This "team of lawyers", who commissioned them, what are they called?
３．私達の報告書は「事実の適示」「事実の確認調査」に最も重きを置きました。
エホバの証人のステートメントは「起きてきた事実」については一切触れず、指摘されている主眼と関係のない文をただ長々並べているようにしか読めません。
この意味でも「もう会話が成立しない」というイメージです。
3. Our report placed the most emphasis on ``presenting the facts'' and ``investigating the facts.''
The statement of Jehovah's Witnesses does not mention anything about the ``facts that have happened'' and reads like a long list of sentences that are unrelated to the main point being pointed out.
In this sense as well, it gives the impression that ``conversation is no longer possible.''
4. In the end, I think that they have no intention of changing or admitting it, and just keep writing out their own theories that don't fit with each other, so I don't deal with them anymore, and just continue to calmly and accurately confront them with the ``hard facts.'' However, I think the best stance is to let them say what they want to say, and then let society decide how to judge this group. In that sense, it's actually good for them to make their opinions public, and at the same time, I think it's important that everyone involved continues to speak out about their true nature and actions.