MK forum

OH!
Is that what Pamela means when she says, "Full stop?"
Like us saying, "Period?"

Theresa Sidebotham has posted a June progress report on the IHART website. I wish I could copy and paste it here, but I am unable to do so, so you can click on this link to read it:

http://www.ihart.care/progress.html

This progress report is essentially a lengthy explanation of why the IHART investigations take so long.

I think those of us who have an idea of how much abuse went on in NTM boarding schools, how many decades of mistreatment there were, how many adult missionaries were abusive to children, how many MKs were affected, and how scattered all these people now are over the earth, we actually do comprehend how an extensive and accurate investigation would require many months and even years to complete.

The length of time is not our main concern. Here is our main concern: WHAT IS NEW TRIBES MISSION'S RESPONSE to the findings presented to them by the investigators who interview numerous abuse victims, witnesses and perpetrators???

You can have the best interview techniques, spend time and money searching out and speaking with many, many people, and write thorough reports detailing the sufferings of the children of missionaries.

And then what???

If the results of the Panama investigation are similar to the results we witnessed from the Vianopolis investigation, we will again respond with great consternation and protest!!

If NTM does not acknowledge the way that the culture of the mission contributed to the dangerous, harmful environment children of past decades were born into, then the investigation will have failed.

If NTM does not acknowledge that the techniques used to program and pressure parents into disciplining their small children (even babies and toddlers) with harsh and painful spankings/beatings happened, then the investigation will have failed.

If NTM does not acknowledge that parents felt coerced into abandoning their small children in mission boarding school in order to support the mission's educational system, and in order to reach lost people with the Gospel, then the investigation will have failed.

If NTM does not reveal the ways field leadership contributed to the abusive environment of their field in general and their school in particular, and does not name and punish the leaders who did that, some of whom are still members of the mission, then the investigation will have failed.

If NTM does not name the individuals who have been found during the investigation to have abused children in ways defined by the mission's own child protection manual, and does not punish them by terminating them from the mission, either presently or retroactively, then the investigation will have failed.

If the mission does not fully engage in compassionate advocacy and support for the children of its missionaries who suffered inexcusable and traumatic cruelty during their childhood, but instead supports and protects those who abused them, then the investigation will have failed.

Take all the time you need, IHART, to do your job. We understand that part.

The part I cannot for the life of me understand, is how New Tribes Mission, and its thousands of members, can rationalize and justify how the mission is choosing to respond to the widespread child abuse that is being uncovered by these investigations.

How, in the name of Jesus and all that is righteous and holy, can you think God is pleased with this response???

I find this response appalling, and so do many others.

Many, many others.

Agreed and I sign the petition.
Wish there were some BIG way to get before the public with this.
I know some have tried valiantly.

So well articulated, Raz.

No excuse

Just copied Raz's post to MKSafetyNet's FB page. Maybe a few new people will see it there.

Thanks, Shary. Yes, let's try to get the word out. I am not sure who is still reading here .... though the "hits" number does continue to climb.

Almost 5.5 million now.

And I'm going to share Raz's post from here the same way. #NewTribes

Theresa Sidebotham's July progress report, http://www.ihart.care/progress.html :

The investigative teams for Panama and Bolivia continue with interviews. Both teams are travelling regionally, trying to visit more than one person at a time, to make the best use of their time and resources. As they work to finalize the interviews, they have the additional task of confirming that nothing has been overlooked and that available leads have been followed. These steps ensure that the information compiled is as complete as possible given the timeframe under investigation and the availability of records and people to interview. As they draw near the end of the actual interviewing, both teams are preparing to write reports -- the Bolivia team for the entire investigation, and the Panama team for the leadership responsibility determinations.

As they work to finalize the interviews, they have the additional task of confirming that nothing has been overlooked and that available leads have been followed.

Confirming that nothing has been overlooked? How long might that take? May I remind you of this information from Pat Hendrix in January, 2013, concerning the Tambo, Bolivia investigation:

"The scope of the investigation covers 1959 – 2004 when the school was closed. The investigators have 1056 student names to attempt contact, which includes some staff as possible witnesses/survivors and or perpetrators. This does not include other adult staff members. Early January, 2013, 49 US mailings went out along with some e-mails. So far, in January, 14 MK’s have requested interviews. With the scope of this investigation, we expect this investigation to last 2-3 years. The alleged perpetrator list has 42 names taken from the interviews I have which are not all."

42 years in scope
over 1,000 people to attempt to contact
42 alleged perpetrators of abuse

The process of "confirming that nothing has been overlooked" could take quite some time ... expect to hear this phrase again during the years to come.

As a student of language, I have started to examine closely the words written by Theresa Sidebotham and other attorneys. Therefore I offer these possible interpretations (please note the word "possible"):

... teams are travelling regionally, trying to visit more than one person at a time could = "former field committee member ZZZ could not be interviewed due to his absence from the region at the time the investigative team was there".

... the information compiled is as complete as possible given the timeframe under investigation and the availability of records and people to interview could = "minutes from field committee meetings during this time period were either illegible or could not be found", and "this report of abuse could not be corroborated due to the fact that no witnesses could be found" or "this abuse could not be confirmed, as the alleged perpetrator is deceased and therefore unavailable for an interview". (Side note: it has been shocking to me, how many of the people on the "list of abusers" that was at one time posted on this website died prematurely. Many of their peers are still alive, but very few of these named abusers are around today.)

... the Panama team for the leadership responsibility determinations. Please note very carefully, the shift in one word here. Up to now, the phrase used has been "leadership culpability". Now it is "leadership responsibility".

Culpability is defined as responsibility for a fault or wrong; blame. Included in the definition is the indication that there was some fault or wrong. With this shift in word useage, I now expect something like this to be said: "It was concluded that this field leader could not be held responsible for the fact that that Child Y was beaten repeatedly, as he neither instructed the dorm father to beat the child, nor did he witness the beatings."

Remember the shift in wording for what IHART stands for? It used to be Independent Historical Abuse Review Team. Now it's Independent Historical Allegations Review Team.

Subtle changes in language .... don't be naive. This all means something.