There has been some comment on the latest RC proceedings on that well know JW friendly site.
One set of posts has been particularly interesting as the poster related their own experience as an abuse victim when they were a child in the congregation. This of course took courage and the poster deserves no criticism at all for this. He is, however, still very supportive of the organisation.
This is his latest post:
Okay, I've now read the transcript of today's hearing, and I have to say I am so monumentally frustrated by this enquiry!
I'm glad to see them finally interviewing someone from the branch office, but they keep repeating their questions, and in my opinion not listening to his answers.
For example they repeatedly refuse to accept that abuse survivors are not expected to confront their abuser. There is a 1995 WT article and advice in the elder's manual that says that they can write a letter.
They also say it's unwise for the judicial committee to be led by elders who know the accused, but again the guidance is that the CO will nominate an experienced other elder from another congregation to chair the committee.
I suspect that there will be more information given on the 1,006 cases issue when they interview the brother form the legal department, but from what we've seen so far, many of those cases were reported to the authorities, just not by the Society, but by the victims or someone else. And in confirmation of what I was also told by a CO, the list includes people who never were JWs but included interested persons and children of baptised witnesses etc.
In fact if I remember correctly the CO said that even if an 18-year-old brother has consensual extra-marital sex with a 17-year-old sister, as it's technically a crime that would go on the list, but it would not be reported to the police for obvious reasons.
The number of times when reading this transcript I have wanted to shout at the commissioners and say "he's already answered that!" or "read the material!"
Whilst I have nothing but sympathy for his experiences I can't help wondering how someone who was abused and whose abuser was not sanctioned can have this much support for the organisation still.