"They (WT) took me out of context", Gail Bethea-Jackson video

by Fatfreek 155 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  steve2

  Pixies, as stated earlier, I appreciate hearing your views. You've certainly helped widen the perspective. It's a shame that many of the points you have raised here will not - and maybe cannot be - corroborated by the Watchtower.

  Who will be given access to that one hour video to see if in fact Gail Bethea-Jackson's words have been taken out of context? That would easily settle the matter wouldn't it?

  By the way, you mention ex-JWs "hassling" her. I haven't and I wouldn't. But to keep it in perspective: She is a registered mental health clinician. As such, she is accountable for what she has said in a publically available forum. You are free to say she is only trying to protect her reputation because ex-JWs have brought her attention to a potentially controversial opinion on child sex abuse. As I stated earlier, fair enough. In the normal course of events, these issues would be reasonably publically aired so that the truth could come out. It is just a shame that the fairest way to settle this - access to the the full one hour video - is probably not going to happen. That leaves both sides - yours as a defender of the Watchtower Society and others as critics of the Watchtower Society - left in a realm that largely consists of speculation regarding the fuller picture.
• 

  dogisgod

  Wow. What liars. Thanks for your work!!!!!
• 

  AudeSapere

  You know... This is pretty amazing when you consider the efforts that this organization when thru to shut down Quotes' site.

  And Quotes did not editing. Just straight citing in its entirety.

  Funny People. Extremely Questionable Ethics.

  -Denise.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Death to the pixies:

  It is false to say the Watchtower has not presented Gail’s words in a context. Specifically the Watchtower presents her interview by hyper linking Gail’s own words (i.e., “body of knowledge”) to a Watchtower published article discussing child molestation at the hands of adults. This places Gail’s expression into the context of adult child molesters. Whether Gail was or was not addressing adult child molesters is unverifiable without seeing the raw video. But we do have Gail’s word that the Watchtower misused and misrepresented her remarks. It is unlikely she would make a written accusation against the Watchtower organization were she unsure of herself. The liability would be enormous for what is, essentially, a one-woman band.

  The Watchtower presentation of Gail is also misleading in that it presents her video interview as “Jehovah's Witnesses' Response to Inquiries on Child Abuse Jehovah's Witnesses: Progressive Understanding of Child Abuse for Society in General”. Yet, Gail is not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and neither is she speaking for Jehovah's Witnesses.

  As for Gail’s use of the term pedophile, though the term is typically used in reference to individuals older than 16 years of age, this is not always the case. As a term, pedophilia is a clinical diagnosis, usually determined by a psychiatrist or psychologist. (The typical legal term to describe the crime committed by pedophiles is forcible sexual offense or something similar.) It is not unheard of for individuals younger than 16 to be diagnosed as pedophiles. Accordingly, it is foolish to read too much into Gail’s use of the term pedophile. In her career she has probably met more than a few youthful offenders who were diagnosed as pedophiles. When she expresses herself to a general audience she may intentionally use the term pedophile in relation to adolescent offenders so her audience understands the nature of behavior and its seriousness. The general public is painfully aware of the dangers of pedophilia. The public has little understanding of the seriousness of adolescent sexual offenders, or even a good awareness of the subject.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  restrangled

  DTP everything you are doubting was already discussed here a couple of weeks before Fatfreak wrote and Gail responded

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/8/147435/1.ashx

  I don't want to go into detail again (please read the read, its short and to the point), but it is suffice to say that you can't alter context with video in the same way that you can alter the context of the written word. With the written word it is easy. When video is involved, you see exactly where each cut (and altering of the text) is made. Any professional who watches that video will readily point out that the interview was not shot or edited by real professionals...1st the framing is off, 2nd the auxilary lighting is absent, 3rd no self respecting professional would alter the context of a 1:20 segment by using 8 or 9 cuts....it would be the equivilant of pulling a line from Genisis, half a line from Deutoronomy, a few words from Psalms, a section of Mark, a line from Romans, then combining them alll to form a new paragraph (all without the knowledge of the author) and presenting it as a single free flowing thought.

  You see, with video, proving context is easy....the segment must go from beginning to end with NO CUTS. Watch the video that the WTS presents, there are at least 8 or 9 cuts in a single 1:20 minute static interview. Were they under time constraints? No, there was no reason that they couldn't present the entire unedited video and corresponding unedited text.

  I won't go any further than to tell you that if you show that video to any professional and ask them to comment on the "context" of the video,...after they stop laughing and ask you if you are joking, they will repeat the same thing that I did.

  If you apply common sense to what I wrote and watch the video yourself....just simply pay attention to the video cuts.....every time there is a cut....the "context" has been altered. Now once you are in that flow, go back and pay attention to the audio and you will find that the inflection in her voice changes. This is not the free flowing thought that the WTS paragraph represents. It is a hack job of amateurish proportions.

  Also to give you a mental picture and example of how an interviewer can lead a interviewee on, remember the Daily Show segment where Jon Stewart asked the representative from Florida to look into the camera and say that he loved cocaine and prostitutes. Of course he responded by saying no...But Stewart kept after him and the crowd got into it and finally after hemming and hawing, Wexler looked straight into the camera and said "I love cocaine and prostitutes". After he left the stage Jon Stewart laughed and said, "that guys career is over".

  R's Hubby
• 

  steve2

  As for Gail’s use of the term pedophile, though the term is typically used in reference to individuals older than 16 years of age, this is not always the case.

  it is foolish to read too much into Gail’s use of the term pedophile. In her career she has probably met more than a few youthful offenders who were diagnosed as pedophiles. When she expresses herself to a general audience she may intentionally use the term pedophile in relation to adolescent offenders so her audience understands the nature of behavior and its seriousness.

  Marvin, in general the term Pedophile is not used to describe "children" (under age 16) who sexually offend against other children. Quite simply, there is no recognised diagnostic label for these children who sexually offend against other children.

  The Diagnostic And Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th Edition, Text Revision, 2000) states the following on Pedophilia: "The individual with Pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in later adolescence with Pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgement must be used..." (P. 571). In the DSM, "later adolescence" is taken to refer to persons whose age is at least 16 years, given the definition of adolescence (period in development that occurs between the beginning of puberty and adulthood).

  This makes it all the more critical that we see the full transcript of Gail's interview, because it is very unusual for persons under 16 to be described as Pedophiles.

  In my view, the whole issue hinges on access to that video. But I am also realistic because it is unlikely to happen.
• 

  AK - Jeff

  First chance I had to see your thread here and the letter.

  Thank you, Len.

  The depths to which this lying whore religion will go to bury her lies and sins in amazing. I feel dirty every time I think about the years I wasted there. "stop touching the unclean thing" has taken on a new meaning.

  Jeff
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Steve2:

  Thanks for repeating what I wrote. Again, the term pedophile “is typically used in reference to offenders who are older than 16 years of age”. That is what I said. Essentially, this is what you repeated.

  Whether adolescent offenders (or adult offenders for that matter) are diagnosed as pedophiles depends, among other things, on emotional and sexual maturity. Typically adult (over 16) pedophiles report the condition began at puberty, which if true means had these received psychiatric care as adolescents they would have been diagnosed as pedophiles. There is a broad clinical term used to diagnose adolescent sexual offenders. That term is paraphilia. It is a broad term referring to sexual deviancy. But, again, this is a clinical term and not a criminal-legal term.

  The source you cite (The Diagnosis and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) provides a basis for statistical review and diagnosis. This is for coding purposes, which assists greatly in medical research. But this manual typically leaves room for the atypical patient/diagnosis.

  Regarding pedophilia, the manual states “For individuals in late adolescence with Pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account.” This is understood in clinical practice to mean individuals under the age of 16 can have the condition of pedophilia and receive the diagnosis accordingly. (See: Ryan C. W Hall, MD, and Richard C. W. Hall, MD, PA, A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues, Mayo Clinic Proceedings, April 2007; 82(4): 457-471)

  Though I would agree it is unusual to hear of individuals under 16 referred to as pedophiles, this is not surprising given 1) the disparity of population under 16 compared with over 16, 2) the relatively small window available for clinical diagnosis for adolescent sexual deviants, and 3) the resulting prominence of adult pedophiles in mass media.

  Though the diagnosis of under-16 pedophiles is atypical it may be symptomatic of lack of diagnosis rather than age. From a clinical perspective pedophilia is a psychosomatic disorder of sexual deviancy. So regardless of age if a person has 1) the mental condition fitting the profile of pedophilia and 2) a sufficient physiological maturity (sexual) then the diagnosis is within clinical guidelines.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Steves:

  By the way, in my view it is patently absurd to think Gail Bethea-Jackson would say parents did not know (or think) 20 years ago that a full grown man (the typical pedophile) raping their 6-year-old Lucy was a serious crime with emotional consequences. If we assume such a statement from Gail is absurd then the Watchtower has, without a doubt, misrepresented her statements.

  Do you seriously believe Gail would have said the above was not seen as a “criminal matter” 20 years ago?

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  steve2

  Do you seriously believe Gail would have said the above was not seen as a “criminal matter” 20 years ago?

  Hi Marvin,

  As stated earlier in this thread, what I believe or anyone else believes is immaterial. This side of not hearing the full video, all any of us can do is speculate. Of course, I would love to believe that a mental health professional would not have expressed such a seemingly uninformed and controversial opinion about adult child sex offenders.

  We need access to the full video to establish that she has not in fact been quoted out of context. Yes, the watchtower is probably not going to make the entire video available for scrutiny. On the other hand, if they believe they have not misquoted her, it really is in their interests to make the video available.

  In the meantime, without access to the video, defences of either her or the watchtower are speculative.