Ann O'Maly

-by Laura Tucker, Staff Writer; Image: Katherine Jackson (Image Source: Screenshot)
The 86-year-old Katherine Jackson has lived through a lot in her years. And while she put up with much of it, including her husband's infidelity, it appears that she may have finally reached her limit.
She has been granted a temporary restraining order against her nephew, Trent Lamar Jackson.
It's alleged in court documents that Trent, who is also a longtime driver for Katherine, has been accessing her bank accounts without her knowledge, using her credit cards for his personal use without her approval and also emotionally abusing her.
The claims of abuse state that "Trent has manipulated Mrs. Jackson so much and preyed on her known kindness, that whenever the police arrive or efforts to press elder abuse charges have been undertaken, she ultimately recants or changes her mind."
It wouldn't be the first time she changed her mind when looking for a better life for herself. She twice filed for divorce from the family patriarch Joe Jackson. She was tired of his affairs and filed in 1973, but her Jehovah's Witnesses church persuaded her to drop the divorce. She then tried to divorce him again in 1979 but was again urged to drop it. He went on to have a long-term affair with another woman and had another child with her. While Katherine and Joe remain married, they live in different states.
The current paperwork also stated, "Mrs. Jackson does not want to hurt anyone and has always erred on the side of enduring abuse to save everyone else."
Her lawyers speaking on her behalf say that she "will have moments of strength and tell her kids that Trent is abusing her, and by the time they get Adult Protections Services to the house, he has convinced her by crying or begging not to report him, and the cycle starts all over."
Trent has not spoken publicly about the restraining order or the claims in the court documents.
It's not known why Trent was given such previous power in his aunt's life. She has plenty of adult children and grandchildren to take care of her needs. She and 66-year-old daughter Rebbie went to go visit youngest sibling Janet recently to see her newborn son Eissa for the first time in London.
"It seems like her family is staying close to help and support Janet," said a source, but it seems like maybe they need to stay close and help and support the family matriarch as well.
http://www.allmediany.com/articles/51938-katherine-jackson-receives-temporary-restraining-order-against-nephew

What is the matter with these guys??

This was my sister's experience. She was always told to err on the side of enduring abuse, even if it meant not going for needed treatment at a hospital - for violent abuse. Her husband, my brother-in-law, remained a ministerial servant after at least half-a-dozen complaints. My sister was disfellowshipped for finally "defying" the elders' recommendations and separating from her husband saying she had no intention of ever trying to patch things up with "mildness and submissiveness"

The average time between the abuse and the time of reporting that abuse is still about 30 years. So the kinds of forensics are quite different from a car accident, or what can be found in a "rape kit" for example.
 
I wanted to interpret that into the "circumstantial" evidence mentioned, too. Disappointing not to see this show up in documentation. Also disappointed to see so many "holes" in our own documentation that were so easily pointed out by the ARC. Also saw about three openings made in the Spinks/O'Brien testimony that could hurt us further. One was, of course, the huge discrepancy between in trying to define the age of "approaching adulthood" admitted to be 16-17 generally, then anecdotally to 15, and then later aligned with the age of baptism! It was fortunate that Stewart didn't realize that this places the age back to as young as 8 years old.
It adds an element that almost makes the congregational judicial matter moot. If the person is arrested and the matter becomes public, then there is already going to be a loss of congregational privileges. If there is a court case, how would it look if a judicial committee found the person "unchargeable" (not necessarily innocent) while the civil courts found him guilty. If the courts did not establish guilt, it is quite unlikely that the congregation could, yet we would be so wary of a repetition that the loss of position and privileges (along with probable monitoring to some extent)  would produce the appearance of guilt even if the accused were potentially innocent.

@Arauna Yes, that was a good article. Tying it to the Nazi era might play a bit on current public Russophobia, but it's an excellent point to make to show the terrible potential. I wish the author had stated in the actual article that the link went to the video of Russian authorities planting the literature. I'm sure more people would click on it, and understand the situation better, if it were worded better inside the article.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2017/mar/09/in-russia-the-persecution-of-jehovahs-witnesses-begins-all-over-again

I've been involved in looking into matters of immorality (fornication, "loose conduct" etc) but have only seen a child abuse case from a distance. I would agree however that not all elders are the same. So I can't speak for the reaction to a case of child abuse, but I would certainly guess that you are right in that elders would surely place the safety of the victim first even if they could not prove that the accused was guilty.
But in areas of immorality, elders don't always agree on recognizing the victim. I've seen cases where two sinners were treated equally wrong, but have also seen cases where the majority of elders missed a victim-in-the-making or treated the victim with more punishment than the aggressor.
There's the all-too-typical case of a brother who takes advantage of a sister who lives alone, and offers to do things for her around her house, making sure that he gradually stays around later and later, stays for a meal and a TV show and finally "pushes the envelope" to see where a backrub or a massage might lead. There's the sister who has too much to drink and a brother claims to have been seduced. There's the sister-down-the-street who just happened to notice a brother's car parked overnight in "Sister Pioneer's" driveway. In that last case, we know that both parties to the overnight guest have been disfellowshipped for denying the sin, and thus being both unrepentant. That is surely a case where the elders decide without a heavy burden of proof (and only one witness!)
The case of the tipsy sister, I have seen blamed on the sister as seductress, so that hers was the greater punishment.
The brothers who worm their way into a single or widowed sister's home are usually both considered equally guilty even if it takes months for the prowling brother to discover the moment of weakness.
The exposure and discussion of these matters is making us all more aware and more attuned to the right action to take.
My wife, serving as principal of a high school with nearly 3,000 students has had to deal with this a couple of times. As a mandatory reporter she has been screamed at and begged not to turn in an incestuous abuser in one case, and a physically violent abuser in another. But it's the law. The best you can do sometimes is to get a social worker, or CPS rep to take over, but sometimes a mandatory reporter ends up breaking a family apart. It's the nature of the law, but more importantly, it's the nature of the crime.
Of course the most insidious thing about institutional response to following the rules about contacting local authorities, is that, especially in religious institutions, there is the expectation that no one will believe you. It is often a person taking advantage of their authority and position in the first place. This makes the victim expect that even civil authorities will do nothing. When a priest, elder, deacon, or branch overseer is the perpetrator, then it's even worse: the victim and victim's guardians expect not to be believed. Guardians, other elders, and most of the entire congregation aren't expected to really believe the victim either. 

Yes, true of course. But I think the point is that as JWs, the elders, (and any member of the congregation really), if they have reasonable evidence or a suspicion of child sexual abuse, they should report it to the authorities, like they would with the reasonable evidence or suspicion of any other crime.....
Possible. But still doesn't change what I said above.
By the way, you all might know this already, regarding today's hearing (case 54) copies of either the pdf or word docs are available for download on the ARC website.
This is an extract from the opening address regarding what happened with the 1006 alleged perpetrators who were never reported to the police:
Page 12-13
1.                In Case Study 29, Watchtower Australia produced 5,000 documents comprising, among other things, case files relating to 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse dating back to 1950. Officers at the Royal Commission reviewed these case files and as a result the Royal Commission referred information in relation to 514 alleged perpetrators to police in accordance with its power under 6P(1) of the Royal Commissions Act 1902.

            Of the remaining 492 alleged perpetrators identified in the case files, officers at the Royal Commission determined that there was either   insufficient evidence in the case files to warrant referring matters to police or that the matters had already come to the attention of police.

 

All witness testimony requires some level of interpretation does it not? No less so 'forensic evidence' surely. That's where the professional input comes in.
Prompt reporting to the authorities would (hopefully) enable due attention to be given to safety of actual and potential victim(s) and initiate the appropriate type of investigation to deal with the criminal element of the matter. Let's face it, if you found someone hit by a car in the road, you would call for professional help immediately to deal with both injury and safety, as well as investigating the cause, would you not?
In the case of abuse, the spritual side could then proceed, greatly facilitated if there was a witness issue. However, if an arrest had taken place there may well be challenges to the progressing of a judicial matter from the congregational standpoint.
Not sure I recall this aspect ever being discussed, let alone documented, although there was vague reference to circumstantial evidence in the form of "trauma" serving as a "witness" in both Case Study 29 and 54.
As for the inevitable "slagging" of secular authorities that occurs in discussion threads on this matter, this serves about as much purpose as that done in connection with JW attempts to handle this heinous crime and, quite frankly, for me, obscures the real issue, which is the protection of children and the successful prosecution of those who abuse them.

It's more like 'forensic evidence' that counts as a 'second witness.'
However, where is that documented in the elder guidelines?

I think it does to a point. But regardless whether it does or not, if a professional opinion finds the alleged perpetrator guilty, then he/she will be dealt with accordingly and the brothers can then also act accordingly. The problem arises when a suspect is not reported to the authorities and the brothers try and establish facts by themselves....the brothers really should not try and investigate, and should report it to relevant authorities as soon as possible. 
So what I want to say is that I think the two witness rule will become irrelevant and will only be used in congregational judicial settings when secular authorities find the perpetrator not guilty.

Doesn't a professional opinion count as a second witness??

TrueTomHarley:
WOW!  That is absolutely stunning !
Reminds me of "Hogan's Heroes" TV show of years ago, Sgt Shultz.".
 

Or even with religious significance ... as the Organization has religious significance to the JW, does it not?
Give it time. 
Anyway, I was suggesting, in response to 'Is veneration of the cross a scriptural practice?', that veneration (or great respect, reverence) for an object of religious significance can occur in many forms. So I posed the question of whether it was a matter of degree to which one venerates a religious artifact and where the line might be drawn before scriptural principles are seen to be violated. Yes, maybe another thread.
It's OK. I'm not cross (geddit?).  

The evidence suggests that an upright stake is the least likely option. But as was said, we cannot be certain what shape stauros Jesus died on. The problem is how the Org. has made it look as if the upright stake was the most likely (or only) option and ignored the rest of scholarship on the matter that demonstrates the opposite likelihood.
Various depictions of cross shapes exist in all sorts of cultures, past and present, Christian and non-Christian. So? 
 
The Bible doesn't describe it directly, but there are hints. Unfortunately, the rest of the Society's article stumbles into the same pitfalls as the Reasoning book does. 
I thought I explained. What is it you are unclear on?
 

The following post quotes originally came from this thread: 
Rather than take the thread totally off topic, I thought I would make some comments in a new one.
I'm commenting on this post, likewise not to create a firestorm, but to flag up how we ought to check sources of information rather than automatically taking on trust that what is written is sound.
Regarding information on the internet, the August 15, 2011 Watchtower put forward some criteria by which we can critically assess its factuality:
"Before trusting it, ask: (1) Who published this material? What are the author’s credentials? (2) Why was this published? What motivated the writer? Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" - p. 4 
It's good practice to apply these basic principles to anything we read - even material produced by the Organization. 
It's also worth remembering Christians do not claim Jesus was executed on a crux ansata or ankh-shaped cross (think of the practical problems for a start). But let's look at how the Reasoning book approaches the wider question of whether Jesus was executed on a cross at all.
 
"(2) ... Is there any bias?"
Absolutely. The Reasoning book's quote from the Imperial Bible Dictionary is chopped up, and omits key information that would allow the reader to understand that, while stauros originally had one meaning, by the time of Jesus the word had evolved and was understood differently. The omitted parts from the quote are in red.
"The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros′], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and this always remained the more prominent part."
The quote continues to cite Seneca's (4 BC-65 AD) eye-witness testimony about 3 different kinds of crucifixion regularly employed, the last of which was where the victim's arms were extended on a patibulum. The dictionary then adds:
"There can be no doubt, however, that the latter sort was was the more common, and that about the period of the gospel age crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood." - p. 376
You can read the Imperial Bible Dictionary article for yourself here:
https://archive.org/stream/imperialbibledi00fairgoog#page/n402/mode/2up
So why do Watch Tower publications show Jesus on a stake with hands over his head instead of on the traditional cross? Reading an extended quote from the Imperial Bible Dictionary makes the reason for Watchtower's divergence on this matter unclear.
There's no problem with this section as crosses were made of wood from trees. Not only that, but trees had branches upon which arms could be outstretched either side of the body, above it, upside-down or however the executioner wanted to position the poor victim. 
Of course, the Org. no longer translates Jesus' mode of execution as 'impaling' because, well, he wasn't impaled; he was suspended from a stauros by being nailed to it. Impaling is an entirely different kind of torturous end. 
This reference, then, doesn't help explain why Watch Tower publications depict Jesus on an upright stake either.
"(1) ... What are the author’s credentials? ... (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" 
Not only is this another outdated source, but psychical research enthusiast J.D. Parsons does not provide references for his comments here (publication viewable online). Historical, linguistic and gospel evidence contradicts him. It's a pity he didn't consult works like the Imperial Bible Dictionary before he wrote his book.
"(3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" 
This is another old work, this time one edited by E.W. Bullinger. Appendix No. 162 does supply some sources, but it also repeats some of Alexander Hislop's and others' mistaken ideas, e.g. the Babylonian sun-god cross. Not only that, but Bullinger (or whoever the author of Appendix No. 162 was) was evidently unaware of the Oxyrhyncus discoveries which showed that the understanding of stauros as being a two-pieced cross shape occurred in 2nd (and possibly 1st) century Christian writings.
See the Companion Bible entry here: https://archive.org/stream/CompanionBible.Bullinger.1901-Haywood.2005/CompBib.Bull.Hay.NT.Append.24.#page/n797/mode/2up
In fact, many of these old publications the Org. uses as support, and that are contemporaneous with one another, seem to feed off each other's sources, regurgitating them in their own works. The Two Babylons was published in book form in 1858. It's always good to keep this in mind when reading older references after that time because it often influenced other theologians' work - especially if their theology was less mainstream. Vine's Expository Dictionary's entry on 'Cross' is another notable example (see below).
That's assuming that all the available evidence has been presented to the Reasoning book reader. As we've seen, it hasn't but has been cherry-picked from flawed, out-of-date works, which often recycle the same sources, in order to force a predetermined conclusion. When we dig into those sources a little deeper, we find that Watchtower's rejection of the cross and adoption of an upright stake to depict Jesus' execution is based on insubstantial grounds. If we research the subject more thoroughly, although we will never be certain what shape stauros Jesus died on, we will find that the weight of evidence indicates the opposite view to that of the Organization. 
 
What does this have to do with how Christians regard the cross? Cross shapes occur in different cultures, times and contexts. Whatever significance non-Christians placed on cross shapes (4 cardinal points, 4 year markers, 4 key stages in the Sun's apparent seasonal or daily paths around the Earth, circle of life, etc.) has nothing to do with any symbolism Christians attach to the cross Jesus was believed to have been executed on.
"(2) ... Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?"
Vine's comment about the two-beamed cross's Chaldean origin actually came from Hislop (Two Babylons, p. 197-8). It is false. 
Hislop was rabidly anti-Catholic and grasping at anything to discredit it, no matter how outlandish. However, in doing so, he was undermining aspects of biblical Christianity too. So, yes, one could say he was biased - so much so that he imagined ancient pagan-Catholic connections everywhere. He provides no historical evidence that the Babylonian god Tammuz was represented by a Tau and besides, the Babylonians didn't write in Greek! Their writing was logographic and the signs for Tammuz (Dumuzi) don't look anything like crosses. 

 
On the other hand, the Paleo-Hebrew script has a letter tav. Guess what it looks like:
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_One/Pictograms/pictograms.html#
Shocking, hey?
"(3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?"
Again, a 19th/early 20th century work. Tyack doesn't provide any sources for his statements. However the concepts seem to be from the Two Babylons book. These connections between the cross and Tammuz plus other ancient near eastern deities don't go back beyond the 1850s and Hislop's book - not that I've been able to trace, anyway.
Around and around we go. This information is straight out of Two Babylons! Look:
https://archive.org/stream/worshipdeadoror00garngoog#page/n268/mode/2up
Please pay particular notice to the references in the footnotes on that page.
I'll post separately about all those cross symbols and the conclusions Hislop jumps to.
Again, what does this have to do with how Christians view the cross Jesus is believed to have died on? 
This is a quote from the same Bullinger work discussed above.
Now, this is a whole different issue.
And is it a matter of degree? Remember how obsessed many JWs are nowadays with the JW.org logo, maybe because of its associations in the JW's mind with true worship, brotherhood, divine blessings, etc. They put it on anything from tiepins to cake. Likewise, many Christians associate the cross with Jesus' love for humankind, victory over death/Satan, hope, etc., and so they like to have a symbolic reminder of that or use it as a visible expression of their faith. I guess it depends on whether one considers a line has been stepped over between expression of faith and worshipful veneration, and there is a certain level of subjectivity in that assessment.
Here we go again. An allusion to Hislopian baloney.
And an upright stake is NOT phallic?
'Some commentators' - who? The Reasoning book doesn't enlighten us.
While I agree that idolatry is against biblical principles, the Org's reluctance to entertain at least the possibility that Jesus historically died on a cross is based on deeply flawed, outdated, and circular reasoning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Hislop's discussion of various cross shapes on p. 197 of the Two Babylons book:
Fig. 43 shows 5 different cross shapes.
No. 1 is the familiar crucifix shape and comes from Kitto's Biblical Cyclopedia, Vol. 1, p. 495 (viewable online - as with all of these references, just Google). This reference is just a discussion of 'Cross' and Lipsius' various pictures/descriptions of this means of execution.
No. 2 is similar to No. 1 but slanted. The pic comes from Sir W. Betham's Etruria, Vol. 1, p. 54 (viewable online). This references the Etruscan alphabet. Hislop's picture is just one of the letters he's picked out.
No. 3 is like No. 1 except with a slightly curved crosspiece. This is from Bunsen's Egypt's Place in Universal History, Vol. 1, p. 450 (viewable online). Hislop's picture is one of the Coptic letters of the alphabet - a tei. He doesn't bother with the other cross-shaped letters in the Coptic alphabet on pp. 448-450 - not even the tau on p. 449!
No. 4 is similar to an ankh. Hislop thinks it's a cross (the sign of Tammuz) attached to the circle of the sun (p. 198). He provides no reference for this one.
No. 5 is a cross within a circle. This is used as another example of Tammuz being associated with the sun and the picture comes from Stephen's Incidents of Travel in Central America, Vol. 2, p. 344, Plate 2 (viewable online) where an indigenous person's belt is decorated with the symbol.
Hislop uses these sources and cobbles together isolated cross symbols - an instrument of execution, letters of the Etruscan and Coptic alphabets, an ankh and the belt decoration of a Central American Indian. These all form the basis of his argument that,
a) The Christian cross is not a Christian emblem.
(He only establishes that cross shapes occur in all sorts of places and contexts.)
b) The cross originates from the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and Egyptians.
(An unsupported assertion pulled out of the air - none of his examples are linked to Chaldea.)
c) The letter T is "the initial letter of Tammuz - which, in Hebrew, [is] radically the same as ancient Chaldee" (p. 197).
(It's already been discussed on this thread that, while Paleo-Hebrew indeed has a cross-shaped Tav, the Babylonians wrote in cuneiform and their logographic signs making up the word Dumuzi/Tammuz do not resemble a cross.)
d) Tammuz was identified with the sun.
(Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Babylonian deities knows that Shamash was the god identified with the sun and Marduk may also have had solar connections - not Tammuz. Tammuz was a shepherd-god of agriculture, fertile lands, food and vegetation.)
Hislop's conclusions about how the Christian cross originates in Babylonian worship are therefore founded on ... nothing.

Rather contradictory reporting here about a boy who was told he would go to hell by someone who also told him hell does not exist???? 
Maybe not fake but certainly confuse news!
Regardless, the topic is certainly inappropriate for discussion between a 7 yr old and an unrelated adult.

This was supposed to be a light-hearted, humorous 'Caption this pic' thread.
INTREPID TRAVELLER (and others): The child abuse issue is too weighty to have it piggy-backing on a fun thread. I know you have posted elsewhere on the forum about it with those links. Wouldn't it be best to discuss this on a separate thread?
Meanwhile ....
"Bu... *sniff, sob* ... b..ut I want to be a spaceman when I grow up!"

This was supposed to be a light-hearted, humorous 'Caption this pic' thread.
INTREPID TRAVELLER (and others): The child abuse issue is too weighty to have it piggy-backing on a fun thread. I know you have posted elsewhere on the forum about it with those links. Wouldn't it be best to discuss this on a separate thread?
Meanwhile ....
"Bu... *sniff, sob* ... b..ut I want to be a spaceman when I grow up!"

"The Money's Always Right!"

 

What was an interesting discussion seems to be drifting off topic and deteriorating into a sort of "flaming" excercise.
When dealing with intentionally provocative postings, Solomon's advice is worth considering before responding.
"Do not answer the stupid one according to his foolishness, so that you do not put yourself on his level.  Answer the stupid one according to his foolishness, so that he does not think he is wise." Proverbs 26:5-6

I don't mean to be negative, although it is a good video, in my opinion though I've always thought that depicting the "bad guy" as a monster type looking thing is a little misleading (for the children at least) because it makes it look like the "bad guy" is going to be easily identifiable, because.....well he LOOKS bad, and acts CREEPY, whereas in reality a sexual predator grooms his victims and appears very nice to the children, and others. Many times the child molester is a member of the family. The children might be looking for someone sleazy, and might be thrown off guard if the person is a "nice" brother in the congregation, a friend of the family, or even sadly a parent. I might be wrong, just my thought...

@TrueTom   You make some very valid points in your post. I wouldn't argue against any of it.
There is also considerable overlap between bullying and sexual abuse. Sexual abuse often becomes just another type of bullying, and those in the "herd" who have been weakened emotionally by either/or will often find themselves targeted (picked off) by abusers (predators) for the rest of their lives. After looking at 4,500 cases of reported sexual abuse in the Catholic Church between 1950 and 2015, (and looking at more statistically significant reporting especially since 1985) The Australian Royal Commission (ARC) reported that about 7% of Catholic priests have been accused. But it was lower in the Catholic schools run by nuns dealing with children, and much higher in the places where males in authority dealt with children (average age was 10 and 11). 30% of the crimes were committed by Catholic "brothers," (those usually assigned to various "orders") another 30% of the crimes were by priests themselves, and 5% by Catholic "sisters" (generally, nuns). It was highest in the "Order of St. John of God" where a full 40% of those in authority there were accused of child abuse. The reason, it shouldn't surprise us, is that these men worked specifically with emotionally disturbed children. Easy picking! One person I listened to on the BBC made it clear that any organization anywhere in the world that had such a high rate of accused and convicted child abusers would be considered a "criminal organization."
I agree that all of us want to do all we can. But our own track record was awful, especially in those early years when expensive lawsuits were being covered up long before the very first article about protecting children came out. And members of our own Governing Body fought against printing articles and information on the subject. Just as in other organizations, we didn't want to admit that it was even possible in our own organization, because this would bring such reproach on Jehovah's name and organization. It would give opposers something to point to. My own father in his capacity as a congregation elder, counseled my sister to avoid going to the hospital after abuse by her husband to avoid bringing reproach on the congregation. "What if they asked you what happened, what are you going to tell them?" "What kind of witness would it give to the community if it got out that a minister in the congregation had to go to jail?" "Don't you think it would be more appropriate to try again, but be more humble and conforming and win him with a mild manner?" "Spending more time in prayer and study and service is surely the best counsel." 
My sister came back to the congregation, but she was disfellowshipped for defying this counsel. (She said she would separate and NOT try to get back in her husband's good graces.) I agree that we can always say that it was her unrepentant attitude and anger at the counsel that got her disfellowshipped. I also agree that she was never told NOT to go to the authorities or to specifically LIE to the authorities who might ask her questions at the hospital. But she was definitely pressured for years not to go to authorities and professionals, and even to "lie" through omission of facts if she did go. And she was definitely punished for reacting negatively to the counsel and authority of the elders.
I know about similar cases, and even of a case of child abuse that was covered up in the same way through not-so-subtle pressures to "do the right thing" when it comes to the issue of reproach and even "mandatory reporting." But the case of my sister, I know first-hand. I even offered to give my brother-in-law a taste of his own medicine, which was not the Christian thing to do, but I thought it was a pretty fair interpretation of Matthew 18:15 at the time.
Another point to remember before we start putting our own organization on too high a pedestal here is that if you count the Catholic population and the reported cases in those districts in Australia and compare them to the population of Jehovah's Witnesses and the reported cases in the same districts, then you see that our problem might even be many times worse than the Catholics. I can't say that it really is worse, because this is also a factor of how accurately such accusations are reported. 
Also, if you watched the videos from the previous ARC hearings, you might also be surprised to learn who the abusers were in several of the 1,000+ cases reported among Witnesses. I had heard that at least one of these abusers would be revealed in a separate case by November 2016, but that case is evidently under some kind of gag order, or otherwise delayed under some slow-moving wheels. So please strike what I said and forget I said anything about it. But I am almost certain that the plan is to engage some of these cases in public courts. (Partly because some lawyers involuntarily salivate when money is involved.) I don't think too many Australian Witnesses are holding their heads very high when the topic is brought up during witnessing activities.

There is a ridiculous way to implement this and the report pointed that out. But there should be a minimum level of evidence that every person should be able to look for which makes child abuse suspected. For example:
The child or young adult complains to ANYONE that someone touched them inappropriately and points out the places where he or she was touched. The child or young adult complains to ANYONE that they were forced to touch an adult inappropriately. There are signs of abuse or trauma actually seen by a parent or medical professional even when the child or young adult will not explain or cannot explain where these signs came from (blood, bruises, etc.) Believe it or not, even though those three points might seem obvious to you or me, legally they still only point to a "suspicion" of child abuse. And worse, every one of these OBVIOUS signs and complaints has been seen and heard by parents, guardians, school nurses, police, teachers, coaches, EMS, college presidents, etc., and yet persons in all these categories did not always report the suspected abuse. So the specter of unnecessary trauma should not cloud the reasonable implementation of mandated reporting. An inspection by a medical or trained professional need not be any more invasive in these situations than any other type of examination by a doctor. (And for that matter, parents should also be present even for doctors' examinations. The recent report on 60 Minutes of a famous gymnastics injury therapist should be kept in mind. He evidently got away with hundreds or even more than a thousand cases of child abuse, before enough children complained.)

"No. I am your Father!"
"No! That's not true! That's impossible!"