Freemont Authorities Helped JWs Conce...
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#22 Jul 5, 2012
If this case stands as is then it means that:

The leaders of a relgion are responsible for whatever one of their members might do against another member EVEN IF REPORTED TO THE POLICE for a previous incident AND THE POLICE DO NOTHING.

Example:

Joe Alleged Molester is accused of molesting a 9 year old and reported to the leaders of the church.

The leaders report it to the police.

Police do not find enough evidence to place him on the sex offender list.

Joe walks free and molests anytime in the future.

Religious leaders are responsible for Joe's molesting.

“the truth will set you free...”

Since: Nov 10

Texas City, TX

#23 Jul 5, 2012
According a declaration signed by Evelyn Kendrick, she claims Andrea told the elders “that Jonathan Kendrick had given her Vicodin, watched T.V. with her in her bedroom and then put his hand inside Andrea's bra, with skin-to-skin contact on her breast. Andrea also told the Elders that Kendrick placed his hand inside her pants and touched her genital area.”

If that really did happen, do you really think Evelyn Kendrick would have remained in the house another second with this man?

In the police report, Andrea told the police that she had taken a Vicodin for her "back problem" not that Kendrick had given her Vicodin as Evelyn alleges.

How many 15 year old's have back problems? Nonetheless, the Vicodin was consensual.

Hmmmm.... I wonder what else was consensual?

Even if she did really did take Vicodin, it gives you a mild floaty, sleepy, peaceful, euphoric feeling. Even if you take three or four 10 mg tablets, you're still cognizant of your environment.

November 15, 1993 Letter:

“Andrea, the step daughter, is not baptized and is no longer an unbaptized publisher. The step daughter is now using this as a tool to threaten with when she wants something. Because she has been promiscuous with 2 boys at school the parents have tried to enforce house rules covering her comings and goings.”

It sounds like she was also promiscuous with her step-Dad. Which if true, probably made her mother sick to her stomach, when she learned the truth and why she contacted the police months after meeting with the elders and publicly claims her daughter was drugged. Andrea refused to make any statements related to this case. I doubt she has a plausible explanation for the contradicting stories about being drugged. Whatever the truth is, the only consistent statements is what came from the elders.

A declaration was also signed by the two elders:

During the conversation that day in my presence and the presence of Andrea, Evelyn, Jonathan and Gary Abrahamson, Jonathan Kendrick admitted touching Andrea' s breast over her clothes when he entered the home in the dark and she was sleeping on the living room couch. Andrea and Evelyn never contradicted Jonathan's version of this incident.

I have read the Declaration of Evelyn Kendrick dated March 26, 2012.

At no time did Andrea say that Jonathan had given her any drugs, that Jonathan watched television with her in her bedroom, that Jonathan had reached inside her bra and touched her breast, or that he had put his hand inside her pants and touched her genitals.

If Andrea, or anyone else, had said such things as described in the Declaration of Evelyn Kendrick, a judicial committee would have been formed.
----------

Reading a lot of this stuff is disheartening, the kind of people that are out there.

“Bustin' Myths”

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#24 Jul 5, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>
The actual word "accidental" may not have been used, though, that's what unintentional contact in a "dark room" would seem to be, yes/no?
If it was accidental, why was he removed as an MS?

If it was accidental, why was the term "child abuse" used in the letter to legal from the elders in his congregation?

If it was accidental, why did he confess to the elders that it was child abuse?

Because it wasn't accidental contact with his step-daughter.

The only one who said it was accidental was Toy (Toi) Register.

I thought you read the documents. This is clearly outlined in the letter dated Nov. 15, 1993 from Michael Clarke of the Fremont congregation to WTB&TS.

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#25 Jul 5, 2012
Mythbusters wrote:
<quoted text>
If it was accidental, why was he removed as an MS?
If it was accidental, why was the term "child abuse" used in the letter to legal from the elders in his congregation?
If it was accidental, why did he confess to the elders that it was child abuse?
Because it wasn't accidental contact with his step-daughter.
The only one who said it was accidental was Toy (Toi) Register.
I thought you read the documents. This is clearly outlined in the letter dated Nov. 15, 1993 from Michael Clarke of the Fremont congregation to WTB&TS.
The elders called it momentary not accidental. I agree that accidental is not the correct word to use. He was removed because it was on purpose whether momentary or not.
Tamia

Van Nuys, CA

#26 Jul 5, 2012
Hi Thirdwitness, its me your cheer leader! Yay!! Does a cartwheel, hola!:oD

“A VERY BAD MAN”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#27 Jul 6, 2012
Thirdwitness wrote:
The elders called it momentary not accidental.
"Accidental" and "inadvertent" are [1] synonymous terms.

Reference:
_____

[1] http://thesaurus.com/browse/accidentally

“A VERY BAD MAN”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#28 Jul 6, 2012
MythTroller wrote:
The only one who said it was accidental was Toy (Toi) Register.
Toy Register-Haynes never said Kendrick had "accidental" contact with her.

"Andrea" said that Toy Register-Hayes told her that she'd been touched by Kendrick.

Toy Register-Hayes herself offered testimony stating that not only had Kendrick never touched her, but that she'd never told anyone that he did.

“Bustin' Myths”

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#29 Jul 6, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>
Toy Register-Haynes never said Kendrick had "accidental" contact with her.
"Andrea" said that Toy Register-Hayes told her that she'd been touched by Kendrick.
Toy Register-Hayes herself offered testimony stating that not only had Kendrick never touched her, but that she'd never told anyone that he did.
Then how did this info get into the letter from the elders to the WTB&TS? I didn't type out page two because that contains questions to the WTB&TS about how to handle Kendrick.

North Congregation #15685
Fremont
c/o Michael L. Clarke
32852 Bass Lake St.
Fremont, CA 94555

Nov 15, 1983

Watchtower Bible & Tract Society
25 Columbia Heights
Brooklyn, New York, 11201 USA

Dear Brothers,

We are writing to you regarding a case of child abuse. We telephoned 11/12/93 with Jonathan Kendrick, a ministerial servant, who confessed to child abuse with his 15 yr old step daughter. The abuse occurred approximately 4 months ago. He confessed to touching the breast of his step daughter while she was sleeping. She was awaken instantly and knew what happened. His wife was informed that evening and the 3 of them talked it out between them. Brother Kendrick thought since he was sorry and his family was willing to forget the abuse, he would not have to report it to the congregation elders. He said that his conscious continued to bother him.

Evelyn, his wife, is baptized but inactive. She occasionally attends meetings.

Andrea, the step daughter, is not baptized and is no longer an unbaptized publisher. The step daughter is now using this as a tool to threaten with when she wants something. Because she has been promiscuous with 2 boys at school. the parents have tried to enforce house rules covering her comings and goings.

Andrea has recently mentioned the abuse to another young girl, Toy Register, whom she attends school with. Coincidentally, Toy attends our congregation meetings and is studying. Her mother is disfellowshipped. Toy mentioned the abuse to her mother and added that Brother Kendrick on another occasion had accidentally touched her chest but admitted that it was not intentional. Mrs Register is now threatening to call the police.

“A VERY BAD MAN”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#30 Jul 6, 2012
MythTroller wrote:
Then how did this info get into the letter from the elders to the WTB&TS?
I think I covered that with the statement, "'Andrea' said that Toy Register-Hayes told her that she'd been touched by Kendrick."

Perhaps you noticed other places in the documentation, among other things, that it was "Andrea" who made the statements to "the elders" during their sit down with her, the mother and Kendrick in November 1993? Perhaps you also noticed statements by "the elders" indicating that they never actually spoke to Toy Register-Hayes [or her mother] in 1993?

“the truth will set you free...”

Since: Nov 10

Texas City, TX

#31 Jul 6, 2012
It's possible that Toi Register's mother called up the elder's threatening to go the police. This concern is relevant, but the mother never testified to anything relevant to this case.

And it's possible that all the information that was written in the November 15, 1993 letter was obtained four day's earlier, during the November 11, 1993 meeting with the Kendrick family as the elder's alleged.

Micheal Clarke stated that what the step-daughter said “was hearsay to us.” What constitutes hearsay in a court of law?

05-16-12 Motion in Limine No. 3 Deft. Watchtower to Exclude Hearsay Statements of Evelyn Kendrick

The California Evidence Code defines hearsay as "evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated." (Evidence Code section 1200(a)).

Interestingly enough, the elder's judgment was consistent with standards of evidence that apply in a court of law.

Higher courts have no choice but to comply with the law and stick with provable facts.

“That I have no recollection of ever telling anyone that Jonathan Kendrick touched my breast inadvertently or otherwise.

That I also spent the night at the Kendrick home on several occasions as did Andrea at my home, and I felt completely safe and secure as a young guest in the Kendrick home. I also spent time after school at the Kendrick home on a regular basis. I stopped associating with Jonathan Kendrick's step-daughter, Andrea, after I told my mom that she had a boyfriend and that she was having sex with him. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.”

This statement says something about the moral fiber of the person the hearsay arguments made reference to and confirmation by the eye witness as to whether the statements were true or false.

The Plaintiff's attorney, for whatever reason, includes the testimony of an acquaintance of the Kendrick family (Claudia Francis) in the memorandum to exclude the testimony of Toi Register from evidence:

“And he would complain that Evelyn moved out of the bedroom, so, he they didn't sleep together for seven years. Something like that. And so, it really fried him when Andrea was bringing her boyfriend home, having sex with him, he was in the house. It's like: She's getting it and he isn't.”

All this tells me, is the moral character of the Kendrick family is definitely in question. I would definitely question the validity of their statements. The mother and daughter of the Kendrick family are confirmed liars considering they contradict each others story about the “Vicodin.”

This jury sided with the immoral and confirmed lairs and ignored legal evidence codes.

“the Word was God”

Since: Jul 11

Ashland, OH

#32 Jul 6, 2012
If you worshiped God rather than a corporation you wouldn't need to try so hard to make excuses for your corporate leader's malicious actions.
Leprosy

Vallejo, CA

#33 Jan 31, 2013
Sometimes I wonder what kind of narcotics you are taking Dream Weaver.
If you actually read the transcript from this trial, you would have recognized that this girl was NOT 15!!!
SHE WAS 14 AT BEST BECAUSE SHE TURNED 14 SOME TIME IN JULY 2003.
That is the reason Mr Molester, Jonathan Kendrick was convicted under a 288- AND THAT IDIOT LAWYER THE WATCHTOWER WAS USING DIDNT CARE ENOUGH ABOUT THIS CASE TO EVEN GET THE CHILD'S AGE CORRECT!!!!
NEITHER DID CURLY ABRAHAMSON, MO CLARK OR LARRY LAMERDON...THOSE 3 LYING STOOGES SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEIR CONDUCT.
YOU SOUND RIDICULOUS IN YOUR ATTEMPT TO COVER THIS UNRIGHTEOUS BEHAVIOR.
THESE ARE CHILDREN WE ARE DISCUSSING, MAYBE IF YOU KNOCK THAT CHIP OFF YOUR SHOULD AND REMOVE THAT RAFTER FROM YOUR EYE, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO SEE "THE TRUTH!"
Dream-weaver wrote:
According a declaration signed by Evelyn Kendrick, she claims Andrea told the elders “that Jonathan Kendrick had given her Vicodin, watched T.V. with her in her bedroom and then put his hand inside Andrea's bra, with skin-to-skin contact on her breast. Andrea also told the Elders that Kendrick placed his hand inside her pants and touched her genital area.”
If that really did happen, do you really think Evelyn Kendrick would have remained in the house another second with this man?
In the police report, Andrea told the police that she had taken a Vicodin for her "back problem" not that Kendrick had given her Vicodin as Evelyn alleges.
How many 15 year old's have back problems? Nonetheless, the Vicodin was consensual.
Hmmmm.... I wonder what else was consensual?
Even if she did really did take Vicodin, it gives you a mild floaty, sleepy, peaceful, euphoric feeling. Even if you take three or four 10 mg tablets, you're still cognizant of your environment.
November 15, 1993 Letter:
“Andrea, the step daughter, is not baptized and is no longer an unbaptized publisher. The step daughter is now using this as a tool to threaten with when she wants something. Because she has been promiscuous with 2 boys at school the parents have tried to enforce house rules covering her comings and goings.”
It sounds like she was also promiscuous with her step-Dad. Which if true, probably made her mother sick to her stomach, when she learned the truth and why she contacted the police months after meeting with the elders and publicly claims her daughter was drugged. Andrea refused to make any statements related to this case. I doubt she has a plausible explanation for the contradicting stories about being drugged. Whatever the truth is, the only consistent statements is what came from the elders.
A declaration was also signed by the two elders:
During the conversation that day in my presence and the presence of Andrea, Evelyn, Jonathan and Gary Abrahamson, Jonathan Kendrick admitted touching Andrea' s breast over her clothes when he entered the home in the dark and she was sleeping on the living room couch. Andrea and Evelyn never contradicted Jonathan's version of this incident.
I have read the Declaration of Evelyn Kendrick dated March 26, 2012.
At no time did Andrea say that Jonathan had given her any drugs, that Jonathan watched television with her in her bedroom, that Jonathan had reached inside her bra and touched her breast, or that he had put his hand inside her pants and touched her genitals.
If Andrea, or anyone else, had said such things as described in the Declaration of Evelyn Kendrick, a judicial committee would have been formed.
----------
Reading a lot of this stuff is disheartening, the kind of people that are out there.
Hoodwinked

Winchester, CA

#34 Jan 31, 2013
Leprosy wrote:
Sometimes I wonder what kind of narcotics you are taking Dream Weaver.
If you actually read the transcript from this trial, you would have recognized that this girl was NOT 15!!!
SHE WAS 14 AT BEST BECAUSE SHE TURNED 14 SOME TIME IN JULY 2003.
That is the reason Mr Molester, Jonathan Kendrick was convicted under a 288- AND THAT IDIOT LAWYER THE WATCHTOWER WAS USING DIDNT CARE ENOUGH ABOUT THIS CASE TO EVEN GET THE CHILD'S AGE CORRECT!!!!
NEITHER DID CURLY ABRAHAMSON, MO CLARK OR LARRY LAMERDON...THOSE 3 LYING STOOGES SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEIR CONDUCT.
YOU SOUND RIDICULOUS IN YOUR ATTEMPT TO COVER THIS UNRIGHTEOUS BEHAVIOR.
THESE ARE CHILDREN WE ARE DISCUSSING, MAYBE IF YOU KNOCK THAT CHIP OFF YOUR SHOULD AND REMOVE THAT RAFTER FROM YOUR EYE, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO SEE "THE TRUTH!"
<quoted text>
They have no interest in the truth, I assure you.
It's all about protecting the outside of the WTS glass while the inside is filthy. Sad, but true.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
If Jesus is God 3 min rsss1 503
TORTURE- a Godly Virtue? 11 min Yacob 543
Another REASON why the NWT is the best Bible ever! 24 min rsss1 1,863
Why we JWs are so HAPPY! (Apr '15) 34 min LindseyLake 2,484
News Murder convictions overturned because Jehovah's... 38 min CIA Agent 14
"RESURRECTION"- meaningless in Churchianity! (Jun '17) 57 min CIA Agent 909
Just what IS God's Name, churchoids? 1 hr rsss1 51
Church Dogma: Church PORN 5 hr the Mad JW 66
More from around the web