Something that's bugging me. Why didn't the ARC ask Jackson..

by defender of truth 12 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  defender of truth

  ..about child molesters being reappointed to positions of trust? Also, whether they would consider using 'worldly' expertise when assessing potential risk?

  Why was Spinks questioned as to whether the organisation should use professionals to assess whether a pedophile is fit to rejoin the JW community (or whether they are still a danger), let alone be reappointed.. And yet Jackson, one of the policy makers in the org, was not even spoken to about pedophiles being judged as 'repentant' and even safe to be reappointed, by incompetent elders??

  Have I missed something? (Not the first time I'm sure)..
  
• 

  Iown Mylife

  It looked like the questions were angled toward establishing how everything the branch does is by permission of the home office, and proving the franchiser is culpable. Also that part about whether they would join in with a plan to compensate victims, sort of sounded like their participation might help them avoid bigger amounts awarded by courts.

  Well just my theory.

  Marina
• 

  OrphanCrow

  defender: Why was Spinks questioned as to whether the organisation should use professionals to assess whether a pedophile is fit to rejoin the JW community (or whether they are still a danger), let alone be reappointed.. And yet Jackson, one of the policy makers in the org, was not even spoken to about pedophiles being judged as 'repentant' and even safe to be reappointed, by incompetent elders??

  I think the reason was exactly like you stated - Spinks had already been questioned about it. And, the Commission has the documents to show the WTS' stand on the matter. Questioning Jackson about it would have been redundant.

  It appeared like the Counsel had a game plan and that time constraints did not allow for all lines of questioning to be persued and it didn't help that Jackson launched into a sermon whenever he was given half a chance. Jackson's bibble pontificating consumed lots of clock time.

  I would suspect that if Jackson was questioned about some of the policies that the counsel didn't bring up, that he would have just replied "that's not my area" and then he would have found somewhere in his bibble to qualify how helpers are the ones who do all that while the GB is busy preying and making "scriptural" decisions.

  Jackson could have been days on the stand if all lines of questioning were pursued.
• 

  Vidiot

  Iown Mylife - "It looked like the questions were angled toward establishing how everything the branch does is by permission of the home office, and proving the franchiser is culpable."

  All in all, I actually think the Commission's done a pretty solid job on that front.
• 

  SecretSlaveClass

  
  defender of trutha day ago..about child molesters being reappointed to positions of trust? Also, whether they would consider using 'worldly' expertise when assessing potential risk?
  Why was Spinks questioned as to whether the organisation should use professionals to assess whether a pedophile is fit to rejoin the JW community (or whether they are still a danger), let alone be reappointed.. And yet Jackson, one of the policy makers in the org, was not even spoken to about pedophiles being judged as 'repentant' and even safe to be reappointed, by incompetent elders??
  Have I missed something? (Not the first time I'm sure)..

  Yes! I'm actually puting together some points where I think Angus missed several opportunities - this was the most obvious one. It boggles my mind quite frankly, particularly since it was the RC who made it public??

  Regardless of Spinx, I think they could have tied Jackson to it directly as a policy maker whereas Spinx had paased the buck on to the GB.
• 

  millie210

  Here is something I have wondered......

  is there a chance that a deal was struck? That Jackson would appear before the RC and in return he would be given a list of the questions to be asked ahead of time?

  I know this is a technique used in a lot of interviews.

  If it was done this way, the RC might have felt this was still better than not having him appear at all.

  I keep reminding myself that their (the RCs) end game is not the same as mine.

  I would like to see the GB take a tumble. The RC wants to make the institutions it is looking at take measures to end policies that dont protect children.

  Looking at it in that light, maybe it explains why certain questions were asked/not asked?
• 

  Mephis

  I don't think so millie. If he knew the questions being asked, he wouldn't have fumbled so badly on some of them. He'll have likely been given some rehearsal with his own legal team, which would include an overview of what was likely to come up, and that does some to show in parts.

  There's no real need to chase some questions down. Jackson was there primarily to establish that the GB were in charge and to try and find the extent of their ability to compromise on potential recommendations. He was asked to accept that child abuse is a problem within JWs, and even amongst those with a position of responsibility, so I think the commission, based on their own reading of the evidence they have, are aware of the problems - that was also highlighted in the questioning of Applewhite (Stewart asked her to agree that once that boundary had been crossed, there was a huge risk factor that re-offending would occur in the future). Think the submission from counsel for the commission, with the potential recommendations, will clarify the procedures they will expect to be put into place to prevent it happening.
• 

  umbertoecho

  I doubt that very much. The Royal Commission had been misled deliberately by various elders and no doubt the WT lawyers.........When it was discovered how much authority the GB has, then there was no excuse left not to bring him in....Justice McClellan was visibly annoyed as was Angus Stewart. People had phoned, emailed............everything was done to make sure that the RC did not fall for the ruse........In the end, there was little time to thoroughly interrogate the bastard.

  Royal Commission does not make back stage deals........too many with too much information and a serious issues at stake.
• 

  umbertoecho

  The point was that the RC wanted to establish the power base of WTBTS even when operating within Australia. It was very important to see how the questions asked would be answered or deflected by Jackson. He was so dishonest, it was very evident that he was dodging and doing his best to pander....No one liked it and no one thought his "I'm so glad you asked that question......" crap was worth a fart in the wind. He was a sycophantic asshole........

  I was reassured that they, the staff were not misled. They would not have phoned if it was not important to reassure those who had come forward. I am one of so many who came forward but were afraid to speak...........Now the facts are out there for investigation. I don't know what the outcome will be. I do know that the boil has been lanced though.
• 

  Brokeback Watchtower

  I think the RC asked all the right question for the purpose of the inquiry. They need not to convict GB member Jackson they merely need to see where the Governing Body stand on this issue and their willingness to comply with the law and their willingness to make changes(repentance). So all the questions asked all so will open the Watchtower to tons of lawsuits with easy wins in court now that this was done in public and the evilness of this religion exposed..