historic investigation of jws latest videos are on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtxakzq0ity&feature=youtu.be.
umber: Any other sites you could recommend dear Orphan?
Yes. I like Barbara's site for the recorded videos of the sessions.
It is easy to find the session you want to watch or re-watch.
http://watchtowerdocuments.org/
The intro music on each video is great, I love it...good pick.
this is from conti's appeal veredict:.
monica applewhite, a clinical social worker and an expert on child sexual abuse, testified for defendants that watchtowers policy against disclosing private information .
very closely mirror[ed] the codes of ethics of the national association of social workers and the american counseling association.
I think that the WTS soliciting and getting the support of a woman who is of the Catholic faith speaks to larger issues.
What this Royal Commission is revealing about the JW judical system will have an impact on the Catholic Church and their procedures. there is much overlap between the WTS system and the Catholic heirachal system of governance.. The RC's criticism of the JWs' process is knocking on the door of ecclesiastical privledge. The Catholic Church may be heavily invested in the outcome of these hearings.
The JWs, and neither the Catholic Church, do not want to let go of their right to hear and collect confidential information on their congregants. Especially the right to collect evidence on, and process, those "oh so sensitive child sex cases" that come across their desks so regularly.
I view Applewhite's submission in the same light as to what the WTS did for Jimmy Swaggart. She offered supporting testimony for the WTS' position (and, in the same sweep, for her own religion). That is all that Applewhite's testimony was - witness testimony, not 'expert' witness testimony.
it is enthralling having everything being dragged kicking and screaming into the light of day.
however one of the most important things to ask is this:.
is the rc evidence admissable in other countries and other courts?.
defender: If simply making notes of what has happened in a case of abuse is producing child pornography, how come the JW elders are not right now being charged with producing child pornography? It is now a matter of public record:
I have been giving some more thought to what you have said, defender, and I think the fact that the process that the elders take in matters dealing with sex with minors is now a matter of public record, could very well be what exposes the pornographic nature of what is happening.
I am glad it is on public record. What has been described is abhorrent. I would never, never, allow my daughter or son to go through what the victims of the JWs have had to. Never should a child be subjected to that. Or a woman. My gawd - the way that women have been compelled to give sexual details to men is unbelievable.
This may be a legal way of stopping the barbaric practice of compelling a minor to give sexual details to religious men or anyone who claims religious authority.
Once all the facts have been gathered and evidence given on the JW judicial process, maybe then the long arm of the law will have some teeth to do things like seize all the child abuse files that are in the WTS' possession on the grounds that it is pornographic material that deals with minor sex. And, the WTS can be stopped from ever collecting those details again.
historic investigation of jws latest videos are on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtxakzq0ity&feature=youtu.be.
AudeSapere: We know that JW practices in dealing with child sex abuse victims are horrible, but did Justice McClennan actually say they are the *worst*??
I am not sure he used that word. I could be wrong but I don't remember him saying 'WORST'.
He repeatedly stated that the JWs have serious flaws and many of those are unique to JWs (not seen in other institutions), but I am not sure that he said 'worst'. I think it is possible that there are one or two institutions that may actually be worse than JWs.
Just hoping to clarify and not over-inflate what was said.
I have been looking for the spot in the testimony that Justice McClelland spoke about "the perfect storm". He read a list of conditions that met the 'red flags' of organizations and groups to identify who are at high risk for child sex abuse.
McClelland stated that the JWs hit every point on the list. It may have been then that he called the JWs "the worst".
This is the list (thank you Sailaway who posted this on yuku):
Testimony on day 4 of the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse explored how the socio-cultural environment of Jehovah’s Witnesses creates “the perfect storm” for child abuse. Below are listed the conditions that were highlighted in questioning Dr. Monica Applewhite, expert witness for the WTBS of Australia. If you read the source article starting on page 30 and look at Table A4 on page 31, you will likely be able to identify other factors that apply.
Table A4: Preconditions for sexual abuse and individual and social/cultural factors (excerpts)
1. Repressive norms about masturbation and extramarital sex
2. Weak criminal sanctions against offenders
3. Ideology of patriarchal prerogatives for fathers
4. Barriers to women’s equality
5. Erosion of social networks
6. Social isolation of family
7. Social powerlessness of children
Source: Finkelhor (1984), pp. 56–57 Finkelhor’s model demonstrates the importance of looking beyond the individual victim or perpetrator when assessing where primary prevention programs should be introduced and how other seemingly unconnected societal pressures and gaps can lead to an environment where a child can be sexually victimised.
https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/rr33.pdf
if anybody can advise how to get the vid to show here, i'll edit this post.
thanks.apologies for the inconsistent sound levels.. https://youtu.be/nok514dqlti.
Madsweeney, if you go directly to the youtube site, and then copy and paste the address bar, it should embed.
..trying now...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOK514DQltI
*yup,...it worked!
this is from conti's appeal veredict:.
monica applewhite, a clinical social worker and an expert on child sexual abuse, testified for defendants that watchtowers policy against disclosing private information .
very closely mirror[ed] the codes of ethics of the national association of social workers and the american counseling association.
marvin: Even then, and to be perfectly honest, I have experience with lawyers and courts in New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana and what comes from that area is not very helpful to me, particularly in civil matters.
Sigh. You are right. I keep forgetting about the American way of doing things in a court of law.
it is enthralling having everything being dragged kicking and screaming into the light of day.
however one of the most important things to ask is this:.
is the rc evidence admissable in other countries and other courts?.
max: I think it would come down to whether a reasonable person would think the material was too detailed for a legitimate church disciplinary purpose and that a paedophile would get off reading it.
If a paedophile will get off on the material is actually irrelevant in determining the exploitation of the child victim. The material produced is always assumed to be expolitative if it does not fall under point (a) of 228E.
Reasonable people have already determined that the investigation into child abuse claims is not necessary or helpful. The guidelines for reporting child abuse (iPreventing Child Sexual Abuse Within Youth-serving Organizations: Getting Started on Policies and Procedures) identifies investigation by volunteers in organizations as harmful to the legal process.
Determining the amount of detail collected in a judical process investigation is not a job for lay persons to be involved in. Any amount of probing for detail is wrong.
defender:.. So are you saying then that legally, any nonprofessional person without the skills to investigate abuse, who asks a child about what happened during abuse and makes any notes is producing child pornography?
Yes, I am.
Notes don't even have to be taken, images don't have to be made. The real, live child is sitting right there. The judicial process itself is a pornographic act all on its own.
There is no need whatsoever to ask a child what happened during the abuse once the child comes forward. No need at all. Once the claim has been made, any attempt by someone to probe for details, other than those trained and authorized to do so, should be seen as illegal. It may be suitable for a parent to privately ask their own child what happened, but under no circumstances should that child be required to give details to an outside person other than a professional. Requiring a child to give testimony to the JW elders should be a crime all by itself - under pornographic laws that pertain to minors.
Any attempt to do so should result in charges of producing pornographic material, regardless of what form that child's experience is preserved in - even just sitting and listening to the child's sexual experiences is pornographic when it is done by non-professionals. Hell, the JW judical system itself allows for a live, real life pornographic experience. No images needed, and no notes needed - it is sitting right there in the room and is delivered through live audio - from the mouth of a minor.
If simply making notes of what has happened in a case of abuse is producing child pornography, how come the JW elders are not right now being charged with producing child pornography?
Not yet. But it doesn't mean they couldn't be.
Once it is established how the judicial process works inside the JWs, it becomes a place from which to move forward on matters of the law.
The wheels of justice grind slowly. But they do grind.
this is from conti's appeal veredict:.
monica applewhite, a clinical social worker and an expert on child sexual abuse, testified for defendants that watchtowers policy against disclosing private information .
very closely mirror[ed] the codes of ethics of the national association of social workers and the american counseling association.
insofar as I can tell are unevidenced (e.g., that she did something illegal or unethical in Louisiana, USA).
You are right. We will have to wait for the outcome of that Louisiana case. I was wrong to jump to conclusions - the evidence will determine the outcome. I will be interested in what the judge decides in Louisiana.
The "whore" label is one that is used by the legal profession even when the testimony has nothing to do with religion.
much has already been written about dr monica applewhite, the expert witness hired by the jw organization.
her job was to provide "expert" testimony to the australian commission of inquiry into jehovsh's witnesses' policies and practices on child sexual abuse.
astonishingly, dr applewhite was unprepared for the inquiry lawyers' questions.
joe: I think she was certainly knowledgeable in her field.
If she was knowledge in her field, then she should have been familar with this document:
Preventing Child Sexual Abuse Within Youth-serving Organizations: Getting Started on Policies and Procedures
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 2007
Component 5: Responding to Inappropriate Behavior, Breaches in Policy, and Allegations and Suspicions of Child Sexual Abuse Goal
To respond quickly and appropriately to (1) inappropriate or harmful behavior, (2) infractions of child sexual abuse prevention policies, and (3) evidence or allegations of child sexual abuse.
General Principles The ultimate aim of child sexual abuse prevention efforts within youth-serving organizations is to prevent child sexual abuse from ever occurring; however, an organization needs to have communicated clearly what it and its employees/volunteers should do if policies are violated or if child sexual abuse occurs.
Define inappropriate and appropriate strategies
• Clarify that it is not the role of an employee/ volunteer or your organization to evaluate or investigate an allegation or suspicion.
• Let child protective services, law enforcement, and child advocacy centers investigate allegations or suspicions. • Know that an organization’s investigation can harm the youth or the legal investigative process.
Her testimony did not indicate that she was familiar with those guidelines. Her position was to try to fit ecclesiastical procedure into a framework that could be accepted as suitable by the Commission. She did not criticize the judical procedure at all - she supported a practice that has been identified by experts as being harmful to victims in and of itself.
Her expertise is only inside of institutional structures - and that is exactly the problem that the Royal Commission is addressing - how institutions maintain a myopic system that is harmful to the children. She was an "expert" on insular procedures and policies.
this is from conti's appeal veredict:.
monica applewhite, a clinical social worker and an expert on child sexual abuse, testified for defendants that watchtowers policy against disclosing private information .
very closely mirror[ed] the codes of ethics of the national association of social workers and the american counseling association.
About calling an expert witness a "whore" (prostitute):
pg. 114
A witness who spends a considerable amount of time working as an expert witness is vulnerable to attack as a biased witness. The opposing side will attempt to show the witness's track record as a "for hire" witness for one particular party. Although the term 'witness' might be used in court, "whore" ("prosecutor whore", "plaintiff whore", or "defense whore" - take your pick) is the clear implication. Indeed, there are some witnesses who are appropriately labelled as such (see the examples discussed in chapter 7). The frequency for which a witness testifies for a certain side, and for what financial gain, will be used as a measure of his or her objectivity.
