Is forensic evidence a "witness" for chid abuse cases?

by jwfacts 30 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  jwfacts

  I have read that forensic evidence can be counted as one of the two required "witnesses" for child abuse cases, however have not seen anything in writing to support this.

  The wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses'_handling_of_child_sex_abuse states:

  DNA evidence, medical reports, or information from forensic experts or police that proves sexual abuse is also accepted as a valid "second witness", however critics argue that, without mandatory reporting for all accusations of abuse regardless of the local laws, such evidence could remain undetected.

  There is no citation provided. Does anyone have a reference to support that forensic evidence can be used by elders as a witness?
• 

  Band on the Run

  I don't have the time. Look up forensic evidence at any legal site. It is more valid than eye witness testimony. The drawback is that the battlel of the science experts might occur. I would trust forensics more than humans. Of course, a classic case of forensic evidence was the OJ Simpson trial. The DNA evidence became so convuluted I needed aspirin. How does any jury decide which scientist is the most accurate?

  This is basic law.
• 

  Band on the Run

  Oh, you mean in Witness land. I don't know. They are very ill-equipped to understand forensics. Fundamentally, if you believe little children lie and anyone who knocks on doors and attends meetings is forthright, your mind will be incapable of seeing abuse - no matter how clear the facts.

  If you follow the modern rule, that children do not lie and that adult's have immense power over children, you will see child abuse much more frequently.

  We know the JW rule. There would be no Conti case if they saw sexual abuse. The mere maintenance of a database of accused peophiles shows consciousness of liability.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  You're right. I've gone through all the BOE stuff I have and the WT library and there is nothing in writing about the acceptance of forensic evidence as a 'second witness.' But this has not been pulled from thin air. I've heard the same. I'm wondering if it was a PR release or a letter to one congregation's BOE enquiry ... ? It's bugging me like an itch I can't scratch ...
• 

  DATA-DOG

  If the Elders can use 2 separate " witnesses" or eye witness accounts/ letters or whatever as their " 2 witnesses ", then why wouldn't the testimony of Police count? It only makes sense that forensics would count as a witness.

  As far as that quote is concerned, I immediately thought about the timing of matters in JW-land. Protecting the reputation of the Organization is first, all else a distant second. By the time anything is reported and if it ever reaches the authorities, chances are the evidence is gone.. Mandatory reporting is a must. I hope people demand it.
• 

  jwfacts

  By the time anything is reported and if it ever reaches the authorities, chances are the evidence is gone.. Mandatory reporting is a must.

  That is an important point. If that say they allow foresic evidence, it is mainly to pacify the public. When a child comes forward to the elders, they don't view the medical evidence, and so treat it as if there is only one witness. Neither do they encourage a police report if not mandatory, so medical evidence may not be forthcoming, and lost by the time a child decides to take the matter further.
• 

  yourmomma

  the only JW source i have ever read make that statement is thirdwitness. i have never seen it in any publication. and as usual, its likely thirdwitness is making it up. jw's make up their own policies when they debate this issue as well as the UN, but as far as watchtower, this is not in print at least to my knowledge.
• 

  Band on the Run

  Are you saying that a rape kit results of DNA taken from a child would not count as corroboration? Maybe DNA is bogus science the way evolution is.

  How about X-rays, bruises, vaginal or rectal tearing?
• 

  jwfacts

  Yourmomma, thank you for that update. Everything I have read from ThirdWitness shows he is the master of deception in an effort to make the Watchtower look like an acceptable organisation. I will have to take that medical reports do not count as a "witness" until I see some supporting documentation.

  I have added to the Wikipedia article that a citation is needed to support that claim.
• 

  jwfacts

  The other question is whether it has been written that collaborative evidence such as photos is accepted as a second witness?