Dr Monica Applewhite!

by username 64 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  username

  I'm just listening to this so called doctors testimony. Where did the watchtower dig her up from. Her answers have mostly been maybe's and I think!

  The watchtower are proving to be more and more corrupt with every word this so called doctor utters. Am I right in saying this is an expert witness for the watchtower? My guess she was or is hired on the cheap, she has absolutely no expert knowledge at all. Even her vocabulary gives her away!

  Could she even be a bethelite masquerading as a doctor? I'm sure the watchtower could rustle up a few legal looking documents!

  Also if she was an expert in her field she would be vocal, she is not confident and her voice is shaking too. She has absolutely no clue!
• 

  oppostate

  No, she's considered an expert due to her involvement in many cases involving sexual abuse and providing services to many institutions on what lead to abuse and what steps to implement in their procedures to prevent those situations from happening.
• 

  nonjwspouse

  She is a hired expert. That's her job. Plus, she is ( wait for it)

  Catholic!

  As someone else posted, I hope she got paid up front! Eventually, she was agreeing with the RC that there is something fundamentally wrong with the WT policies.
• 

  GodZoo

  Another irony that just occurred to me.. the Watchtower bestow on this woman who is a practicing member of what they have condemned as the worst and most filthy religion in history for 140 years, the greatest responsibility and honour in this very significant, serious and highly publicised Royal Commission's Investigation to defend them and their practices including having full access to the hallowed elders book.

  Yet no female from within their own ranks is ever even allowed the paltry privilege of holding a microphone on a stick in any of their simple basic and insignificant common meetings let alone gaze upon the elders book cover less her husband be reprimanded and probably demoted.

  Their double standards and stinking hypocrisy are just shameless.
• 

  Viviane

  I am just now watching this, but she is extremely dodgy and sketchy. It seems she's attempted to inflate her credentials. Very unpolished.
• 

  joe134cd

  I got the impression she was competent at her job. I think the lawyer and judge rattled her a bit. I also think she should of been more thorough in her report and should of done more preparation.
• 

  GodZoo

  I got the impression she was competent at her job. I think the lawyer and judge rattled her a bit.

  Getting rattled is not being very competent is it. If you are honest and truthful and in the right you can never be rattled.
• 

  username

  I agree GodZoo. If someone is an expert in their field then they are going to come across as confident in what they are saying.

  She is not confident at all. She's coming apart with just about every question! Hardly an expert in my opinion!
• 

  GodZoo

  As a high level legal professional she is meant to be trained and is also paid to not fall apart but be cool and composed under any kind of pressure. Her behaviour and demeanor is more like that of a guilty defendant.

  She is crumbling before us because it is gradually dawning on her that she is attempting to defend the indefensible
• 

  konceptual99

  I suspect it's a combination of things.

  Her qualifications are a little minor league on the surface but she has worked in the field for a long time and clearly has built up some competence in helping organisations build awareness and improve procedures. I suspect she has found a niche and exploited it.

  I think she has been slightly hoodwinked by the WTS. I think she has been convinced to accept a WTS view of their child protection policy and has never been engaged to do a grass roots analysis. I think she has probably been swayed by opportunity to make some good cash without needing to do a lot of work. If this is true it does not reflect well on her. Her lack of preparation for the Commission add weight to this perception.

  I also have a suspicion that she has went into the session with some trepidation on the basis that she probably looked at the testimony to date and realised her report and opinions would be questioned far more rigorously than expected as well as possibly becoming aware that the WTS policy was in fact far less supportable than she imagined.

  I seriously doubt she will be working for the WTS again.