Dino Ali Taking the Stand NOW (page 5)

C0ntr013r

Don't know about videos being released but the transcripts are released here:

http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-study/636f01a5-50db-4b59-a35e-a24ae07fb0ad/case-study-29,-july-2015,-sydney

Near the bottom of the page, yesterdays transcript is already available.

The "transcripts" at the commission site (at this point) look like summaries typed up by a clerk and then signed by the witnesses as being accurate. Good enough for now, until word-for-word transcripts are made (if they even do that in Australia).

millie210

Witness My Fury
I didnt hear him do that either.... (hmmmm)
What is "the other site"? Is it pro JW I wonder?

Yes it is. Extremely pro JW

Witness My Furyo
@ konceptual99, so someone there blatantly lies about what was said to put a positive spin on things?

I just went there and read the post. It is by a (JW) woman in Australia. She mentions this was on the news on her television and as she was sitting at her computer she began to type notes on what she was seeing and hearing. She then says that the things she is putting in her post that are her opinions are italicized. The statement we are discussing here as to its validity was in the italicized part of her post. I have no idea if incident happened or didnt.

There is a 50/50 chance.

I do find it interesting that she wrote one sentence that is clearly her "opinion" and she neither "italicized" it or indicated in any way that it was her opinion which casts some doubt on her accuracy in general.

I am bolding her words to differentiate them from my own but the only part she italicized is the last paragraph.

Also,

I highlighted in yellow the sentence that she didnt italicize (after telling the reader that she was italicizing opinion statements) in yellow so it will stand out for all of you here.

Here is her post as she wrote it:

Luckily I was at my computer, so wrote down as much as I could before the session moved on to another subject. (Things in italics are my own thoughts and interpretations).

The female reporter spoke to the cameras saying.....JWs are a tightly controlled group of people who are urged to keep away from the rest of society except for when we do our charity work....We are controlled from Brooklyn by a group of 8 men appointed by God.......Each country has its own group of elders who oversee what happens in that country......each complaint has to have two witnesses......there have been 1006 perpetrators since the 1950s, and none have been reported to secular authorities.....the organisation could be criminally liable for concealment.

All I could think of was that this reporter obviously took most of her information off some website.

This morning A JW elder, Max Horley, said he destroyed notes from a meeting about the assault of BCB. The destruction was to protect the congregation and individuals involved.

Brother Horley then turned the tables and spoke directly to one member of the commission pointing out that he understood that that members organisation also destroyed confidential evidence - actually asking 'Isnt that what you do?' The commission member confirmed that his organisation also did so. (That particular question and answer was NOT included in neither the ABC nor the Sydney Morning Herald reports of yesterday or today.)

-end quote-

Ding

"I don't recall" sounds like, "We get so many of these I can't keep track of them all."

Not the image the WT wants to be projecting...

WasOnceBlind

What they actually have are convenient memories. One thing they never forget is to use the Theocratic War Strategy, which is Watchtower's teaching that says they can lie to anybody who is not entitled to know the truth in their judgement. All is fair in Theocratic Warfare, including lying to investigators, judges, and other officials.

Is this found anywhere in print? If I could find this printed in a WT or book? If it is, it might just be the thing to crack the door of doubt on a parent.

OrphanCrow

Ding: "I don't recall" sounds like, "We get so many of these I can't keep track of them all."

Yes, You are right.

Dino told the judge that "some things stick in a person's memory but others don't" (sic).

Which could be interpreted to mean "I don't recall because it wasn't important enough to stick in my memory".

The lack of recall is damning whichever you look at it. If they can't remember child abuse being reported to them it means that the abuse was insignificant in their minds.

For guys who can't remember most things asked of them, they sure can launch into detailed explanations at times when it comes time to explain their actions.

"I don't recall" means "I can't reply without lying".