What a bunch of lies and bullsh!t. Where do I even begin to expose the hypocricy of this one statement:
"(3) strong circumstantial evidence (DNA evidence presented in a court of law would likely be accepted)."
I believe police routinely direct rape and abuse victims to go immediately to the hospital to check for any physical, forensic evidence.
However, if a child has just been molested by a congregation member, the elders are first instructed to call Watchtower Legal Department. ...blah, blah, two witnesses, blah... Elders are given no proper direction on pursuing forensics. If the child/parent/guardian waits for the elders in the congregation to tell them, "we won't tell you not to report this to the authorities," any physical evidence is probably long gone.
Additionally, a search of Watchtower Library for "forensics", bring up these top two articles criticizing the subject, based on very old cases:
***
g983/8p.6ScientistsDivided?***Take forensic science, for example. A court of appeal made the point that forensic scientists may become partisan. The journal Search notes: "The very fact that the police seek their assistance may create a relationship between the police and the forensic scientists. . . . Forensic scientists employed by the government may come to see their function as helping the police." This journal also gives the example of the IRA (Irish Republican Army) bombing cases of Maguire (1989) and Ward (1974) in Britain as bearing "eloquent testimony to the preparedness of some highly experienced and otherwise reputable scientists to abandon scientific neutrality and view their responsibilities as helping the prosecution."
Another outstanding example is the Lindy Chamberlain case in Australia (1981-82), which became the basis for the film ACryintheDark. Evidence submitted by forensic experts apparently swayed judgment against Mrs. Chamberlain, accused of murdering her baby Azaria. Although she claimed that a dingo (wild dog) had killed the child, she was convicted and sent to prison. Years later, when the baby’s dirty, bloodied jacket was found, the previous evidence did not stand up under close scrutiny. As a result, Lindy was released from prison, her conviction was quashed, and compensation was paid for wrongful conviction.
***
w986/15p.28TrueJustice—WhenandHow?***Moreover, the magazine Nature notes that not all scientists agree on the interpretation of forensic evidence. "There can be genuine disagreement between forensic scientists." Sad to say, "faulty forensic evidence has already been responsible for more than its fair share of faulty convictions."
Basically, the WTBTS policy of ignoring evidence, 'forgiving' the 'repentant', and requiring "two witnesses" is ancient crap that is being used to safeguard pedophiles from accusation and re-victimize the victims.
Excuse me while I go barf !!
