Further reporting on current questioning of Max Horley regarding a case he dealt with in 1992.
The elder, Max Horley. says that the abused no longer needs to be interviewed with the abuser in certain cases and this occurred sometime in the 90s In similar vain he says that he did not think that this was inappropriate at the time of the case he heard, he didn't think about it and was just following directions but understands now why there was a need for change.
Two witnesses - the elder admits that it is a very sad situation for the abused who cannot present two witnesses to take the matter further on a congregational basis. He appreciates the need for it to be investigated fully even though there are not two witnesses where there is a victim and an abuser. The interviewer reads out the scripture in Duet. about the two witness rule and asks the elder if he also believes that the sinner should be stoned to death today.
Support for the victim - the elder says there were publications in place to help the victim. He is asked again about the accuser not having to face the abuser but he cannot provide any support for this procedure.
Later on the elder finally admits that if a JC was formed then it is still currently the situation that the abused will still be present at this meeting with the accuser.
The elder says that they discourage JWs not to have close friendships outside of the JWs and that the abused should not talk to people outside of the congregation although she could confide in someone within the congregation such as a mature sister or elder and this was to limit the gossip. The mature sister would have to accept this in confidence.
He confesses that he did not mean to come across as harsh or that there was no where to go, if that is what she felt..
The case that this elder with did not go any further because of the application of the two witness rule He stated that he had no reason to disbelieve the abused in his case but needed a confession from the abuser. The abuser had been asked to stand down and was announced as being removed as an elder. The elder states that those concerned would know why he was removed and all others would know there was some good reason.
The elder accepts that the police have better facilities to investigate matters but he states that there was very little information at the time instructing how to deal with the matter and going to the police was not mentioned. He says if she wanted to go to the police he would not have stopped her.
A letter had been written by the elders about the accused abuser and the only recommendation was that the elder should stand down. The elder says this action was taken because they were concerned about the proper functioning of the organization and probably not about the protection or support of the victim.
The abuser had later on been appointed as an elder in a different congregation and this elder said he had nothing to do with it or was not consulted and was surprised at the time.
Apparently the Branch asked this elder for his recollections on this case in 2015 and to put it in writing to them. He thinks it may have been because of the Royal Commission. The Legal Department BO had asked him to address this letter to the Service Desk BO.
He states that as a member of the congregation the abused was being protected but as a victim she was not as the aim was to protect the congregation against the abuser.
Sorry that's all I can do for the moment.
