At least on this occasion they didn't employ "Chronica" Monica Applewhite , so called "expert witness" , flown over by the Society to Australia at vast expense to give a frankly hopeless testimony.
The premise of the defence seems to be that abuse amongst people who "happen to be one of JWs" ( the phrase tells you all you need to know about how the Society views rank & file JWs ) doesn't apply. Basically , because the abuse usually doesn't occur in a JW institution ( such as a school ) then really it is nothing at all to do with the Society. The implication they are trying to make is on the basis that criminal actions by a paedophile who , for example , "happened to be a Catholic" by perhaps attending an occasional service and self identifying as a Catholic should not be blamed on the Catholic church.
What the two lawyers either didn't appreciate ( or more likely , choose to ignore to try to muddy the waters ) is the all encompassing nature of JW life. While most JWS ( other than Bethelites ) are not 24/7 in a JW building , nevertheless the religion has a huge hold on its adherents and dictates virtually everything in their day-to-day lives.
They also fail to realise that JWs are trained to , in the first instance , sort out any issues in-house , including criminal activities. They are generally somewhat suspicious of the secular authorities and are strongly counselled against "bringing Jehovah's name into reproach". For example , in the case of fraud between JWs , they are told to sort it out between themselves , possibly escalating to judical action in the congregation , rather than taking court action.
