Dr Monica Applewhite's evidence rejected by Australian Child Abuse Royal Commission

by jwleaks 29 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  jwleaks

  Australian Child Abuse Royal Commission rejects Dr Monica Applewhite's evidence and testimony.

  [QUOTE] Dr Applewhite acknowledged that her report did not identify the basis on which she had formed her opinions.657 She accepted that her report failed to identify the ‘current standards’ of other religious organisations658 or which ‘religious organisations’ she referred to in writing her report.659 Dr Applewhite told the Royal Commission that her understanding of material provided to parents and families about sexual development in children by other faith-based organisations was ‘anecdotal’.660

  Dr Applewhite accepted that it would be difficult for the Royal Commission to accept the opinions expressed in paragraphs 36, 45, and 46 of her report because her report did not identify the basis on which those opinions were formed.661
  

  We do not consider that Dr Applewhite’s report and the opinions expressed therein assist the Royal Commission in its inquiry for the following reasons:
  

  •Dr Applewhite did not identify in her report or in oral evidence the facts and assumptions that she relied upon in forming her opinions.

  •Opinions that Dr Applewhite expressed were in large part directed to how the Jehovah’s Witness organisation compares with other religious organisations in its response to child sexual abuse. The material on which the comparison could be made was not apparent in the report.

  •Dr Applewhite’s report did not include consideration of the experiences of BCG and BCB or of any other survivor of child sexual abuse whose complaint was dealt with by the Jehovah’s Witness organisation. The report is limited to an opinion about the documented policies and other material rather than about the practical application and effect of those documented policies.

  In these circumstances, we do not accept the opinions that Dr Applewhite expressed in paragraphs 36, 45 and 46 of her report. The evidence before the Royal Commission reveals serious failures in the practices and procedures of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation with respect to the sexual abuse of children.
  

  Pages 74, 75.

  http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/c2d1f1f5-a1f2-4241-82fb-978d072734bd/Report-of-Case-Study-No-29
  
• 

  jwleaks

  Hopefully organizations around the world will carry out their due diligence before considering as to whether to hire the services of Dr Applewhite.

  Related Media Links (from 2015):

  http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/jehovahs-witness-sex-abuse-report-under-fire-at-royal-commission-20150730-giofjg.html

  http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/07/31/royal-commission-rejects-abuse-expert
• 

  prologos

  The commission agreed, Applewhite's presentation was white wash, washed out.
• 

  OUTLAW

  Dr Monica Applewhite's evidence rejected by Australian Child Abuse Royal Commission

  So the ARC recognizes "WATCHTARDS"..

  Watchtower isn`t going to like that..
  
• 

  smiddy

  Dr. Monica Applewhite was shown up as a "witness" for JW`s with no credability in the ARC.

  She should be ashamed of herself .

  And as jwleaks says , hopefully organizations around the world will carry out due dilligence before considering hiring the services of Dr Monica Applewhite.
• 

  zeb

  Remember that WT gave MA a copy of the elders book never supposed to be given to any woman. The rules are flip flop as we go.
  
• 

  cofty

  The report is limited to an opinion about the documented policies and other material rather than about the practical application and effect of those documented policies.

  She is either lazy or willing to say whatever she is paid to say.
  
  
• 

  steve2

  Her "research" on JW organization's policies on child sexual abuse was confined to reading its published literature on the topic. She gushed that the information was "better" than that found in other churches - but did not state what exactly she based comparisons on. She interviewed no JWs themselves and - this is absolute stupendous ignorance - acquainted herself with no information about the sexual abuse complainants who appeared before the Royal Commission.

  If this report justly torpedoes further JW organization's reputation, the reputation of Monuca Applewhite, the organization's paid expert witness, will be not that far behind.
• 

  konceptual99

  Have not the WTS referred to MA's previous glowing reports about their child abuse policies in the literature? If so I wonder if this will get the magic whiteout applied and all memory of her and her words erased from the WT public record?

  Can Wifibandit or any of our other ace archivists confirm?
• 

  Half banana

  I agree steve2, Monica Applewhite must have tarnished her credibility as an expert in her own field of social problems and sexual abuse cases. Also it must call into question the integrity of the company she works for Park Dietz and Associates of Los Angeles who call themselves “forensic lawyers”.

  Applewhite’s blurb on the Park Dietz website says she is an expert in “root causes” of sexual abuse and has studied 1800 cases. The questions arise as to why she jeopardised her otherwise impeccable credentials for this particular client the Watchtower? Was she bamboozled by their charm or taken in by highly detailed in-house documents specially prepared for her?

  The issue under investigation was not the causes of sexual abuse but the way the WT org handled the incidents. Perhaps she was not well equipped for this aspect of the hearing and therefore the wrong lawyer to defend the religion...but then she was the choice of the WT or the company who supplied her services?

  Any individual or company who is asked to defend the JW org could learn a lesson from this that it will not turn out well for them.