by snare&racket 48 Replies latest jw friends
Let me get this straight...She (a catholic, worldly woman) has had access to the elder's book and other confidential material.
...Let that sink in.
Linking to Magwitch's thread on the letter about keeping this holier-than-thou handbook secret...
after-watching-dr-monica-thought-appropriate-bring-out-this-gem-again
The WT think that Australia is such an insignificant part of their population. I mean 70,000 maximum. They did not count on the fact that this commission has been in preparation since 2013. Gathering evidence, subpoenaing WT documents and letters, perusing and using the Elders hand book. They did not expect these men to have WT speak and knowledge at their disposal.
My own sister, a horrid woman and devout hypocrite was furious that they even had the bloody book!! How dare they she says with spittle flying in all directions and a crazed look in the eyes. Well my dear JW freak of a sis,..........."They just did because they can".
Some on this site may have initially thought that Stewart may have been sort of weak, but he was not. He was thorough and calm and undaunted by any reaction of the elders. He was empathetic to the victims but had to maintain focus. The last thing the commission will do is get all emotional ........angry if you like. The plight of the victims and the terrible disregard of WT to it's women and children was the prominent feature in disclosing WT practices and thus forcing those who were neglectful and denying any wrong doing, had to be done using the WT material. WT lawyers had no chance to approach or victimise those who had a factual account to tell.. Let this be a lesson in how not to under estimate your adversary........The Royal Commission.
The difference here between what Appelwhite described as an expert witness in the Conti case is that counsel Stewart and justice McClellan are insisting that she sticks to exactly what it says in the Shepherd the Flock book and letters to elders that discuss judicial committee procedure.
She is not being allowed to say just what she understands would happen in a JC or the preparation for it. She says when the elders phone the service deptartment that is when they are given information on caring for the person who may have been abused, but they won't let her get away with that because the publications don't state that happens and she can have no clue it does because she has never witnessed it.
Stewart and McClellan stress over and over what the Shepherd the Flock book does say, that is, 'observers should not be present for moral support'! As the chair points out, so an abuse survivor whether an adult woman or female child has to tell two men what happened in sexual detail, then again she tells three men while confronting her sexual abuser. With, he emphasises, no moral support.
Justice McClellan says that this JW practice offends against current Australian civil justice processes. So Stewart suggests that contrary to her report the JW proceedures do not meet best practice because it is not child or survivor oriented at all.
The difference here is because their remit is to examine JW practices in handling child abuse cases they're looking strictly at what the religion instructs the elders to do in writing, in the elders book and letters to elders.
As never before the GB is under scrutiny as to what they write and instruct the elders to do. In my opinion Applewhite didn't realise that counsel for the Commission would insist on what the GB have written down not on what she thinks happens because in fact this is what she claims to have based her entire report on.
As when she says she thinks it is up to an individual whether a person who has been abused takes part in group therapy but Stewart says the Shepherd the Flock book is discouraging this because people may disclose details of their abuser, perhaps saying who abused them. Applewhite insists it says it's a conscience matter but as, I think, chair McClellan points out, it would be very difficult to take part in group therapy without discussing the details of ones abuse, how useful would such therapy be if you couldn't give details!
Here they have hit on a very important point in WTS publications and the Shepherd the Flock book in particular, that JWs can be discouraged from doing something the GB doesn't want them to do while in the same sentence apparently being told it's a conscience matter. We all know this but it's great to see it made clear on the international stage.
Xanthippe - ...it is not child or survivor oriented at all.
That was nice summation. And it hits the nail on the head. The only mechanisms the Organization have in place are there to protect the Organization, and not the people.
S&R: I am shocked that an expert would simply examine only the literature given to her by the organisation she was defending and simply accept it.
Why should you be shocked that someone did what they were hired to do and nothing more?
She is an "expert witness," not a researcher.
Oubilette: She is an "expert witness," not a researcher.
Well, in Australia (and other countries, too...) it is expected that experts do research. That is the standard that qualifies them to use the title "expert". Their research is their knowledge.
Expert = Researcher.
In Australian language.
Orphan Crow, I get your point, but that's not how it works in adversarial legal systems. "Experts" are hired by both sides to prove their side and only their side.
You're confusing theoretical science with the legal system.
You're confusing theoretical science with the legal system
I don't think so. I am well aware of the standards that are held in the Canadian court system for the acceptance of credible expert witness testimony. The standards are rigourously upheld. You cannot just call anybody into court and say that they are experts - they have to have the research behind them and the credibility to be accepted. Canada, and I would imagine Australia as well, does take scientific considerations into account when it comes to measuring expert status.
The Australian court system is very similar to Canada - we both arise out of the British court system.
