ClaimChild safeguardingverified2010sIndependent finding

Proteção de menores · Claim record

A Comissão Real recusou-se a aceitar as opiniões da Dra. Monica Applewhite, a perita contratada pela organização, porque o relatório dela não identificava os fatos e as premissas em que se baseava, comparava a organização com outras entidades religiosas não identificadas e não considerava as experiências dos sobreviventes.

Claim ID claim-safeguarding-applewhite-expert-not-acceptedConcerns outubro de 2016Conclusão independente

A afirmação e as suas provas

Conclusão independente · outubro de 2016 Verificado

A Comissão Real recusou-se a aceitar as opiniões da Dra. Monica Applewhite, a perita contratada pela organização, porque o relatório dela não identificava os fatos e as premissas em que se baseava, comparava a organização com outras entidades religiosas não identificadas e não considerava as experiências dos sobreviventes. Source: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, outubro de 2016

A posição da organização ou explicação posterior: O relatório da Dra. Applewhite afirmava que os materiais da organização eram “compatíveis com, e em alguns aspectos melhores que” as práticas de outras organizações religiosas (relatório, p. 74).

Mostrar as provas (1 fonte)
Registro público oficial Verificado

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”

outubro de 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').

Nota de procedência e verificação 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

Nota de confiança. 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.

Procedência da digitalização. 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.

Corroborado por. 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.

Consultado em. 19 de setembro de 2026 · Identificador da fonte. src-arc-2016-1000-cs29-report

Página da afirmação Corrigir ou atualizar

A direct link to this claim is https://jwtruth.org/pt-br/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.