Can JW Television (digital news) be trusted?

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, Fausto Hoover said:

I would say, all within the column marked "total number of alleged victims" on the top of the spreadsheet is a clear indicator that all individuals are accounted for, even if there is a "+" symbol present or if the quantity of victims on a given column is ambiguous. I suspect the ones marked as "unclear" were counted as one.

I checked to see if you were right. I selected ONLY the ones marked Unclear or with a "+" symbol. Your suspicion that the "Unclear" were "counted as one" is incorrect. The total for all 45 of those lines is ZERO:

Then I took two of "10+" cells and changed the text to a number. (I used 10.) Then I took two of the random "Unclear" cells and changed the text to a number. (I used the number 1 [one].) If I am right, then I would expect the total to go from ZERO to 22. (10+10+1+1=22).

Turns out the number was exactly as expected: 22.

[JW Insider]

20 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Additionally, it's worth mentioning that these figures are specific to the Jehovah's Witnesses organization in Australia and may not represent the situation in other countries.

This assumption requires further clarification. Are JWs Australians more prone to CSA than JWs from other nations?

I'm not defending the text that ChatGPT derived, but it's still a true statement -- even without any reference to what the situation is in other countries. But you should keep in mind that the Witness organization also reaches out to prisons and to former criminals, and other persons who have issues. Jesus said that it was the "sick" that came to him, not those who considered themselves healthy. And then there is the fact that crimes, including rape and murder, come ultimately from human sinful nature.

(James 1:14, 15) . . .But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. ¹⁵ Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn sin, when it has been carried out, brings forth death.

(James 2:11) . . .For the one who said, “You must not commit adultery,” also said, “You must not murder.” If, now, you do not commit adultery but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of law.

Imagine! A need to write to congregations to remind them that it is not OK to murder!

 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

It is seeking a judicial review and High Court declaration that the church does not assume responsibility for the care of children, young people, or vulnerable people.

Lawyers say the damd darndest things. Speaking of James:

(James 1:27) The form of worship that is clean and undefiled from the standpoint of our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself without spot from the world.

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Fausto Hoover said:

The data you provided initially, 1766 and 1857, was not accurate.

It's easy enough to check whether those numbers of 1,766+ and 1,857+ were right. Using your suggestion that "Unclear" should be equal to 1, I changed ALL the "Unclear" to 1 and tried the total again.

I got 1,766 again. What do you think you would get?

Next, I fixed ALL the cells with "10+" in them. I still get 1,857. What do you think I did wrong? What would you do to make it more accurate?

[Pudgy]

If you buy a precision, high end camera, such as a Leica, Nikon, Canon, or Hasselblad you will find shutter speeds from perhaps 30 seconds to perhaps. 1/2,000 of a second.

And aperatures from perhaps f:2 to f:22 … maybe up to f:64.

I have a 4x5 Calumet View camera that goes up to f:64.

If the marked settings are within 20% of actual, up or down that is considered “good enough” ….. and it is.  

 If the ARC CONCLUSIONS OR YOUR CONCLUSIONS are plus or minus 50% it does not matter.

In the words of an American Soldier in Korea telling his superior officer about enemy troop strength “It’s a whole damn potload, sir!”.

[Pudgy]

15 hours ago, Pudgy said:

… Sometimes …. details don’t matter.

 

[JW Insider]

19 hours ago, Fausto Hoover said:

The suggested findings by Counsel Assisting are problematic in the sense that, they often seem to assume a connection between child sexual abuse and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses in circumstances where there is no obvious connection and none is identified by Counsel Assisting. 

This is the JW legal team attempting a very weak "negotiation" defense. It's easy to see that the data doesn't bear out the claim, however. With 221 of the 1,006 perpetrators, the data provided by "Jehovah's Witnesses Australia" admits that JW/WT cannot rule out the fact that the "two-witness rule" kept the case from moving forward to a judicial committee. This was a connection that the court (and even victimized JWs) have made between sexual abuse and the beliefs of JWs.

But there is an apparent skew in how that two-witness rule is used depending on the position of responsibility that the Witness holds. The two highest-level accusations that I have learned about, were actually left off the list altogether, and in at least one of those cases, the accused had no hearing and was promoted to a higher position within the Organization. For now, we can safely ignore this however since it was not in the ARC data. But the following are all from the Watchtower-provided data:

The only Circuit Overseer included on this list did not have a judicial case, and it is admitted that "YES" the two-witness rule kept this case from going forward to a judicial committee.  And there was, therefore, no reproof, demotion, or discipline of any kind reported.

Pioneer data I had here a few minutes ago was removed. Turns out it was 3 out of 8 whose cases may have been kept from going forward due to the two-witness rule. That's 37.5%.

Now we come to all the persons on the list known to be Elders at the time of their first accusation of child abuse. There were 38 such elders and for 16 of them -- that's 42% -- the data could not rule out that it was the two-witness rule that kept their case from going forward and therefore there was no judicial committee formed.

Now we come to the cases of the 65 who were Ministerial Servants at the time of their first accusation of child abuse. It drops down to 22% where the data admits that they could not rule out that it was the two-witness rule that kept their case from going forward and therefore there was no judicial committee formed.

Now we come to the cases of the 689 who were JW Parishioners (Baptized JWs who were not MS/Elder/Pioneer) at the time of their first accusation of child abuse, it drops a bit more, down to 20% where the data admits that they could not rule out that it was the two-witness rule that kept their case from going forward and therefore there was no judicial committee formed.

I didn't include those for whom it was unclear what their position in the congregation was at the time of their first accusation, but only a very few of them were definitely identified as servants or elders in other parts of the data. 

Technically, of course, the JW legal team didn't deny anything related to what I said above, but they only said that "The suggested findings by Counsel Assisting are problematic in the sense that, they often seem to assume a connection between child sexual abuse and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses in circumstances where there is no obvious connection."

Those are typical lawyer "weasel words" that don't actually deny that there is a connection; they just claim that the connection is not obvious in SOME of the cases where the Court "often seemed to assume" one. For some persons, hardly anything is "obvious" which is the entire reason for investigations. This doesn't discount the fact that there were other cases listed where the connection was entirely and blatantly obvious.

[JW Insider]

9 hours ago, Fausto Hoover said:

While most of the 1,006 case files of abuse occurred in jurisdictions where there was no legal obligation for ministers of religion to report, contrary to Counsel Assisting’s assertion, the files on hand confirm that close to 400 cases of abuse have been reported to secular authorities by victims or others. In some cases, the victims or their families have exercised their right not to report the matter to the secular authorities and their decision has been respected by congregation elders. In still other instances, the victims or their families have later decided to report the matter and congregation elders have provided support.

Thanks for adding this. It validates the point I made earlier, and was also a point made on the Reddit link. It admits several important points.

First, it's the admission by the JW defense that NONE of the cases were ever turned in the authorities by the JW congregation even though at least SOME of the case files of abuse occurred in jurisdictions where there WAS a legal obligation for ministers of religion to report.

Also, it was clear that the Australian court had determined that MOST of the cases DID occur in jurisdictions where there WAS such a legal obligation.

It clearly admits that it was only the victims or others who reported. And that the only involvement of the elders was when victims or their families later decided to report, and in some of those instances the elders provided support.

We know from the BCH case that one elder did evidently come forward as a reluctant witness 11 years later to make a statement. But that statement is sloppy and not very supportive at all. He says he barely knew the perpetrator except for a very short time related to the judicial meeting he was called in to join. But he can't remember what year, or which daughter. He remembers two things the daughter said something about how the father had "interfered" with her, but can't remember the "extent of the interference." He appears to hide behind the excuse that he "can't remember the exact words" she used as a way to avoid discussing anything additional about her claim. In fact, he never even mentioned the second thing he said he remembered that the daughter had said.

In other words, he would confirm nothing that could even be supportive of a true claim of sexual abuse even though the elder was the chairman of the committee that disfellowshipped BCH for it - and justified that judgment to be correct even after appeal. Then this elder (Bennett) actually indicates at the end that he is there INVOLUNTARILY, which was already obvious by the way he didn't really support the victim claimant.

Who needs "support" of that kind?

[Pudgy]

I will have to admit, Fausto, it is absolutely fascinating to watch you duke it out with JWInsider, who presents solid facts and reasonable analysis, and you, who misconstrue and bend EVERYTHING into an agenda driven obfuscation based on laughable premises to unsuccessfully defend the indefensible.

 … Good material to provide dialog for a script. JWInsider will be cast as Mighty Mouse, and you will be cast as Oil Can Harry.

I can easily visualize you both at it for the rest of the year, neither conceding defeat until one or the other has a stroke from frustration.

But, “practice makes perfect” and your ad-homonym attacks are getting less painfully transparent.

[Srecko Sostar]

3 hours ago, Fausto Hoover said:

Watchtower:

Religious confessions
EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 127 Religious confessions (1) A person who is or was a member of the clergy of any church or religious denomination is entitled to refuse to divulge that a religious confession was made, or the contents of a religious confession made, to the person when a member of the clergy.

WTJWorg persistently (and unsuccessfully for people who see real WTJWorg) claims that there are no clergy class in their teology and practice. At least that's what they claim in front their membership and the other people they preach the gospel to.

On the other hand, they refer to the Catholic Church and their hierarchy, which is the same as in WTJWorg, when they want to have the privilege of confession and not revealing the so-called "confessional secret" to Courts.
Confession or confidential information can only be said in front of one person, but not in front of three or more people. A "confession" made in front of more than one person ceases to be confidential information.

Since, at least publicly, WTJWorg has no clergy class, but all are "brothers", this interpretation you presented does not apply to them. Full stop.

[Srecko Sostar]

 

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

A "confession" made in front of more than one person ceases to be confidential information.

Related to that, it has also been ruled in some courts that it was no longer a mere religious confession due to the very fact that the WTS kept detailed data on the perpetrators, and sent these "confessions" to secretaries to have forms typed, and then sent the details to Branch headquarters to have them discussed by lawyers, and retyped by secretaries in another database visible to several people in the service and correspondence departments.

Also, these were not voluntary confessions in most cases, anyway. In fact, in only 579 out of 1,006 alleged perpetrators was there a definite confession recorded. Not even 58%. Part of the judicial process is an attempt to try to get a guilty party to confess and judge whether there was sufficient repentance.