Kendrick had been arrested in 1994 for an unrelated molestation case but was not convicted. Ms. Conti was 9 or 10 when the abuse happened. Did she tell her parents or the elders at that time? Maybe she did, maybe they didn't do anything because they either didn't believe her or decided to keep the abuse from becoming public. Why did the parents deny that they left her alone with Kendrick? Maybe because rhey did not want to be held liable, maybe because they are fairtfully fearful of the "faithful and descreet slave". Why did she wait until she was around 20, 21 to formally file a complaint?<quoted text>
Kendrick was convicted of some form of molestation in 2004 and put on the sex offender registry; her recent lawsuit was filed in 2011.
Per the court documents - oft mentioned, but not once actually cited - officials at the congregation of record became aware of her claims of abuse by Kendrick for the first time in 2009, which means that they had no knowledge of her abuse as it was happening in 1994 & 1995 
A: This was after she alleges she had informed the elders of what was happening to her.
Reply: According to their response to her initial charges, they did not know of her abuse at the hands of Kendrick until 2009.
A: It is my understanding that had the elders taken the proper action, which I feel is correct, is to have had a disciplenary review, or whatever it is called, with Kendrick and Ms. Conti and her parents present to discuss the allegations against him.
Reply: That sounds very nice.
Unfortunately, none of the parties - other than Kendrick and Conti - were aware of the abuse at the time it was occurring, and "the elders" were not aware of her abuse until 2009.
A: Apparently this was not done because if this action would have taken place, the elders would have had an obligation to reveal that Kendrick had been sex offeder.
Reply: Actually, Kendrick was not a "sex offender" at the time he was abusing Ms. Conti, as he wasn't placed on the sex offender registry until the year 2004.
Also, "the elders" were unable to take action of any sort regarding abuse occurring in 1995 and 1996 that they didn't know about until 2009.
A: I am quite sure that "cases" are recorded when a formal complaint is filed.
Reply: Which, in this one, happened on January 1, 2011.
A: Perhaps the elders never told Ms. Conti that she had to file a formal complaint.
Reply: She would have first had to have informed them of the abuse when it was actually occurring, which, according to their statement to the court, did not happen until 2009.
A: This may be the reason why there were allegations rather than stated facts of abuse.
Reply: It's stated very clearly in the court documents that, as far as Ms. Conti was concerned, there wasn't even an allegation against Kendrick until 2009.
It bears pointing out, among other things I've seen so far in these documents, that the alleged victim claims that her parents allowed her to spend time, unsupervised, with Kendrick - a single man - at his home, and, for some reason, on an Amtrak train.
Her parents deny that they EVER allowed her to spend time alone with Kendrick.
I'm getting the impression that the claimant in this case is an extremely twisted individual; this jury had to be BEYOND stupid.
Footnotes & References:
 Case #: HG11558324 http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/h...
 She initially claimed that her abuse occurred in 1996 and 1997; she later amended that claim.
Questions arise every moment. The fact remains that in a civil case the allegations are more than likely to occur. It is not like a criminal case where it has to be proven beyond any reasonable soubt.