Transcript From NBC Dateline

SHOW: Dateline

DATE: May 28, 2002


WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION

Announcer: From our studios in New York, here is Jane Pauley.

JANE PAULEY: Good evening. At some point it may stop being news--each time another person comes forward to say they were sexually abused as a child by a trusted religious figure--but not yet, though tonight it's not priests under fire. In fact, our story began long before the Catholic Church scandal broke last January. The scenario of alleged abuse is much the same, but the consequences of coming forward, for people whose faith was the center of their lives, would be harsh and profound. Here's John Larson.

JOHN LARSON reporting:

In a small town like Othello, Washington, neighbors are often friends, and
friends like family. Which makes the story you're about to hear even more
painful. Because, for Erica Garza, who grew up here, there was no one closer,
no one she trusted more than her parents' best friend.

(Othello; homes; Othello city limit sign; Erica Garza; Manuel Beliz)

Ms. ERICA GARZA: You would have never known by looking at him, or by the way he
acted what he was doing on the side.

LARSON: (Voiceover) What that friend, Manuel Beliz, was doing was molesting
Erica, sexually abusing her. She says it started when she was just five years
old.

(Photo of Beliz; photo of Erica)

Ms. E. GARZA: I remember it just like it was yesterday.

LARSON: What was your reaction when he first started touching you?

Ms. E. GARZA: I didn't know any better.

(Voiceover) I just remember it hurt.

(Photo of Erica)

Ms. E. GARZA: Out of anything, I just remember the hurt.

(From home video) (Unintelligible)...my brother.

LARSON: (Voiceover) A hurt that grew, she says, because her molester pressured
her to keep it all a secret. And while that may not be surprising, this isn't
a story about a molester trying to stay in the shadows. This is a story about
others who may have played a role not only in Erica's abuse, but the abuse of
other victims as well.

(Home video; Beliz; shadow; photo of congregation singing; people holding
hymnals)

Ms. E. GARZA: They didn't care about what had happened. Everything they did
was trying to hide the facts.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Both Erica and her molester were members of the same
church, Jehovah's Witnesses.

(Church sign)

(Excerpt shown from Watchtower Society video)

LARSON: (Voiceover) Jehovah's Witnesses are evangelical Christians best-known
for going door-to-door handing out Awake! magazine. Jehovah's Witnesses have
six million members worldwide, and some controversial rules--no birthdays or
Christmas, no blood transfusions, no military service, no saluting the
flag--all of which separates them, sometimes even isolates them from mainstream
America. In fact, in the world of Jehovah's Witnesses, anyone outside the
church--most of you watching tonight--are considered part of Satan's world, a
world which, as depicted in the church's literature, will be destroyed by God.
True Jehovah's Witnesses, those who closely follow the church's rules, will
survive to live forever on a perfect earth.

But now there are accusations that the church, run out of its headquarters in
New York, called the Watchtower Society, is covering up cases of child
molestation, protecting molesters and keeping secrets that put children at
risk. Consider what happened to Erica Garza. By the time she was 16, Erica's
family had moved away from Othello to a new home and new Kingdom Hall in
California where one day she found the courage to tell her family her terrible
secret. And what did her father, Reuben Garza do?

Report it to the police?

(Excerpts from Watchtower Society video; congregation; members of congregation;
woman being baptized; boy being baptized; books; artist's drawings; New York
City; Watchtower building; photos of Erica and others; Kingdom Hall; photo of
Erica and family)

Mr. REUBEN GARZA: No. Never mentioned report it to the police.

(Voiceover) Take care of it in the congregation.

(Kingdom Hall)

LARSON: (Voiceover) Reuben Garza, who was one of the church's lay ministers, or
`elders,' says that's precisely what Jehovah's Witness leaders had taught him.
And so instead of going to the police, he and his wife, Alexandra, called the
elders back in Othello.

(Photo of Reuben Garza; photo of Garza family)

LARSON: But let me say the obvious. I mean, your daughter's been raped.
Didn't you think, `I've got to go to the cops?'

Ms. ALEXANDRA GARZA: That was my first reaction. But as a Witness, first
you've got to go to the elders when you have a problem.

LARSON: (Voiceover) But the elders didn't go to the police, either. Why? Well,
legally, they didn't have to. Only 16 states require clergy members to report
any and all suspected child abuse, and Washington state is not one of them.
Instead, church elders opened their own internal investigation. It's one of
the things that sets Jehovah's Witnesses apart from most other religious
groups. The church has its own judicial system.

(Kingdom Hall; swings; Othello; Kingdom Hall)

LARSON: Whenever a church member is accused of doing something wrong--whether
it's breaking a church rule like smoking, committing a sin like adultery, or
even committing a crime like rape--the local church appoints a special
committee of elders to investigate the charge. Now, if the accused is found
guilty, they can be reprimanded or, in worst cases, kicked out of the church,
disfellowshipped, potentially cut off from their friends and family, losing
their chance, they believe, at everlasting life. For a Jehovah's Witness,
there can be no greater punishment.

(Voiceover) Erica Garza expected her molester would, at the very least, be
disfellowshipped. But after five months of waiting for the church in Othello
to act, she got angry and did the unthinkable.

Ms. E. GARZA: So I called my elders and I said, `Look, I'm taking it to the
police.'

LARSON: What did they say?

Ms. E. GARZA: `Don't. Or else.'

LARSON: Or else what?

Ms. E. GARZA: That's what I said. I said, `Or else what?' And he said, `Just
don't.' I said, `What? I'll be disfellowshipped if I take it to the police?
Is that what's going to happen to me?' And he said, `Yes. You will be
disfellowshipped.' And I was just, like, `What? You're going to disfellowship
me for being raped, yet they guy who raped me is still a Jehovah's Witness?'
And they said, `Don't. Don't take it to the police. You will be condemned by
God.'

LARSON: (Voiceover) It was October 1996, and Erica says she finally decided
whatever the penalty, she had to go to the police. Following an investigation,
Manuel Beliz was charged with molestation and rape.

And the church? Erica says her California Kingdom Hall not only shunned her,
but shunned her family as well.

(Erica; Beliz; Kingdom Hall)

LARSON: What happened?

Mr. GARZA: Was removed as an elder.

LARSON: So they kicked you out.

Mr. GARZA: Yes, they did.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Erica felt abused, abandoned by her church and alone. But
what she couldn't have known was that it would be four more years before
another Jehovah's Witness, this time, an elder 2,000 miles away, would take a
special interest in Erica's case. The elder had uncovered evidence, he says,
that there were many more victims like Erica within Witness Kingdom Halls. And
now he, too, was about to break with the church and go outside into what
Witnesses believe is the realm of Satan--the outside world--to expose the
church's secrets.

(Erica; Bill Bowen; meeting schedule)

LARSON: You talking to me right now, it's like you're talking to Satan.

Mr. BILL BOWEN: That's correct. I'm attacking God, is what they've said about
it.

LARSON: In the view of the church, sitting down with us right now.

Mr. BOWEN: Yes.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Bill Bowen is a candle maker in Kentucky, and a lifelong
Jehovah's Witness. It all began, he says, about two years ago when he was
filing confidential church records at the local Kingdom Hall and stumbled on
this letter. It described an admission dating back to the 1980s, a molestation
case that he says the church had swept under the rug.

(Bowen making candles; letter; excerpts from letter)

LARSON: About how old was this child that was involved in this case?

Mr. BOWEN: As I reviewed the material, it appeared to me she was about 11 years
of age.

LARSON: (Voiceover) And the admitted molester? A man Bowen knew well, a fellow
elder who got only a slap on the wrist from the church as was never reported to
police. Outraged, Bowen put a message on the Internet to see if there were
other similar cases. The response, he says, was an avalanche of pain and
frustration.

(Congregation singing; Bowen typing; responses on computer screen)

Mr. BOWEN: These were all Jehovah's Witnesses that had been molested and
silenced within the church.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Bill Bowen is not saying Jehovah's Witnesses have more
molesters than any other religious group. The problem, he says, is how the
church handles the cases that come to its attention. Like the case of Daniel
Fitzwater, a Jehovah's Witness elder in Nevada. Bowen discovered that
according to the church's own internal records, church officials knew of 17
girls who had accused Fitzwater of molesting them. But police say the church
never passed that information on to them.

Bowen also learned that in New Hampshire Paul Berry beat and sexually tortured
his step-daughter, Holly Brewer, from the time she was four. But Holly's
mother says that when she complained to church elders that Berry was beating
Holly and her other kids, the elders told her to be a better wife and to pray
more. She also says they never informed police as required by state law. The
church denies that, saying she never told them of the abuse. Holly later ran
away from home and says she disfigured herself with tattoos and piercings in
response to the abuse.

(Watchtower building; photo of Daniel Fitzwater; church records; excerpts from
records; photo of Paul Berry; photo of Holly Brewer; photo of family; Kingdom
Hall; photo of Holly)

Ms. HOLLY BREWER: It started out by me internalizing the pain. It really did.
It started by me, `I want to mess myself up. I want to make myself look as
ugly I can ***(as spoken)***. I don't want any guys to hit on me. I don't
want to be attractive to people.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Both Paul Berry in New Hampshire and Daniel Fitzwater in
Nevada ultimately were convicted of sexual crimes and are now in prison. But
Bill Bowen says many others in the church accused of sexual abuse have never
been reported to police. It's a claim he says he's heard, though not verified,
from several hundred current and former church members. His conclusion:
disturbing to day the least.

(Photos of Berry and Fitzwater; Bowen talking to reporter; text on computer
screen)

Mr. BOWEN: It's a pedophile paradise within the organization. I believe that.

LARSON: What's the danger that you've been consumed by this to the point
that--that you've blown it all out of proportion? I mean pedophile paradise?
Come on.

Mr. BOWEN: I believe it with all my heart.

(Voiceover) There is a massive problem in the organization.

(Bowen)

LARSON: (Voiceover) But Bill Bowen is just one man in one congregation in
Kentucky. This woman, Barbara Anderson, worked for a decade inside Jehovah's
Witness headquarters. When Anderson saw Bowen's messages on the Internet, she
says she realized she had to tell him there was much more to the story,
involving children in many of the 11,000 congregations across the country.

(Bowen; Barbara Anderson; letter on computer screen; Anderson)

Ms. BARBARA ANDERSON: I don't believe that they're safe within their church.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Anderson was a researcher at the Watchtower Society in the
early 1990s when a senior official there asked her to look into the church's
handling of sexual abuse cases. What she found, she says, sickened her:
hundreds of molestation cases on record, all kept secret in church
files--secret not only from the outside world, but from the members themselves,
the families, the mothers and fathers and children who trust the church is
looking out for them.

(Watchtower building; Anderson; filing cabinets)

Ms. ANDERSON: I believe that if they asked to see the congregation records,
they will find that there are many envelopes with letters that discuss men--or
women--in the congregation that were accused of molesting a child.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Why would the church want to keep these cases secret and
in-house? Anderson agrees that part of the problem is the church's distrust of
the outside world, but she says it's not that simple. Anderson says when
church elders investigate crimes like child molestation, they follow
instructions that may prevent them from taking action--ancient instructions
taken from the Bible itself.

(Watchtower building; Bible)

Ms. ANDERSON: They basically use a scripture in I Timothy 5:19 that states
you're not to make an accusation against an older man unless there are two or
three witnesses.

LARSON: What are the odds that there are going to be two or three witnesses to
an older man molesting a eight-year-old girl?

Ms. ANDERSON: No molester is going to have any witnesses, that's for sure.

Mr. BOWEN: The sum and total of their investigation will be going to a
pedophile and saying, `Did you do it? Nope? Well, OK. Guess we'd better go
on then. Sorry we bothered you.'

(Talking on phone) Did he ask you any questions?

LARSON: (Voiceover) Bill Bowen says if you want to get an idea of how the
church sweeps cases under the rug...

(Bowen talking on phone; traffic on bridges)

Headquarters #1: (On phone) Good afternoon, Watchtower.

LARSON: (Voiceover) ...just listen to part of a conversation Bowen recorded a
little over a year ago with an official in the Jehovah's Witness legal
department.

(New York City)

Headquarters Receptionist: (On phone) Good afternoon, Legal Department.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Bowen calls seeking advice on how to handle a suspected
molestation case involving a young girl and her father. Instead of being told
to report it to the police, Bowen is told to confront the suspected abuser.

(New York City; Bowen talking on phone)

Headquarters #2: (On phone) You just ask him again, `Now is there anything to
this?' If he says `No,' then I would walk away from it.
Mr. BOWEN: (On phone) Yep.

Headquarters #2: (On phone) Leave it for Jehovah. He'll bring it out.

Mr. BOWEN: (On phone) Yep.

Headquarters #2: (On phone) But don't get yourself in a jam.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Again, there was no insistence that this matter be brought
to the authorities in the outside world. Bowen says he was so upset by the
whole case he resigned as a church elder and vowed to help abuse victims. He
didn't know that halfway across the country, Erica Garza as feeling the same
frustration as she prepared to face her molester in court.

(Bowen and woman; Erica and family)

LARSON: Did any of those elders, any of the people in the church stand up and
speak on your behalf?

Ms. E. GARZA: No.

LARSON: (Voiceover) But Erica Garza was about to find out that she wasn't
really all alone.

(Announcements)

Announcer: DATELINE NBC, winner of 10 Headliner awards for excellence in
journalism. America's most watched, most honored news magazine, DATELINE, will
be right back.

(Announcements)

Announcer: From our studios in Rockefeller Center, here is Stone Phillips.

STONE PHILLIPS: She was just five years old when she says she was first
molested by a respected member of her Jehovah's Witnesses congregation. Now a
young woman, Erica Garza wants justice. She says church leaders threatened to
expel her if she went to the police, but she went anyway and now her alleged
attacker is on trial for molestation and rape. Here with the conclusion to our
story, John Larson.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Erica Garza's accused molester, Manuel Beliz, showed up in
court with plenty of support.

(Courthouse; empty court room)

Ms. GARZA: (Voiceover) His side was full of Jehovah's Witnesses.

(Empty court room)

Ms. GARZA: People I thought were my friends, but they were there to support
him. And on my side was my family.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Even though Beliz had apparently confessed his crimes
before church elders, it appeared to make little difference. He was expelled
from the church, but only temporarily. Elders allowed him to rejoin the church
before the trial. John White, the congregation's top elder, explained at a
court hearing.

(Beliz and man; entering courthouse; John White)

Mr. JOHN WHITE: (From audio tape) We're satisfied that he was repentant and
could be admitted to the congregation again. To us, we don't see a problem.

LARSON: (Voiceover) White also told the court that when a church member is
called before the elders and admits to a crime, they consider it a religious
confession and that, just like a priest or rabbi, he and other elders have good
reason not to testify about it in court.

(Empty court room)

Mr. WHITE: (From audio tape) Jehovah's Witnesses do not want to harbor
criminals or dangerous people. But we want the confidentiality because if
that's taken away from us, why should a person ever confess anything?

LARSON: Did anybody say, `We understand the pain that this girl has gone
through?'

Ms. E. GARZA: They say we--they feel sorry for me.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Even without the church's help or the testimony of elders
who, Erica says, knew what had happened, in August of 1998 Manuel Beliz was
convicted, guilty on two counts of rape and two counts of child molestation. He
was sentenced to 11 1/2 years in prison, but two years into his term, his
conviction was overturned on a technicality over how the jury had been
selected. Erica had stood up, faced her abuser, even challenged her church,
but now he was being let out of prison.

(Kingdom Hall; photo of Beliz; jail; empty court room; Erica)

Ms. E. GARZA: I was so disappointed, I was sad, I was heartbroken and I didn't
know what to do.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Manuel Beliz was released from prison to await a new trial.
Last summer DATELINE found him back at the Kingdom Hall, about to join others
going door-to-door, evangelizing for the church.

(Beliz)

Ms. E. GARZA: It just makes me so sad because I was raped and I was--I'm being
shunned, and he raped me and--and he's being loved. It just--it--it gives me
chills up my spine just to think about it.

LARSON: (Voiceover) How do Jehovah's Witness leaders respond to complaints that
they're trying to bury cases like Erica's? They declined a request for an
on-camera interview, but spoke to us off camera, and provided us with a
videotaped policy statement by spokesman J.R. Brown.

(Watchtower building; excerpt from videotape)

Mr. J.R. BROWN: (From videotape) Jehovah's Witnesses feel child abuse is an
evil. It's an evil of our time, it's an evil in our society and so we abhor
it.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Church officials say they publish articles like this,
educating members and training elders how to help abuse victims. The church
also says elders are required to investigate any allegations of abuse, and
steps are taken to protect alleged victims from further abuse. And while
officials acknowledge that molesters who repent are readmitted to church, they
say known molesters are not allowed to hold a position of responsibility within
the church. They also insist that the church complies with all laws on
reporting abuse in those states where it's required, even when there's only one
witness to the crimes. But in states where churches are not required to
report, they say they do not discourage victims from reporting abuse to
authorities.

(Magazine articles; church name on building; congregation singing)

Mr. BROWN: (From videotape) When it comes to the matter of reporting, then
that's something the parents can decide. We certainly never tell them not to
report a case of child molestation.

LARSON: (Voiceover) In a letter to DATELINE, the church's general council adds
that "it is possible that a few of the 77,799 elders of Jehovah's Witnesses
have not followed the direction that they have been given regarding
investigating and reporting child abuse."

(Letters; excerpts from letters)

LARSON: What remains unanswered, though, is why the church gets involved at all
with investigating what are criminal matters. And just how often do they turn
one of their own into authorities? We asked the church for some examples,
proof that they're as tough as they say they are on members who abuse children.
The church waited six months, but finally offered us two cases. And right away
we noticed something. In both cases, the victims were Jehovah's Witnesses, but
their alleged molesters were not. They were non-believers from outside the
church.

(Voiceover) In fact, we could only find two cases where the church took an
active role in turning in one of its own, including the case of this man,
Clement Pandello.

(Clement Pandello)

Offscreen Voice: Mr. Pandello...

LARSON: (Voiceover) Pandello, seen here in family videos...

(Excerpts from family videos)

Unidentified Girl: (From home video) ...in the middle.

LARSON: (Voiceover) ..confessed to church elders he'd molested his own
granddaughter.

(Excerpts from family videos)

Mr. CLEMENT PANDELLO: (From video) Have to kick you out of school if they put
one in your head.

LARSON: (Voiceover) How did the church handle it? The parents of the young
victim, Pandello's own son and daughter-in-law, also Jehovah's Witnesses, told
DATELINE the church pressured to agree to a deal in which Pandello pled guilty
to criminal sexual contact and endangering the welfare of a child. He was
given only probation, no jail time. And what did the church elders tell
Barbara and Carl Pandello?

(Excerpts from family videos; Carl and Barbara Pandello walking on beach;
excerpts from family video)

Mr. CARL PANDELLO: We should just let it go, that it's not Jehovah's time to
deal with it.

LARSON: (Voiceover) The church says that's not true, and the church apparently
did disfellowship Clement Pandello two separate times. But each time they welcomed him back. So where is this convicted child molester today, a man who,
according to court records, has admitted molesting girls all his life?
DATELINE found him going door-to-door, a Jehovah's Witness in good standing,
evangelizing to people who know nothing about his record. His own son, Carl,
says the church should know better.

(Clement)

Mr. CARL PANDELLO: He's a sexual predator. When he goes door-to-door, he has a
craving for young, juvenile girls, as he puts it. He's looking at that child,
having those immoral thoughts in his mind while he's there.

LARSON: You know the church now says they don't have a special problem. It's a
societal problem and they do everything they can to stop pedophiles from
hurting children within the Jehovah's Witness church. What do you say to them?

Ms. E. GARZA: Liars.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Even though her accused rapist had been freed on a
technicality, Erica Garza was not about to let him off the hook. Last summer,
nearly five years after she first came forward, Erica headed back to court.
Once again, not one Jehovah's Witness from her former church came to support
her. But this time, she wasn't alone.

(Beliz; Erica and others)

Mr. BOWEN: ...comments we've made from all over the country...

LARSON: (Voiceover) That out-spoken elder from Kentucky, Bill Bowen, was there.

(Erica talking to Bowen)

Mr. BOWEN: Just to even things.

LARSON: (Voiceover) And Bowen had set up a new support group for sexually
abused Jehovah's Witnesses. And more than 20 people who had heard about the
case through his Web site were there to support Erica.

Ms. GARZA: Thank you, everybody, for being here.

These are people who don't know me, who flew from all over the place for me, to
be there for me because they realize, `Hey, you didn't do anything wrong.' And
it was so encouraging to see people there for me...

(Voiceover) ...as opposed for him.

(People entering court house)

LARSON: (Voiceover) In court, Manuel Beliz took the stand. He denied molesting
Erica, but did admit touching her inappropriately. Once again, Beliz was found
guilty.

(Empty court room; photo of Beliz)

Ms. E. GARZA: Guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Erica Garza says she has found justice in spite of her
church.

(Erica, Reuben and Alexandra coming out of courthouse)

Ms. E. GARZA: Oh, I can't believe it. On all four counts.

Mr. GARZA: Just a little bit of justice. You deserve it.

Ms. E. GARZA: Thank you, God. Thank you, Lord.

LARSON: (Voiceover) Her molester has been sent to prison for 11 1/2 years.

Ms. E. GARZA: Thank you for all your help, Bill.

Mr. BOWEN: Everything's over.

Ms. ANDERSON: You'll sleep well tonight, won't you?

Ms. E. GARZA: Yeah.

LARSON: (Voiceover) All Erica wants now, she says, is for the church to change
its policy and give molestation victims simple advice.

Ms. E. GARZA: `Take it to the police.' Hey, encourage me to take it to the
police. Don't tell me not to.

PHILLIPS: Erica Garza and Holly Brewer are both suing the Watchtower Society
and their local congregations. The church is fighting the lawsuits. The
church also told DATELINE that while some known pedophiles still go
door-to-door, they are not allowed to do alone.

Finally, four of the people DATELINE interviewed--former Elder Bill Bowen,
Barbara Anderson and Carl and Barbara Pandello--are facing possible expulsion
from their congregations.

Before your next Judicial meeting...

Hey this may help you establish some things before you enter your next Judicial meeting...



Our Letter to the Elders


Dear Brothers,


The purpose of this letter is to clarify certain matters and to secure and protect what we, Xxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, consider basic human rights in dealing with agents of the multinational Watchtower corporations.


Since you have asked us to respond to charges in what could escalate into a judicial committee, there are a few things that we must ask for and which we feel must be clarified before we consider meeting with the elders, judicially or otherwise:


1. We shall be notified in writing of any accusations against us, the names of persons making such accusations and the substance of all evidence against us.


2. We shall be notified in writing of the exact purpose of the meetings.


3. We shall be notified in writing of the time, place and purpose of any meetings with the elders, judicially or otherwise.


4. We shall be notified in writing exactly on whose behalf the judicial committee was convened and is acting: the Xxxx xxxxxxx Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses or its legal corporation, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses or its legal corporations, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc., the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, the International Bible Students Association or any other agency not here named.


5. If any agency other than the one for whom the judicial committee has informed us they are acting for is consulted, reported to, or allowed to have any bearing on the outcome of the judicial process, we will consider the judicial committee as acting in the their behalf.


6. We shall be notified in writing as to our status as a member of any and all of the organizations for which the committee is acting or to which the committee will report.


7. We insist that the judicial committee immediately cease, and in the future desist from any actions toward or against us in behalf of any corporation or organization of which we are not members.


8. We shall be notified in writing of any and all of our rights and responsibilities involved in the judicial process.


9. We shall be given sufficient time between notification of any meetings with a judicial committee and the time of the actual meeting to prepare a response to any accusations.


10. We shall be allowed to have at least one person of our choice present during all meetings between the judicial committee and us as an observer. Since there is good reason to believe that the judicial committee may consult with one or more lawyers, specifically those employed by the Legal Department of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Incorporated, the person of our choice may also be a lawyer.


11. During the meetings with the judicial committee we and our observer will be allowed to document anything we feel is necessary.


Additionally, if the judicial committee takes any judicial action against us:


12. We will not recognize any action taken by the judicial committee as valid unless it is communicated to us in writing, stating the exact nature and reason for the action.


13. In this written communication the judicial committee must state exactly on whose behalf they have taken the action, specifically the Xxxx xxxxxxx Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses or its legal corporation, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses or its legal corporations, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc., the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, the International Bible Students Association or any other agency not here named.


14. If the judicial committee has stated that it is acting only for the Xxxx xxxxxxx Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is enjoined from notifying any agency outside the congregation of their action. If the judicial committee or anyone acting in their behalf notifies or reports to anyone outside the Xxxx xxxxxxx Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, we may take any appropriate legal action.


15. We may appeal any action taken by the judicial committee.


16. Before we will meet with an appeal committee, that committee must notify us in writing of the names of all of the members of the appeal committee and who each one represents: the Xxxx xxxxxxx Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses or its legal corporation, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses or it’s legal corporations, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc., the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, the International Bible Students Association or any other agency not here named


17. There shall be no contact between the judicial committee and the appeal committee other than to inform them of the time and place of our meetings with them. If we determine that there is any contact, communication or attempt on the part of any of the members of the original judicial committee or anyone acting on their behalf to, in any way prejudice or sway the appeal committee, we will insist that a new appeal committee be formed.


18. We shall be notified in writing of any and all of our rights and responsibilities involved in the appeal process.


19. We shall be allowed to have at least one person of our choice present during all meetings between us and the appeal committee. Since there is good reason to believe that the appeal committee may consult with one or more lawyers, specifically those employed by the Legal Department of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Incorporated, the person of our choice may also be a lawyer.


20. During the meetings with the appeal committee us and our observer will be allowed to document whatever we feel is necessary.


21. We will not recognize any action taken by the appeal committee as valid unless it is communicated to us in writing, stating the exact nature and reason for the action.


22. In this written communication the appeal committee must state exactly on whose behalf they are taking the action, specifically the Xxxx xxxxxxx Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses or its legal corporation, the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses or its legal corporations, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc., the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, the International Bible Students Association or any other agency not here named.


23. If the appeal committee has stated that it is acting only for the Xxxx xxxxxxx Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is enjoined from notifying any agency outside the congregation of their action. If the appeal committee or anyone acting in their behalf notifies or reports to anyone outside the Xxxx xxxxxxx Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, we may take any appropriate legal action.


24. We understand that if we are disfellowshipped by the judicial committee and the disfellowshipping is upheld by the appeal committee that we are, at that point, no longer considered to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. We also understand that you may make a brief announcement that we have been disfellowshipped. From then on, we will consider any attempt to convince by speeches, talks or teaching; to coerce by implied or actual threat of similar judicial action; or to encourage by private counsel or suggestion any of Jehovah’s Witnesses to treat us differently from any other persons that are not Jehovah’s Witnesses to be a serious violation of our civil rights. We may then initiate any legal action, civil or criminal, that we deem appropriate. This includes any attempt to convince by speeches, talks or teaching; to coerce by implied or actual threat of similar judicial action; or to encourage by private counsel or suggestion any present Jehovah’s Witnesses to shun or avoid us, cease or otherwise modify their doing business with us, or terminate or otherwise abrogate any lease, rental, mortgage, or any other legal agreement that we may presently have with them. We may consider such to be an infringement of free trade and may initiate appropriate legal action.


25. We consider any communication between the members of the judicial committee and ourselves and the appeal committee and ourselves to be ecclesiastically privileged. Any attempt to reveal the substance or tone of those communications to any other person or group will be considered by us to be a breach of that privilege and may result in legal action. This includes any announcements beyond the fact of our disfellowshipping, speeches, talks, or any other communication, written or oral, public or private.


Additionally, we have decided that we will not formally disassociate ourselves from the Xxxx xxxxxxx Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses or from Jehovah’s Witnesses in general. We came to this decision for several reasons. First, there is nothing in the Bible that calls for a formal letter of disassociation in our situation, or any other. It seems to us that the provision of formal disassociation is a matter of convenience for the legal department of the Watchtower Society rather than serving any real religious purpose. Also, we have no problem with the Xxxx xxxxxxx Congregation or its members. Our disagreements are with certain actions, policies, teachings and writings contained in publications that are produced, and in oral teachings promulgated either individually or collectively by the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses and its legal corporations, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc., the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the International Bible Students Association.


We respectfully await your written response,


Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Three Stooges

When decent men are duped by a corrupt and apostate Organisation and "just follow orders" in return for an illusion of power and glory, this is what happens..........

Introduction
If a member of Jehovah's Witnesses commits a wrong as interpreted by the Witness leadership [and some of these "wrongs" are not defined in the Bible e.g. smoking tobacco, taking blood transfusions] they are investigated and brought before a “judicial” committee of elders. The charges might be anything from a serious crime such as fraud, a moral misdemeanour such as adultery or more commonly now, apostasy -- daring to disagree with the teachings of the Watchtower Society.

Since many elders are men of low education, the standard of justice leaves something to be desired. The elders are trained by their masters, the Watchtower Society, in regular schools. They have a secret Manual, available only to elders -- always men -- which they follow. Such is their confidence in "Jehovah's organisation" that they actually believe that adherence to the Manual will produce good results. As will be seen, the Bible -- the "principal text-book" -- is put aside in preference to the Manual. If the wrongdoer does not repent, then whatever the crime or misdemeanour, they will be disfellowshipped by the committee and all Jehovah's Witnesses will shun the person thereafter. There is a Right of Appeal to another Jehovah's Witness' court made up from another group of elders from another congregation.

However, the Witnesses do not suppose that their power ends in the congregation. They are not shy about taking proceedings against members of the public who are former Witnesses if they are perceived as a threat and, in their paranoid world, former members may be a threat for many reasons. Former members who vote in elections or join the Forces or attend another religious denomination, are declared by the congregation to have “disassociated themselves" automatically [i.e. they have disfellowshipped themselves].

Others who leave must remain silent forever-after, for if they speak to active Witnesses and expose the Organisation, they are harassed and witch-hunted even years after leaving. In my own case, as you will see, I was pursued more than three years after leaving. The objective was to declare me a member long enough to disfellowship me, discredit me and defame me, so that all Jehovah's Witnesses and former Witnesses would be forbidden to speak to me or be afraid to associate with me because they would fear the same attentions that were given me. I decided to fight back..............

Background
You should read the transcript of Tom 'n' Jerry first to understand how this "judicial" committee came about as a result of elders coming to my home as agents provocateurs on February 28th., under false pretences, and their repeated attempts to entrap me. Evidence obtained by entrapment is invalid in any respected court throughout the world although it is common practice among Jehovah's Witness elders.

Then.........
A few weeks later, on March 24th, late in the evening, another elder, Chris Taylor telephoned me. After chatting for ten minutes, he invited me to “a meeting”. I asked who would be present. As soon as he informed me that three elders would be present, I realised it would be a judicial committee -- a secret church court -- of Jehovah's Witnesses and since I had no need or intention of repenting of anything, I would be disfellowshipped and all Jehovah's Witnesses including my parent and sister, would be forbidden thereafter to speak to me or even so much as greet me in the street. He admitted this would be a “judicial “ committee only after I asked him outright.

On April 1st, I telephoned Chris Taylor, then the Secretary in Waverley congregation, and asked him how long the farce would continue. He did not know. I asked again who the witnesses would be and how many they intended calling. He said “John and Roddie ....... if we need to get more, then we will” to which I replied “so you'll just keep bringing witnesses until you hang me?". He also named Amerigo Lanny, a former friend, as a possible witness against me. During several telephone conversations with Chris, he assured me that I would be given "a fair trial". Indeed, he was very offended that I suggested otherwise since he would be Chairman of the Committee.

The original intention was for me to appear before a "judicial" committee without a defined charge and answer unspecified questions on the day. This is the preferred method where there is no definite misdemeanour or witnesses since the accused Witness helps incriminate himself by answering unrelated questions such as “Do you believe that the Watchtower Society is Jehovah's organisation?” or "Do you believe that Jehovah is using the "faithful and discreet slave" to-day?", not unlike the witch-hunts of McCarthyism 50 years ago. I rejected that proposal and insisted that Chris should tell the Committee to find a charge against me. Even so, the amended accusation -- apostasy -- is wide open to interpretation by Jehovah's Witnesses and is a favourite “catch-all” for which little preparation can be made. In other words, it was their intention that no defence would be available to me.

Judicial committees are intended to humiliate Witnesses. They intimidate the Witnesses because they fear the elders’ authority which, they have been taught, comes from God. But the elders had over-looked one thing - I do not fear them now. Instead, I despise them, as the deputies of a corrupt and apostate organisation.

I spent several weeks wondering whether to attend or not. I knew that disfellowshipping was inevitable, but I did not wish to be disgraced -- I was thinking of my old JW mother and my sister -- or to give them the satisfaction of disfellowshipping me. As I recommend elsewhere, it is better to resign and be in some control than to feel that such a thing has been done to you.

I considered writing a firm letter to resign and listened to the advice of many people. Two friends influenced me: one would say, “Don’t go. You’ll just play into their hands, be humiliated and give them sport at your expense" while the other would say, “You have nothing to lose. Go along, record it and expose them”.

Finally, on the day before the judicial committee, I borrowed my friend’s recorder [thank you Moray!] and finished taking notes. As before in the Tom 'n' Jerry interview, I decided that, if these men were interviewing me without malice, then recording the Committee meeting could only leave them in a good light, but if they intended harm to me, it would return to them as a result of the recording.

I decided not concern myself with trying to prove them wrong [they are!] on their own doctrinal ground. It is impossible to reason on Scripture with Witnesses. Instead, I attacked them on technicalities which show clearly that they had no intention of giving me a fair trial -- apparently they do not understand what a fair trial is -- although the Watchtower Society expects - and is given - fair treatment when it goes to court.

Additionally, I showed that despite the claims of the Watchtower Society, Jehovah's Witnesses are never free to leave their religion except with dishonour.

The three "judges" are manual workers: a window-cleaner, a chiropractic masseur and an office-cleaner. The two witnesses are a jack-of-all-trades and a cleaner. Of all five men, only the latter man has had a good education -- and has come a long way from Eton!

I have included the prayer to show how Witnesses pray and for what they pray before such a "judicial" committee which will commonly lead to the expulsion of a fellow Witness from their congregation or at very best, the humiliation of that individual, without any psychological or professional support. Those who are disfellowshipped are cast out into the world, leaving all Witness relatives and friends behind. Not surprisingly, this leads some former members to psychiatric problems, severe depression, marriage difficulties, alcoholism and even suicide.

Although I have never succumbed to extremes, I have suffered many heart-aches and traumas during the 10 years since elders in Corstorphine congregation (renamed Clermiston, Edinburgh after its demise and eventual dissolution by London Bethel HQ) contributed to the destruction of my 18 years marriage. Later, I returned to Jehovah's Witnesses after several years outside, unable to cope with life in the real world after being indocrtinated from an early age. This is a common problem for leaving Witnesses if they have been members for many years. However, finally after 2 or 3 more years, I realised something was wrong and really had to drag myself away reluctantly. Only after leaving did I finally obtain the proof that the religion is false and corrupt and I became a Christian.

I won’t pretend that my “court” technique is brilliant -- I talk too much and do not insist on questions being answered -- but unlike a proper court, where counsel might have a right to demand an answer, I could expect no such right, so when I asked questions of the “judges”, I was content to have their silence or refusal to answer on tape. I was happy just to make points -- even lengthy ones -- if at the end I could elicit some confirmation or even a lack of response. I also hoped that some of the comments might sink in later and bother the consciences of the Committee members at some future time.

My explanatory comments are in square brackets [...italics....]

Pauses in speech are denoted by [...................]

Extracts from the secret Elders’ Manual are in parentheses and a different colour. {EM....}
[“secret” because it is available only to male Witnesses while serving as elders]

I have added asterisks [****] to comments which should be noted for later reference especially in the transcript of the next "meeting".

[These men persisted in calling me by my familiar name "Tony" although I have made it plain that this is not my preferred choice]

The "Judicial" Committee
The "judicial" committee was held at the Kingdom Hall at 95 Broughton Street, Edinburgh, Scotland at 2000 hours on Friday, 30th April, 1999. The Hall is a converted flat (apartment) in a tenement (common stairway) and has been used by Waverley congregation for about 50 years.

The "Judges": Chris Taylor [Chairman] (46), Robin Maxwell (35), Dennis Graham (48)

Witnesses: John Maxwell (60), Roddie Darroch. (60) All elders of Jehovah's Witnesses
(All ages are approximate)

The Accused: Anthony Roberts (47) a former life-member of Jehovah's Witnesses

The Crime: Apostasy -- according to the definition of Jehovah's Witnesses. Or more precisely: leaving the religion -- holding an opinion that I am happy that I did -- telling people so when they ask me.

My aim: To expose the corrupt and unchristian practice of secret "judicial" committees and to show the public how incompetent and unqualified men are used by the Watchtower Society to judge their fellow Jehovah's Witnessses -- and former Witnesses who obviously want no further part in the religion -- in secret church courts which violate Human Rights. Although I attempt to argue a case, I do so only to demonstrate that it is a waste of time, since the Watchtower leadership and their yes-men have no intention of honouring the Bible's standards of justice which they claim to follow.

As usual, the Witness elders all wore suits and ties -- almost like a uniform.
I showered and dressed specially for the occasion -- [clean] jeans, T-shirt, trainers [sneakers], casual jerkin/jacket -- and I didn't shave for about 2/3 days (JWs don't approve of beards!)

DECLARATION by Anthony Roberts:
This transcript is a true and accurate record of the proceedings. The tape-recording will be made available to anyone who has authority to examine it. The Watchtower Society is invited to purchase a copy for an administration fee to cover my time and expenses.

The Committee meets:
Chris: Thank you for coming We’re just going to ask Jehovah’s blessing...... and Robin’s going to ask that
Robin: Jehovah our great God in the heavens we are very thankful that we can ask for your holy spirit at this time as we discuss important matters with Tony and we realise you are the God of truth and we are very privileged to have your word of truth which we use to help us make important decisions and also to guide our lives by the principles found within its pages. We ask that your spirit can be upon us to firmly establish these matters at the mouth of two or three witnesses and we also realise the importance of honesty and truthfulness between us. We ask that your spirit help us in these matters and we ask this in Jesus’ name. Amen ["Jehovah's "holy spirit" is a force", say the Witnesses, and not a person]
Chris: Right then. Thanks for coming. Now, the reason for the meeting O.K.? It has been alleged, O.K., by one or two in the congregation, over the last few months, a year or so, that you have been making comments that, if were true, could be viewed as apostate, O.K.? These are just allegations at this point so the body of elders felt that, in view of that, although you have left the congregation some years ago, but because you are still having contact with some Witnesses, if these allegations were true, it could endanger the spiritual welfare of the congregation - if these allegations are true - so we felt that at least a visit should be made - that’s why John and Roddie came round to see you -- to investigate what these allegations were and so on O.K. and on the basis of their visit, we have now arranged this meeting, O.K.? So do you have any comments? ****

{EM: After opening with prayer, the chairman states the reason for the meeting.......... The chairman invites the accused to make a personal statement.}

Anton: Yes. I’ve got quite a lot of comments to make. How long have you got?
Chris: As long as...... it takes ****
Anton: Right Well first of all you promised me a fair trial if you remember?
Chris: Right.
Anton: .....and this is a trial isn’t it?
Chris: O.K. Yes if you want to put it that way
Anton: It's a trial isn’t it? You are judges aren’t you?
Chris: Yes
Anton: And I am accused of a certain thing and at the end of it you will make a: pronouncement so, I’ve got to ask you what you’re going to do to make sure that I get a fair trial and I don’t really think that the way things are just now that that is very likely, as I’ve said to you before when I spoke to you on the phone. Ummm..... for example, do I have the right to remain silent?
Chris: You have the right to do whatever you wish Tony. If we ask you a question, it’s up to you whether you answer it or not.**
Anton: Well if I remain silent, who is going to defend me?
Chris: Who’s going to defend you?
Anton: Yes.
Chris: Well, first why would you want to stay silent?
Anton: Well doesn’t..... well any decent court in the civilised world allows people to remain silent and the burden of proof is on the prosecutors -- which is what you are -- to prove the case. So are we going to work under these rules or some new and different made-up rules?
Chris: OK. As we explained to you on the phone, let's get one thing clear Tony. The procedure that we follow, right, is the procedure outlined in the scriptures OK? ****
Anton: I would have to disagree with that
Chris: At the mouth of two or three witnesses........
Anton: I would have to disagree with that because if that was the case, we would be sitting at the “public gate” and this room would be filled with people. So that’s another point I was going to raise actually, the fact that this is a secret meeting. Its being held in private with no witnesses present. There are no observers present as you’ve told me. You told me that I would not be allowed witnesses or observers present There is no-one taking a written transcript of the proceedings There is no-one here to witness what has been said is there?

{EM: However, observers are not permitted. No tape-recording devices are allowed.}

Chris: Well......
Anton: So if this was according to the [Hebrew/ OT] scriptures then we would be sitting outside on the street and anybody would be able to hear what we were saying, so this is a secret meeting which is not scriptural........
Chris: OK
Anton: ......and is in fact in harmony with the elders manual. [Advantage Anton.......]
Chris: Right Tony. We are going to hold this meeting right, under our understanding of scripture. We could debate all night scriptural definitions of this and that, but we are members of Jehovah's organisation, O.K.? Now our understanding of the scriptures is what we will base this meeting on, O.K.?
Anton: Well its not my understanding of the scriptures as I’ve pointed out to you already as the scriptures clearly say that such a trial would take place at the city gate with the older men - and Jehovah's Witnesses commonly equate the elders of the congregation with the older men of Israel.
Chris: We hear what you say, but we will still continue to hold this meeting......... [!!!!]
Anton: Oh yes! Well I have to raise an objection and let you know that that is an objection
Chris: Fine, O.K.
Anton: I would also.......
Chris: [interrupts] Tony -- you also mentioned about that we are not taking copious notes There’s three of us here witnessing to what you say.
Anton: Oh yes
Chris: We are not...... we are advised not to take copious notes and put a load of things down in writing. [I wonder why........?] We are here to witness what you say, we’ve all heard what you’ve said.
Anton: I don't have any witnesses to witness what you are saying or what I am saying do I ?
Chris: Well we said that you could bring along witnesses for the occasion [Chris consistently confuses “observers” with “witnesses”]
Anton: Well observers then if you want to put a different point on it
Chris: That..... we don't.........
Anton: Oh yes -- that’s right! That’s right! I know! I know! [Next I use “Watchtower-speak”] That’s right, but the whole point I’m making here is that in a “worldly” court where you would expect “worldly” people who don’t have Christian [JW] principles, you have very, very high standards of justice and here in “Jehovah’s Theocratic Organisation” you have very, very low standards of justice and in fact, my human rights are being violated right now by the very fact that this meeting is being held at all because you are constituting a court which violates human rights.
Chris: No, it doesn’t. You don’t have to be here Tony.
Anton: Oh yes -- I agree. I agree. I don’t have to be here, but as you said to me last Friday night on the telephone, the meeting had -- on Sunday night rather -- the meeting had been planned to go ahead for to-night in my absence, isn’t that correct?
Chris: Well we would have had the meeting, but we don't know what the decision would be made because we may have invited you to come..... we don’t know the reason you would not have come for.......
Anton: Yes, yes
Chris: We didn't say that a decision would be made, come what may. No-one has said that
Anton: But eventually if I.... if I refused to come, then you would go ahead with the trial in my absence and you would try me in my absence without any defence?
Chris: If you continued to refuse to come, yeah.

{EM: If the accused repeatedly fails to come to the hearing, the committee will proceed with the hearing but will not make a decision until evidence and any testimony by witnesses are considered............. Failure to appear before the committee is not in itself proof of guilt}

Anton: So do you know of any “worldly” court which would allow such a thing to happen?
Chris: Tony -- Tony -- you..... you..... stop trying to compare this procedure with a “worldly" court.
Anton: Oh yes. Oh yes! I can see that! I would rather be in a “worldly” [non-JW] court!.......
Chris: [interrupts] Well, that’s.....
Anton: .......because then I know that I would get justice and then I’d know that there would be people there to make sure that justice was seen to be done and that I had qualified men to judge me, that all the proceedings were done in a proper way which had been established over many centuries and that is not being done here.
Chris: We're...... we’re following the procedure directed by the [Watchtower] Society ***
[so we're not following the scriptures?]
Anton: Oh, I know that! I realise that!
Chris: And that is the procedure we will follow, Tony.
Anton: Yes
Robin: And that’s the only thing we can do isn’t it, Tony? All we can do is follow the procedure that’s laid down by Jehovah's organisation [Watchtower Society]........
Anton: [interjects] Yes - "just following orders"
Robin: ........within this framework......
Anton: [interjects] Yes. You’re “just following orders”
Robin: ......there’s no alternative.
Anton: Yes. That’s what you do. You’re just following orders, but I would have to ask you why you’re wanting to do that?........ Ummm....... so you agree that you are representing the Watchtower Society?
Chris: Yes
Anton: And are you representing God?
Chris: As the elders of God’s congregation, yes.
Anton: I’ve got a list of objections and I won’t them read them all -- but one or two of them I’ve mentioned already. The first objection I’ve got is the witnesses are presumably sitting outside the room?
Chris: Yes
Anton: And overhearing whatever goes through he door?
Chris: No
Anton: How do you know?
Chris: Because we trust them
Anton: Well I don’t. And I would really appreciate if you would move them to an outer room so that they can..... cannot hear what is going on in this room because the whole point of justice is that you are able to examine witnesses and talk to them.......... [witnesses should not be able to overhear the cross-examination of others who go before them]
Chris: Do you feel that they are here..... standing at the door eavesdropping?
Anton: I don't know They could well be, but in a.... in a.......
Chris: Would you be happier if you knew that they weren’t there?
Anton: Yes
Chris: Where?
Anton: I think they should sit outside or they should be sitting somewhere else, but certainly not outside the door of the court where they can overhear anything that happens to go through the door. Or if they wish they could even stand at the door and listen
Chris: Stand at the door and listen?
Anton: Yes - you’ve heard of “eavesdropping” haven’t you? It could be done. I just think it’s not a good procedure to have them sitting outside in the room where they could overhear things that are being said here
Chris: O.K. So you’d you be happier of they sat in the foyer?
Anton: Or the Gents or the Ladies [rooms]. I don't mind
Chris: Well they’re not going to sit in the toilets Tony.
Anton: Well whatever, but I would really be happier if they were not within hearing distance
Chris: [to Dennis & Robin] What do you think? [Will they agree to my request to show how reasonable they are?]
Dennis: That would be alright
Robin: Yes, I don’t see any problem
Chris: Could you ask them...
Robin: Certainly, yes.
[Anton - 1 Elders - 0 -- I cannot believe it has worked!! Somehow I manage to avoid grinning from ear to ear. Now I know that I am winning and I relax a little. The two glorious elders outside spend the next hour sitting in the vestibule -- a 3 metre square cloakroom outside the toilets by the front door ]

[Robin Maxwell returns]
Chris: O.K. Tony ?
Anton: Yes I’ve got another objection regarding two of the judges who are sitting here because two of you have already acted in multiple roles. You Chris and you Robin have both acted as investigators and you are also acting as judges and witnesses and that is prejudicial to a fair hearing. The fact that you have investigated me and you made telephone calls to me to try to make me incriminate me on the telephone and that tells me I cannot have a fair trial under those circumstances and I would have to
ask for an adjournment on that basis alone
Chris: Well you can ask for it, but you won't get it - and your objection’s noted
Anton: O.K. Umm.......... I’m concerned about the qualifications of the judges. You have no formal training in ethics or jurisprudence or any understanding -- or any real understanding -- so far as I can see, of the principles of justice and you are supposed to be “elders ruling for justice itself” and I don’t see how you...... for justice or righteousness itself.... .and I don't see how you can do that, given the fact that you have had no formal training or any education in jurisprudence.
Chris: O.K. that’s noted
Anton: Well what are you going to do about it?
Chris: We’re not going to do anything Tony because we feel that we’re adequately qualified on the scriptures and the Society's provisions.

{EM: He [Jehovah] has raised up elders to serve as counsellors and judges}

Anton: O.K. right. Um.....one of the most important things that a judge has to be is impartial and I don't think you can be impartial when you’ve already heard the evidence Because you have all heard the evidence already haven’t you?

{EM: They must treat every person with impartiality at all times.....}

Chris: Not all of it
Anton: But you have heard a substantial amount of evidence?
Dennis: Not from you though Tony.
Anton: Sorry? [Dennis speaks quietly]
Dennis: We haven’t heard it from you Tony.
Anton: Yes but you have heard evidence regarding this and that s why I’m here Or that’s why you have asked me to come here.
Chris: That's why the committee's meeting
Anton: When John and Roddie left my house, they came here at some point later on and gave you a full report of what had been said by me?
Chris: No, they didn’t. They did not give a full report.
Anton: Well, did they give you a report at all?
Chris: Sufficient enough for us to have this meeting yes
Anton: Right so you’ve heard the evidence before.
Robin: You see, its necessary to have a degree of information in any matter before this committee can even be formed Tony, you know? In the first place, in any case of alleged wrongdoing before a judicial committee can even be formed, you know we have to have accurate information -- either a confession from the person or testimony from two witnesses otherwise that committee cannot be formed so that’s why we are here now. So we had a measure of information sufficient to form this committee but that is all
Anton: A judge doesn’t have that.
Robin: No, but you see you keep....... This is nothing to do with “worldly” courts........
Anton: So I’ve noticed......
Robin: .....its nothing to do with worldly courts it's the way that Jehovah conducts things [Really? Fascinating!] through his organisation, you see. You can't call worldly judges or lawyers or barristers in to deal with serious matters in the Christian congregation -- you can’t do that.
Anton: Are they above that, are they? Or below that?
Robin: But you can’t do that because they’re not.....they don’t have the scriptural qualifications - so this is what Jehovah’s justice is based on - in his word the Bible
Dennis: There again when you have a court case certain evidence has to be presented before you can have a court case
Anton: That is presented to the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland [Crown Prosecutor in England and District Attorney in USA] and he decides whether charges are brought and he takes no part in the actual trial and then a judge is appointed and that judge will hear the case for the first time on the day. And in cases, as you know, where theres a lot of publicity, then it often makes the trial null and void, doesn’t it? So the fact that the judges have heard the case before is another objection
Dennis: But we haven’t heard the case.
Anton: Well you just said a wee minute ago that you had heard the case
Robin: We said that we had a measure of information sufficient to set up this committee. That was the point
Anton: Yes but you are once again acting in a dual role. The Procurator Fiscal does not act in a dual role.
Chris: But we’re not......
Robin: We accept what you’re saying Tony, I...... but there's no point discussing this at length you know, the difference between how things are done in “worldly” courts and here because the two bear no relation at all.........
Anton: [interrupts] Oh I can see that!
Robin: So there’s no point sitting for three hours saying this is how things are done here and there ....... it makes no difference. We know....... we know the standards that are laid down in the procedures and we’ll follow them and that’s it. That’s how things are done.
Anton: The procedures where?
Robin: The Society’s procedure for handling judicial matters [i.e. not in the Bible -- and notice that the Accused is not given access to the procedures manual]
Anton: Right. O.K. I’ve mentioned already that no observers are present to see that justice is done because I don’t really count you three as witnesses for me because obviously you must be slightly prejudicial to your own case. I’ve said that no written record's being made. I’m not permitted anyone to defend me if I choose to remain silent. And I really don't see why I...... why anyone should cooperate in incriminating themselves. So I think if you bring charges against a person you should be prepared to supply the proof and the evidence and prove the case to..... to a conclusion. Regarding the evidence: I’ve not been allowed to review the evidence. I haven’t got a clue what this is going to be about. Had I not spoken to you on the telephone Chris, we would have come here with an open-ended discussion because, if you remember on, I think it was Wednesday 24th March, or Thursday 25th March, you went away to the body of elders to bring back a case to me that night, to bring back an accusation to me that night. Do you remember that?
Chris: To bring back an accusation?
Anton: Yes because I said you couldn’t charge me with....... well, whatever it was. I don’t think it was actually a charge. It was just a “come along and have a chat”
Chris: That's not true, Tony. On the two conversations that we had on the phone, O.K. it was very clearly stated by the end of those two conversations -- there's no point getting involved in dates or anything -- at the end of those two conversations it was clearly stated to you that a meeting was to be arranged based on alleged apostasy
Anton: Yes, but that was only at the end of the second conversation on the Thursday evening. [and at my insistence]
Chris: That is sufficient, Anton.
Anton: Oh yes, I agree..........
Chris: And you know the reason that you've come here for. There’s no ambiguity in the reason why you're here. It’s not an open-ended discussion It was clearly stated to you the purpose of this meeting.
Anton: The point I made is that it would have been an open-ended discussion if I had not asked you to go away and ........
Chris: No it wouldn't
Anton: Well it was at the time on the Wednesday night.... on the Thursday morning.
Chris: We're not going along ....... over that point. The fact is, Tony at the end of those conversations you were in no doubt as to the purpose of this meeting
Anton: Yes but that was by my doing in the sense that I asked you to go away and come back with a proper charge because there was no proper charge at that time.
Chris: Whether...... we’re not going to argue the case because its your word against mine and that’s ....... the point is at the end of that conversation, that’s why we’re here now. Now as Robin mentioned just a moment ago, we could spend comparisons the whole night, OK about the courts, of the law of the land, and the courts and the way we hold it in the Society the congregation, OK. We’re not here to discuss that Tony You can mention your objections fine, and we’ll note them and discuss them, but please, don’t spend all our time raising objections about the court of the land and the way we’re doing it now.
Anton: The point is I’ve got to do that because you said that I would have a fair trial and ......
Chris: Yes, but don’t ask us...... you can bring up your objections fine, but we’re not going to argue the case backwards and forwards, as to the courts of the law of the land and the court within the congregation.
Anton: Yes, but what I’m saying is by a “fair trial” I would not expect a procedure like this and that brings me to my next point which is I have not been informed of your procedures so I could not make adequate preparation so all of this, or most of this, is a surprise to me, what you have said to me just now. I knew in advance that I wouldn’t be able to bring anybody along, I knew in advance that I wouldn't be able to have someone to defend me, but.......ummmm..... this is why I really wanted to go through this first -- to find out where the goalposts are, because basically your idea of a fair trial -- and most people’s idea of a fair trial -- would be slightly different, I think.
Chris: Well, the goalposts are Tony just so that, you know, there’s no problem here, is that we’re having this meeting because there’s been alleged apostasy. Apostasy....... we’re going to discuss this evening - apostasy based on our - as Jehovah's Witnesses - our understanding of apostasy based on the scriptures O.K. because......because apostasy O.K., we’ve got the definition, the Greek and Hebrew -- [do these men understand Greek or Hebrew?] could be defined scripturally from loads of different organisation as something slightly different, but we’re not here to discuss Catholics Protestants, Born-again Christians’ definition of apostasy, were here to discuss, Jehovah's Witnesses’ definition based on the scriptures O.K. -- based on the scriptures
Anton: Well based on your interpretation of the scriptures.
Chris: Well O.K. -- we’re part of Jehovah’s organisation O.K? We’re not here to discuss the Catholics' definition of it, alright so that’s the goalposts and they won’t be moved at any stage. ****
Anton: That’s a very open-ended..... once again I come to another point which coincides with that. I was not informed of the complete charges against me as was mentioned and the word “apostate” is open to wide interpretation. And even the...... your own version of “apostasy” or definition of apostasy is very wide and open to interpretation.
Chris: When you say “your interpretation” who do you mean?
Anton: The interpretation..... the definition given to “apostasy” by Jehovah's Witnesses is..... is very wide and is open.......
Chris: Do you not agree with that interpretation then?
Anton: [pause] I’ll remain silent on that one
Chris: Sorry?
Anton: I’ll remain silent on that one, but the point I’m making is that “apostasy” is whatever each church decides. Apostasy in the other churches might be different as you’ve said........
Chris: We’ve said that
Anton: ......and “apostasy” as you would view it, but I believe that the definition that you hold is very open to interpretation.
Chris: So what about your definition of “apostasy”? Is that open to........?
Anton: I would just go by the dictionary -- which I don’t have with me. But I would probably just go by the dictionary.
Chris: Tony [meaning Robin] at that point there, could you just read what the dictionary definition of “apostasy” is?
Robin: Yes I’ve got that here then. A couple........ a couple of wee points, the first one is........
Anton: Which dictionary is this?
Robin: .........now I’ve not got a note of which dictionary it is to be honest, well........ but can I read you the definition? [He reads from paper notes] The first one is : “the renunciation of ones religion, principles or political party etc. or the abandonment of a previous loyalty”
Anton: Right. That's it?
Robin: Yes. That’s it, aye.
Anton: So could you just read that again please?
Chris: Read that again.
Robin: Yes. The first wee point was : “the renunciation of ones religion, principles or political party etc.” and the second was “the abandonment of a previous loyalty”

{EM: Apostasy is a standing away from, a falling away, defection, rebellion, abandonment; it involves teaching false doctrines, supporting or promoting false religion and its holidays or interfaith activities. ......... Apostasy includes action taken against true worship of Jehovah or his established order among his dedicated people...... Persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates..... disrupting the unity of the congregation or undermining the confidence of the brothers in Jehovah's arrangement}

[as I said, "catch-all". Compare with above dictionary definition]
Anton: Well........ I’ll leave it you anyway just now. Ummm..... the next objection I have is that the judges have all heard the evidence which is what I’ve mentioned already and therefore cannot be impartial which is a key point for all judges. As I objected before, a full list of Witnesses has not been provided. You did not tell me who would appear to accuse me....... well....... well..... apart from John. And Roddie That’s it. [the people who were so "concerned" have been replaced by the two investigators]

{EM: Present the witnesses one at a time unless the wrongdoer confesses. If the accused does not admit guilt, he should be informed as to the source of the charge(s) made against him. Accusers should be willing to assume their responsibility, as was required in Israel}

Chris: That’s all. That’s all at this point, Tony. If we feel that the evidence presented this evening is insufficient then we will call more witnesses, but scripturally at the mouth of two or three witnesses so we have brought along two witnesses
Anton: I would have to ask you why you would feel the need to call more witnesses?
Chris: Well, we shall see
Anton: No. I’m asking you why you would need to call more witnesses later?
Chris: If we feel that the evidence of two witnesses right, or what they say -- what they witnessed to, may be inconclusive,
Anton: Well in that case I [will] have won my case.
Chris: Why?
Anton: Because I [will] have not been proved to be guilty.
Chris: We haven’t said you are [he doesn’t understand the point -- or plain English]
Anton: No, but the point of this meeting surely is to establish whether I am guilty?
Chris: Well that’s for us to decide, not you [he still doesn't understand!]
Anton: That's right, but what I’m saying is, the point of this meeting is to establish whether I’m guilty. That is the normal point of a trial isn’t it? If the......or if you cannot prove that I am guilty to-night, then the case should be closed.
Chris: Well that's for us to decide, Tony. We shall come to that bridge if and when we have to.
Anton: But if this a fair trial I would expect the case to be closed.
Chris:[interrupts] Well, it won’t.......
Anton: ........because as I said to you on the phone last time I spoke to you, “how many witnesses are you going to bring?” and I think you said “we’ll bring as many as we like “ and I said to you “Until you hang me?”
Chris: That’s as many as necessary
Anton: So what’s that then? I said to you, do you mean that you would bring as many as it needs to hang me?, to just keep bringing them and digging them out of the woodwork until you hang me?
Chris: No
Robin: Its just a matter of having sufficient information so that all matters can be firmly established properly, you see. That s the idea of having witnesses
Anton: Oh I’m fully aware of that. What I’m saying is “how many witnesses do you intend to bring?” and how many more witnesses.......
Chris: How long is a piece of string Tony? We don't know until we’ve heard the evidence.............
Anton: Well there must be a finite number of witnesses surely?
Chris: We will leave it at these two for this evening Tony
Anton: And if it doesn’t work this time then.....
Chris: We shall leave it at two witnesses this evening Tony O.K.?
Anton: Well, this is not a fair trial then!
Chris: Tony -- you've already made it very clear that you don't agree....
Anton: Well I object - I object - because it’s an infringement of my human rights........
Robin: All of these objections are being noted Tony........
Anton: This is a violation of my human rights
Chris: It's not, Tony
Anton: No! It is! It’s a violation of my human rights because in every country of the world, in every civilised country, even in third world countries, you have at least some show of....... of a fair trial where all the elements that I’ve discussed and mentioned with you tonight are present and at least people go through the procedure of having Witnesses and records and so on....... So...... and once a person is [declared] innocent, they are innocent and there is no bringing of further charges.....
Chris: But Tony -- you’re crossing bridges....... you’re accusing us of making....... doing one thing and bringing further charges when we.....you know?
Anton: Well I’m not suggesting that you are going to bring further charges, what I’m saying is that you are not limiting the number of witnesses
Chris: Tony -- the scriptures say at the mouth of two or three witnesses
Anton: That’s right.
Chris: And that is what we’ll leave it at
Anton: Alright
Chris: We wont say any more about that. That is what we will leave it at that Tony
Anton: Well I object to that
Chris: O.K.
Anton: O.K. but I object to that I don't object to the scriptures but I object to your interpretation that you can bring as many Witnesses as you wish [without naming them first which was the original point or bringing them forward to face me]
Chris: O.K., well OK.
Anton: Since the Watchtower Society is sponsoring this judicial trial tonight , it is imposing standards of justice on me which it could not accept itself and that is also contrary to human rights
Chris: What...... what do you mean by that?
Anton: Well when the Watchtower Society goes to court, they expect to have a fair trial and they are given a fair trial because they are in a “worldly” court with qualified and educated people who are running the show and I am not being given that benefit and the Watchtower Society is using you to try me on the basis of its outlines and guidelines and these are conditions which are not acceptable to the Watchtower Society itself . It does not sit in a court like this and expect...... or receive the treatment I am receiving tonight
Chris: So are you saying the Society have double standards?
Anton: Well you could say that because ......
Chris: [interjects] I’m asking you if that’s what you say........
Robin: Is that what you feel...... is that what you feel regarding this little illustration that you said?
Anton: Well I’m asking you what do you think?
Chris: No, tell us.........[and incriminate yourself]
Anton: What I’m saying to you......... I’m asking.....no.... I’m not answering any questions [laughs]. What I’m saying to you is the Watchtower Society goes to the European Court of Human Rights in Bulgaria...... regarding the Bulgarian case in 1998, in March. They took out a full-page advert in the Washington Post regarding the French tax case, and an open letter to President Chirac in the Washington Post a few months ago, stating that the French government was violating their human rights and ehhhh....that...... and so on.... The Watchtower Society is presenting itself as a champion of human rights and minority groups but it is not giving me the same standards of justice that it expects for itself. And when it goes to court, they have lawyers, they have defence, they have preparation, they have evidence, they go to court and if it doesn’t work the first time around they can go to an Appeal court then they can go to a higher court and then they can even go to the European Court of Human Rights. So...... not being given the right to counsel or any of the other things that I have mentioned. The Watchtower Society is asking me to do what it would not have done to itself. And you too are obviously also participating in that
Chris: Anything else?
Anton: Well how do you feel about that? Does it not bother you? It would bother me.
Chris: We're asking you how you feel because we haven't even the started the...... ehhhh........
Anton: But the point is I've got all these objections
Chris: O.K.
Anton: And this trial is violating my rights and is just a farce from the beginning
Robin: Have you got many more objection Tony can I just ask?
Anton: Well I think I'll go on a wee while longer but I've only got two or three more
Chris: Lets have two more then [they are impatient and frustrated, sitting with arms tightly crossed]
Anton: There have also been breaches of confidentiality because I have the impression that half of Edinburgh knows about this case, including at least three Jehovah's Witness wives.

{EM: Do not discuss private or judicial matters with members of your family, including your wife, or with others who are not involved. Think before you speak. Be extremely careful that you do not inadvertently disclose private information when speaking on the telephone while others are listening in or when people are nearby where they could possibly hear the conversation.......... Be careful to maintain confidentiality}

Chris: ??????? [unclear]
Anton: No I wont mention names but I can assure you that there have been breaches of confident- iality People know about this and the rumour is that I have been “dealt with” to quote John.
Chris: To quote John? How does he.....?
Anton:.....although that's hearsay
Chris: So we're not here to listen to hearsay [he pounces on this technicality!]
Anton: No, but.........
Chris: As you would say..... as you would say you want justice, we're not here to discuss hearsay
Anton: Yes that's right, that's right Well I'll give you justice even though you don't give me justice. The point I'm making is that there definitely is rumours which I've heard which definitely suggest that people..... well which show that people definitely know about this case and that women and Jehovah's Witness wives know about this case which is in direct contravention of your own elders manual which says that elders should not discuss such things with their wives
Chris: Which they shouldn’t. I agree with you
Anton: That's right
Chris: But that's just rumours Tony?
Anton: No it's not rumours I have a witness who could verify that.....that several people know about this case
Chris: Based on what?
Anton:.....two or three wives know about it
Chris: Elders’ wives?
Anton: Yes at least one elder’s wife that I know of and that know that this meeting's taking place
Dennis: That know that this meeting's taking place to-night?
Anton: No, not so much .......
Robin: That know of the case in general you mean?
Anton: Yes -- and that I am “being done” so to speak
Chris: But you’re not prepared to tell us who?
Anton: Not yet [it would incriminate others to reveal my source]
Chris: Not yet?
Anton: But I give you my word that I heard it on good authority
Chris: Have you any other objection ?
Anton: That, if in the case I'm disfellowshipped, no proper explanation will be given to the public and this will cause slander and gossip against me and defame me which perfectly suits the Watchtower Society description of apostates and those who leave the organisation
Chris: Say that again Tony
Anton: That no proper explanation will be given to the public -- the members of the congregation -- if I am disfellowshipped and that this will cause slander and gossip against me and defame me and this perfectly suits the Watchtower Society's description of apostates and those who leave the organisation In other words, what it means is that when people leave the organisation and are several years later are disfellowshipped, no-body actually know what they have done -- they dont know if they've been abusing children or murdering somebody or adultery or winning "Spot the Ball" as somebody did a few years ago - and was not disfellowshipped - or whatever, or simply just disagreeing with something. It could be anything from mass-murder to a disagreement but the whole nature of the disfellowshipping act is such that the accused is defamed and has no opportunity to let the public know what was done and again that's....
Chris: What you do is up to you Tony. Say a disfellowshipping is announced, that's all we do We
don't tell the public why and all that.... [he misses the point - again]
Anton: I know that
Robin: .: .....but the congregations would know Anton you see. What I mean by that is when any person is disfellowshipped - you'll know this - when any person is disfellowshipped then the reason is they had an unrepentant attitude toward whatever it was that was the matter at hand ["whatever it was" could be murder, immorality - or disagreement with the Watchtower]
Anton: It doesn't really matter what it is, does it?
Robin: That's why they’re disfellowshipped, you see. The organisation has the right to do that to put people........ to remove individuals from it if they will no longer submit to certain standards that that organisation sets I mean...... a golf club for example [back to familiar ground]
Anton: Yes........
Robin: .......has certain rules doesn’t it? If its individual members or an individual member flagrantly or disagrees or will no longer submit to certain standards of that golf club, the golf club would have the right to ask that person to no longer renew their membership. Its a similar sort of thing
Anton: Let me give you another example: I was a member of Edinburgh University Chess Club for about......... ehhh.....I can't remember....say seven or eight years. A regular, active member.......... played for the team, attended every week at the Monday night club and playing for the team in the local league. Then I left. And I haven't been a member of the club for..... oh....... another ......... probably five or six years. And now because I've lost interest in chess, when people say - when chess friends see me in the street -- I say “Oh chess! I can't be bothered with it now. I don't play it and it's too much like hard work". But they don't persecute me or shun me or spread rumours about me or avoid me or fear me because I don't any longer wish to play chess.
Robin: But you left the chess club on a completely voluntary basis and not because you flagrantly disregarded any rules they........you weren't put out. You left. [precisely -- as I left JWs]
Anton: So does a person have the right to leave a religion? And does a person have the right to leave a religion and not be harassed afterwards?
Robin: But they won't be harassed Anton because no-one will be able to even speak to them [incredible!!] How are they going to harass them?
Anton: How do you mean? [I did not realise he had missed the point]
Robin: So how are they going to harass them? Do you know what I mean? Harassment?......
If the person leaves the religion.......
Anton: No, no....I'm talking about ........how do you mean “nobody will even speak to them”?
Robin: .......because as you know...
Anton: Are you referring to Jehovah's Witnesses ?
Robin: Yes -- if a person is disfellowshipped from the Christian congregation [JWs] right, then other persons on knowing that will not say a greeting to that person..
Anton: That's the point I'm making.......
Robin:.:.....based on the scriptures.. ....based on scriptural guidelines [based on the Watchtower actually]
Anton: That's the point I'm making that you can leave.....
Robin: But that's a lot different from harassing though Tony
Anton: I'm not referring to harassing...... no .... what I'm saying is, you can leave the Chess Club and -- fine. You meet chess-players in the street, they say “Hello, do you want to go for a drink? Do you want to come round to my house? And you can even say "Well I'll come round to your house but I don't want to play chess.....but I've given it up. I'm just not interested anymore -- fine. What I'm saying here is, I leave a religion - or this religion - or if a person wants to leave the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses they cannot quietly do so. They cannot leave the religion with honour. Sooner or later they will be dishonoured and then as you say the congregation will be instructed to.......

{EM: Disfellowshipped and disassociated ones are shunned by those who wish to have a good relationship with Jehovah. [or more accurately, the Watchtower Society]............ John counsels against speaking to or associating with a disfellowshipped or disassociated person so as not to be "a sharer in his wicked works." (2 John 11 ) [twisting scripture to fit Watchtower -- and some more blasphemy to finish]..... The principle set forth in Jesus' words at Matthew 10:34-38 has a bearing on situations involving disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives}

Chris: [interrupts] Tony -- Tony -- on that point as you mentioned at the outset.....
Anton: But do you see the point I'm making here?
Chris: We see the point you're making O.K.?
Anton: Its down to human rights again.....
Chris: We're not violating any of your human rights O.K.?
Anton: Well I disagree. I must disagree I cannot accept otherwise
Chris: That's fine - that's another point I've noted down here and we've also heard you say that several times. The point is Anton as we said at the outset, there have been allegations made and everyone's innocent until proven guilty O.K.? Allegations have been made which we feel as a body of elders which if true, based on our understanding of the scriptures right, could be a danger to the spiritual welfare of the congregation. If someone chooses to leave the congregation, just drift away quietly into oblivion [!!!!] that's up to them, but if some leave the congregation and choose to continue to associate to whatever the degree is, with Witnesses in the congregation and if...... if they have apostate leanings, and teachings which they then convey to these brothers and sisters within the congregation, then action has to be taken That's the difference between someone who just drifts away and someone who still has contact and who we feel is a danger and that's what we're concerned with or not.
Anton: Why are you worried about what people say? Why are you afraid of what people say?
Chris: Why are we afraid? We are following the guidelines from the scriptures. If people leave "the truth" and say things, right, twisting the truth, twisting our understanding of scriptures which. as you say is what they say and that can endanger the lives of our brothers in the congregation....... that s why we're concerned about what people say
Anton: I believe many truths about many things but if someone comes along and challenges them I do not fear them or run away from them or am afraid to speak to them. So I have to ask, Why do you fear hearing something when you have the truth?
Chris: O.K. if......
Anton: You should not be afraid to hear anything
Chris: ......are you.......So your interpretation of the truth is different from ours then is that what you're saying? [attempting to take the offensive and reach familiar ground]
Anton: No, what I'm saying is ehhh...... for example I believe -- I hope I get this right -- I believe that the planets all go round the sun. To me that is a truth, but if someone came along and tried to argue otherwise, I would not fear them or worry about what they were saying to me. I would listen to them and I would come to a conclusion. [compare Galileo and the Roman Church]
Chris: The apostle Peter likened these people that you should fear as wolves in sheep's clothing on one occasion O.K. so that's a definite fear [No he didn't - see Acts 20:28,29]
Anton: Those were people in the congregation [not a member of the public!] Elders who were in the congregation.
Chris: But the principle applies. You don’t have to be an elder to cause a problem to the congregation
Anton: No, but they were particularly elders in that case
Chris: Yeah, but the principle applies to all
Anton: Yes, right O.K. [I realise I'm wasting my time]
Chris: Or are you saying that....... that....... what Peter was saying only applies to elders? Is that what you're saying?
Anton: I would have to look at it. I am only remembering, but what I’m saying also, is that it was applying to people in the congregation
Chris: O.K. so what you’re saying, “in the congregation” -- “just elders”? Which of those two are you saying?
Anton: Well I know it would apply to people in the congregation.....
Chris: OK, so.........
Anton: ......and I think it was also particularly applying to elders -- but I can’t remember right now.

[I am right in fact as I discovered later on checking: "After his “going away” (apparently in death), “oppressive wolves” would “not treat the flock with tenderness.” Such men would arise from among the elders themselves, and less discerning disciples would accept their twisted teachings".— w90 6/15 22 -- Why do I know Watchtower teaching better than these elders??]

Chris: It applies to those in the congregation..... those that associate with those in the congregation [adding to scriptures !] If you are a danger ...... you don’t have to .....you....... a wolf doesn’t have to be right in the heart of the flock
Anton: Yes, I know, I know. [They have missed the point again]
Chris: .........it can pick off those that are drifting away back into the hills and so on.
Anton: But why shouldn't they drift away if they wish?
Robin: There’s nothing to stop them drifting away if they wish Tony **** [oh No??]
Anton: So why are you interfering with them then?
Chris: But not....... but not if they come back as sheep in wolves clothing......wolves in sheeps clothing
Anton: Well, what I’m saying is..... ummm.... if there is a wolf and the sheep wish to leave the flock and go off and be eaten by the wolf, then how is it your concern...........
Chris: [interrupts] Of course it is! Of course it is! [whatever happened to free will?]
Anton: ........to worry about it?
Chris: If you’re a loving shepherd you’re not just going to let the sh........if..... you will take whatever necessary protection you can to protect that sheep.
Robin: Yes - because sometimes shepherds would endanger their lives wouldn’t they?eep just drift off aimlessly
Anton: [interjects]Yes, but supposing........
Chris:
Anton: Yes, OK OK. Fine then. [they have missed the point and I decide to let this go] I see your point, what you were trying to say.
Chris: O.K. Now Tony, any more?
Anton: Another question: do you view me as a Jehovah's Witness, Robin? [ouch! - a bombshell]
Robin: ......ehhhmmmmmm.........good question.............. ehhhmmmm....... I would say........
Anton: Yes or No?
Robin: I would say, Yes. [This is a little surprising, but I am prepared]
Anton: Dennis?
Dennis: I would say Yes too because you were baptised and....... you've just drifted away
Anton: And Chris?
Chris: Yes [they cannot disagree]
Anton: So I’ve got to ask myself in that case, why have you not been looking after me for three and a half years if I am a Jehovah's Witness? [Loving Shepherds??] Because for the last three and a half years, I have not had a Kingdom Ministry, [monthly bulletin] I have not had a Blood card, signed and dated and witnessed and I’ve not had any shepherding calls and I have not been treated as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I have not been invited to any social events or special events of any kind. So I would have to ask you, how you can view me as a Jehovah's Witness?
Chris: O.K. The point is Tony, you have had shepherding calls and I’ve ........
Anton: [interrupts] Well the last time I had a shepherding call was three years ago. Three years ago! [from my local group elder]
Chris: You’ve had calls. I’ve been to you up until, what? - 18 months ago?
Anton: I don't think it was as recent as that.
Chris: It was, Tony.
Anton: Well let’s agree that.......
Chris: Because you were working on my house 18 months ago.
Anton: Well I wouldn’t call that a shepherding call. [It was hard work!!]
Chris: No. I’m saying at that particular time I was still coming to visit you with the magazines [precisely - this was a magazine drop. He never once discussed the Bible even when I attempted to raise points I had read in it]
Anton: Alright, I will concede that it was 18 months ago in your own case -- in your own case -- but I would have to ask then “What about the rest of them?”
Chris: What? The point is, Tony, we’ve........we.ve...........
Anton: Because you were not -- sorry -- you were not my local group elder were you?
Chris: No
Anton: At no time were you ever my local group elder?
Chris: No [in fact, it was Roddie Darroch]
Robin: I don't think I was either, I don’t think I was.
Anton: No, but as it happened Chris was indeed the only person who visited me within say, the last........ yes, say 18 months, right? But no-one else has. And yes -- you did visit me in hospital a year ago [I give him this -- I had invited him to do so because I had believed he was a friend. When other non-JW visitors came they brought fruit and flowers and gifts. He and his wife called after a Sunday meeting with -- you guessed -- two magazines, despite the fact that I had one eye padded and heavily bandaged after a major operation] But no-one else has had any formal contact with me.......
Chris: [interrupts] OK -- Tony.....
Anton: .......and I would have to suggest that a person who cannot -- or does not -- hold a blood card is not a Jehovah's Witness. So you [Jehovah's Witnesses] have not treated me as a Jehovah's Witness. And if you [Chris] have treated me as a Jehovah's Witness, then you are the exception to all the people in this congregation.......
Chris: O.K.
Anton: .......80, 90 people?
Chris: But, O.K., I know the point you’re coming to - that if you have not been treated as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, then what right do we have........
Anton: Precisely -- because I am a member of the public.
Chris: We have noted what you’ve said O.K. Have you got any more points there?
[they are all sitting with arms tightly folded -- the body language is shouting volumes]
Anton: Ummmm..........
Chris: Provided.......they’re not a repetition of what you’ve already said......
Anton: No I wouldn’t even think of that. But that is the primary......
Chris: OK
Anton: That is most of the.......
Chris: You’ll have........you’ll have another opportunity to bring up the other points there

{EM: Does he still profess to be a Witness? [No!!] Is he generally recognized as such in the congregation and/or the community? [No] Does the person have a measure of contact or association with the congregation so that a leavening, or corrupting, influence exists? [No] How did the matter become known to the elders? [Good question- - how indeed??] Is the person willing to meet with a committee, thus admitting accountability to the Christian congregation? [only to expose and embarrass them -- everything is on tape]...... If the individual still professes to be a Witness and is willing to meet with the judicial committee, the matter should be handled in the normal way. However, when factors such as possible legal action exist, it is best to consult the Society before proceeding}

Anton: Emmm....... just one other thing was......emmmm...... that I don’t recognise this court.
[just for good measure and in case there's any misunderstanding]
Chris: Eh....eh..... Now the gist of what you’ve said there at this stage O.K. Have you got any questions? [To the others] If not we’ll ask the first.............
Robin: I dont think there’s any questions at the moment no, no..... [tempus fugit]
Chris: Right O.K. We’ll call Roddie in. Will you ask him in?
Robin: Right yes
Anton: I take it I’m allowed to question him?
Chris: Of course
Anton: And he has to answer? Is that fair enough?
Chris: Sorry I’m just getting........ [my breath back?]
Anton: And he has to answer me?
Chris: Yeah. We’re not.....we’re not..... we’re here as three brothers here to ensure it doesn’t become an argument ****
Anton: A rammy? [Scottish]
[Roddie enters]
Chris: I mean the two of you......its not......eemmmm....... an opportunity to air personal differences, do you know what I mean Tony ?
Anton: Yes
Chris: I mean we're here to establish the truth, but not to have a dig at any individual
Anton: Yes
Chris: O.K. Now as we mentioned at the outset, Roddie has been invited along on the basis of what was alleged to have said to him on that....... on that particular occasion so perhaps Roddie you’d like to just briefly explain to us what..... what occurred [so the "concerned Witnesses" are never called, but are replaced with the two agents provocateurs]
Roddie: Well there was a conversation which lasted, I expect, three-quarters to an hour and during that conversation Tony’s first remarks were that he was very happy. He was doing whatever he wanted to do. Virtually a free agent I would say, from the way he spoke. I don’t think he used that particular term, but he was happy and that ehh...... it came out during the conversation that he had ehh....... he no longer....... he didn't accept the authority of the "faithful and discreet slave" nor of course the local body of elders and with regard to the "faithful and discreet slave" he said that he doubted or questioned ..... shall I say, questioned - that they would have been appointed, or accepted - as what we consider they are -- as the "faithful and discreet slave" during the 1920s particularly after the "cleansing process" in 1918, 1919. During the 20s the "faithful and discreet slave" was still doing so many things wrong, particularly I think he mentioned birthdays and Xmas and also mentioned when applying understandings of scripture that they had reversed their...... changed their mind as many as five times he mentioned, on one particular issue...... I can’t remember what it was, either whether he had mentioned what it was, but that seemingly to me to be an effort to show that the "faithful and discreet slave" were not to be trusted or weren't to be followed and ehh....... he also mentioned some situation to do with distance that’s mentioned in the Bible and that this -- I don’t know whether it was Brother Rutherford or Brother Russell or whoever, ...had come up with the idea that this was a particular distance in New York or Brooklyn and that this was, you know, a distance in the Bible. [see The Finished Mystery] That also with regard to the ehh........ the ehh...... "faithful and discreet slave" it seemed that Tony was blaming them for the fact that some people had died due to lack of blood transfusion and also that they were ... .they were .... maybe........ he was blaming them again for such things as some getting divorced. Also he didn’t accept that they had the right to make decisions regarding our dress or for that matter, dealing with the subject of ...... emmmm....... sexual practices within marriage. They shouldn't have the right to make decisions or tell us what was appropriate and emmm......or not. Other than that, it seemed to me particularly toward the end of the conversation Tony was doubting whether we really had “Christ in our hearts” and was willing to help us scripturally to get an accurate knowledge or to have that better understanding that he would be happy to help us with that which happened to be......really trying to get us to change our situation within "the truth" or out of "the truth"...... and that’s......
Chris: What .......what was that bit again Anton .....eehhh Roddie?
Roddie: That he would be happy to help us to....eehhh...... scripturally to help us to get what he felt we lacked which was “Christ in our hearts”. These were.........eehhh....... probably the main points......
Chris: O.K. so you’ve heard the allegations from Roddie, Anton . Any comments?
Anton: No comments just now. Do you have a library I can use?
Chris: A library? [yes -- a room with lots of books]
Anton: Yes
Chris: For......?
Anton: Yes - a Watchtower library
Chris: What? Is it......? Do you want to look up something right at this moment?
Anton: Yes, uh-huh
Chris: Emmmmmm........for what particular point did you want to look up?
Anton: Eeehhhh........evidence.
Chris: What? I mean what sort of point? Emmmmm.......well what sort of evidence?
Anton: Aaahh.... well, I’ll show you when I find it. If you have the [Watchtower] volume.
Chris: The volumes are there.
Anton: Can I have a look at them?
Chris: Which one is it you want to look at?
Anton: Probably 1968, and...... maybe.......well....... whatever else you’ve got?......I don.'t know.
Chris: Probably 1968
Anton: It will take me 5 minutes
Chris: Five minutes? [to Robin] Can you get the 1968 volume?
Robin: 1968
Anton: I’ll nip along to the Gents while you’re doing that if you don’t mind.
[Anton exits]
Roddie: [speaks quietly] Is there anything more you want me for? [unclear] do you think?
Chris: Yeah. You’ll have to stay here until he has not refused to question you on it which he...... by the looks of it, he’s going to get a Watchtower to look at.......
Roddie: Uh-huh.
Chris: Are you ready for a long evening of it Dennis?
Dennis: Yeah
Chris: Are you O.K.?
Dennis: Yes I’m fine
Robin: [returns] Jolly hockey-sticks guys, ehh? Right, there we are now.......... [there is a very loud "Thud" as he drops the Watchtower volumes]
Roddie: I don’t see that this is very good to.........
Chris: Just one little point, look. Don’t mention anything now ......let’s just......
Robin: [quietly] Sound........ schtttuummmm........
[whispering and a rustle of keys]
Chris: I’ll ask him. I’ll ask him. He shouldn’t have one.
[All remain quiet for two minutes. Someone touches my bag]
Chris: [quietly] Did you give him the Watchtowers? They’re the three he wanted?
[Anton returns -- the rest of this meeting is a shambles, but I still gain another 10 minutes of material]

Anton: Can I speak now?
Chris: There eehhh......... there is just one thing. You haven’t..... you haven't got a tape-recorder?
[now he asks??]
Anton: Sorry? [I am surprised at this stage -- I had expected this question earlier and I am a little confused and tired -- I hae been concentrating for fully two hours]
Chris: Are you recording this?
Anton I’m not answering any questions I’ve told you that before I came in that I would not answer any questions
Chris: Are you recording this Tony ?
Anton: I’m not answering any questions. About anything [see line 32 above]
Chris: So are you refusing to say whether this is recorded?
Anton: Yes, I would refuse to say that and I would refuse to answer any questions regarding any.........
Chris: On the grounds of what?
Anton: Because I have the right to remain silent [of course I am contradicting myself -- it is difficult to “remain silent” while making a defence, but I am selectively refusing to answer questions]
Chris: You certainly do, but are you refusing to tell us whether you have a tape-recorder?
Anton: Yes I would
Chris: Why?
Anton: Well, because........ because if I did I would [“might” would be better] incriminate myself and if I answered any questions that you put to me, I might also incriminate myself. So I have decided that I will not answer any questions to-night at all.
Chris: Not prepared to answer any questions........?

{EM: Is the person co-operative? When questioned, are his answers forthright?}

Anton: Yes because I expect you to prove your own case [otherwise the committee asks “did you do it?” and the case is over - summary justice!]
Chris: So you’re not prepared to tell us whether you’re recording this or not?
Anton: No, I wouldn’t.
Chris: Why? [Why am I arguing about this? All will b revealed in the next transcript]
Anton: Well I’ll let you guess.
Chris: Because you are recording it?
Anton: No, I’m not going to say whether I am or not. I have nothing to say at all. I’m not going to say anything else.
Chris: [sighs] Well, we're not going to carry on then.
Anton: O.K.
Chris: That's....
Anton: That's O.K., but this is the whole point of what I’ve been saying to you earlier on. The very fact that this meeting is being held in these circumstances means that I cannot possibly have any means of proving what has been said and even the fact that you have accused me of doing that....... I cannot prove that you have accused me of doing that.
Chris: Sorry ...... you cannot prove......?
Anton: I can’t even prove that you have accused me of doing something that you told me I could not do.
Chris: Say that again......... sorry.
Anton: Well you told me before I came along that I would not be able to have a recorder and I would not be able to bring witnesses, bring observers and anyone to defend me.
Chris: Yes so those.......so those......
Anton: And you also told me I had the right to remain silent.
Chris: If you want to ...
Anton: So...... that’s right.......so the point I’m making is that......that I’m not going to answer any questions. I’ve made that point already. I went to the toilet. I mean .......you should have come to the toilet with me if you thought I would do something like that.
Chris: What? Do what?
Anton: Well if you were concerned that I was recording this conversation, then..........
Chris: No, no I’m just asking you.....because we said at the outset that we’re not having tape-recordings. [and I am expected to obey them?] All I’m asking is a simple question, Yes or No.
Anton: No, I’m not prepared to answer any questions at all. I’m not prepared to answer any [incriminating] questions that are directed at me at all because I think that you have to prove your case and if .... if.... if you were concerned about such a thing I would have to ask you why you would be concerned about it?
Chris: Are.... have you got........ are you recording this, yes or no?
Anton: I’m not going to answer any questions [this is beginning to sound like a recording!!]
Chris: Well the meeting’s finished then
Anton: That’s fine, that’s fine, but let it be noted that I came along and let it be noted that I was
willing to......
Chris: Well let's put it this way: the meeting is finished at this point in time O.K. Thanks for your time Roddie. [the rules have changed and suddenly they don't want to play any more.......]
Robin: Thanks Roddie
Anton: I don’t ask you...... I don’t ask you what you may or may not have in your pockets or on your person......
Chris: I have..... I can tell you there's no recording of this
Anton: Well that's fine but I wouldn’t even dream of asking you. I wouldn’t even think of asking you and I would have to ask you why you would even suggest that.......
Chris: Suggest it? I’m not..... I’m just asking you because the guideline is “No tape-recordings". I’m just asking you have you got........
Anton: Whose guideline is that?
Chris: The Society’s [thank you, Chris]
Anton: Right. So where does it say in the Bible that a person would not be able to make a recording....... or a record of what has been done?

{EM: Always give them direction from God's Word; avoid giving your own opinions.......God's Word is the basis for needed correction}

Chris: Look, Tony -- we’re not getting into an argument over ......We’ve asked you You’ve refused to answer. O.K.
Anton: O.K. Yes, but let it be known that I refused to answer all [incriminating] questions and I have not answered any questions up till now.
Chris: That will be noted
Anton: Yes and I would have to ask you also why you are even interested in the fact that I might have or could have had a recorder. What has prompted you to ask?
Chris: No. Because we just want to confirm that.
Anton: Why didn’t you ask me at the beginning?
Chris: Because I forgot. That’s just a simple explanation Tony
Anton: Well I think that's one of the problems that you’ve got when you’re following someone else’s guidelines.
Chris: What? We forgot.
Anton: Yes, I think.......
Robin: [interrupts] Surely you could forget something like that if you were following anyone's guidelines or your own even. People can forget certain little points.......
Anton: Well I’ve got to ask you again - Who are you working for? Who are you doing this for?
Chris: Tony -- Tony....
Anton: Are you doing this for my benefit or your own benefit or are you doing it for someone else?
Chris: Tony -- this meeting has now concluded [but I am still obtaining useful material] O.K. because you are refusing to answer any questions, but more importantly, you’re not telling us whether you’re recording this....... we're not going to search you.
Anton: I would lie..... I could lie to you if you want, you know..... I would always have the option of lying wouldn't I ? But I wouldn’t do that. I’m simply saying I won’t answer questions because I don’t think your question is a pertinent one...... [I do not lie because it would perfectly match the profile of an "apostate" and would invalidate the transcript]
Chris: That’s fine Tony. You’ve made.......
Anton: I don’t think you’ve got the right to ask that question
Chris: You’ve made your point.......emmmmm.......and that's it
Robin: Yep
Chris: .......because ....... end of story OK.......at this point in time O.K.? The meeting is concluded alright? Thank you for coming. [he is completely lost]
Anton: So what happens next?
Chris: What happens next? We’ll let you know.
Anton: So am I just supposed to........ hang about and wait for you to call me or something?
Chris: No. We’ll.........emmmmm....
Anton: You see I went to a lot to a lot of trouble to-night and I’m not very happy about this I’ve gone to a lot of trouble. I’ve had sleepless nights and a lot of problems and concerns and you promised me a fair trial. You promised me that I would have the right to remain silent. You promised me that I would not have to answer any questions if I didn’t wish to.........
Chris: But Tony .....yeah....we are respecting your views then we expect respect on your part.....
Anton: But you don’t respect my person........
Chris: Tony.....
Anton: .......because you’re actually saying to me, “What have you got in your pockets?”
Chris: Tony -- we ......
Anton: Supposing I said, “Well I haven’t got a tape-recorder, but here’s a gun -- "Bang - Bang - Bang"?
[at about this point, I take an orange from my pocket and begin peeling it]
Chris: Tony - we told you on the phone....... I told you on the phone that there would be no witnesses unless they were witnesses to the allegations we were bringing, no observers, no tape-recordings. All we’re asking you is to confirm that you have no tape-recorder. That’s all. All we’re asking you.
Anton: Well I don’t think you’ve got the right to ask that question [not to me anyway!]
Chris: Well we feel that we have.
Anton: I respect your right to ask .........
Chris: You’ve come to a lot of problems to get here so have we, but Anton, if you refuse to answer that question, its the end of the meeting.
Anton: Then can you tell me then, why is it that if I’m not allowed to use a recorder, why is it that Robin is allowed to listen in to our telephone conversation? Can you explain that? Because you did?
Chris: No he didn’t
Anton: On the night when you phoned me?
Chris: I asked you.......
Anton: On the night when you phoned me?
Robin: I didn’t listen in to the conversation. That was just......
Anton: You were not present in the room?
Robin: Nope
Anton: That’s fair enough
Chris: It was a one-to-one, Tony. I invited........can we have Tony [Robin] and you said, No [he wanted to ask me “Do you wish to be a Jehovah's Witness or not? With a witness present. “No” means that I would be considered to have disassociated myself -- even on the phone. This has the same consequences as disfellowshipping]
Robin: We respected your........
Anton: I’ve got to take your word for that as well.....
Robin: Yes, of course.
Anton: You see I could just as easily say, Oh well, we’ll not ..........
Chris: O.K. Tony. We appreciate you coming here, but we’ve had a lot of effort to come here We will now........
Anton: .........but the same thing will happen again...... because if I come along again I will refuse to answer that question and I will refuse to answer any other questions because I have the right to remain silent.
Chris: Excuse me.....Roddie hasn’t gone has he?
Robin: Do you want me to check?
Chris: Don’t let him go.
Anton: I mean are you just going to go ahead with this trial anyway now?
Chris: Well we’re going to listen to what they have to say.
Anton: What about...... Do I not get a chance to hear them?
Chris: Tony
Anton: I’ve come here to hear them
Chris: You will hear them if you can tell us whether you have a recorder or not. I don’t see what is the big deal is if you can’t tell us honestly Yes or No, whether you have a recorder or not.
Anton: But why ....... supposing I did. Why shouldn’t I have one?
Chris: Because we have requested you not to bring one along.
Anton: Why have you asked a person to do that? That’s what I’m concerned about.
Chris: That is the Society's directive [thank you again Chris -- but why is the Watchtower Society afraid of a recording?]
Anton: Is it the Bible’s directive? Is it God’s directive? That’s what I’m asking you.
Chris: It is the Society’s directive that we do not have recordings during these meetings.....
Anton: Why? Why is it secret, is what I want to know? Why are you asking me to come along to a secret meeting where I have no means of verifying what was said? This is all that I mentioned at the beginning.
Chris: For the very fact Anton and we won’t discuss this any further, under the Data Protection Act O.K., we don’t keep lengthy copious notes of these meetings going on and we don’t keep recordings of the meeting and for that reason we don’t expect witnesses to come in and keep recordings of it just as we don’t. [under the Act, recordings and notes would be open to scrutiny by interested parties!] So now you’ve spent a lot of time preparing things, having sleepless nights and I can assure you we have as well O.K. so we all appreciate the effort that it’s come to and we would like the matter to come to a conclusion. The ultimate goal is that we all stay “in the truth” [JW religion] and that we resolve our problems, but were not going to proceed with this if you cannot tell us. Its as simple as that Tony
Anton: I can't answer...... I told you I’m not going to answer any questions.
Chris: Including whether you have a tape-recorder?
Anton: Yes
Chris: Well we .... then despite how many sleepless nights you’ve had Anton, the meeting is concluded
Anton: That's fine, but I have to lodge a protest......that I’m not able to be present to hear the evidence when I came along to do that
Chris: O.K., but you know the reason why.
Anton: Aye. I know the reason why - because you think that there is the possibility that I have a tape-recorder.
Chris: Well, because you won’t tell us one way or the other.
Anton: I won’t tell you one way or the other because I will not answer any questions. I mean I could do a strip-search if you want. How ridiculous do you want to be?
Chris: We’re not asking you to do that. The meeting is finished Tony
Anton: I have to ask you why you want to conduct this meeting in secret? And I think you need to
ask yourselves that.
Chris: O.K. Tony we hear what you say
Anton: Why are you doing that?
Chris: You’ve had a good hour to explain all your objections....... [as long as it takes? see above]
Robin: Yep
Anton: I haven't heard the evidence....
Chris: I haven’t finished yet Tony ......and all we’ve asked you is a simple clarification as to whether you have a tape-recorder or not and you refuse to answer. That will be noted I can assure you
Anton: Fine
Chris: And we will take it from there and we will be in contact with you in due course. O.K.?
[but I’m not finished yet........]
Anton: I have a statement to make before I go.
Chris: Yes? [Now they are interested -- elders like statements -- especially when they incriminate the person]
Anton: I would like to say that John has used deception and lies to obtain evidence and if you had allowed me to stay I would have been able to show you that..... so I would ask you to very carefully consider the evidence that he has because he has not been truthful with me
Chris: Is that your statement? Are you quite clear what you’ve just heard?
Robin & Dennis: Oh yeah, yeah, Uh-huh. Yeah.
Chris: Do you want to repeat that statement?
Anton: I’m saying that John has used deception to enter my home and he has not told the whole truth when he came to see me..... he came under false pretences that he was coming to “have a chat about how I feel about Jehovah's Witnesses now” which was his exact words because he repeated it, twice when I asked him, and when he came to my house, it was not until at least........ maybe 20..... 25 minutes into the conversation that he finally admitted that he was there to investigate me and that was only after I had asked him, “Are you here to investigate me?”, so I would ask you to consider that when you hear his evidence because I think he is a liar and a dishonest and deceitful man.
Chris: OK. Right. Well we’ve heard what you’ve said Tony.
Anton: I'll just finish that. [I eat the last piece of orange] I’m sorry you’ve wasted my time. [I start to gather my things together]
Chris: Well, we’re disappointed Tony as well.
Anton: I’m not very happy at all. I’ll be hearing from you?
Chris: OK. Yep. You’ll hear from us.
[Chris takes me to the door. The two elders/witnesses are still sitting out in the cloakroom]
Anton: [a cheery] Bye!
Roddie: Bye. Cheerio.
[Anton exits, smiling broadly -- and the door slams behind him, echoing loudly in the stair-well]

Postscript
I had just humiliated the "glorious ones" -- well and truly -- and they cannot let me walk away after that.

Six days later, on Thurs. 6 May, Chris Taylor and Dennis Graham called at my home, asking me if I would have another meeting with the same Committee -- continuing from where we left off -- next day [i.e. with 28 hours' notice!!] but would I "give my word that I would not bring my tape-recorder?" I said I would think about it and call them within seven days.

Chris was far too friendly and cheeky. I was suspicious -- and rightly so. I had expected the elders to huddle together to collectively destroy me, but unknown to me then, they had also contacted London Bethel [British HQ of the Watchtower Society] for further instructions. That explains why Chris was so buoyant -- he had the backing of "Big Brother" -- his masters in the beloved Organisation.

Although I suspected foul play, I discovered just how low the elders would stoop to gain their revenge and uphold the "righteous standards" of "Jehovah's Theocratic Organisation" when I attended their next meeting on 25th. May. For the complete transcript, see The Rude, the Bad and the Ugly.