ClaimChild safeguardingverified2010sIndependent finding

Protection des mineurs · Claim record

La Commission royale a refusé de retenir les conclusions du Dr Monica Applewhite, l'experte mandatée par l'organisation, parce que son rapport n'identifiait pas les faits et les hypothèses sur lesquels il se fondait, comparait l'organisation à d'autres organisations religieuses non identifiées et ne tenait pas compte du vécu des survivants.

Claim ID claim-safeguarding-applewhite-expert-not-acceptedConcerns octobre 2016Constat indépendant

L’affirmation et ses preuves

Constat indépendant · octobre 2016 Vérifié

La Commission royale a refusé de retenir les conclusions du Dr Monica Applewhite, l'experte mandatée par l'organisation, parce que son rapport n'identifiait pas les faits et les hypothèses sur lesquels il se fondait, comparait l'organisation à d'autres organisations religieuses non identifiées et ne tenait pas compte du vécu des survivants. Source: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, octobre 2016

Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : Le rapport du Dr Applewhite indiquait que les documents de l'organisation étaient 'consistent with, and in some respects better than' les pratiques d'autres organisations religieuses (rapport, p. 74).

Afficher les preuves (1 source)
Document public officiel Vérifié

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, “Report of Case Study No. 29: The response of the Jehovah's Witnesses and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia Ltd to allegations of child sexual abuse”

octobre 2016 · pp.1-110 (ISBN 978-1-925289-89-3) · pp. 10-12, 14, 24-25, 58-70, 75-78 · The Hon. Justice Peter McClellan AM (Chair); Professor Helen Milroy (Commissioner) · Commonwealth of Australia

“Although the position is not clear in relation to a few files, there is otherwise no evidence before the Royal Commission of the Jehovah's Witness organisation having reported to police or other secular authority a single one of the 1,006 alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse recorded in the case files held by Watchtower Australia.”

P. 60. Other key passages: p. 58 (files since 1950 record allegations against 1,006 members; 579 admissions; at least 1,800 alleged victims); p. 59 ('The numbers tell their own story'); p. 61 ('We are satisfied that it is the general practice of the Jehovah's Witness organisation in Australia not to report allegations of child sexual abuse to the police or other authorities unless required to do so by law'); p. 65 (two-witness rule: 'retention of and continued application of the rule to a complaint of child sexual abuse is wrong'); p. 67 (men-only decision-making is 'a fundamental flaw'); p. 69 ('places children within the organisation at significant risk'); p. 70 (BCG 'completely shunned, ostracised and actively avoided'); p. 77 ('We do not consider the Jehovah's Witness organisation to be an organisation which responds adequately to child sexual abuse').

Note de provenance et de vérification for Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Report of Case Study No. 29: The response of the Jehovah's Witnesses and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia Ltd to allegations of child sexual abuse

Note sur la fiabilité. The official Royal Commission host could not be reached from this environment (TLS renegotiation failure / timeouts), so the NZ-hosted copy of the same Commonwealth publication was downloaded and text-extracted; all quotations verbatim with printed page numbers. Tabled in Parliament 28 November 2016.

Provenance de la numérisation. Copy of the Commonwealth publication (CC BY 3.0 AU) held in the New Zealand Abuse in Care Royal Commission evidence library; identical ISBN and pagination to the official release.

Corroboré par. src-wt-subs-2015-1109-royal-commission, src-arc-2015-0814-day155-transcript

Notes. Public hearing 27 July-5 August and 14 August 2015, Sydney. Survivors identified only as BCG and BCB. Also on parlinfo.aph.gov.au as a tabled paper.

Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source. src-arc-2016-1000-cs29-report

Page de l’affirmation Corriger ou mettre à jour

A direct link to this claim is https://jwtruth.org/fr/evidence/claim-safeguarding-applewhite-expert-not-accepted/. Every source above opens the original document or the best available copy. If you believe the wording, date or context is wrong, report an error.