@sparrowdown - Every robot goes down for maintenance at some point.
ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released
by jwleaks 347 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Richard Oliver
Thank you orphan crow for that wonderful back and forth. Now where in the letter to the body of elders does it say you will contact the service department first? Or does it state that the legal department will be contacted first to give legal advice based on the law. That advice would be dependent on applicable laws of the jurisdiction in which the offense took place. Following legal advice the caller would be transfered to the service department to answer any spiritual or congregational issues. So again this is a two step call, first legal advice to ensure all laws are followed then legal advice.
-
sparky1
"What's going on is Brother Richard having a stroke he seems to be repeating himself?" - sparrowdown
Perhaps he's suffering from repeated strokes?
-
dubstepped
Richard, I know you pride yourself on detail and reading comprehension. You must have overlooked some posts by FastJehu.
-
OrphanCrow
RO: Thank you orphan crow for that wonderful back and forth. Now where in the letter to the body of elders does it say you will contact the service department first? Or does it state that the legal department will be contacted first to give legal advice based on the law. That advice would be dependent on applicable laws of the jurisdiction in which the offense took place. Following legal advice the caller would be transfered to the service department to answer any spiritual or congregational issues. So again this is a two step call, first legal advice to ensure all laws are followed then legal advice.
Good morning, RO. You are welcome.
Damn, I guess I was a confused elder after all. thank you for correcting me. So, I guess the first phone call I was supposed to make is to the legal department.
For what? To ensure all laws are followed? So that means that a WT lawyer is going to ask the elder to determine if the images found on Brother Wewee's computer are actually images of child abuse so it can be determined if any laws have been broken first.
Okay. How does that work? Oh! I think Fisherman has nailed it!
Fisherman: "A sexual image of a child is ‘abuse’ or ‘exploitation’
Who can argue with that! (Actually evidence of abuse.)Evidence! The elders will have to investigate and examine that evidence in order to get the correct legal advice from headquarters, right? And how is that done? Hmmm....BOE meetings called, elders gather and bring Brother Wewee's laptop with the offensive images on it, the elders distribute those images among themselves, discuss them and evaluate them. You know, so they can pass all those details on to some lawyer to evaluate. Just so that it can be determined how offensive and/or illegal those images are.
And then, after the lawyer goes through descriptions provided to him (detailed, 'cause the WT is nothing but meticulous!) of those images of children being raped, then, they can proceed to get instructions from the service desk. The instructions that say that "viewing" child pornography is not child abuse. The instructions that say that the frequency and extent of the "viewing" must be determined. Now the elders can ask Brother Wewee those additional details.
Like Fisherman said - good thing there is evidence to examine and provide! Actual photos of children being raped. Now, that is evidence that the elders can use! After every image is carefully examined, of course. So they can be told whether to call the police or not. "Frequency and extent" must be determined too. You know, because those elders know exactly how to examine photographs of children being abused, what to look for, decide if the children are "mature minors" and may be mistaken for almost adult, what exactly is going on in the images. And determine how often Brother Wewee was using those images.
I think Berrygerry has grasped the enormity of the situation:
Every time your perv elders look at these images to decide another perv JW's degree of guilt, those elders are also committing a criminal offense.
Fisherman: "should never be described as ‘pornography’."
The phrase you are highlighting comes from the Interpol website. I am sure they would appreciate you contacting them and asking them that question. Interpol is global - the same way that the WT claims to be. RO had pointed out that some of the documents provided as exhibits for the ARC are designed to address world wide concerns. Coincidentally, Interpol does the same thing. It may be wise for the WT to take that into consideration - global laws on the distribution of child sex abuse material.
Why then does US code 18 use the term? -
Richard Oliver
Thank you orphan crow for that wonderful back and forth. Now where in the letter to the body of elders does it say you will contact the service department first? Or does it state that the legal department will be contacted first to give legal advice based on the law. That advice would be dependent on applicable laws of the jurisdiction in which the offense took place. Following legal advice the caller would be transfered to the service department to answer any spiritual or congregational issues. So again this is a two step call, first legal advice to ensure all laws are followed then legal advice.
-
Richard Oliver
No orphan crow. Even the policy for child abuse based on the August 1 letter does not say that it has to be investigated by the elders before either the legal is contacted for legal advice or for that legal advice to be to report it. The legal advice will be on applicable laws, which in most cases will be defined as a reasonable suspecision of abuse. So again you keep confusing two separate departments with two seperate sets of advice. One is a legal determination of if a matter based on law is required to be reported and second is what internal sanctions one should receive.
-
Richard Oliver
And where did I say that the elders had to look at the images of child exploitation for them to make a determination if it is that or not. I never said that, neither did the policy say that. Also it is important to know that even the law makes a distinction between what has to be reported and by who between sexual child abuse of a person known directly to the mandatory reporter and that of images of sexual exploitation.
Also you don't have to look at this through the hypothetical of orphan crow. There was a case in the US that dealt with this. I will find you the appeals case that gives the material facts of it. If I remember correctly, the man sued the elders for reporting his viewing of images of sexual exploitation. He claimed that the elders were obligated to keep his confession secret. They originally asked him to self report, then because the wife was the one who found the images initially and they were attending marriage counseling, asked her to speak with the marriage counselor so that both the elders and the counselor and the wife could get him to self report. He informed the elders that either he did or the counselor reported it. They found out it was a lie, then reported it themselves. He claimed it was a confidential communication and sued.
-
Richard Oliver
Plus orphan crow by your logic someone else would have to have seen those images to inform the elders unless it was a confession then in that case your whole argument is moot anyways. But in the case that another person did see them, that doesn't mean that they have looked at images of child exploitation.
-
Richard Oliver
Also at least in the US arrest records are public record so following an arrest for possession images of child exploitation, there would be no need ever for elders to look at those images for a congregational investigation. The arrest record by law has to present enough evidence to justify an arrest. So even if the case never goes to trial and no testimony is given, there is evidence of at least two witnesses of the act, one is the images themselves and the second is the officer, deputy or tech that had to view the images to make a sworn arrest record.