Steven Unthank: What do we really know? (page 24)

steve2

Even people who have developed a legally compelling case against another party may at times articulate that case in such a way that it raises questions more about their judgment at that time rather than specifically about the compelling case itself. Sure, I do wonder why anyone would claim that a copied image is that of a child recently raped in a specified congregation. But even if the image were of the actual child victim I would wonder more about why they used the image at all. But - and this is my point - those questions are separate and unrelated to the case Mr Unthank has brought against the Watchtower Society.

soft+gentle

its the obfuscation that gets to me. Too much like watchtowerspeak. I have been asking questions but have been told to check the evidence. the only evidence available is from Mr unthank - (for the record I believe his cases were real) - It is his interpretation of events that is at issue and it is this that need clarifying as his interpretations are full of obfuscation. the picture is a case in point. If he was using the image as a symbol and if he was borrowing the image he ought to have said so especially as his intended audience was worldwide. the impression I was left with was that he had drawn the pic himself as he does have artwork displayed on his website.

I will say thought that I have great respect and admiration for Mr Unthank and for his tenacity. But for such sensitive material he needed to get some outside professional help. I know this is expensive but to blunder on without it does more harm legally than good. But I still think much potential public good has come out Mr unthank's endeavours

I would encourage the parents of the child who has been abused to keep on seeking justice. But they need to ascertain the facts first. children do insert items into strange places on their own. children amongst themselves can do so to one another too. If an adult member of the congregation did this then this is a heinous crime that needs police intervention. If the police are not intervening/taking it further then we would have to consider that there may be a problem with Mr unthanks interpretation of the incident, given that his original charges (his 5 charges that is) are full of obfuscations (obfuscation in the sene of watchtowerspeak that is).

edit: these questions remain

Is there an ongoing police investigation into the allegations of child sexual abuse regarding this young girl?

Does the WWC legislation apply to Jehovahs witnesses?

smiddy

Can we put this thread to rest ?

Steven Unthank has acheived a helluva lot more than any of us have done in bringing this into the victorian court of law,and the many posters on this site who have e-mailed ,letter writing politicians,e-mailed or sent letters to newspapers,actually got a worldwide awareness of,and support from many people,and though not acheiving what he set out to do,did in fact have success in forcing the WTB&TS to obtain working with children checks here in victoria.Of course we are not all going to agree with him in every aspect of his endeavour but JC give the man a break,it would have been a very emotional year and I would think a terrible strain on his health.I think we need to give him a little slack and end this saga.

smiddy

soft+gentle

smiddy

,did in fact have success in forcing the WTB&TS to obtain working with children checks here in victoria

and your proof?

Azazel

here is a link to a pdf i printed off the vic gov court website. I had phoned the court and they confirmed the cases were being heard on the 21st Feb 2012 and they gave me the web address to see. I printed it out so you can see the address it came from.

SweetBabyCheezits kudos to you for making your concerns in a valid manner.

I rang the court back in dec to confirm it wasnt a scam in any way.

Az

talesin

No, Cowboy, I didn't PM him first. I suspect the elders will have some strong words of counsel for me tomorrow since I failed to "take it up first with my brother."

No need to go there, OC in no way sounded like a JW when he said that.

In my part of the world (out of the KH for over 35 years, by the way), it is customary to go to the SOURCE of one's complaint before broadcasting it in public. That's just common courtesy in polite society.

steve2

There's nothing wrong in questioning any person's claims. Listeners' outrage at the questioning does not make the questions go away; in fact, it makes those questions appear more worthy of answers.

In many cases, it was our active, thinking, questioning brains and our refusal to dull our thinking for the sake of peace that helped us open our eyes and ears to the Watchtower's hypocritically exclusivist claims.

Similarly, there's absolutely nothing wrong in questioning Mr Unthank's claims - provided we are open to hearing the answers. On the basis of what I have read and heard, I will grant that Mr Unthank is genuine and has done a lot to raise awareness of the Watchtower's archaic and pedophile-protective "policy" on child sexual abuse among its own rank and file.

I honestly can live with him using questionable judgement at times in the way he words his statements or his claim that an image is of a child sex abuse victim. Fact is, the man can tidy up his statements and refrain from using images at all and his work in raising awareness of the Watchtower's policy remains valid in and of itself.

We're all learning and, I would guess, based on the exchange of robust opinions on this thread, that Mr Unthank will give very careful thought to how he words his statements and makes use of images in future. If this thread acheives that outcome, it has been worthwhile.

cyberjesus

ScenicViewer/Sizemik That website is not owned nor operated by a judicial entity. The first part in a web address aaa in aaa.bbb.ccc can be anything you want as long as you own bbb. therefore that website could be named Jehovahsweb.ozehosting.com.au because if you own ozehosting you can name the first part whatever you want... that doesnt make it official. and a web site can also pull information from any database as long as you know where to query the data from.

That is not my opinion... that is a fact. I did a domain name search to see who owns ozehosting.com.au and this is the result

http://www.robtex.com/dns/ozehosting.com.html#records

http://www.robtex.com/dns/www.magistratescourtvic.ozehosting.com.au.html#whois

You CAN compare them with the records of the official website here they are:

http://www.robtex.com/dns/www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au.html#records

http://www.robtex.com/dns/www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au.html#whois

Those are not opinions but real facts....

still thinking

cyberjesus...do think someone is throwing in bogus information to discredit Unthank? Some things just don't add up.

cyberjesus

Still Thinking, I dont know and I dont think so..... These are some facts that make you go hmm..

1.- The famous pic.... In the unthanks website he did post that the picture was of the girl who was raped.... SBC found that that it was not of the girl but it belonged to someone else

2.- The above URL and its validity

3.- The strange case of the PAY PAL account frozen plus the Bank Account frozen as well

4.- In the copy-and-paste letter from the Director of Public Prosecution the Director or his secretary mispelled his own name....

5.- The whole Australian-JW-Sex-Ring.

If the whole thing is for real then something really bad is happening to Mr Unthank.... Hoewever those are many coincidences.

Steven Unthank: What do we really know?

Share this