The difference between Jackson attempting to appear accommodating and willing to think through the issues and seek resolutions and the submission they've put in is very striking.
Thought it may be of use to put what they wish the findings to say in one consolidated block. I'm taking the findings from 1 to 3 and then 39 onwards as being 'general'. It's horrifying how far away they are from accepting what a commissioner has already advised them should be happening.
F.3 The Jehovah’s Witness organisation may receive approximately three or four calls a month about child sexual abuse. No evidence was presented to determine if these reports involved non-Witness perpetrators, occurred before the wrongdoer’s association with Jehovah’s Witnesses, if the report was historical in nature, or if it was in fact pertaining to actual child sexual abuse.
F.39 The Australia Branch has authority to produce documents, seminars, letters to elders and letters to publishers in matters relating to its local jurisdiction as long as such do not express any view or perspective contrary to the Bible.
F.40 The Australia Branch has authority to produce documents, seminars, letters to elders and letters to publishers in matters relating to its local jurisdiction as long as such do not express any view or perspective contrary to the Bible.
F.41`Jehovah’s Witnesses have not and do not presently, require the survivor of a sexual assault to make his/her allegation in the presence of the person whom he or she accuses of having assaulted him or her, unless the survivor wishes to do so; and Jehovah’s Witnesses have acknowledged the need for this position to be clearly documented
F.42 In the case of any alleged serious sin, including child abuse, judicial committees are formed on the basis of the Scriptural standard of evidence of either a confession or substantiation by two or more witnesses. – Proverbs 28:13; Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19
Based on the testimony of the two survivor witnesses: (i) Although BCB did not feel supported overall, her testimony was that [an elder involved in Scriptually caring for her accusation] was “very kind and supportive. He told me that what has happened was not my fault and that I shouldn’t blame myself”; and (ii) Although BCG felt unsupported when her allegations of child sexual abuse against her father, BCH, were not Scripturally established at the time of the first congregation judicial hearing, it should be noted that BCH was found guilty of the sexual abuse of his daughter by the congregation appeal committee within the following two weeks
F.45 Jehovah’s Witnesses should continue to make clear their long-standing policy that, where desired, a victim may provide evidence remotely or by way of a written statement to elders investigating and to those subsequently handling an allegation of child abuse.
F.58 Jehovah’s Witnesses respect the right of a survivor or victim of abuse (or their parent or guardian) to decide for him or herself whether or not to report the abuse to the authorities.
F.60 The Scripturally-based beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses require that they obey the laws pertaining to child abuse. In jurisdictions that require it, they obey laws requiring the reporting of such allegations to the authorities. Elders of Jehovah’s Witnesses will obey any newly enacted laws requiring ministers of religion to report allegations of child abuse.
F.64 There may be a risk of contamination of a survivor’s evidence as a result of the number of times and circumstances in which a survivor is required to divulge the detail of her complaint before her abuse is, if ever, reported to the authorities.F.69 A Jehovah’s Witness who no longer wants to be subject to the organisation’s rules and discipline may simply stop associating with the congregation without formally disassociating from the faith.
F.71 The opinions expressed by Dr Applewhite in paragraphs 36, 45 and 46 of her report are accepted.
F.72 Dr Applewhite’s report contains a small number of inconsequential factual errors with regard to her documenting of the relevant practices and procedures of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
F.73 Dr Applewhite’s report is therefore accepted.
McClellan's words to their counsel on day 152 are worth contrasting with what the JWs think the commission should report.
"But the starting point is to identify where you or your client accepts the problems are - and some of those are blatantly obvious from the words, not according to the practice, and then, moving on from there, what steps your client might take to bring its processes and its documentation up to an appropriate position."
According to the dubs, there aren't any problems to accept beyond making sure they state more clearly survivors don't *have* to confront their abusers.
Where does one even start with such grotesque idiocy from them?