Royal Commission Case Study 29 (Jehovah's Witnesses) — Hearing Transcript, Day 149 (2015)
Download: PDF — Royal Commission Case Study 29 (Jehovah's Witnesses) — Hearing Transcript, Day 149 (2015)
%20%E2%80%94%20Hearing%20Transcript%2C%20Day%20149%20(2015)/cover.jpg)
ROYAL COMMISSION INTO INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES TO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
Public Hearing - Case Study 29 (Day 149)
Level 17, Governor Macquarie Tower Farrer Place, Sydney
On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 at 10am
Before The Chair: Commissioner:
Justice Peter McClellan AM Professor Helen Milroy
Counsel Assisting:
Mr Angus Stewart SC
.29/07/2015 (149)
15338 Transcript produced by DTI THE CHAIR: Mr Stewart, I just need to indicate that the Commission will not be sitting tomorrow.
There are some circumstances that make it unavoidable, but we will resume again after today on Friday.
MR STEWART: As your Honour pleases. Mr Ali was in the witness box.
<DINO ALI, on former oath:
[10.05am]
<EXAMINATION BY MR STEWART CONTINUING:
MR STEWART: Q. Mr Ali, I want to deal first with the judicial committee and how the judicial committee dealt with the allegations that had been raised by [BCG]. Firstly, as I understand it, you and Mr Bowditch and Mr de Rooy had already formed a judicial committee to deal with unrelated allegations; is that right? A. Yes.
Q. They were allegations, briefly put, to do with [BCG]'s father's relationship or possible relationship with another woman, not his wife; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Then, when these allegations of [BCG] were brought to the elders, you then dealt with them in the same judicial committee; is that right?
A. The same members of the judicial committee, yes.
Q. So you didn't have an independent investigation first and then decide to form a judicial committee; you just subsumed them into the discussions and investigation you were already doing; is that right?
A. I know it followed fairly closely, but I'm not sure of the time element there, no, but it was tied in pretty much together, mmm.
Q. Well, that's right, isn't it, that in the meetings that you had with various people who were involved, or had an interest, or were witnesses, you discussed these matters together; in other words, the question of [BCG]'s father's relationship with another woman as well as [BCG]'s allegations?
A. That, I believe, came at the end, later, after we had dealt with the father.
Q. I will show you some notes in a minute. We will come to that. But let's get it clear what you mean. Do you mean to say you had dealt with the other allegations and made a finding on them and then, only thereafter, you dealt with [BCG]'s allegations?
A. Yes, yes, followed through, yes.
Q. I think your memory may be failing you on that, Mr Ali. In that regard, I will refer you to tab 3 of the tender bundle. Do you see this is the report of your judicial committee. If we can scroll down, do you see the names at the bottom. This was the report, where your finding was on the last line there: Loose conduct and lying and the brother was disfellowshipped. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. At the time that [BCG] raised her allegations and you dealt with them, her father was not disfellowshipped?
A. Not on those allegations, but on what we dealt with him of an immoral course that he had taken against - with his wife. That's the founding or the finding that we had, that we referred to on that loose conduct, lying.
Q. I see that. But at the time you dealt with [BCG]'s allegations, you had not yet disfellowshipped the father; is that right?
A. We had taken the steps of announcing that disfellowshipping. We had completed that sitting with him and decided that he needs to be disfellowshipped for what he did.
Q. Well, if he had already been disfellowshipped, why were you investigating further allegations against him? A. The - what came through after that, they have - the person who has this loose conduct and lying and was referred to disfellowshipping had seven days to appeal. If he wanted others to hear his case against what we had decided, then a further committee could be made available to follow through. So there was at least seven days before we could announce that he was disfellowshipped, that he acted in that way of saying, "I would like another committee to sit in and hear my situation."
Q. Let's just straighten out the chronology. Take a look at tab 4. Do you see this is a memo addressed to Ron de Rooy, Kevin Bowditch and Dino Ali; do you see that at the top left?
A. I do.
Q. It is headed "Appeal - on basis of repentance", and it says:
Dear Brothers, I wish to appeal ...
And then it goes on and it is difficult to read, but at the end you will see that it is signed by [BCH] - that's [BCG]'s father, at the foot of the page - and you will see it is dated 19 July 1989? A Mmm-bmm
A. Mmm-hmm.
Q. Do you accept he appealed on that date?
A. That's what the appeal was - that's what he appealed, yes, on that basis.
Q. So your decision to disfellowship him obviously preceded that?
A. Yes.
Q. It was on that day or it was before that day?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, if we go back to tab 3, and if we go to the top of the page, it is actually undated except for a date stamp that says "SD 7 AUG 1989"; do you know how that stamp came to be applied there?
A. No, not sure.
Q. That would suggest it was the service desk that received that on 7 August 1989?
A. Okay.
Q. If we go to tab 5, you will see this is the decision of the appeal. Do you recognise the names of the appeal committee there, Messrs Bennett, Wilson and Miraziz? A. I do.
Q. That's dated 23 July 1989?
A. Yes.
Q. There is a stamp "SD 7 AUG 1989" at the top of that page as well?
A. Yes.
Q. I take it, again, you don't know how that came there but it looks like it may have been the service desk?
A. I assume so.
Q. I would like to show you some handwritten notes. I must just caution you - I understand you have been given a copy of some handwritten notes that have been redacted but with pseudonyms inserted where the redactions are; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that what you have?
A. I have, yes.
Q. What I have handed up, and which has also been given to my learned friends, as I understand, are some handwritten or manuscript notes, as well as a best effort to transcribe those notes and type them out.
Firstly, Mr Ali, are these notes yours - in other words, they are in your handwriting, are they? A. They appear to be so, yes.
Q. In fact, you gave evidence about these notes in one or other of the criminal trials; is that right?
A. I can't remember, but I was there and I think that was the case, yes.
Q. You will see that these notes appear to be torn from a notebook with a spiral binder - do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. At the top of the pages, they are numbered in manuscript-1,2,3 and so on; do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. That numbering, is that also your manuscript?
A. It appears to be so, yes.
Q. You will see the notes start, it says "Notes of investigating committee" and it has 1 June 1989; do you see that?
A. Is that on the first page?
Q. On page 1, on the first and second lines. "Notes of investigating committee. 1-6-89"? A. It could be a "5th" or a "6th", the way it is shown to me here.
Q. Either way, that is fine. If you look at the page which has page 14, it is Ringtail 1494 - do you see that? Now, the next page is actually unnumbered. It is at 1495, and at the foot of that page it says "19-7-89 [BCH] appeals, fax to Kevin"; do you see that?
A. Is that after page 14, and there is another page without that 15 --
Q. Yes.
A. -- at the bottom of that?
Q. It is an unnumbered page between 14 and 15.
A. Yes, I see that.
Q. And then equally, after, at the back of page 15, there is an unnumbered page; at the back of page 16, there is an unnumbered page, and so on. So can we take it, Mr Ali, that the pages that precede that unnumbered page on the screen now, which is the back of 14, deal with matters that you dealt with prior to the appeal?
A. It's very difficult to read. It's okay to take a little bit of time to look at that?
Q. Yes.
A. I'm not sure, but it possibly could be.
Q. I will show you, Mr Ali, how it stands to reason. The pages are numbered in order and they are numbered in order by you. That's right?
A. Generally, the first pages are seemingly in order.
I'm not sure where - I'd probably need a bit more time to sort of peruse through that to make a judgment on that.
Q. Have a look from page 11, Ringtail 1488.
A. Yes.
Q. You will see that that page, as it is reflected there has the torn-off part of it at the top of the page?
A. Yes.
Q. Then the next page, which is unnumbered, has the torn-off part at the foot of the page.
A. At the bottom?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. You will see, what's more, that those torn-off tabs actually match - do you see that?
A. So that-what's on the screen is reflecting what's on the page?
Q. You just look at the page, if you like, it is easier Mr Ali.
A. Yes.
Q. If you look at page 11, and then you look at the next page, it is actually the reverse of page 11, isn't it?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. You can see how the tabs match up. Do you see what I mean?
A. Yes, I see, at the bottom, the tear?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Yes, the tear. And page 12,the reverse of page 12 is actually numbered 13A, for some reason.
A. I see.
Q. But you see that it is the reverse of the same page?
A. I see, yes. Mmm-hmm.
Q. And 13 then has the - the page following 13 is the reverse of page 13; do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. If we go back to earlier in the piece and, in particular, if you take a look at page 4, which is Ringtail 1481, in the middle of the page there are two names that are written there, it is [BCG] and [BCI]-that's [BCG]'s mother. Those are underlined twice, those names. Then it has a dash, and it says "Molesting! 4-5 times". Now, what this suggests is that your committee met with [BCG] and her mother; is that right? And below that are the notes, your notes, of what they told you?
A. It appears to be so, yes. Yes.
Q. And then you will see, towards the foot of that page, in the left-hand margin, it has [BCG]'s mother's name written there, [BCI], a colon, a dash, and it says: that [BCH] has gone to ...
Something, and it carries on there; do you see that? A. Yes.
Q. Now, what you have recorded there, next to those dashes, is what [BCG]'s mother told you - not so? Your note of what she told you.
A. I can't remember that.
Q. That's how the note is structured, isn't it? You have got her name, colon, and then you have got a number of points noted down, suggesting that that's what she told you? You seem to be struggling with that?
A. I - no, that's true, but I'm not - I'm trying to ascertain whether the mother was there or whether this was a flow-on from something that came up from - if it was [BCG]. That's the only thing I'm not very sure now.
Q. If you go back to the beginning of the notes, you will see the way in which you have structured them, which stands to reason and is the way anyone else would structure their notes, is you write the name of a person, you underline it, you put a colon and then you make notes of what that person has told you, and it starts on page 1 with a name which is redacted, but I can tell you, I have it in front of me, it is one of the people involved --
THE CHAIR: Do we have the original document?
MR STEWART: We don't have the original. We only have photocopies which we got from the police, but we can show the witness an unredacted copy.
THE CHAIR: I think you should do that. And are there lines on the page above [BCI] in the top third? The photocopy that I have rather suggests that someone's been drawing lines between people who speak.
MR STEWART: There are indeed lines on it. That's on the manuscript page 4.
THE CHAIR: Page 4. And it seems to be the same on 5. There seems to be a pattern of ruling a line across - and the same is true on 6, I think - when you get to a different person and notes being taken. It goes on through the document, as I see this copy, anyway.
MR STEWART: Q. Do you see that?
A. I see what your Honour has been saying, yes.
Q. So, now, of course this happened a long time ago. You may not have a clear recollection of the actual events, and you can tell us that in a moment, but the important point here is we are asking you to interpret your own notes. Now, the way in which it is structured makes it very clear, I suggest to you, that it is recording that, as you met with different people and they told you things, you have written their name and you have recorded what they have told you. Do you accept that?
A. Based on what has been written here, yes, I would accept that, yes.
Q. And there is no reason to suggest the contrary, is there?
A. On the face of that, I wouldn't object to that, no.
Q. We are getting you an unredacted copy, but we can deal with what's on page 4 in the meantime. Do you have page 4 in front of you?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. That's the one on the screen. You will see the last line records "Says [BCH]" - that's [BCG]'s father - "has abused 2 younger children, possibly" - and then it says "[BCK]]", that's the oldest daughter, "too, at age 2". Do you see that?
Q. Now, that's what the mother told you, didn't she?
A. Again, I'm not sure that that was the mother. It - it may have been. It may have been, yes.
Q. And certainly you were told it, if not by the mother, then by [BCG] herself?
A. That I can't recall, but if it's in the notes that [BCG] did that --
Q. Well, the note suggests very clearly that it was the mother who told you that, because you've got the mother's name, colon, and then you jot down a few points that she made, apparently, and then it has a dash, being a new one: Says [BCH] has abused 2 younger children possibly [BCK] too at age 2.
A. That's on the basis - it's very difficult to do that. One can assume that wherever I've put a dash in the notes against a name, that-that one can assume that that person said that.
Q. Yes. And then if we look at page 5, you will see it has "[BCK]" - that's the eldest daughter. And it's underlined twice and there is a colon and then in brackets it says "(by herself)"; do you see that?
A. Sorry, I'm just having a look. [BCK].
Q. There is an unredacted copy that you are being given now. Obviously, you appreciate, Mr Ali, that we are doing our very best not to mention the names of these people involved.
A. Certainly, yes.
Q. So do you see page 5?
A. Yes, I've got that now.
Q. Do you see it has the name of the oldest daughter?
A. Correct.
Q.
A. Yes.
Q. It says in brackets "（by herself）"?
A. Yes.
Q. And then there are various things jotted down there, and in the ninth line, it says:
On abuse to ...
And it mentions her name, a question mark, a dash, and then there's an arrow and it says:
Yes, at age 3 (remembers vividly).
Do you see that? A. Yes.
Q. So she also told your committee about having been abused by her father?
15347 D ALI (Mr Stewart) Transcript produced by DTI A.
Yes.
Q. This was your judicial committee, prior to the appeal committee?
A. It appears that way, yes.
Q. Then, if you look at page 8, you will see, on the sixth line, where it is indented, it says:
She does not like what her dad is doing with ...
and it has a redacted name that's the other woman, and:
commendably, when pulled up before [REDACTED] by ... [the father] to deny charge of molestation to [the eldest daughter] [BCK] she insisted on the truth despite ... [the father's] efforts to the contrary.
Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. The "she" that's referred to, you will see, is the eldest daughter herself, if we go to the previous page, page 7, right at the foot of the page. You can see the page there, down the left-hand side there are a couple of bits that are underlined, and near the middle of the page it says "Next day", and then three lines below that it says "That night", and then right at the foot of the page, it says:
Same night, we visit [BCK] [the eldest daughter] for some talk on Watchtower articles.
And then it says "over". And when one goes over the page it carries on. What it records here, does it not, is again the eldest daughter confirming that she herself had been abused by her father?
A. It does, yes. Is that - your reference is to the second line?
Q. The second indented line - second and third. I beg your pardon, third and fourth, "Deny charge" - well, one really has to read it as a sentence: She [the eldest daughter] does not like what her dad is doing with [the other woman] and commendably, when pulled up before [the other woman] by [the father] to deny charge of molestation to [BCK] she insisted on the truth despite [the father's] efforts to the contrary.
A. Yes.
Q. If you then go to the reverse of page 11, Ringtail 1489, perhaps if we can just go to the previous page, you will see at the foot of the previous page there is a date, 17 June 1989, "Met with [BCI]" - that's the mother - "and [BCG]". And then over the page:
Counsel given on confiding matters of family to congregation members - used articles and scriptures.
Counsel given to [BCG] also of same matters using above articles.
Also an attitude to mother; encouragement also given for her honesty and in seeking help ...
Counsel given to [the mother] on her part as subjection to [the father] could have helped cause separation and consequent matters. Used article and scriptures of her responsibility - encouragement to help family.
Then it says:
Interesting that both mentioned [the eldest daughter] as admitting to another "attempt" when going to school at ...
And it is unclear. Can you read that, what age that is, at something?
A. Probably primary school.
Q. Well, it has "primary" in brackets. The word before that looks like "age" and before that it looks like it could be "10" - "at" - something crossed out - "10" --
A. "Primary" with a question mark, is that what you are referring to?
Q. Just immediately before the "primary" with the question mark, what are the preceding two words?
A. "When going to school at a later age".
Q. Do you think "at later age"? Okay. "Primary?" "Need to check statement".
And then:
Quest.
I take it that means "question".
A. Question.
Q.
Should one be studying with younger children - even for short time until thing settle?
Do you recall, what was that reference?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. And then you see there is an arrow down from where it says "Need to check statement", down to what is then written below that?
A. I do, yes.
Q. And then it says:
[The father] took [the eldest daughter's]
hand to place it on his private parts.
she pulled hand away and refused to speak
with him for some time.
So what this is, is a report from the mother and [BCG] about an incident involving the eldest daughter; is that right?
A. This - yes, this was during our meeting, it seems, yes.
Q. Then, finally for now, at page 14 you will see at the foot of the page it is recorded, it has the father's name and then can you read it out - read your handwriting, Mr Ali?
A. " [BCH] has admitted" - is that the line?
Q. Yes.
[BCH] has admitted to all things and also said that whatever [BCG] had said on molesting was true.
So the father told you and your committee members that he admitted to all things - which you have underlined - and also said that whatever [BCG] had said on molesting was true. That's how it happened, isn't it?
A. Is that a question?
Q. Yes. That is how it happened?
A. That's?
Q. He admitted to your committee?
A. Yes, it seems he did.
Q. And it was only thereafter that you disfellowshipped him, and that was on the other grounds in relation to his relationship with the other woman.
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do with these child abuse allegations that you had received from two daughters directly, and from the mother in respect of the much younger daughters? What did you do with those?
A. This was - from my memory, and from the notes - it would be good to read them in an entirety - I believe that at the end of our findings we could only, having dealt with one issue at that time, with him, on the first matter of leaving his wife, the father leaving his wife and going off with another woman, we had to deal with that. From my what's been brought out here, it would seem that, having done that, he appealed that decision, and it may have been - and one would need to have to see any other notes with the appeals committee, that the other matter then may have been dealt with, but we needed to finalise that particular case against him in what he was doing at that moment.
THE CHAIR: Q. You told me yesterday that you didn't have corroboration or an admission that enabled you to find the allegations to be proven.
That's not right, is it? A. Well, it - on the basis of my notes, that was what was my recollection at that time, yes.
Q. But that recollection is not correct, is it?
A. It appears from the notes that some allegations had been brought out,and that's taken - would need to be taken --
Q. It was more than allegations brought out. You have, apparently, an admission.
A. Well, we still needed to then, in any judicial committee, follow through more thoroughly, because it's --
Q. What more do you need, if you have an admission?
A. He - I believe that on the other notes he may have denied - that he only said that for - to do what he can to get out of that situation. But that's the aspect that we would look at. But in my recollection that beforehand, without the use of the notes, we needed to follow through with substantiating those matters as well.
MR STEWART: Q. Mr Ali, you had received allegations of extremely serious conduct by a father against four of his daughters.Not so? A. They were allegations, yes.
Q. Yes, they were allegations. But they were directly from two of the daughters themselves, who by that time were adults, albeit young adults?
A. Mmm.
Q. That's right, isn't it?
A. Yes. They - I'm sorry, I-can I ask, again, that last- what you said at the end there?
Q. Two of the people who reported this abuse to you were themselves the victim of the abuse, and at the time they reported, they were adults?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. They were not very young children?
A. You are talking about [BCG] and --
Q. And her older sister?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. And you then had the mother tell you about what the father had done to the two younger daughters?
A. It seems that way, in that - that that's what she may have said.
Q. And you told us yesterday that you believed [BCG]?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. And you said that you thought she was very courageous?
A. Yes.
Q. And you believed her?
A. I stipulate that again.
Q. Yet you regarded the adultery allegations as being more pressing, to deal with those, than these serious allegations. How can that be?
A. Well, I don't think it's quite as simple as ignoring it. We didn't ignore it. It simply was in the process because we've only taken a day, or two, or whatever - I think the dates look at how long this process took, and it was very,very quick. It did not take months or anything like that. It continued to be dealt with.
Q. The notes don't bear that out. It started on 1 June you suggested it might even have been 1 May. By the time you were told by the mother and the sister, from the notes it appears still to be 1 June. And it goes all the way through, and it's only on 19 July that there is an appeal. So your finding on the adultery was on 19 July or shortly before. It took a very considerable time.
A. Yes, within that month, but it was still - had not been ignored, I would suggest, from the notes here.
Q. This man, to your knowledge and belief, on the information you had received, was a danger to young girls, wasn't he?
A. Certainly was.
Q. And what did you do about that to protect young girls in your congregation and worldly young girls?
A. Well, in [BCG]'s case, for a start, because we had the charge or accusation made about other children within that family, though that needed to be substantiated, but it was a process of following through, and it was to acquaint even with the innocent parent, following through with what she had to say, what other things could we do to support that.
In [BCG]'s case, she was taken out of that environment immediately, so the protection was extended to her, because it appeared that I think it was still current or had been current up to that time, that we needed to deal with that. So it was an immediate thing in her case, but it needed time, then, to follow through with the others.
Q. Let's take a look at your statement. At Ringtail 0003, paragraph 5, point 6, at the foot of the page numbered as 6.
A. Is this my personal statement?
Q. Yes, your statement to this Commission dated 10 July. It will come up on the screen in a moment.
A. Yes. Could you give me that reference again, please?
Q. It will come up on the screen for you, but it is on page 3 of your statement,and it is paragraph 5, point 6. You will see you say there:
The judicial committee did not feel it had clear proof of the allegations of child sexual abuse from either party.
Now, that's correct, isn't it? You did not feel you had clear proof?
A. At that time, no.
Q. And that's wrong, because you did have ample proof, didn't you?
A. Again, we hadn't dealt with that; we did not have clear proof, because it was still on a one-to-one basis.
Q. Well, that's what you go on to say. You say it was one person's word against another. Do you see that in that statement? But that's not true; it was three people's word against another. It was the eldest daughter, it was the next daughter, [BCG], who was 17 at that time, and it was the mother.
A. Mmm-hmm.
Q. It is false what you have written here, isn't it -it wasn't one person's word against another.
A. Again, in making that statement, that's - that was my recollection.
Q. And then you say:
However the committee concluded it had a basis for disfellowshipping [BCH] for his conduct with [the other woman] and his lying.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. So you dealt with them together. You felt that you didn't have sufficient proof on the child sexual abuse allegations but you did on the other allegations - not so? A. Well, we had proof on one instance, which we could act on, and which we did.
Q. The adultery?
A. Yes.
Q. And notwithstanding the admission made by [BCH], and the evidence of the mother and two elder daughters, you felt you didn't have sufficient proof to act on the child sexual abuse allegation?
A. Not at that time no
A. Not at that time, no.
Q. Let's take a look at your report to Bethel, back to the branch. It's at tab 3. This is the report that you wrote on your judicial committee hearing. It is signed by you at the foot of the page - do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. I take it you agree with what is written in this report?
A. I do.
Q. That is why you signed it?
A. Yes.
Q. You can take a moment to read it, but there is nothing in there about the child sexual abuse allegations, is there?
A. No.
Q. So you don't even report to the branch that the allegations were made?
A. No, we don't - we didn't.
Q. That, even under your own procedure, is a very serious omission, isn't it?
A. It would appear so, yes.
Q. Because very serious allegations are being made against someone, and even if they are not accepted by the judicial committee, because it is one person's word against another, they are supposed to be reported, in case other allegations are made in the future or other similar allegations have been made in the past - that's what is supposed to happen, isn't it?
A. No, I - I think that the recent guidelines - not the recent ones, but the guidelines that we had at that time did not suggest that we report that to the branch. That came, I think, more prominently, anyway, in the 1990s, early 1990s-1991,1992.
A. Yes.
Q. The 1991 guidelines?
Q. What is the name of the guidelines that had preceded the 1991 guidelines?
A. I think that was Pay Attention to the Flock.
MR STEWART: I call for that, the preceding manual to elders, the one preceding the 1991 book, which is at tab 80.
MR TOKLEY: I haven't got it with me, your Honour personally. But if we have it, we will produce it, I will have instructions taken straightaway to ascertain its location and have it produced to the Commission.
MR STEWART: Q. I suggest what happened here, Mr Ali, is that you and your fellow members of the committee wrongly concluded that there was insufficient evidence to accept [BCG]'s allegations?
A. That we had wrongly concluded it?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't see it that way, I'm sorry.
A. No, no, that's incorrect.
Q. And you have then just ignored those allegations?
Q. You didn't even record it in your report to the branch?
15356 D ALI (Mr Stewart) Transcript produced by DTI A.
No, as we needed to report what we had - our findings were as to this person, but we - we did follow up, I think within a reasonably very short time on the other allegations.
Q. Well, what then happened was that there was an appeal by [BCH]?
A. Yes.
Q. And the allegations were resurfaced in the appeal; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. In the appeal, [BCH] admitted the allegations?
A. I believe so. That could have been the case.
Q. You were there, weren't you?
A. I was there, as a listener or a bystander, not directly involved.
Q. So there was an appeal committee of elders Bennett, Wilson and Joe Miraziz?
A. Yes.
Q. Were they from another congregation?
A. Yes.
Q. The judicial committee of you and Mr Bowditch and Mr de Rooy,you were also present during the appeal -- A. As witnesses, yes.
Q. And in that hearing, when confronted with the allegations，[BCH] admitted that he had abused his daughter，[BCG]?
A. I can't remember that. That may have happened.
Q. In any event, the appeal committee then confirmed the disfellowshipping and added to the grounds you had found, of loose conduct and lying - added the grounds of porneia in the form of gross sexual acts against his teenage daughter five or six times during the latter part of the previous year?
A. I believe so. yes.
Q. If you felt you didn't have sufficient proof, Mr Ali did you consider reporting these matters to the police?
A. No.
Q. [BCG] didn't ask you not to report to the police, did she?
A. No.
A. No.
Q. Even after the confession by [BCH], you still didn't consider reporting to the police?
A. I can't recall that she did, no.
Q. I asked whether you considered reporting the matters, even after the confession?
A. I did?
Q. Yes, did you? You didn't, did you?
A. No, I didn't, no.
Q. Can you explain why not?
A. Well - you mean after the appeals committee?
Q. At either stage. You had had two confessions, judging by your notes. But at either stage, why didn't you consider reporting to the police?
A. Well, that was still in the process of finding the facts on the charge of porneia, that that had - he was guilty on porneia and needed to be disfellowshipped on that.
Q. After the appeal committee, the facts had been found. There was no fact-finding continuing. After the appeal committee, why did you not consider reporting to the police?
A. Because it is still a matter of dignifying the person, of allowing them that opportunity to do that.
Q. Do you not think this man should go to gaol?
A. I'm very happy that eventually he did, for what he did.
Q. Well, that was only because [BCG], some years later, found the strength, after she had left the church, to report to the police. In the interim, you and your colleagues didn't report to the police at all? A. No, we didn't.
Q. Did you think it was okay for this man to be walking the streets and continuing an ordinary life, having received these allegations and confession?
A. It's certainly not a good thing for him to be freely doing what he was doing. I agree.
Q. Wasn't it your duty to your fellow women,men and children,to report a man like this to the authorities so that he can be properly charged and, if found guilty, put in gaol?
A. Well, the police tried to do that.
Q. Well, they only tried to do it years later, when [BCG] reported to the police. All those intervening years, you had it within your power to report it to the police and set the train in motion - not so? A. Still, we had - we did not have, I guess, the direction to be able to do that, and which I'm glad today that it has encouraged us now to follow through in seeking legal aid to do whatever we can, to not only protect the victim, but to prevent anybody else being molested.
Q. Well, the real reason is, isn't it, that you see your structures within the church as replacing, standing in the place of, the civil structures?
A. Only when it comes to spiritual matters, and if those morals have - people - those within the church have crossed those, the guidelines are that they take the steps to remove the person, protect, then, through either instructions or personal counselling to those that are involved with that family, and warning them of not allowing their children to stay overnight with this person, never to be alone with this person, never to work alone or go anywhere with that person. So many have been made aware of that.
Q. You regard the police and prosecution authorities as worldly authorities and, therefore, not to be trusted; isn't that right?
A. No, I don't - I don't agree with that.
Q. And that's because you have your own structures which displace the secular structures?
A. No, we work - we try and work in all the time with the legal - with the legalities of anything. Where the authorities need to handle the cases like that, we will work in with that, on the advice that the legal department give us.
MR STEWART: No further questions, your Honour.
THE CHAIR: Does anyone else have any questions?
MS DAVID: Yes.
MR COYNE: Yes, I will, your Honour. I'm just having some difficulty reading some of this, to formulate the questions. If I can have a little bit of time.
THE CHAIR: What do you want me to do?
MR COYNE: If I could have five minutes - I've now been given a transcript of the handwritten notes. I'm just trying to read that.
THE CHAIR: I think you should go second, anyway.
<EXAMINATION BY MS DAVID:
MS DAVID: Q. Just to be clear, in relation to the confession that you have noted in the notes that were just read out to you with counsel assisting, do you not agree that that, of itself, is proof, isn't it, according to the criteria, the judicial standards?
A. It may be considered, but we needed to substantiate.
Q. But isn't the confession - of it itself, isn't that what your guidance says, that it can be either a number of witnesses to the one event or a confession?
A. Of the same incident?
Q. Just a confession by the --
A. Of the wrongdoer.
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. So a confession of itself is sufficient evidence isn't it, to prove that matter?
A. It is, yes, yes. Quite true.
Q. But in this case, you just ignored it?
A. No.
Q. Well, you weren't satisfied of it, were you?
A. No, we needed - I think in - it's hard to define that,
but - except to say that the person may - might say things
15360 D ALI (Ms David) Transcript produced by DTI on the spur of the moment because they need to get out of that situation.
We needed to follow through to make sure, eventually, that this was the case, that this was true, that we could act on that.
Q. So you have a person that you considered to be brave, in the form of [BCG] --
A. Yes.
Q. -- and a person you said yesterday that you believed and had no reason - in fact, you said you believed her?
A. Mmm. Mmm.
Q. And then you also have a confession. But you choose to disbelieve the confession; is that the situation?
A. Well, the confession I don't think was a confession in the sense of saying that he meant it. This is what --
THE CHAIR: Q. I don't understand this. I don't understand this. Someone says to you that they accept that they committed what amounts to a serious crime - correct? And you say they might do that, confess to a serious crime, to avoid a situation. I do not understand. Can you help me to understand what you mean by that? A. A person may say things - whether to get around something or not - and then deny it later, or, "Well, try and prove it" - it was that manner, it was the manner, perhaps, that we needed to follow through to make absolutely sure that - because if a person says that and then backs away from it later, we are left stranded, and the victim is also left stranded, and we found that to be the case with what proceeded after that, with the courts, where even they found it difficult to go through a number of times, to get him to admit to that, and even then, they found that he wouldn't do that. So this is what we were faced with, I feel. I can't speak for the other members, but we needed to follow through to substantiate that thoroughly and make sure absolutely that it was absolutely true. That's the way I would comment on that reason.
Q. Is this your own thoughts, or is this how the Jehovah's Witnesses decide issues?
A. Well, we need to find the evidence, your Honour, on a person may say --
Q. But are these your own thoughts, or are these how the Jehovah's Witnesses generally conduct their inquiries?
A. This is our guidelines that we need to follow through and substantiate that, yes.
Q. So even when someone confesses to a serious crime, you don't accept that and make a finding based upon a confession?
A. No, I think in certain circumstances we may have doubts as to the truthfulness of this person who is in a situation of lying already. We found him time and time again to either say things, deny things, and so on and so forth, and we had a battle to try and make something concrete in his case, and this is why - you have seen that in the reports - that he continued - we put that charge of deliberately lying. And that's serious. That, in itself, can disfellowship a person.
Q. It may be serious, but sexual assault of a child is very serious, isn't it?
A. It is.
Q. And here you had an account of what happened from a person who you have told this hearing you believed. You also had a confession from the person who was alleged to have committed the act, and you tell me that the rules of the Jehovah's Witnesses didn't allow you to make a finding based on that material; is that right?
A. No, that's not correct, your Honour. We have someone that we believed what she said. We have another person who lies about what they said. He may say certain things, but we have no proof that we can believe this character because he has a reputation of lying. So --
Q. Why couldn't you believe what he said based upon the fact that you accepted the truth of what the woman had said? Why wasn't that enough?
A. Because we still need at least two witnesses to a matter, to - but reliable witnesses, I suppose we would need to say, to actually substantiate those charges, or to make a charge stick.
MS DAVID: Q. It is separate, isn't it? You are not authorised by the scriptures to take congregational action unless there is a confession or there are two credible witnesses?
A. Mmm, yes.
Q. That's the position, just to be clear?
A. It is the position, yes.
Q. You just changed that in your previous answer. See, isn't it the situation that you are reluctant, aren't you, to make findings of such a nature against a brother who holds a senior position within the congregation?
A. No. Why would we try and hide him from a crime?
Q. Well, isn't it the case that within the Jehovah's Witness faith, you are of the belief that ministerial servants and elders are appointed by the holy spirit isn't that the case?
A. Correct.
Q. And that the ministerial servant-[BCH] was a ministerial servant.
A. Yes, he was.
Q. And he was a person, therefore, who was regarded within the congregation as someone to be looked at highly?
A. No, we don't see it as "highly".
Q. Don't you see that appointments by the holy spirit is a rather special position within the congregation?
A. It is more of a slave than a position. It's not as if we hold some dignified role or dress differently or whatever. We are there to work, you could say, as shepherds, to care - to try and care for their needs and to help them.
Q. Just coming back to the appointment process, the appointment process, you believe, is that you are appointed to those positions by the holy spirit - isn't that the case?
A. One has to go through a process of defining that. One has to have the qualities, first, so it may take some time for them to demonstrate that, first, before they are recommended to that.
Q. That's right. So once they are recommended by the holy spirit - and it is really that, isn't it, an appointment by the holy spirit?
A. Well, we - as a congregation, we recommend that that person be appointed. We send that recommendation to the branch. They look at that situation. They pray over it. They look at the whole record and they decide when that person is appointed or not. We, in a local atmosphere, don't do that.
Q. Did you have any involvement in the appointment recommendations or appointment of [BCH] at all?
A. No.
Q. But you would agree, wouldn't you, that to find out that a brother had in fact - a person who was appointed by the holy spirit as a ministerial servant - would call into question your processes somewhat, wouldn't it? A. No, I don't see why. What we need to do, then, as elders - and there is usually a body that is involved in the congregation - is monitor even each other. If one of those appointed men is displaying a particular sin or a weakness in a certain regard, that help would be given before he reaches a time where - before he can't be turned back. But if he continues in that course, then we can recommend his removal.
Q. But you would agree, though, wouldn't you, that it calls into question how people are appointed to these particular positions? It calls into question the process or the rigour of the process, doesn't it?
A. No, it doesn't.
Q. That people are appointed incorrectly?
A. No. No, it doesn't happen that way. We need to follow the guidelines that the scriptures proceed, for example, in the letters to Timothy, there is a whole list of things that those who do the appointments would go through, and the elders who go through that process would need to look at.
Q. You see, I want to suggest to you that the purpose of the committee or the interrogation - and I would like to call it an interrogation - of [BCG], during the committee process, is partly designed to test her against a person who is considered to be an esteemed member of your congregation?
A. I didn't quite understand what you meant by that.
Q. The process of interrogation is to protect the members, the elders, and the ministerial servants of your congregation?
Q. Because it's the case, isn't it, that women should be subjective to men, in your religion, shouldn't they?
They should defer to men?
A. They are directed by the Bible in its principles to act on a role that he has qualified for them. That doesn't mean subjection in a sense of "do as I say".
Q. It means to defer to men, doesn't it?
A. It defers to the authority of certain men, yes.
Q. When you said yesterday that [BCG] was very brave in the committee meetings, what did you observe about her that made you conclude that she was brave?
A. Look, it's not an easy - reading - you see, reading our articles and the direction from the branch on those things, and there are Awakes! and Watchtowers that acquaint us with the pain and the suffering that a person goes through and how they may feel, and even as a father one would imagine my own daughter, who was about the same age as [BCG] - to be able to stand up and tell the elders how she felt, it wasn't - it wouldn't have been easy at all for her. As a father, I felt - I felt for her and I could see that she took her time. We encouraged her to just relax, take her time, no matter how long it took, that as long as she felt comfortable with telling us - because she wanted to explain what had happened to her. And I believe we did that, we wanted to allow her that time. But I felt that she also had courage to be able to do that, to explain those feelings and the hurt and the pain and every detail that she went through of what her father did to her, which I guess brought out in me certain feelings of anger, perhaps.
Q. Anger towards --
A. Him.
Q. -- [BCH]？
A. Him, yes, the father.
Q. But yet you chose not to do anything about it?
Q. But yet you chose not to do anything about it?
A. Well, my own feelings put aside, I still need to deal on a rational basis, keeping those feelings and knowing what she was going through. These are serious - one cannot ignore that. I know I spent some sleepless nights knowing things like that afterwards, as we dealt with her case.
Q. You mentioned that in your statement, that you spent some sleepless nights, but none of that translated into any action to give her - to give [BCG] any support, did it?
A. No,it did. It did.Because the other two brothers who were closer, as a family,were doing everything to house and protect her. There was a neighbour that lived close to the family that also took her in.
Q. You see, I want to suggest to you that she wasn't immediately removed from the environment in which she had been abused, was she? I am suggesting to you that, also, her father had ready access to her?
A. Well, my understanding at the time, that it was very, very quick, though, that that was given - very, very quickly.
Q. And I also want to suggest to you - well, it is quite clear, isn't it - the young children weren't removed - the other sisters weren't removed from access to the father where he might further abuse them, were they?
A. They weren't removed, no.
Q. No steps were taken, in fact, were they?
A. No - sorry?
Q. No steps were taken to protect either [BCG] or any of her sisters?
A. Well, I wouldn't say that, because now the mother also was involved, and what we normally do, if things progress very quickly to that, is to make her know that these things have taken place and to make some steps about protecting her children as well. Again, even she had the right to go to the police about what her daughter had gone through against her husband, if she so desired.
Q. You were aware that [BCG]'s mother, in fact, was aware of the abuse, had been aware of the abuse for some time, weren't you?
A. She may have been, yes.
Q. But she took no steps to protect her children, notwithstanding her knowledge of the abuse?
A. Possibly, and that's a pity, if she did that.
Q. You were aware of that at the time, weren't you?
A. But I - yes, but it was still an unsubstantiated-we needed to still follow through to prove that that's what he did to other children. But from - as my memory recalls, we took the steps that were open to us to try and acquaint them with that danger.
Q. Wouldn't you view going to the police as a system that would in fact assist you with ministering your faith, in this way: I want to suggest to you that if you had gone to the police, wouldn't it have been the case that they would have been able to properly investigate the nature and extent of the crime that was alleged?
A. And that's why the abuser - the abused, or anybody in that family, had the right to do so.
Q. But wouldn't it have been in your interests - wouldn't it have enabled you to better attend to the spiritual needs of both the accused and the accuser, if you had some other system which would have enabled you to have a better understanding of the nature of the crime that you were dealing with?
A. And I think we have that now, we have that help. But back then, in 1988/1989, such was the case where we felt we took the appropriate steps, and you mentioned the police. That was a right that the family could follow through on. And we dignified that right. I mean, would we be stepping out of line? What if the person then didn't want that?
Q. The situation is that the whole process of the committees has nothing to do with protecting a victim, does it?
A. The interests of?
Q. The process of the committee has nothing to do with protecting the victim of a crime, whether it is sex abuse or any other crime, does it?
A. That's incorrect.
Q. Because isn't the primary purpose of your committee to restore - in every situation where guilt is established the primary endeavour of the overseers is to restore the wrongdoer. Isn't that what it's all about? It's really about restoring the wrongdoer to come back to Jehovah, isn't it?
A. We would like that to happen. But the - we also need to read the rest of that, where it says if a person does not have that intention, does not care to, then that - they will be dealt with.
Q. But the point of my question is this: isn't it the case that it has nothing to do with support or finding justice for a person who has been abused, for example?
A. No --
Q. The process has nothing to do with that, does it? A. Of course it has. Of course it has. It's all part and parcel of finding facts and proving that, and then allowing that individual to follow through with any authority that he or she chooses to. But it's not within our capability or authority to override that and say, "I will do that. I don't care what you say." That would be up to that person to follow through with that course. That's my understanding.
Q. You would have to concede, though, wouldn't you, that you are completely ill-equipped, as an organisation, to protect victims such as [BCG]?
A. I disagree.
Q. In what ways do you say you are equipped to assist them - protect them?
A. Because we have the directions through our publications, through letters, through the schools that we attend every two years; we have visiting brothers or representatives called circuit overseers; we had district overseers who would visit every six months, and so forth, that we could discuss further or ring at any time, if we needed some little clarification on whatever we needed to do. So we had all the help that was available to understand and follow through on the guidelines that we had at that time.
Q. You talk about follow through, but you don't actually say what you actually do, because I want to suggest to you that at no stage did anybody from your congregation even try to assist [BCG] by giving her some spiritual guidance through the scriptures, by talking to her about the scriptures, how she might feel better about herself after her abuse. No-one did that.
A. There was a lot of follow-up. After what she went through, there was a lot of follow-up. There was a lot of interaction with certain families, and you will find that once Kevin or Ron are here - you will probably - because they were closer. I know that they did follow through with visiting and supporting her in every way, even with any activities that came from after that.
Q. You personally did not, and have no personal or direct knowledge of her being given any guidance through the scriptures, do you?
A. Yes, yes, yes.
Q. You were never present when she was given any guidance by the scriptures, were you?
A. I think the notes, probably, in the next meeting that we had - there were many articles, I think, that were quoted there that suggest that.
Q. Outside of the committee meetings, there was no guidance given to her from the scriptures, was there?
A. I can't recall myself doing that, no.
Q. And at no stage did you ever tell her that you believed her, did you - that you believed that what she said about the allegations against her father was true?
A. I don't recall ever saying I don't believe her.
Q. No, my question was: you never told her that you believed her, did you?
A. I can't recall that but - no.
Q. You never told her that you thought she was brave for coming forward, did you?
A. I thought I did. I believed I did.
Q. Did you ever tell her that it wasn't her fault?
A. Of course. It's something that she - she is a victim.
Q. Well, I'm suggesting to you that at no stage did you ever say to her, "It was not your fault."
A. I believe we did.
Q. You see, were you aware of the gossip that was going around at the particular time, where people in the congregation were accusing her of lying?
A. No.
Q. You weren't aware of that in your small congregation?
A. That others were accusing her?
Q. Yes. There was gossip about her, that she had been telling lies?
A. I can't recall that, no.
Q. After she attempted to commit suicide, obviously that would have alerted you to the extreme distress that she was experiencing?
You are aware that she attempted suicide some months --
A. I can't recall that.
Q. You can't recall?
A. No.
Q. So you certainly don't, then, recall giving her any comfort or guidance after that incident?
A. I can't recall myself personally being involved in that. The other brothers, of course, did, because their families were closer --
Q. You don't have any recollection and you don't know what your other brothers did in relation to that, do you? A. Yes, I do.
Q. You just said a moment ago that you didn't even know that it occurred.
A. No, but I know the support that they gave her,and the comfort, too, of taking her into their homes.
Q. During the judicial committee process, there was a period where you all individually questioned her separately - do you recall doing that, with [BCG]? A. No, we were all together.
Q. I am suggesting that there was a period, wasn't there, that you all, separately, had the opportunity to question her without the others?
A. No. No, that didn't happen. Our judicial meetings are always together, the three elders, whoever they may be. That is the process.
Q. You were testing her for inconsistencies, though, weren't you, when you were conducting your inquiry?
A. Can you give an example of that.
Q. I'm just asking you: you were testing her for inconsistencies --
A. No.
Q. -- by asking her repeatedly to tell her story?
A. No. If we needed to clarify something and put that in place so that we could better understand, that would be the only occasions that we would ask those - that particular question.
But not - we wouldn't ask repeatedly if we already knew that it happened - why - there would be no sense of us doing that.
Q. But you would agree, anyway, in the event that through seeking clarification, you were satisfied, then, that whatever she said - that her story was a consistent story and that it was a believable story?
A. Yes, we wanted to - we wanted to now make - ensure that, so that if we needed to follow up with the father, that we had - we had some of what happened in detail so that we could then follow through with that, too. But never - never to question [BCG] on her - whether we believed her or not. That's - that would be not correct.
Q. Do you still have your notes in front of you that you had made of those meetings - the handwritten notes?
A. The handwritten notes of the meeting - yes.
Q. Can you please turn to page 5 of those notes?
A. Yes.
Q. If you could please turn to the bottom of page 5, do you see there that it says this - it has "[BCH]"", "[BCG]" and "[BCI]". So that relates to [BCG] and both her parents?
A. Okay, yes.
Q. If you look down, it says "when faced and hears accusations; denies all", at this point. And then it says:
Says all part of parental training and yes
kissed on mouth and hugged tightly but that's all!
Did you counsel him about the appropriateness of that sort of parental training?
A. Well, some cultures do do that.
Q. So kissing on the mouth and hugging in a way that clearly [BCG] considered to be inappropriate and frightening to her, you consider that to be appropriate parental training?
A. Not with everybody. Not with everybody. I'm - to explain, I'm an Albanian by birth. My parents were Albanian, so they are from Europe. There are cultures there where children and parents do kiss, as such. It means affection and it is taken as such.
And that's why in answer to you that even here, within our own area, Australia, country of Australia, we have cultures who do follow through that - with that. He was a person of Hungarian --
Q. In Queensland, or in Australia, would you not consider that such a kissing of the mouth in a manner that clearly constituted an affront to the person being kissed would constitute some kind of an indecent assault?
A. I would, that in - now, yes, that would be considered by many as that, yes.
THE CHAIR: Ms David, I think we might take the morning adjournment.
MS DAVID: Yes, sorry, your Honour.
SHORT ADJOURNMENT
MS DAVID: Thank you, your Honour, I just have a few more brief questions.
I don't think I stated for the record, your Honour initially, that I am Ms David, appearing for [BCG], and I apologise for that, and also to Mr Ali.
Q. Mr Ali, I asked you a few questions before morning tea in relation to a meeting whereby I suggested to you that you came in to the meeting - sorry, that you questioned [BCG], one at a time, at one particular meeting. Have you had an opportunity to see [BCG]'s statement since yesterday? I know you said yesterday that you hadn't read it?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. Could you be shown a copy of statement 1, please, paragraph 43. Could you please read that paragraph?
A. Out loud?
Q. Yes, the first - paragraph 43. That is the statement of [BCG].
A. Read to myself, do you mean?
Q. Yes, just read it to yourself - really,the first two sentences or the first three sentences. So [BCG] suggests that that did happen, in fact. So I'm suggesting to you that during the course of this process, she was asked questions by each of you separately, when you were alone with her - each of you separately?
A. That's incorrect.
Q. You haven't read the statement of [BCG] up until this point, have you?
A. No.
Q. Is there a reason for that?
A. Do I need to? I'm not sure.
Q. Well, do you not think that reading the statement of a person who has made such an allegation, a victim of child sexual abuse, or sexual abuse - it would help to understand the position of a person such as [BCG]?
A. I'm not sure what to say to that. I mean, that is something that the courts went through and dealt with at that time.
Q. What I'm asking you is would not it assist you to understand the plight of a victim of sexual abuse?
A. I can read what's on that page and I appreciate you allowing me that opportunity to do that, but - I'm not sure --
Q. Mr Ali, I'm simply suggesting to you, do you not agree with the proposition that it would assist you to understand how victims of sexual abuse feel if you actually took some time to read statements from victims that were available to you?
A. We have done that, or I have done that.
Q. But you didn't bother to read --
A. Not this particular one, but there have been other cases that have been recorded, and how they felt and what circumstances they faced, and I appreciate the circumstances more.
THE CHAIR: Q. Just go to paragraph 44. Do you see that on the screen?
A. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Can you read that for me, please?
Q. Now, you understand what she is saying?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you now understand that to require a young woman to confront three males, who are friends of her father, to make allegations or bring allegations that her father has sexually abused her, was a very difficult process?
A. It was.
Q. It's not appropriate, is it?
A. That's the guidelines that we follow.
Q. It's not appropriate. As a way of receiving allegations from a young woman about sexual assault by her father, do you think, now, that it is appropriate that she be required to confront three men who are friends of her father, and there is no-one else present?
A. I think, under the circumstance and the guidelines yes, I still feel it's appropriate, because of the fact of what we represent.
Q. Leave aside the guidelines. You see what she is saying. Do you understand what she is saying?
A. I understand what she is saying, your Honour.
Q. Do you think it's appropriate - leave aside the guidelines. Do you think it's appropriate to have a system which requires a woman, a young woman, when making allegations of sexual assault by her father, to speak with three men who are friends of her father's, and no-one else is present?
A. Yes, it is appropriate.
Q. Why?
A. She was requested or asked if she would like to do that, and she was quite agreeable to do that. How difficult it was for her - thus, my reason for saying that she is a very courageous person in following through with that. But she was requested if she would like to be part of the judicial committee to explain, and she agreed with that. Her feelings in that - in that instance, is I recognise - I feel very much for what she had to go through, even more so. While I'm not in that situation, I do appreciate that.
Q. She had no choice. The only system that you made available to her, if she was to pursue the allegations, was this one, wasn't it?
A. Yes, it was, but we --
Q. There was just no choice. In your organisation, there was no choice?
A. There is a choice, your Honour.
Q. What's the choice?
A. The choice is that she is asked to come. But nobody is ever forced into that process.
Q. Very well. You see the last sentence:
I didn't really offer the full detail of the sexual abuse.
…