Pudgy

Related to that, it has also been ruled in some courts that it was no longer a mere religious confession due to the very fact that the WTS kept detailed data on the perpetrators, and sent these "confessions" to secretaries to have forms typed, and then sent the details to Branch headquarters to have them discussed by lawyers, and retyped by secretaries in another database visible to several people in the service and correspondence departments.
Also, these were not voluntary confessions in most cases, anyway. In fact, in only 579 out of 1,006 alleged perpetrators was there a definite confession recorded. Not even 58%. Part of the judicial process is an attempt to try to get a guilty party to confess and judge whether there was sufficient repentance.

Below is a new video of a few minutes.
 
The Fall of Antony Morris III Remains a Mystery?

 
I can understand the JW and ex-JW who got stung have a hard time admitting it was because of this:
https://jehovah.nu/letter2022.pdf
https://jehovah.nu/brief2022.pdf
 

WTJWorg persistently (and unsuccessfully for people who see real WTJWorg) claims that there are no clergy class in their teology and practice. At least that's what they claim in front their membership and the other people they preach the gospel to.
On the other hand, they refer to the Catholic Church and their hierarchy, which is the same as in WTJWorg, when they want to have the privilege of confession and not revealing the so-called "confessional secret" to Courts.
Confession or confidential information can only be said in front of one person, but not in front of three or more people. A "confession" made in front of more than one person ceases to be confidential information.
Since, at least publicly, WTJWorg has no clergy class, but all are "brothers", this interpretation you presented does not apply to them. Full stop.

I will have to admit, Fausto, it is absolutely fascinating to watch you duke it out with JWInsider, who presents solid facts and reasonable analysis, and you, who misconstrue and bend EVERYTHING into an agenda driven obfuscation based on laughable premises to unsuccessfully defend the indefensible.
 … Good material to provide dialog for a script. JWInsider will be cast as Mighty Mouse, and you will be cast as Oil Can Harry.
I can easily visualize you both at it for the rest of the year, neither conceding defeat until one or the other has a stroke from frustration.
But, “practice makes perfect” and your ad-homonym attacks are getting less painfully transparent.

I will have to admit, Fausto, it is absolutely fascinating to watch you duke it out with JWInsider, who presents solid facts and reasonable analysis, and you, who misconstrue and bend EVERYTHING into an agenda driven obfuscation based on laughable premises to unsuccessfully defend the indefensible.
 … Good material to provide dialog for a script. JWInsider will be cast as Mighty Mouse, and you will be cast as Oil Can Harry.
I can easily visualize you both at it for the rest of the year, neither conceding defeat until one or the other has a stroke from frustration.
But, “practice makes perfect” and your ad-homonym attacks are getting less painfully transparent.

Thanks for adding this. It validates the point I made earlier, and was also a point made on the Reddit link. It admits several important points.
First, it's the admission by the JW defense that NONE of the cases were ever turned in the authorities by the JW congregation even though at least SOME of the case files of abuse occurred in jurisdictions where there WAS a legal obligation for ministers of religion to report.
Also, it was clear that the Australian court had determined that MOST of the cases DID occur in jurisdictions where there WAS such a legal obligation.
It clearly admits that it was only the victims or others who reported. And that the only involvement of the elders was when victims or their families later decided to report, and in some of those instances the elders provided support.
We know from the BCH case that one elder did evidently come forward as a reluctant witness 11 years later to make a statement. But that statement is sloppy and not very supportive at all. He says he barely knew the perpetrator except for a very short time related to the judicial meeting he was called in to join. But he can't remember what year, or which daughter. He remembers two things the daughter said something about how the father had "interfered" with her, but can't remember the "extent of the interference." He appears to hide behind the excuse that he "can't remember the exact words" she used as a way to avoid discussing anything additional about her claim. In fact, he never even mentioned the second thing he said he remembered that the daughter had said.
In other words, he would confirm nothing that could even be supportive of a true claim of sexual abuse even though the elder was the chairman of the committee that disfellowshipped BCH for it - and justified that judgment to be correct even after appeal. Then this elder (Bennett) actually indicates at the end that he is there INVOLUNTARILY, which was already obvious by the way he didn't really support the victim claimant.
Who needs "support" of that kind?

This is the JW legal team attempting a very weak "negotiation" defense. It's easy to see that the data doesn't bear out the claim, however. With 221 of the 1,006 perpetrators, the data provided by "Jehovah's Witnesses Australia" admits that JW/WT cannot rule out the fact that the "two-witness rule" kept the case from moving forward to a judicial committee. This was a connection that the court (and even victimized JWs) have made between sexual abuse and the beliefs of JWs.
But there is an apparent skew in how that two-witness rule is used depending on the position of responsibility that the Witness holds. The two highest-level accusations that I have learned about, were actually left off the list altogether, and in at least one of those cases, the accused had no hearing and was promoted to a higher position within the Organization. For now, we can safely ignore this however since it was not in the ARC data. But the following are all from the Watchtower-provided data:
The only Circuit Overseer included on this list did not have a judicial case, and it is admitted that "YES" the two-witness rule kept this case from going forward to a judicial committee.  And there was, therefore, no reproof, demotion, or discipline of any kind reported.
Pioneer data I had here a few minutes ago was removed. Turns out it was 3 out of 8 whose cases may have been kept from going forward due to the two-witness rule. That's 37.5%.
Now we come to all the persons on the list known to be Elders at the time of their first accusation of child abuse. There were 38 such elders and for 16 of them -- that's 42% -- the data could not rule out that it was the two-witness rule that kept their case from going forward and therefore there was no judicial committee formed.
Now we come to the cases of the 65 who were Ministerial Servants at the time of their first accusation of child abuse. It drops down to 22% where the data admits that they could not rule out that it was the two-witness rule that kept their case from going forward and therefore there was no judicial committee formed.
Now we come to the cases of the 689 who were JW Parishioners (Baptized JWs who were not MS/Elder/Pioneer) at the time of their first accusation of child abuse, it drops a bit more, down to 20% where the data admits that they could not rule out that it was the two-witness rule that kept their case from going forward and therefore there was no judicial committee formed.
I didn't include those for whom it was unclear what their position in the congregation was at the time of their first accusation, but only a very few of them were definitely identified as servants or elders in other parts of the data. 
Technically, of course, the JW legal team didn't deny anything related to what I said above, but they only said that "The suggested findings by Counsel Assisting are problematic in the sense that, they often seem to assume a connection between child sexual abuse and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses in circumstances where there is no obvious connection."
Those are typical lawyer "weasel words" that don't actually deny that there is a connection; they just claim that the connection is not obvious in SOME of the cases where the Court "often seemed to assume" one. For some persons, hardly anything is "obvious" which is the entire reason for investigations. This doesn't discount the fact that there were other cases listed where the connection was entirely and blatantly obvious.

If you buy a precision, high end camera, such as a Leica, Nikon, Canon, or Hasselblad you will find shutter speeds from perhaps 30 seconds to perhaps. 1/2,000 of a second.
And aperatures from perhaps f:2 to f:22 … maybe up to f:64.
I have a 4x5 Calumet View camera that goes up to f:64.
If the marked settings are within 20% of actual, up or down that is considered “good enough” ….. and it is.  

 If the ARC CONCLUSIONS OR YOUR CONCLUSIONS are plus or minus 50% it does not matter.
In the words of an American Soldier in Korea telling his superior officer about enemy troop strength “It’s a whole damn potload, sir!”.

It's easy enough to check whether those numbers of 1,766+ and 1,857+ were right. Using your suggestion that "Unclear" should be equal to 1, I changed ALL the "Unclear" to 1 and tried the total again.
I got 1,766 again. What do you think you would get?

Next, I fixed ALL the cells with "10+" in them. I still get 1,857. What do you think I did wrong? What would you do to make it more accurate?

… Sometimes …. details don’t matter.

Lawyers say the damd darndest things. Speaking of James:
(James 1:27) The form of worship that is clean and undefiled from the standpoint of our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself without spot from the world.
 

I'm not defending the text that ChatGPT derived, but it's still a true statement -- even without any reference to what the situation is in other countries. But you should keep in mind that the Witness organization also reaches out to prisons and to former criminals, and other persons who have issues. Jesus said that it was the "sick" that came to him, not those who considered themselves healthy. And then there is the fact that crimes, including rape and murder, come ultimately from human sinful nature.
(James 1:14, 15) . . .But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn sin, when it has been carried out, brings forth death.
(James 2:11) . . .For the one who said, “You must not commit adultery,” also said, “You must not murder.” If, now, you do not commit adultery but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of law.
Imagine! A need to write to congregations to remind them that it is not OK to murder!
 

A male Ostrich was chasing a female Ostrich  across the fruited plains and the female Ostrich was getting tired. So, she stuck her head in the sand, reasoning that if she couldn’t see him, he couldn’t see her.
Suddenly, the male Ostrich screeches to a halt, and exclaims out loud to himself “Where did she go?, Where did she go?”.
 
 

… Sometimes …. details don’t matter.

We've reached the 10th page and still haven't found out if JWTV can be trusted. But we found out, for example, that the ARC statistics table is not published on any WTJWorg platform.
Perhaps the interpretation of how to "read" a table like this should be left to P. Brumley and his team. Or to some GB helpers. They would surely explain that it is satanic propaganda and an attempt to persecute the Organization.

… Sometimes …. details don’t matter.

Watchtower TRIED to defend itself with the testimony of several Elders, Branch staff, and even Bro, Jackson of the Governing Body …. And it was an unmitigated Global disaster, a Global Embarrasment, talked about for five years and more.
They cannot challenge the conclusion of the ARC.
THEY have the right to cross examine testimony.

That is correct. But, I'll leave it up to you, then, if you think there is an even more reasonable set of numbers to use for the items that the sheet failed to calculate. But that's only if you really care to quibble about the difference of a few numbers. As far as I am concerned the entire process showed up a lot of flaws in how things were handled. If the number of alleged reports had been twice as high or half as high, it still would have shown those flaws. I'm glad that policies changed in the immediate wake of these hearings.
The point I was trying to make was clearly not one you cared about, and that's fine of course. But I used it as an opportunity to show that there has been bias on the part of Witnesses reading the numbers and bias on the part of non-Witnesses in reading the numbers. If you are a Witness, you certainly helped make the point.
-------------------------
For any others who might be confused because of the position that another poster or posters have taken, I'll just try to clarify one last time:
The problem in counting alleged victims from this sheet is that someone, at some point, had tried to total the column, probably without realizing that they had accidentally forgotten to count any alleged victims among those where the exact number of alleged victims was "Unclear." Worse yet, they forgot to include in the total, all those 9 perpetrator cases where the number of victims was ten or more.
If we manually add up all the cells in the column that have an actual number in them we get 1,732. The fact that there is a "1730" at the bottom of that column shouldn't confuse anyone. It's not a summary formula and isn't even marked as a TOTAL anyway. Arguing that the number 1730 should be more accurate than adding up the actual numbers in the column manually makes very little difference, but it's an odd argument. It means we should not trust the thousand or so ACTUAL labeled numbers in the sheet and only trust the one unlabeled number.
But there are also those 45 perpetrators in the spreadsheet whose numbers of victims were NEVER counted in that "tentative" or rounded number that someone had left at the bottom.
My screenshot is cut off and doesn't show all of 45 of them -- but does anyone really think that these 45 lines should all total up to only ZERO alleged victims? One or two posters have indicated that these 45 lines should add ZERO additional victims to the number.  Yet, some of the perpetrators who are marked with 10+ victims were disfellowshipped 3 times and reinstated twice. Is it really reasonable to think that we should continue to count 10+ victims as ZERO victims even for those cases?

 

Exactly. That's why I ran statistical analyses for all the different row values in ALL the columns. That's how I discovered that some of the ones marked "Non-JW's" (at the time of their first accusation) were actually Elders and Ministerial Servants at the time of their judicial hearing, removal, reproof, df'ing, etc.
If you know how to create a simple summary formula, you should be able to see what's going on in the spreadsheet. In Excel it's the AutoSum option shown below:

In Google Sheets, it's as follows:

But there are relatvely simple, but more powerful methods, with data filters (and crosstabs) to summarize many more items of data from the sheet.

 
Exactly!!

All of this arguing about nothing reminds me of two Japanese Samurai arguing about how many traffic accidents were avoidable on August 6, 1945, in downtown Hiroshima.

This pic was included in the June 7th WSJ article that broke the Instagram story:

Imagine. After a sober warning of the “extreme harm” such sexual imagery causes children, coupled with an appeal to visit the Help Center so as to “get resources,” still there is an option, if one wishes, to “See results anyway.”
Get caught with the stuff on your computer and you’re in serious hot water. In fact, that’s the first thing I-gram warns about, as though the ‘extreme harm to children’ is but an afterthought.
No wonder the next morning it was #Pedogram

Whether you see them or not depends on how perceptive you are. For example, look at the totals at the bottom of each column of this sample spreadsheet which you could enter yourself in Excel or even in a free spreadsheet program like Google Sheets:

You see a four as the sum of the first column. But if you are perceptive you will see that the total is really higher. The second column would show that it was really just treating the text "10+" and the text "Unclear" as if they were the same as 0 (zero).
That's exactly what's happening in the ARC spreadsheet.
If you assume that every instance of "Unclear" could refer to 1 (one) alleged victim, then you could change the word "Unclear" to the number 1 and the total would show up as 5. In the next column, it shows that you could change the "10+" into the number 10 and the total of that fourth column is now corrected to 15. The next column with the yellow cells, shows what would happen if someone either edited or corrected the spreadsheet when the formula in F5 was turned off. They corrected the 1 to a 3 in the top cell of that column but the number at the bottom stayed at 15. If you put the formula back in at the bottom, then the total corrects itself to 17.
Technically you don't even need to fix the formula to see the more accurate numbers in this sheet. You can see it just by looking. If you had the time and ability, it would be the same in the larger ARC spreadsheet. You could manually add up all all 1,006 rows in the "victim" column, and realize that you needed to add 1 (one) every time you see the text-string "Unclear." And you need to add 10 every time you see the text-string: 10+. You might discover reasons to put a number higher than 1 in the "Unclear" cells, or a number higher than 10 in the 10+ cells. But since it would be a matter of speculation to put higher numbers in those cells, I have left them at the minimum possible number.

This assumption requires further clarification. Are JWs Australians more prone to CSA than JWs from other nations?

Yes. All of them are correct according to the spreadsheet. 1700+ means 1700 or more. If the actual number was 2,222 then 1700-plus is correct. We KNOW that the spreadsheet represents investigations that resulted in a total of at least 1,857 alleged victims. So 1,857+ is also correct.
I think that's completely false, according to everything I've read including what the Watchtower publications have said about CSA. I think that if there were 1,006 cases in the case file and law enforcement had not been able to charge any one of the persons within those case files, the number of alleged perpetrators would still be 1,006. In fact, if all 1,006 alleged perpetrators were investigated by law enforcement, and they were unable to find legal means to charge any one of those persons, there would still be 1,006 alleged perpetrators. There is a huge difference between being unable to charge and being able to fully exonerate someone who was falsely accused.
But the truth is that it is very hard to charge someone with such a crime because such crimes are notoriously difficult to find prosecutable evidence for, except when the victim went to authorities immediately after the crime, and children do not typically do this. It's not found among these cases (I hope) but even cases where the girl claims rape and ends up pregnant have been dropped as unprosecutable. 
I agree. That was exactly my point. It's why I just asked you the same question about how one might go about disfellowshipping a non-Witness. You can't DIS-fellowship someone who was not "fellowshipped" to begin with. This is why no one can make a big deal out of the fact that several persons on the list were listed as NON-Witnesses at the time of their first accusation of CSA. These persons could NOT have been NON-Witnesses at the time of their disfellowshipping. Therefore, these persons (some of them) were Witnesses at the time they were listed on this sheet as elders and ministerial servants, for example, but NOT Witnesses at the time of their first CSA accusation.

Through the shunning institute, JW elders can do whatever they want. A speech or notice of an undesirable person may be given at the meeting, regardless of whether it is done to a non-JW, an unbaptized or baptized publisher, or a child of JW parents.