There is no one in this world more desirous of seeing WT's accountability in this child abuse mess come to light through the courts and media than me as I do have a dog in this fight! But I've learned a long time ago that before I rush to judgment, I need all the facts, otherwise my credibility is at stake. The following is some of what I wrote on my website about this accusation that WT ordered elders in the UK to destroy evidence:
While the BBC’s report is correct that all Kingdom Halls were given direction about the destruction of certain internal documents, there is some debate and many unanswered questions as to whether this was a “change of policy” specifically intended by the Watchtower Society to prevent the Commission’s access. Watchtower branch officers in the UK claim that this was not the case – and there is some evidence to support their claim. On the other hand, the Watchtower’s critics claim that the instructions regarding document destruction were specifically designed to complicate and frustrate the Commission’s investigation.
I for one really appreciate your considered and journalistic approach to this Barbara. I am very glad to see someone with your track record and credibility highlighting the issues without drama, supposition and biased spin.
As I suspect you probably know the general instruction to audit personal notes and the congregation files is a yearly instruction. Any member here who as served as an elder should be able to verify this. What I don't know is if the most recent letter was different in tone or nature of it's instructions. Perhaps there are copies of previous years' communications which could be compared?
I am sure the WTS is sure in their mind the instructions do not contravene the Inquiry's letter. They will feel that notes written by elders during JCs are simply jottings and not valuable or relevant. They will conclude that the official record kept is sufficient. The instructions for matters related to child abuse are separate and they would claim this clearly shows there is no intent to deliberately rid the files of relevant information.
This is exactly the tack they followed with the ARC. Whilst their legalistic and semantic "theocratic warfare" might be at least arguable in a legal context, what they keep missing is that this approach does not show any willingness to cooperate, any desire to admit failings and move forward. It's not just the law that the WTS needs to work with, it's the spirit of the law and their lack of progression with this is what is constantly coming back to bite their credibility firmly on the backside.