jwleaks: Don't be fooled by Watchtower's strategy. They knew it was a short hearing and they merely tried to run down the time. Their strategy failed. Did you notice that every single time the Watchtower was caught out on a dumb reference, or some unrelated out-of-date reference, they had a reply already prepared. Spinks and O'Brien already had the answer to the error and mumbled on for as long a possible. Neither Spinks nor O'Brien needed to use the Ringtail to review the reference under discussion. This is no coincidence. They knew the answer because they had rehearsed.
Watchtower merely presented in their statements, submissions and letters as a string of red herrings. They wanted the ARC to focus on these red herrings. The ARC was not fooled but gave them enough rope.
Point taken. You are right. Their supposed stupidity is just a reflection of their disdain for everybody not of their special circle.
The strategy seemed fairly clear. Walk in to the hearing with an incomplete procedure manual in hand and then get the commission all bogged down in the little details that they didn't finish properly. The WT duo did the predictable - they floundered around, flopping and squirming, and tried to drown everyone in minutiae and legalese. But you are right - a lot of their blubbering around was designed to stall and not say anything at all.
Not once did the WT reps offer a single word of apology. Instead, O'Brien insisted that the WT did not accept the commission's evaluation that the WT did, indeed, fall within the terms of reference of the Commission. He kept insisting that the WT was going to pay out redress if the claim was "institutional abuse". So we already know what their defense for resisting a redress scheme is - they are going to claim the WT was not responsible in cases of "familial abuse", in spite of the commission already addressing that in their final report.
The WT must be the only institution so far that hasn't offered a word of apology to the victims and have turned up, after two years, with basically nothing in hand other than a couple letters from headquarters to deal with the numerous deficiencies that were revealed after the first hearing.
Two witness rule - the WT is standing like a rock on that one. Totally disregarding the scriptures that allow for cases without that rule
Shunning - Blame the victim for that one. It's their fault. The victim is choosing to shun the congregation
Women - no. no. no. no. no. And did we say no? NO.
Victim facing the accuser - oh. okay. In special circumstances. Maybe.
Transparency - we're working on it. We have a handbook almost ready - can you tell us what to put in here? You know...take up valuable time ironing all the tiny details we haven't done yet
Redress: Sure. But only if the case is defined by us, the WT, as falling in the terms of reference. The WT will decide if they are to blame
Reporting: we will tell the victim they have the right to do so
Apology to victims: ....huh? what? an apology?