved that Kendrick molested Candace during field service

Conti did not claim he molested her 'during' field service. She claimed he molested her while they were supposed to be doing field service but really he had taken her to his home. We all know how it works: Car groups to the territory; people pair up and do a little door-to-door; then many in the group split off to do return visits. It's so easy to 'disappear' for a while without others knowing what you're doing. The preponderance of evidence was that Kendrick partnered up with Candace in service more than once, and circumstances were such that he had ample opportunity to abuse her. The elders had taken it upon themselves to monitor Kendrick, but they didn't monitor him.

Quote

(In fact Conti's father testified that:  "he did not see Kendrick engage in any of the inappropriate behavior described by Conti....that he was always with Conti at meetings and during field service, he did not allow Conti to leave meetings with Kendrick, and did not see Kendrick hug Conti or Conti sit on Kendrick’s lap" *) 

This was contradicted by Carolyn Martinez who said that Kendrick often had his arm around Candace on KH property and that she saw them in service together on more than one occasion. (Day 4, June 4, 2012 transcript.) 

Some of Neal Conti's testimony was shown to be inconsistent and at times odd. He gave the impression that he and Kendrick were just passing acquaintances and barely knew each other. Mr. Simons showed, through his questioning, that their relationship was more than that, that they were friends and hung out together on several occasions (as Candace's mother's testimony also confirms). As a serving Ministerial Servant, and having met up with Watchtower's defense team before testifying (he was actually witness for the plaintiff!), you can predict that Neal Conti would do what he could to, not only minimize his own embarrassment at being so friendly with his daughter's abuser, but also help take the heat off the organization's liability by saying he, as a parent, was with Candace all the time during congregation activities.

Quote

Most JWs know that children do not go with other adults, especially those not related to them, unless assigned to do so by the parent. I find it very odd that anyone in the congregation would allow a 9 year old girl to be alone in a car with a brother, especially when the elders knew of Kendricks past "misdemeanor" . 

It was quite common for JW children to partner non-relative adults in service. Remember that Candace's parents were unaware of Kendrick having abused a child in the past, so they would not have foreseen any potential danger with him being so friendly with their daughter. Despite the elders' claim that they were 'keeping an eye' on him, they denied having witnessed anything untoward.

Quote

As you know, the punitive charges were dropped, because it was found that WT had no duty to warn. The reason for that is described very well in the following excerpt from the final court document, p.15 and puts in a nutshell what applies to ALL such cases:

Yes, it is a pity the appeal court rejected the the 'duty to warn' argument and reversed the punitive damage judgment. 

Interestingly, the latest revision of Watchtower's UK Child Safeguarding Policy stipulates that there is a 'duty to warn' in some circumstances.

"In some cases, the Service Department may specifically direct elders to inform parents of minors within the congregation of the need to monitor their children’s interaction with an individual who has engaged in child sexual abuse." - January 2017, Child Safeguarding Policy, p. 5, par. 17.

I hope the U.S. branch has followed suit. It all comes too late for Candace, of course.

Nevertheless, the appeal upheld the judgment against Watchtower for negligence. It was the organization's documented policy to supervise and restrict known child molesters' interactions with minors during congregation activities like field service, and it failed to do that, resulting in harm to a child.

Quote

P.S. I find it very curious that Conti "executed a covenant not to execute on any judgment against Kendrick, in exchange for his agreement not to participate in the case...” 

Let's complete the sentence: " ... in exchange for his agreement not to participate in the case, or harass Conti or her witnesses.” 

That was what the plaintiff's team were concerned about - him causing trouble with the trial. In return, Candace wouldn't pursue him for monetary compensation (money that he didn't have anyway). Besides, he'd been sloppy with filing his response to the complaint served upon him and so he had defaulted. He later tried to get that default overturned making all sorts of excuses about why he had been dilatory. He said he was eager to clear his name, blah, blah. But then ...

So that's the backstory to that.
----------

On 1/10/2017 at 9:59 PM, Anna said:

On 1/10/2017 at 6:04 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

Oh, 10, 20 years ago, authorities and institutions knew enough to handle abuse allegations properly.

Didn't make much difference to the outcome though did it? When victims and those who knew did not report it. 20, 30 years ago it was not talked about, and not taken to the authorities. (I mean by everyone, JW or non JW). That was my point.

It was talked about and taken to the authorities 20 years ago. For instance, Megan's Law came into effect in 1994. Greater awareness and shifts in attitude toward child abuse began in the 1980s. 

So which outcome are you talking about? Kendrick's then wife and step-daughter reported to the police. The police convicted Kendrick of a misdemeanor. It was the organization and its agents who, after taking it upon themselves to monitor him, failed to monitor him which meant he went on to abuse another child.

Quote

.I was under the impression they already faced sanctions and were not allowed to defend themselves.

As I said, the appeal court set aside the amount for monetary sanctions against them for non-compliance. But it upheld the order that Watchtower produce their key documents relating to this case, or face other sanctions.

Quote

And yes, I still feel the same about Zalkin.

 Pity. Thank goodness victims have advocates like him and his team.

[Anna]

On 1/12/2017 at 1:06 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

He was known as a child sexual abuser. We agree on that. Watchtower and Fremont congregation recognized it. The police recognized it. I don't know why you think quibbling over the term 'pedophile' somehow lessens the responsibility that Watchtower and Fremont congregation had toward their children.

Let me rephrase it then. Neither the elders nor the police considered Kendrick to be a predator. Both, the police and the elders, as far as they were aware, believed this was a one time occurrence. IF they had believed otherwise, then the Police would have acted further, and so would the Elders. The fact that the elders took it upon themselves to “watch” Kendrick was as an extra precaution. Although the Elders did not believe Kendrick that it was an accident, they did not believe he would do this to anyone else, OBVIOUSLY!

On 1/12/2017 at 1:06 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

If the elders did not believe Kendrick was a danger to other children, why would there have been a need to watch him? And yes, upon learning about the sexual abuse of his step-daughter, they DID have a legal duty to watch him during congregation activities. It's called a 'duty of care.' This is why Watchtower and Fremont congregation were found, under law, to have been negligent in that duty of care.

As I already mentioned above, the elders did not believe Kendrick was a danger to other children, OBVIOUSLY. They believed this was a onetime occurrence. The elders evidently had no idea or experience in that field, and didn’t know of the likely hood that once someone molests a child, they will repeat it again. Later, as we know, Kendrick not only molested Candace, but he went on to molest another child. (or children, not sure there). He was now labeled a pedophile by the police and was listed on a predator pedophile list (and went to prison). The reason the elders said they would watch him was as an extra precaution and a deterrent to him, and NOT because they really thought he would do it again- OBVIOUSLY. As you know, most elders are family men with children of their own, do you think they savor the thought of entertaining a predator in their midst, someone who could potentially molest their own children? I think not.

On 1/12/2017 at 1:06 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

And yes, upon learning about the sexual abuse of his step-daughter, they DID have a legal duty to watch him during congregation activities.

 No they did not.

Page 18/19 of the court doc:

“..counsel asked, “Did they really watch this guy like a hawk?”  Conti and Congregation member Martinez testified that, at Kingdom Hall, Kendrick hugged Conti repeatedly, put his arm around her, held hands with her, had her sit on his lap, and “looked at her inappropriately”—the sort of behavior the elders said they were watching for, and if they had seen would have caused them to warn Conti’s parents about Kendrick.  Thus, if the elders had a duty to watch over Kendrick that included warning the parents of any child his actions might appear to threaten, there was substantial evidence from which to find that they breached the duty in Conti’s case".  However, we conclude that the elders had no such legal duty.

The reasons for our conclusion are largely the same as those that led us to reject the alleged duty to warn the Congregation about Kendrick.  There was no special relationship between the church and all of the children in the Congregation simply because they were members of the church.  Nor did the church have a special relationship with Kendrick, for purposes of a duty to monitor his behavior toward children, by virtue of control over his conduct with them.......

Nonetheless, the Congregation elders voluntarily undertook to watch Kendrick and, if necessary, warn individual parents about him, and the “negligent undertaking” doctrine, like the special relationship doctrine, is an exception to the “no duty to aid” rule.   Under the negligent undertaking doctrine, “a volunteer who, having no initial duty to do so, undertakes to provide protective services to another, will be found to have a duty to exercise due care in the performance of that undertaking if one of two conditions is met:  either (a) the volunteer’s failure to exercise such care increases the risk of harm to the other person, or (b) the other person reasonably relies upon the volunteer’s undertaking and suffers injury as a result.”  (Id.at p.249.)  Neither of those conditions for liability is met here.  Nine-year-old Conti was not relying on a church undertaking, and any lack of due care by the elders in monitoring Kendrick’s interactions with children did not increase the risk of harm to her, it only failed to reduce that risk". 

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. - end of quote

But it WAS all about field service.

On 1/12/2017 at 1:06 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

This was contradicted by Carolyn Martinez who said that Kendrick often had his arm around Candace on KH property and that she saw them in service together on more than one occasion. (Day 4, June 4, 2012 transcript.) 

Of course we don’t know how reliable Martinez’s testimony was either, since she had a very troubled marriage with Neil Coti, before divorcing him.....

On 1/12/2017 at 1:06 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

Some of Neal Conti's testimony was shown to be inconsistent and at times odd. He gave the impression that he and Kendrick were just passing acquaintances and barely knew each other. Mr. Simons showed, through his questioning, that their relationship was more than that, that they were friends and hung out together on several occasions (as Candace's mother's testimony also confirms). As a serving Ministerial Servant, and having met up with Watchtower's defense team before testifying (he was actually witness for the plaintiff!), you can predict that Neal Conti would do what he could to, not only minimize his own embarrassment at being so friendly with his daughter's abuser, but also help take the heat off the organization's liability by saying he, as a parent, was with Candace all the time during congregation activities.

I agree, it was odd, because as a father, surely he would be more concerned about this daughter’s well being, than about his embarrassment, and why would he even want to try to take the heat off the organization? All of this is mere speculation of course. In reality, it was his word against Martinez. Interestingly though the court did not even factor any of this in, the court’s main concern was, that regardless of whether Neil Conti supervised his daughter, or as Martinez said; was negligent in that matter, it was the congregations duty, not the parents or anyone else’s to make sure Kendrick was supervised by another adult during field service because it was a church sponsored event. So really, my argument still stands, there was no proof that Kendrick molested Conti during field service, but it wasn’t about the proof that something did happen, but the POTENTIAL that something could  have happened because there was no provision made by the congregation to the contrary. And that is why WT and the congregation were charged with negligence.

On 1/12/2017 at 1:06 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

Yes, it is a pity the appeal court rejected the the 'duty to warn' argument and reversed the punitive damage judgment. 

Interestingly, the latest revision of Watchtower's UK Child Safeguarding Policy stipulates that there is a 'duty to warn' in some circumstances.

"In some cases, the Service Department may specifically direct elders to inform parents of minors within the congregation of the need to monitor their children’s interaction with an individual who has engaged in child sexual abuse." - January 2017, Child Safeguarding Policy, p. 5, par. 17.

I hope the U.S. branch has followed suit. It all comes too late for Candace, of course.

And guess why? Because as I had already mentioned several times, in the eyes of the Elders, and the police, Kendrick was not viewed as a predator, or as someone who would go on to molest more children. Although the elders believed that Kendrick’s behavior towards his step daughter was not accidental, they did not believe Kendrick would not do this again. In the eyes of the court this is irrelevant to the context of the trial of course. But I am mentioning this because it does explain why the accusation by Shiwii that “..... known molesters are still being treated the same as they were before they were found out”   is wrong, because it is under the assumption that we are talking about a known predator, not someone who has done something bad, apologized and promised they would never do anything like this again, no matter how naive and trusting it was of the elders to think this way, the reality is they did think that way.

However, now this kind of thinking will not be repeated as I believe if there is a first instance of child sexual abuse, it will be assumed this person can never be rusted with children again and will be dealt with accordingly (supervised at all times during field service etc.)  and as you quoted  above "Service Department may specifically direct elders to inform parents of minors within the congregation of the need to monitor their children’s interaction with an individual who has engaged in child sexual abuse".

[Anna]

Just for interest

"Church shouldn't have divulged child-porn suspect's alleged confession, attorney says"

Elders in the Jehovah’s Witnesses church violated the confidentiality of Steven Lindhorst of Paso Robles when they told police about an alleged confession he made regarding child pornography, according to a defense motion read more.....

Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/crime/article39058014.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Anna]

On 1/12/2017 at 1:06 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

Thank goodness victims have advocates like him and his team.

A few more thoughts on Irvin Zalkin

Irvin Zalkin knows that his cases involving Child Sexual Abuse of JWs are from time periods when there were no clergy mandatory reporting laws. He knows that in California, Clergy mandatory reporting laws did not come into effect until 1997. He knows the law. He knows why certain things were done or not done. But he is intentionally keeping that information away from the general public because he knows that if he explained these, he would not have such a sensationalist impact on his viewers/readers. It is very evident from what he says, especially in his partnership with Reveal reporter Trey Bundi, that he is hoping for an audience who is largely ignorant of the law, (regarding Child sexual abuse in these specific cases) and therefore he can slant his arguments in a particular way for maximum impact on the emotions. He is like a showman. He is very good at that I must admit. He cannot afford to explain things objectively. After all, he is a lawyer. That is why I say it’s all about exposure for his business, all about money. If you believe any different then you are being very naïve Ann O'Maly. Which is surprising for an apparently intelligent person like you. But I can understand that in this regard, it is not expected that everyone is versed in the law and legal matters. I am not an expert either, however, the difference between you and me in this case is that I have done my research, whereas you have done none or very little, as is apparent. You are quite happy believing everything that Irvin Zalkin and the media serves up.

The sad thing is, and some don't realize this: Victims who go through the grueling procedure of trying to get justice for what happened to them years ago, run a high risk of losing the case, and losing money. Of course the Lawyer will get paid regardless. We don't know if Candace Conti even got a cent, after paying off her Lawyer fees. It is quite possible she ended up with nothing.

[Ann O'Maly]

On 1/14/2017 at 3:55 AM, Anna said:

On 1/12/2017 at 6:06 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

He was known as a child sexual abuser. We agree on that. Watchtower and Fremont congregation recognized it. The police recognized it. I don't know why you think quibbling over the term 'pedophile' somehow lessens the responsibility that Watchtower and Fremont congregation had toward their children.

Let me rephrase it then. Neither the elders nor the police considered Kendrick to be a predator. Both, the police and the elders, as far as they were aware, believed this was a one time occurrence. IF they had believed otherwise, then the Police would have acted further, and so would the Elders. The fact that the elders took it upon themselves to “watch” Kendrick was as an extra precaution. Although the Elders did not believe Kendrick that it was an accident, they did not believe he would do this to anyone else, OBVIOUSLY!

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

I also cannot find anywhere that says the elders themselves believed it would be a one-time occurrence. 
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.

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.

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.

So, your 'OBVIOUS' conclusion is a mistaken one.

Quote

IF they had believed otherwise, then the Police would have acted further, and so would the Elders. 

The police could only act in accordance with what was then law. It was a first-time misdemeanor conviction of 'sexual battery involving a restrained person.' So he was put on probation. Had it been a felony conviction, it would have been a different story.

The elders were limited by Watchtower's policy to remove his privileges and keep a close eye on him (which they failed to do adequately).

On 1/14/2017 at 3:55 AM, Anna said:

On 1/12/2017 at 6:06 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

And yes, upon learning about the sexual abuse of his step-daughter, they DID have a legal duty to watch him during congregation activities.

 No they did not.

Page 18/19 of the court doc:  ...

I think we are talking at cross-purposes. Your quote specifically addresses the issue of whether the elders had a legal duty to warn Conti's parents.

Please note the portions in red, and my comments in [ ] to provide added context.

“..counsel asked, “Did they really watch this guy like a hawk?”  Conti and Congregation member Martinez testified that, at Kingdom Hall, Kendrick hugged Conti repeatedly, put his arm around her, held hands with her, had her sit on his lap, and “looked at her inappropriately”—the sort of behavior the elders said they were watching for, and if they had seen would have caused them to warn Conti’s parents about Kendrick.  Thus, [the plaintiff argued] if the elders had a duty to watch over Kendrick that included warning the parents of any child his actions might appear to threaten, there was substantial evidence from which to find that they breached the duty in Conti’s case.  However, we conclude that the elders had no such legal duty."

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

"The reasons for our conclusion are largely the same as those that led us to reject the alleged duty to warn the Congregation about Kendrick.  There was no special relationship between the church and all of the children in the Congregation simply because they were members of the church.  Nor did the church have a special relationship with Kendrick, for purposes of a duty to monitor his behavior toward children, by virtue of control over his conduct with them.......

[Plaintiff's argument resumes:] "Nonetheless, the Congregation elders voluntarily undertook to watch Kendrick and, if necessary, warn individual parents about him, and the “negligent undertaking” doctrine, like the special relationship doctrine, is an exception to the “no duty to aid” rule.  [However, the appeals court counters, the law says ...] Under the negligent undertaking doctrine, “a volunteer who, having no initial duty to do so, undertakes to provide protective services to another, will be found to have a duty to exercise due care in the performance of that undertaking if one of two conditions is met:  either (a) the volunteer’s failure to exercise such care increases the risk of harm to the other person, or (b) the other person reasonably relies upon the volunteer’s undertaking and suffers injury as a result.”  (Id.at p.249.) [On this point of law, the appeal court rejects the argument because ...] Neither of those conditions for liability is met here.  Nine-year-old Conti was not relying on a church undertaking, and any lack of due care by the elders in monitoring Kendrick’s interactions with children did not increase the risk of harm to her, it only failed to reduce that risk.

"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."

Quote

But it WAS all about field service.

... which involved what? See p. 23:

"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."

On 1/14/2017 at 3:55 AM, Anna said:

On 1/12/2017 at 6:06 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

This was contradicted by Carolyn Martinez who said that Kendrick often had his arm around Candace on KH property and that she saw them in service together on more than one occasion. (Day 4, June 4, 2012 transcript.) 

Of course we don’t know how reliable Martinez’s testimony was either, since she had a very troubled marriage with Neil Coti, before divorcing him.....

Martinez testified that she didn't get along with Candace either (Day 4, June 4, 2012, p. 35-6).

Quote

[Re: Neal Conti's testimony]
I agree, it was odd, because as a father, surely he would be more concerned about this daughter’s well being, than about his embarrassment, and why would he even want to try to take the heat off the organization? All of this is mere speculation of course. In reality, it was his word against Martinez. 

... and Candace's. Two witnesses.

Quote

Interestingly though the court did not even factor any of this in,

The court factored in multiple lines of evidence. There was a whole picture that developed of the dynamics in Kendrick's and Conti's families, in the congregation, among mutual friends, medical professionals who treated/ counselled Candace, what society and the Society knew about how child abusers worked, etc. Upon this framework hung testimony of what was observed and said in relation to Kendrick and Candace and his other 'interests.'

Quote

So really, my argument still stands, there was no proof that Kendrick molested Conti during field service, but it wasn’t about the proof that something did happen, but the POTENTIAL that something could  have happened because there was no provision made by the congregation to the contrary. And that is why WT and the congregation were charged with negligence.

Both trial and appeal courts judged that the standard of proof required (the preponderance of the evidence) for this civil case was met, and thus they could legally conclude that Kendrick did indeed molest Candace.
 

 

On 1/16/2017 at 7:52 PM, Anna said:

A few more thoughts on Irvin Zalkin

Irvin Zalkin knows that his cases involving Child Sexual Abuse of JWs are from time periods when there were no clergy mandatory reporting laws. He knows that in California, Clergy mandatory reporting laws did not come into effect until 1997. He knows the law.

I should hope so! It helps to know the law when you're a lawyer.

On 1/16/2017 at 7:52 PM, Anna said:

He knows why certain things were done or not done. But he is intentionally keeping that information away from the general public because he knows that if he explained these, he would not have such a sensationalist impact on his viewers/readers.

What information has he kept from the general public so that he can maximize a sensationalist impact on them? Examples?

On 1/16/2017 at 7:52 PM, Anna said:

It is very evident from what he says, especially in his partnership with Reveal reporter Trey Bundi, that he is hoping for an audience who is largely ignorant of the law, (regarding Child sexual abuse in these specific cases) and therefore he can slant his arguments in a particular way for maximum impact on the emotions. He is like a showman. He is very good at that I must admit. He cannot afford to explain things objectively.

How is he playing on people's ignorance of the law to slant arguments and whip up emotions? Examples?

On 1/16/2017 at 7:52 PM, Anna said:

If you believe any different then you are being very naïve Ann O'Maly. Which is surprising for an apparently intelligent person like you. But I can understand that in this regard, it is not expected that everyone is versed in the law and legal matters. I am not an expert either, however, the difference between you and me in this case is that I have done my research, whereas you have done none or very little, as is apparent.

 

On 1/16/2017 at 7:52 PM, Anna said:

The sad thing is, and some don't realize this: Victims who go through the grueling procedure of trying to get justice for what happened to them years ago, run a high risk of losing the case, and losing money. Of course the Lawyer will get paid regardless. We don't know if Candace Conti even got a cent, after paying off her Lawyer fees. It is quite possible she ended up with nothing.

Good lawyers will take cases they have strong chances of winning. It's poor business-sense to do otherwise. As for Candace's award, we do not know the financial arrangement between her and her legal team. Simons strikes me as a very fair-minded person, so I'd rather assume the best outcome for Candace.

[Evacuated]

This is a sad argument about the repercussions of the indefensible and despicable behaviour of people who call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses.

The monetary and reputational sanctions against all who are associated with the organisation is an additionally sad outcome for the extraordinary naivety displayed by all participants in this disgraceful scenario.

Hopefully, instructions like this:

On 1/12/2017 at 6:06 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

Interestingly, the latest revision of Watchtower's UK Child Safeguarding Policy stipulates that there is a 'duty to warn' in some circumstances.

"In some cases, the Service Department may specifically direct elders to inform parents of minors within the congregation of the need to monitor their children’s interaction with an individual who has engaged in child sexual abuse." - January 2017, Child Safeguarding Policy, p. 5, par. 17.

and this:

"In all cases, the victim and her parents have the absolute right to report an allegation to the authorities.—Galatians 6:5."

and this: 

"If any congregation elder learns of a case of child abuse in which a child may still be at risk of significant harm two elders must contact the Legal Department at the branch office for legal advice on compliance. A report to the police or other appropriate authorities will be made immediately by the congregation elders if it is determined that a child is still at risk."

will be the start of a worldwide trend rather than an exception. (It is noteworthy that this policy is available to all members of the congregations in UK wishing to see it.).

The outcome of action as instructed will have serious impact, especially where allegations are involved, but (in my opinion) this will be just recompense for any engaging in questionable conduct of this nature, and similarly for those who even skate close to the boundaries of propriety in this regard.

Romans 13:3-4 can be be applied appropriately here.

This is a welcome move in the right direction despite the fact that methods to be applied for the appropriate determination of risk appear vague, and there is little on supporting victims. However, the UK branch of Jehovah's Witnesses appears to be less encumbered in this area than than the current UK Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse:   http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/636/636.pdf

The outcome of the Australian Royal Commission deliberations scheduled to start in March 2017 will be of great interest.

This debate continues.....sadly.