JW Insider

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.

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 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

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.

I asked ChatGPT how one could go about defending Jehovah's Witnesses' response to the ARC and got the following. The rest of this post is the response:
It's important to note that the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse held hearings in 2015-2016, where it examined the responses of various institutions, including religious organizations, to allegations of child sexual abuse. During these hearings, there were criticisms and concerns raised regarding the way Jehovah's Witnesses handled cases of child abuse within their community.
Here are some points that individuals might raise in defense of Jehovah's Witnesses:
Autonomy of Congregations: Jehovah's Witnesses operate under a decentralized structure, where each congregation is responsible for handling matters internally. Some defenders argue that this structure might have led to inconsistencies in how cases of child abuse were handled and that improvements can be made in terms of reporting abuse to the authorities.
Cooperation with Authorities: While some criticisms were raised about the Jehovah's Witnesses' response to child abuse allegations, defenders may highlight instances where the organization did cooperate with law enforcement and child protection authorities. They may argue that efforts have been made to improve cooperation and compliance with mandatory reporting laws.
Child Protection Policies: Jehovah's Witnesses have developed policies and guidelines aimed at addressing child abuse within their organization. Defenders might emphasize that these policies aim to protect children and promote awareness of the issue. However, critics have argued that these policies have been insufficient and that there is room for improvement.
Internal Disciplinary Process: Supporters may assert that Jehovah's Witnesses have an internal judicial system to address allegations of child abuse. They might argue that this system is intended to maintain the religious integrity of the congregation but acknowledge that reforms could be implemented to ensure that the safety and well-being of victims are given priority.
Ongoing Reforms: In response to the Australian Royal Commission and other similar inquiries around the world, some defenders may point out that the Jehovah's Witnesses have taken steps to address the concerns raised. They may argue that ongoing reforms within the organization are being implemented to improve child protection policies, reporting mechanisms, and cooperation with the authorities.
It's important to note that these points represent potential defenses that individuals might raise in support of the Jehovah's Witnesses. However, it's crucial to examine various perspectives, including the concerns and criticisms that have been raised, to form a comprehensive understanding of the issue.

I also what it knew about the number of perpetrators:
During the Australian Royal Commission hearings in 2015-2016, the Jehovah's Witnesses provided data on child sexual abuse allegations within their organization. According to the information presented, it was reported that there were 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse within the Jehovah's Witnesses organization in Australia from 1950 to 2014. These allegations were made by 1,659 alleged victims.
It's important to note that these figures reflect the data provided specifically for Australia and cover a span of over six decades. The information disclosed to the Royal Commission pertained to allegations of abuse and not necessarily proven cases. Additionally, it's worth mentioning that these figures are specific to the Jehovah's Witnesses organization in Australia and may not represent the situation in other countries.
For more detailed and up-to-date information regarding the specific findings and recommendations of the Australian Royal Commission, it is recommended to refer to the official reports and publications released by the commission itself or reliable sources reporting on its outcomes.

Yes, I found my source documents. You are right that the sheet has exactly 1,006 entries for the number of perpetrators. Some people identify the perpetrators as the number of cases. But notice that the next column is the number of victims which I counted as 1,700+ (which other Witnesses numbered at 1732 or thereabouts.) The reason I added the plus is that most people had just totaled the numbers in the column without considering all the ones that had "text" in the cell.
In the screenshot I skipped 1000 lines so you can also see the headings. The sheet matches all the numbers that other JWs and Holly Folk were using, for all the columns, not just the first few I am showing in the screenshot. I won't promote the sheet by posting the whole thing, but I'm pretty sure you can find someone who downloaded it at the time it was available. (I might be mistaken, but I don't think it is currently available on the ARC site.) 

When you look at the original sheet and total the number of alleged victims column, you get 1732 see below.

But many of the cells display Unclear. And we should assume that any accusation involves at least one accuser. So if we replace the Unclear's with a 1 then you get a total of 1766 victims.

But several of the perpetrators (even ministerial servants) had 10 or more victims, and those were marked with the term "10+". The plus sign keeps it from being put in the total because the sheet formula treats it as text, not a number. So if you change all the 10+ to just the number 10 (the minimum), you get a minimum of 1,857 victims:

Again I don't know the accuracy of the report that the Australian Watchtower Branch gave to the court, but it represents at least 1,857 victims. This is why I called it 1,700-plus. But if it comes up again, I supposed I should be more accurate and admit that it shows at least 1,857.

No. What I did was explain how one can best determine the minimum number of alleged victims that are represented in the spreadsheet. I'm not saying the spreadsheet numbers are correct. I'm just discussing the most accurate way to read it correctly. If someone else has an idea about reading it even more accurately, that would be welcomed.
I would certainly hope you were able to sense that your post was being undermined because it was. Unfortunately for you, that's a typical result of presenting facts alongside fiction. The fiction often gets undermined by facts. The only thing you sensed incorrectly was that you thought the effort was intense. But there was nothing intense about it. The facts are simply there, and I simply presented them.
No. That's false. Actually, we don't need to stay focused on the number of cases (perpetrators), and not the victim numbers. That might be your own agenda, but my goal was to clarify the false impression you continued to give that there were not at least 1,700 victims included in the same documentation which referenced 1,006 perpetrators.
You are welcome to use the term "cases" to refer to the number of perpetrators alone. As I said above, some people will want to use the term "cases" to mean only that without any reference to the number of victims. What needed clarification was the fact that there really were 1,700 plus victims. Whether intentional or not, you made it appears as though you had an agenda to apply "case" only to the lower number as a way to obfuscate the fact that there were 1,006 alleged perpetrators and over 1,700 alleged victims. I thought it better to be concerned about both numbers, not just the lower one.
That's also false. Psychoanalyzing the numbers definitely does not mean anything like that.
I'm sure that's possible. Although most of her data appears now to have come from merely analyzing the same spreadsheet you referenced. It's the spreadsheet we already have that gave her the 161 convictions, and 1,006 perpetrators for example. She appears to have had no extra help from police sources but merely made some assumptions based on the data about the number of convictions (which MUST have been reported at some point) along with her interpretation of another column about reporting statuses. That same spreadsheet has a column called "Reported to Authorities by JW." That column was claimed to have the word "NO" 1,006 times. Actually, it had "NO" only 994 times and 12 marked "UNCLEAR." (You referenced this earlier, I think.)
Yes. Easily. The formula had been turned off before the JW Branch or the ARC made final edits to the document. I put the formula back in and it gave 1732 instead of 1730 in that same cell. If you count the numbers manually you will see that the formula is correct.
But that formula counts the cells containing the word "Unclear" as a 0, and I think the word "Unclear" should have represented at least ONE alleged victim. Before you tell me I was just making up numbers, let me know how many victims YOU think the term "Unclear" most likely represents.
That formula also counted NINE cells containing the term "10+" as 0. Because when you put a plus sign after a number it now becomes just a string of text, and can't be counted as a number. I counted them as only 10 even though it's possible that the average of those was much higher. 10+ doesn't mean that all nine alleged perpetrators all were associated with exactly 10 alleged victims. Again, before you tell me I was just making up numbers, please let me know what number you would have used for the term 10+.
Anyway, counting the 9 perpetrators with 10+ victims apiece added a minimum of 90 additional victims to their sheet, and adding the "Unclear" as 1 instead of 0 made up the rest.

Or, from a different perspective . . . Be careful who you associate with. Those who are at war with themselves have a a better appreciation and empathy for those around them. (Less chance of collateral damage.)
(Romans 7:22-25) 22 I really delight in the law of God according to the man I am within, 23 but I see in my body another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin’s law that is in my body. 24 Miserable man that I am! Who will rescue me from the body undergoing this death? 25 Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So, then, with my mind I myself am a slave to God’s law, but with my flesh to sin’s law.
(ESV) "But I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members."
 

Yes, I found my source documents. You are right that the sheet has exactly 1,006 entries for the number of perpetrators. Some people identify the perpetrators as the number of cases. But notice that the next column is the number of victims which I counted as 1,700+ (which other Witnesses numbered at 1732 or thereabouts.) The reason I added the plus is that most people had just totaled the numbers in the column without considering all the ones that had "text" in the cell.
In the screenshot I skipped 1000 lines so you can also see the headings. The sheet matches all the numbers that other JWs and Holly Folk were using, for all the columns, not just the first few I am showing in the screenshot. I won't promote the sheet by posting the whole thing, but I'm pretty sure you can find someone who downloaded it at the time it was available. (I might be mistaken, but I don't think it is currently available on the ARC site.) 

When you look at the original sheet and total the number of alleged victims column, you get 1732 see below.

But many of the cells display Unclear. And we should assume that any accusation involves at least one accuser. So if we replace the Unclear's with a 1 then you get a total of 1766 victims.

But several of the perpetrators (even ministerial servants) had 10 or more victims, and those were marked with the term "10+". The plus sign keeps it from being put in the total because the sheet formula treats it as text, not a number. So if you change all the 10+ to just the number 10 (the minimum), you get a minimum of 1,857 victims:

Again I don't know the accuracy of the report that the Australian Watchtower Branch gave to the court, but it represents at least 1,857 victims. This is why I called it 1,700-plus. But if it comes up again, I supposed I should be more accurate and admit that it shows at least 1,857.

Angry? LOL!
You asked: "Is this considered spamming?" (referring to Pudgy's recent activity shown on his profile page.) Since your first activity on this forum shows up as starting only a couple of hours ago, I should assume that you really don't know and are asking me a sincere and innocent question. So, I'll offer my perspective, and tell you why.
No. Pudgy's profile does not reflect spamming. For reference, I took updated screenshots from the same profile page.  The first line of the first screenshot shows Pudgy reacting to the rather funny statement by Fausto Hoover that told me to calm down. Since that was so much like the very laughable "Why are you so angry?" in your own post. I thought it was funny, too. It definitely deserved a laughing icon, but as you might already know, I have never given any of Fausto's numerous accounts any vote over the last three years except a few up-votes that I thought were well-deserved. I have never given him a down-vote for any reason, and although I have been tempted to give a few laughing votes, I stopped doing that about three years ago too because he misunderstood it. His numerous accounts invariably use the laughing emoji to express derision, so I didn't want to have mine confused for the same. 
On those next two lines, Pudgy reacted to two of my posts about a half-hour apart: that's not unreasonable considering that these were serious posts addressing a serious matter. I'm not sure why you were concerned to add the line that someone named Dandellon Frend reacted to one of his own posts 10 hours earlier or that Srecko had reacted to one of his posts 11 hours earlier.

Then you provided a more recent set of Pudgy's reactions to myself and to you, "betoken," for which I have also updated the screenshot. This time my comments are after the screenshot below.

Starting from the bottom this time, the first is an up-vote reaction to a serious post by me, and the next one up is a serious up-vote reaction to a serious post by Srecko. Nothing spammy about either of those. They are for completely separate people.
Then. yes. he laughed at three very short posts in a row when you, the new person named "betoken" showed up. You may not be aware, but most people laugh when one of Fausto's many "personalities" comes on the scene when he seems to be severely challenged by someone. Some laugh at the childish naivety, thinking that he thinks he is pulling a fast one and that no one is noticing that it's really just him by another name. Pudgy probably thought the same about the "betoken" name. Others have noticed this pattern of bringing in other versions of himself and just laugh at the mess he makes of a topic that reminds them of one of those humorous pictures we've all seen of a dog that chews up a bunch of cushions and then looks up all innocent and sad that he has done all the damage he can but has no more worlds [cushions] to conquer. I laugh, although I don't press the emoji, because it reminds me of a joke I once heard about a person who cheats at solitaire to raise his self-esteem. Then, he probably thought it was funny that you may have thought you could really impute a motive about someone and think it would stick by asking questions like "Why are you so angry?" or better yet: "antagonistic."
I will admit that I thought Pudgy saw the humor in the whole situation and sees the entertainment in watching agenda-driven posts that are so easy to see through. I do think that Pudgy also sees the potential that the laughing emoji will be seen as derision. And I think he should be careful to avoid this. I'm uncomfortable with using that even three times in a row. But a series of three or four laughing emojis is not the same as an unexplained series of 6 down-votes to those who have challenged an agenda, followed immediately by a series of 6 unexplained up-votes to one's current "master" account. Pudgy has never shown evidence of bringing on new accounts just to enhance his own "self-esteem." He stands by his positions and will defend them. Unlike bringing on someone like "Ray" (or his many "brothers") who rarely has anything to say for himself, but will up-vote anything his master wants up-voted, and down-vote just about anything from persons who have challenged him, even if it means haphazardly down-voting a simple Bible scripture or Watchtower quote. 
Anyway, I hope you understand my own perspective a little better about what it means to use the emojis for spamming purposes.
 

Angry? LOL!
You asked: "Is this considered spamming?" (referring to Pudgy's recent activity shown on his profile page.) Since your first activity on this forum shows up as starting only a couple of hours ago, I should assume that you really don't know and are asking me a sincere and innocent question. So, I'll offer my perspective, and tell you why.
No. Pudgy's profile does not reflect spamming. For reference, I took updated screenshots from the same profile page.  The first line of the first screenshot shows Pudgy reacting to the rather funny statement by Fausto Hoover that told me to calm down. Since that was so much like the very laughable "Why are you so angry?" in your own post. I thought it was funny, too. It definitely deserved a laughing icon, but as you might already know, I have never given any of Fausto's numerous accounts any vote over the last three years except a few up-votes that I thought were well-deserved. I have never given him a down-vote for any reason, and although I have been tempted to give a few laughing votes, I stopped doing that about three years ago too because he misunderstood it. His numerous accounts invariably use the laughing emoji to express derision, so I didn't want to have mine confused for the same. 
On those next two lines, Pudgy reacted to two of my posts about a half-hour apart: that's not unreasonable considering that these were serious posts addressing a serious matter. I'm not sure why you were concerned to add the line that someone named Dandellon Frend reacted to one of his own posts 10 hours earlier or that Srecko had reacted to one of his posts 11 hours earlier.

Then you provided a more recent set of Pudgy's reactions to myself and to you, "betoken," for which I have also updated the screenshot. This time my comments are after the screenshot below.

Starting from the bottom this time, the first is an up-vote reaction to a serious post by me, and the next one up is a serious up-vote reaction to a serious post by Srecko. Nothing spammy about either of those. They are for completely separate people.
Then. yes. he laughed at three very short posts in a row when you, the new person named "betoken" showed up. You may not be aware, but most people laugh when one of Fausto's many "personalities" comes on the scene when he seems to be severely challenged by someone. Some laugh at the childish naivety, thinking that he thinks he is pulling a fast one and that no one is noticing that it's really just him by another name. Pudgy probably thought the same about the "betoken" name. Others have noticed this pattern of bringing in other versions of himself and just laugh at the mess he makes of a topic that reminds them of one of those humorous pictures we've all seen of a dog that chews up a bunch of cushions and then looks up all innocent and sad that he has done all the damage he can but has no more worlds [cushions] to conquer. I laugh, although I don't press the emoji, because it reminds me of a joke I once heard about a person who cheats at solitaire to raise his self-esteem. Then, he probably thought it was funny that you may have thought you could really impute a motive about someone and think it would stick by asking questions like "Why are you so angry?" or better yet: "antagonistic."
I will admit that I thought Pudgy saw the humor in the whole situation and sees the entertainment in watching agenda-driven posts that are so easy to see through. I do think that Pudgy also sees the potential that the laughing emoji will be seen as derision. And I think he should be careful to avoid this. I'm uncomfortable with using that even three times in a row. But a series of three or four laughing emojis is not the same as an unexplained series of 6 down-votes to those who have challenged an agenda, followed immediately by a series of 6 unexplained up-votes to one's current "master" account. Pudgy has never shown evidence of bringing on new accounts just to enhance his own "self-esteem." He stands by his positions and will defend them. Unlike bringing on someone like "Ray" (or his many "brothers") who rarely has anything to say for himself, but will up-vote anything his master wants up-voted, and down-vote just about anything from persons who have challenged him, even if it means haphazardly down-voting a simple Bible scripture or Watchtower quote. 
Anyway, I hope you understand my own perspective a little better about what it means to use the emojis for spamming purposes.
 

I notice that the date is highlighted on this police form above. Notice that it was 11/10/2000 that "Elder Bennett" gave a statement to "Police Officer Bennett." But look at the ARC exhibits here: https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits-case-study-29 and select the document: Report of Appeal Committee regarding [BCH]. If you download it you will see the following:

But this letter is dated: July 1989. This was evidently more than 11 Years before Charman Bennett gave a statement to the police.

Seriously? If anyone started to upvote me the way your doppelgangers upvote you, I'd complain to them that they were spamming, and that, when used excessively, it can give the appearance of unfair bias or sometimes even "mockery" or something "pathetic" instead of agreement. For comparison, here's a screenshot of what Ray's activity on your own profile looked like, all from that same three-minute spamming spree mentioned above:

I think the word "pathetic" comes to the mind of most persons who Witness this kind of thing here.

Looks like Peter Carroll was correct, @Fausto Hoover.
According to your Ray Devereaux profile, [ https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/profile/18582-ray-devereaux/ ] you hadn't brought "Ray" out do your spamming work for you for over 2.2 years, per that post from Srecko back in March 2021. As usual, per all your previous spamming patterns, it's easy to guess who your "Ray" has down-voted, and who your "Ray" has up-voted, without even opening the link above to see the actual posts the following screenshot refers to.  

I know I had promised you I wouldn't keep exposing your multi-personality tactics, and I've kept that promise for nearly two years now. But this one had already been exposed by others. And it also made me realize that this is all a game to you anyway, and it really does you no harm to expose you. After all, you already admitted that "someone" will just come back under a different name in the worst case: i.e, if any admin happens to discover this latest flailing of yours, for example. Anyway, I'm not asking that you get banned again over this practice. I think it actually helps everyone see through your tactics. I hope they leave you to own devices and machinations. 
If I continue to respond on this topic, it's not because I care whether or not you agree. It's just that there are others here who see how serious this topic is, and don't think all of it is part of a game.
 
unnecessarily edited 2 hours later to add:
P.S. Just thought I'd quickly check to see all the emoji activity on your own account while Ray was on that 3 minute spamming spree. Looks like you did pretty well this time, almost as many upvotes as last time:

Unfortunately, this software doesn't keep track of such iconic activity for more than a few hours, so I thought I'd check your profile before they disappeared.
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/profile/20274-fausto-hoover/?wr=eyJhcHAiOiJmb3J1bXMiLCJtb2R1bGUiOiJmb3J1bXMtY29tbWVudCIsImlkXzEiOjkwNjEzLCJpZF8yIjoxODMzNDl9
and that's where I got the above screenshot.

Looks like Peter Carroll was correct, @Fausto Hoover.
According to your Ray Devereaux profile, [ https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/profile/18582-ray-devereaux/ ] you hadn't brought "Ray" out do your spamming work for you for over 2.2 years, per that post from Srecko back in March 2021. As usual, per all your previous spamming patterns, it's easy to guess who your "Ray" has down-voted, and who your "Ray" has up-voted, without even opening the link above to see the actual posts the following screenshot refers to.  

I know I had promised you I wouldn't keep exposing your multi-personality tactics, and I've kept that promise for nearly two years now. But this one had already been exposed by others. And it also made me realize that this is all a game to you anyway, and it really does you no harm to expose you. After all, you already admitted that "someone" will just come back under a different name in the worst case: i.e, if any admin happens to discover this latest flailing of yours, for example. Anyway, I'm not asking that you get banned again over this practice. I think it actually helps everyone see through your tactics. I hope they leave you to own devices and machinations. 
If I continue to respond on this topic, it's not because I care whether or not you agree. It's just that there are others here who see how serious this topic is, and don't think all of it is part of a game.
 
unnecessarily edited 2 hours later to add:
P.S. Just thought I'd quickly check to see all the emoji activity on your own account while Ray was on that 3 minute spamming spree. Looks like you did pretty well this time, almost as many upvotes as last time:

Unfortunately, this software doesn't keep track of such iconic activity for more than a few hours, so I thought I'd check your profile before they disappeared.
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/profile/20274-fausto-hoover/?wr=eyJhcHAiOiJmb3J1bXMiLCJtb2R1bGUiOiJmb3J1bXMtY29tbWVudCIsImlkXzEiOjkwNjEzLCJpZF8yIjoxODMzNDl9
and that's where I got the above screenshot.

If "BHC" was a victim herself, and reported to the police, then is not related to the common claim about whether any congregation elders, the Branch, or legal representatives of the Branch, ever voluntarily reported any cases to the police. I guess I see your point, though. It's possible that someone could have found a way to add up any of the 1700+ cases that actually did finally make it to the police even if it was from victims themselves. Yet we already know that many of these reports happened many years after the congregation's and Branch documents showed that they already were aware of some of these cases, and had never reported them. Most of the time, the victims who reported also waited many years before reporting. If this is the case, then I am pretty disgusted with Holly Folk's false implication about the 383. I understand that they (at BitterWinter) want to build a niche audience supportive of "new religions" and their support is often helpful. But it should be done honestly or it isn't worth so much in the long run. 

I don't promote these numbers to be true at all. I can only refer to the numbers that show up in the documents that were, for a time, all available on the ARC website. I have no way of verifying if those numbers are correct. I can only verify what numbers I have seen within those documents. The documents could be completely without merit for all I know. I have made it pretty clear that it is NOT my contention that the information is true. It could be a lot worse than these numbers purport, or it could be a lot better. All I have is the data provided.
This is why my focus was on where that claim of "383 cases reported to the police" came up. It wasn't in any early discussions of the ARC. I didn't see it in any ARC documentation. I vaguely recalled a claim that some [more recent] cases really had been reported to the police, but no one made a claim that reports related to the 1.006 perpetrators came from the Witnesses, or from the Branch, or from congregation Elders. From what I can see so far, it was first on Bitterwinter many years after the ARC hearings. I assumed I must have missed that key piece of data, and it would be very useful data to prove bias on the part of the Australian court.
I'm not at all concerned about whether you agree with Jehovah's Witnesses who report 1,006 perpetrators vs those who read it as 1,006 cases of CSA. Your Bitter Winter "Holly Folk" link does not deny that they were "perpetrators." On the link you provided, she says:
Based on this document, the media reported that there had been 1,006 perpetrators who had committed sexual crimes in Australia . . .
I have no stake one way or another as to whether these numbers are correct, and it's a bit late to try to get a retraction from Holly Folk, or to get a retraction from all the JWs and non-JWs who reported those numbers as they read them.
You referred to some contention over the numbers, and you indicated that JWs are making a "false claim" when they read this as 1,006 perpetrators. Against that supposedly "false claim" you said: Yes, the exhibit information is there in my post." And you said: "My exhibit of the ARC document proves my point ."
I looked for that exhibit and found nothing that counters the numbers provided by other Witnesses, or the Branch numbers, or Holly Folk. It turned out that your exhibit had nothing to do with the numbers you claimed were false. It had to do with the timing of certain CSA policies.

Sorry. I didn't see your exhibit of the ARC document. Is it in this thread?

The problem here was that much of the data came from a time when the victim really was forced to confront the accused. And there was evidence that it had happened since 1999, too. And the elders testifying at the ARC didn't help when they wouldn't reject the old policy. 
And of course, a similar problem happened when the elders, even Bro. Jackson himself wouldn't completely reject the court's understanding of how we implement the two-witness policy.

The thing is, it never was 1,006 cases [instances]. It was 1,006 perpetrators, per the numbers the Watchtower Branch provided to the ARC. It was always at least 1,732 cases, per the numbers the Watchtower Branch provided to the ARC. 1,006 "cases" was just a very common sloppy reading of the numbers. I saw it being misreported that way on the first day of the ARC hearings. Only a few people corrected it. I recalled the number vaguely because when I saw people making the correction, I looked it up myself to make sure it was right before commenting on it.
Although I have looked at my notes, I still haven't got out my old computer with the files (and I don't plan to for at least a week). But I did find a site (unfortunately it is generally an anti-JW site) and that site has numbers that pretty much match all my own notes from MS-OneNote. I won't link to it, but you could look up any of the lines in Google and would probably find it easily:
I don't know if every statement is true. I don't even know if the Watchtower Branch provided all the data. (In fact, I heard from the Australian brother that several Witnesses were already suspicious when some notorious cases were missing from the Gold Coast, Queensland area.) At any rate, here is their summary of the ARC data that generally matched my own notes taken directly from the ARC data:
There was at least 1732 children who were sexually abused. Over 650 of those children were abused by family members. At least 170 of the children sexually abused were under the age of 5. There was 1006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse within the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Of that number, 15 were women. 579 of the alleged abusers confessed to their crime(s). 306 did not. Of the remaining 121, it’s unclear whether they confessed or not. 95 of the alleged child abusers were not Jehovah’s Witnesses when they committed their first sexual abuse. 65 of the alleged child abusers were ministerial servants; 42 were elders;  8 were pioneers; and 1 was a circuit overseer. At least 56 ministerial servants and 27 elders were deleted from their roles. 6 elders and 2 ministerial servants were re-appointed to their roles. Over 33 ministerial servants, 13 elders and 1 pioneer were disfellowshipped. 14 ministerial servants, 4 elders and 1 pioneer were convicted for Child Sexual Abuse by the Australian authorities, yet 3 of those elders and 3 of those ministerial servants were never disfellowshipped for their crimes. Not a single instance of Child Sexual Abuse was ever reported to the authorities by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

It's very difficult to make a presentation without showing bias. The things that are important to one person or group or religion are the thing reported, not the things that are much less important. This presentation above was extra careful to present only things that were factual, but even here a couple of biases slipped in.
For one thing, the narrator claims by strong implication that no changes to CSA policy were initiated in the wake of the Australian Royal Commission. This isn't true. First of all, Bro Jackson made some excellent points about how responsibility for CSA policies cannot just be one-sided where all blame appears to be put on an organization when the organization itself often has no blame in the matter. Primary blame is always on the perpetrators of the crime, but policies to deal with it include government and law enforcement policies. It's true that many individuals within the organization have not always followed the law, but the law itself is often inconsistent, and frankly, the authorities have not earned public trust.
The ARC pointed out some of these egregious mistakes and even cover-ups. But the truth is that CSA policies were updated CORRECTLY in the wake of the ARC, and there was also a kind of "public service announcement" that addressed a necessary attitudinal shift among Witnesses: There was to be no more thinking that covering up CSA crimes somehow protected the reputation of the organization. From now on the emphasis was on the fact that all the shame should be centered on the perpetrator. Also, there has been a heightened awareness and sensitivity to the legal issues and more legal personnel have been aiding the organization in this regard.
I get the impression that these new policies and emphasis have been working. There are fewer and fewer NEW cases being tried against JWs. There are many cases still being tried and pending, but they are nearly always from CSA reports that predate the updated policies.  

If "BHC" was a victim herself, and reported to the police, then is not related to the common claim about whether any congregation elders, the Branch, or legal representatives of the Branch, ever voluntarily reported any cases to the police. I guess I see your point, though. It's possible that someone could have found a way to add up any of the 1700+ cases that actually did finally make it to the police even if it was from victims themselves. Yet we already know that many of these reports happened many years after the congregation's and Branch documents showed that they already were aware of some of these cases, and had never reported them. Most of the time, the victims who reported also waited many years before reporting. If this is the case, then I am pretty disgusted with Holly Folk's false implication about the 383. I understand that they (at BitterWinter) want to build a niche audience supportive of "new religions" and their support is often helpful. But it should be done honestly or it isn't worth so much in the long run. 

I don't promote these numbers to be true at all. I can only refer to the numbers that show up in the documents that were, for a time, all available on the ARC website. I have no way of verifying if those numbers are correct. I can only verify what numbers I have seen within those documents. The documents could be completely without merit for all I know. I have made it pretty clear that it is NOT my contention that the information is true. It could be a lot worse than these numbers purport, or it could be a lot better. All I have is the data provided.
This is why my focus was on where that claim of "383 cases reported to the police" came up. It wasn't in any early discussions of the ARC. I didn't see it in any ARC documentation. I vaguely recalled a claim that some [more recent] cases really had been reported to the police, but no one made a claim that reports related to the 1.006 perpetrators came from the Witnesses, or from the Branch, or from congregation Elders. From what I can see so far, it was first on Bitterwinter many years after the ARC hearings. I assumed I must have missed that key piece of data, and it would be very useful data to prove bias on the part of the Australian court.
I'm not at all concerned about whether you agree with Jehovah's Witnesses who report 1,006 perpetrators vs those who read it as 1,006 cases of CSA. Your Bitter Winter "Holly Folk" link does not deny that they were "perpetrators." On the link you provided, she says:
Based on this document, the media reported that there had been 1,006 perpetrators who had committed sexual crimes in Australia . . .
I have no stake one way or another as to whether these numbers are correct, and it's a bit late to try to get a retraction from Holly Folk, or to get a retraction from all the JWs and non-JWs who reported those numbers as they read them.
You referred to some contention over the numbers, and you indicated that JWs are making a "false claim" when they read this as 1,006 perpetrators. Against that supposedly "false claim" you said: Yes, the exhibit information is there in my post." And you said: "My exhibit of the ARC document proves my point ."
I looked for that exhibit and found nothing that counters the numbers provided by other Witnesses, or the Branch numbers, or Holly Folk. It turned out that your exhibit had nothing to do with the numbers you claimed were false. It had to do with the timing of certain CSA policies.