Dr Applewhite and Child Abuse

by snare&racket 48 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  C0ntr013r

  Well.... What kind of "expert" do you think the watchtower could get their hands on?

  If she did independent studies or had better credentials she would not support the watchtower...
• 

  Sabin

  SHES CATHOLIC SHES CATHOLIC that's what everyone will say. And the fact her testimony was so bad make it memorable. IT WAS BLOODY PLANNED. She did exactly what she was supposed to do.
• 

  konceptual99

  Sorry Sabin but I don't agree. They simply found the most supposedly qualified "expert" that was prepared to support their junk. Being a non Witness was important but clearly not as much as being able to say anything they needed in return for money.
• 

  stuckinarut2

  She literally FELL APART under questioning!

  The lack of preparation the branch gave her, and her limited actual experience was so obvious.

  When the judge and prosecution asked about her resume in detail,(and believe me it WAS in detail) it was clear that she had no published peer reviewed material, and was simply a "paid for supporter".

  Even when the WT lawyer questioned her, both he and she fell apart under scrutiny!

  The main "arrow" in her and the WT quiver was a broad unverifiable claim that "JW practices are better than many other faith based groups". The judge summed it up well when he said "we are not here to see who is better than whom. We are here to see if JW's have displayed 'best practice' in the way they handle matters...and it appears that this cant be established"

  Simply amazing to watch....
• 

  Sabin

  O.k. Konceptual tell me this, if you were them with that kind of financial power behind you would you let some idiot defend you? I think not. Im sorry but im not bying it. Look at all the other cases against them they used the most educated people they have even sent some of them to uni to get the right qualifications. And I know a sister who is a brilliant lawyer that went through uni because she wanted to serve at bethel and was turned down because she is a WOMAN.
• 

  C0ntr013r

  O.k. Konceptual tell me this, if you were them with that kind of financial power behind you would you let some idiot defend you? I think not. Im sorry but im not bying it.

  Sabin, they never meat anyone like Stewart and McClellan before, they are not prepared for this

  They are relying on people being oblivious to their practices and beliefs...
• 

  Mephis

  Sabin. She was their regular expert. She's been used before, three or four times? She writes up nice things about their literature and how advanced they were to mention child abuse in the 80s. Sadly, she has absolute no idea about the closed community, how what is written actually applies nor even the underlying meanings of the things she is praising. And the commission made that clear to her. You could see the moment when she realised that she had a choice between her own conscience (and life's work) in protecting children or to continue to blindly testify for the WBTS. Her conscience won. That's something the WBTS could profit in learning from.
• 

  Tornintwo

  I agree that they're not that smart

  they showed by July's JW broadcasting that their main defense is their proactive public articles teaching parents to be aware of child abuse etc. such a defense is more than enough for the r&f who are content to stay blind. Next JW broadcasting, they can proudly say 'an independent expert witness stated that we are better than other organizations in our information on child protection'or some such out of context statement and they will know that the loyal ones will lap it up and won't even google the trial to find out what else was said.

  what they didn't expect was that the commission would be examining the private procedures against the publicized information and finding a big difference! But they know with all the warnings on 'apostate driven lies' that most dubs won't even look outside the 'spiritual paradise' at this news. As another poster wisely quoted; 'There are none so blind as they who will not see'.
• 

  C0ntr013r

  'There are none so blind as they who will not see'

  I would like to add to that: 'There are none so blind as those who think they see'

  'an independent expert witness stated that we are better than other organizations in our information on child protection'

  an independent researcher that we payed LOL
• 

  konceptual99

  Dr. Applewhite is no idiot and has significant credentials when it comes to working organisations and examining their child abuse policies.

  http://www.parkdietzassociates.com/spotlight-on-pda-expert-monica-applewhite-ph-d/

  I would bet money that her engagement with the WTS has not been to do a detailed analysis of policy and procedure but simply to provide another opinion that various cases of child abuse could not reasonably have been expected to be the fault of the organisation.

  Regardless, it was clear from her evidence that she had not done a detailed and objective analysis of the WT policy on handling child abuse. She clearly had not investigated lots of cases and critically examined the "root causes". She clearly has not provided the WTS with a detailed report on problems that have occurred and what must be done to improve the situation, as she has done on other circumstances.

  She has been shown numerous articles and publications that raise the awareness of the issue. Kudos to the WTS - some of these go back a fair while. She has been spun a yarn about how seriously the WTS takes this.

  I bet you any money she offered the WTS a proper consultative process and the WTS turned her down knowing they would need to change. I bet you any money they basically gave her a wad of cash and as little info as possible and said "tell us what you think" knowing she would say "well this is all good stuff".

  She's taken the money and not done her homework, probably because she was never engaged to do her homework and would never have been given the access she needed to do a proper job.

  She's been sold a lemon but I expect if she really knew what she was walking into she would not have taken the job. She took the money without considering she might actually be asked some difficult questions. She believed the story she was told and did not ask questions because it was easy money.

  I still don't think there is a deeper conspiracy here to deliberately put an "expert" witness up on the stand knowing they are going to fail. What purpose does that serve?

  I also don't see what it has to do with the WTS not taking a qualified lawyer into Bethel because she is a woman. I don't doubt it, just can't see the relevance to Dr. Applewhite.