Did GJ commit perjury?

by Driving Force 7 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Driving Force
    Driving Force

    This is something I was thinking about. As we are very well aware GJ told a lot of untruths. Is he likely to be prosecuted in Australia for committing perjury by directly lying to the RC?

    What thoughts do any of you have?

  • Brighid
    Depends on the laws in australia, which I am not familiar with. However, here in the US, perjury is a felony. Not good. I would think that it's similar in Australia, but I'll Google it.
  • Brighid
  • the girl next door
    the girl next door
    Hard to prove, rarely prosecuted.
  • steve2

    Allegations of perjury are so serious that the Courts have to proceed very cautiously because if a party is accused of perjury without documnetary evidence it is an abuse by the judiciary of the judicial process. There are times when the Courts take a most conservative view of perjury and virtually accepts that a party may put a topic in a totally different light and is not necessarily lying.

    Perjury is a very specific offense related to deliberately making misleading, dishonest and untrue statements under oath. The Commission of Inquiry would need to weigh up the difference between a party's use of language to put a topic in a different (i.e., more favorable) light and an outright untruth.

    An example of an outright untruth would be when a party claims at the time they were questioned they did not know the details of a specific case but it subsequently transpires there are documents that prove otherwise (e.g., an earlier email exchange in which the party discussed details of the case).

    The important point to consider is not so much claims that the party misled, was dishonest and made untrue statements but actual documentary evidence they did so.

    Keep in mind that the Courts will also accept in some circumstances a plea of ignorance (i.e., a party says it was answering to the best of knowledge at that time).

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury
    In the UK I think it is only if it affects the outcome of a trial then it might be looked at, otherwise not. So it would have to be some pretty big whoppers.
  • Diogenesister
    I thought Toole (WT lawyer) sayin'he never heard of theocratic warfare (since he's a legal type an all JW's have to study Watchtowers )was pretty close to the bone
  • steve2

    I thought Toole (WT lawyer) sayin'he never heard of theocratic warfare (since he's a legal type an all JW's have to study Watchtowers )was pretty close to the bone

    You are in good company concluding he was likely not telling the truth.

    Whether this constitutes perjury depends on: 1) his professed "not knowing" about theocratic warfare materially affected the Inquiry findings and recommendatioins, and 2) there was documentary evidence that he knew about theocractic warfare (e.g., was videod in the recent past actually giving a talk on theocratic warfare from the platform), he could be held in contempt of court and convicted of perjury).

Share this