I was hoping that they had engage Dr Applewhite again since they could trust she would write a report in their favor but it seems they found another couple of guys who were paid to do the same.
The summary report doesn't really say much and certainly not much could be substantiated, they are, after all, simply opinions. Weather the Commission went outside the terms of reference by including abuse cases within families is debateable but one the Watchtower wanted addressed again anyway. It doesn't matter, the fact is, it did, and the Watchtower was shown to be badly lacking in properly dealing with accusations of child abuse.
In the summary report, Bennett and Gibson state -
I understand that while Jehovah's Witnesses · did not agree with the Commission's reasons, they did not wish to exacerbate the trauma of either of the survivors or of their own witnesses and did not consider that their interests would be advanced by such a 6 challenge - which would only have added to the damaging publicity surrounding the Commission (Review 5.25).
2.24 As noted in our Review (5.11 and following and 6.24 and following}, a substantial proportion of the Case Study 29, concerned the experiences of two Jehovah's Witnesses who were sexual abused in the 1980s and to the policies and procedures in place in the 1980s and 1990s (when the incidents were investigated}. 2.25 Jehovah's Witnesses chose not to cross-examine either witness. We understand that the decision was taken as Jehovah's Witnesses did not wish to exacerbate any trauma they suffered both as a result of their experiences and which may arisen from further questioning.