Incomes relative to Religions in USA.

Originally posted by FMF
This defence didn't work, robbie. They were found guilty of negligence and complicity.

whether it worked or not is again irrelevant, these are the facts of the case and the law as they stood.

Originally posted by FMF
What 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?

It was not known they he molested another child until twelve years after the abuse had
stopped, try sticking to the script, you may do better.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
again this is pure straw, i have not said that its a legal defence, I have merely stated it
as a circumstantial fact

If it's not, as you concede, part of the "legal defence" then what does it have to do with the fact that the JW organisation has been found guilty in court of negligence and complicity in this sexual abuse case?

Originally posted by FMF
So no comment from you as to whether you think Jonathan Kendrick was "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.

yes that is correct no comment from me your sliminess. 🙂

Originally posted by FMF
If it's not, as you concede, part of the "legal defence" then what does it have to do with the fact that the JW organisation has been found guilty in court of negligence and complicity in this sexual abuse case?

It is a circumstantial fact.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It was not known they he molested another child until twelve years after the abuse had
stopped, try sticking to the script, you may do better.

How did the JW organisation's 'if they are "repentant" it's ok by us' procedure work out for Candice Conti?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes that is correct no comment from me your sliminess. 🙂

Do you think the judge and jury in this case were also "slimy"?

Originally posted by FMF
How did the JW organisation's 'if they are "repentant" it's ok by us' procedure work out for Candice Conti?

so because the brothers thought that he was initially repentant this contributed to candace contis abuse, please provide evidence that it did so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...do you know more of what transpired than the police and
social services who conducted a covert investigation?

Would have calling the police and social services as witnesses been beneficial or detrimental to the defence case of the JW organisation?

Originally posted by FMF
Do you think the judge and jury in this case were also "slimy"?

no but i think you are slimy, you produce more slime than a pond full of frogs in mating season.

Originally posted by FMF
Would have calling the police and social services as witnesses been beneficial or detrimental to the defence case of the JW organisation?

who can say.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so because the brothers thought that he was initially repentant this contributed to candace contis abuse, please provide evidence that it did so.

Do you think the 'if child molesters seem to be "repentant" it's ok by us' policy was a successful course of action in this case? You either do or you don't, I would have thought. Would the JW organisation be right to return to and stick to the policy it had in 1993?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
who can say.

Well, you seem to be saying a lot about what the police and social services purportedly would have said if they'd been called to testify.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you think the [b]'if child molesters seem to be "repentant" it's ok by us' policy was a successful course of action in this case? You either do or you don't, I would have thought. Would the JW organisation be right to return to and stick to the policy it had in 1993?[/b]

it seems to be successful in thousands of people who make restitution every year
through repentance, perhaps if we adopted your, you cannot be repentant because of
the Candace Conti case and because i am a slimy cynic who condemns people from, a
position of limited knowledge, these hardened criminals, drug users, prostitutes and
gamblers could continue in their iniquitous course of action.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
again this is pure straw, i have not said that its a legal defence, I have merely stated it
as a circumstantial fact, if i have stated it as legal evidence then produce the quotation
or stop introducing irrelevancies ...?

You introduced the thing about 'police and the child protection services' and now you suggest it is me who is "introducing irrelevancies". If, as you say, it was not part of the defence case, then surely it is you who is "introducing irrelevancies" by mentioning it in defence of the JW organisation?