How will this be 'handled'?

My guess: she'll be given the typical treatment:

1. All mention of her will be deleted from websites.

2. She will be declared an SP.

3. Anytime her name is brought up, she'll be denounced ('denouncing material' will be culled from 'ethics file' and used to denounce her)

4. They'll say they were in the process of getting rid of her because her crimes had be 'discovered' and that she was an SP, who was unfit for their elite organization.

5. And, of course, we'll see Tommy Davis say (unconvincingly) he (nor anyone else) had 'any idea' this evil SP had been 'coaching and threatening' people to cover-up sexual abuse.

6. $cientology will continue onward, business as usual, until this happens again, and the same 'process' is repeated.

I don't think he will, Smurf. My take on Marty's ramblings is that he's on-board with the anti-psych thing. For that reason I believe he will decry what Eastgate did, but he will not want to be seen as being anti-CCHR.

Marty can't decry this because Eastgate did exactly what he would do which is exactly what eLwRONg would do in trying to KSW by coaching this victim and her mother

I think you've pretty much got it figured, mr_bad. I would add to no. 5. that Tommy Davis will decry Jan Eastgate's action and say that scientology would never get involved in such an action nor would it condone anyone doing such a thing and then say scientology is very much in support of protecting the rights of children and blah, blah, woof, woof.

I second that.
Unless someone would (publicly, maybe in a press conference) ask "then how's, you lot being the 'ultimate authority in the human mind', that SOMEONE did not point out her problem earlier? Surely someone of you higher ups COULD have spotted it before administering your 'tech', no?". That would be a FAIL to watch, with popcorn on top

I haven't seen this story hit the US media yet. It's not politics; it's not celebrity news; it's not religious news because CCHR is supposedly secular and US reporters haven't connected it yet to Scientology. I believe some investigative reporters scan this site, not just for Cruise and Travolta tittle-tattle, and I think they're waiting for courtroom drama which can be safely reported as a beefy story, without fear of lawsuits. Your local paper will cover it when the AP and other wire services produce a good summary which papers can just copy-paste.

This case supports the truth about what happened to Amy Scobee. Amy's story of sexual abuse (as a minor) by an adult scientologist, also covered up by the church of scientology, is covered in her book "Abuse at the Top". U.S. reporters can come in at the angle of finding victims here in the U.S. of the same flavor of abuse. This kind of thing is scientology policy: never go to the authorities with these crimes because the authorities cannot be trusted- and they will involve psychiatrists, scientology's enemy. The fact that Eastgate has been booked adds a great deal of legitimacy to these reported incidents, which are probably more common than people realize. Scientology always denies and lies. They cannot easily lie about the Eastgate affair because the perp has already confessed. They will not be able to wiggle and PR their way out of this one so easily. Eastgate was acting as an official of the church when she coerced the child into lying. No one acts in a rogue fashion in the scientology hierarchy and gets away with it. That fact would be easily proven in a court of law: hands down, she was following orders. Whose orders was she following? That's what I would like to know.

I hope this goes to trial and does not end with a plea bargain.

Mr. Bad, I've seen Jan in action a couple of times and the best word I can use to describe her is "rabid". There is not one molecule of her being that is not batshit Scientology, a huge asset to the organization. Is there a scenario where she categorically denies the coverup charges and is wholly believed by church members (Carmen, Phoebe, and Carmel Underwood are lying SPs after all), and the church simply takes the bad PR from the trial on the chin? To me, this seems the least flappiest of options. And the least likely to stir up current koolaid drinkers. I'm interested in your thoughts on this.

BF,

I've never seen the cult make much of an attempt to defend anyone. Freedom medal or not, there's that "you pulled it in" factor, which let's them off the hook and not get bogged down with 'out-ethics' DBs. So, my thoughts are that Jan Eastgate won't get any support from the cult, especially, if the case against her looks strong, which it does.

I think Jan's about to discover what a fair weather friend $cientology is.

I'd like to address this.

What you suggest, BF, probably would be the least flappiest of the options, but I think the people involved in scientology who will deal with this won't do that, even if they should think of it. Taking the bad public relations (PR) from the trial would be looked on as putting scientology 'at effect.' This is an anathema to people in scientology. They strive to always be 'at cause' so they won't take the bad PR. They also have L. Ron Hubbard's direction: "The wrong thing to do is nothing." Essentially those involved in scientology are obsessive compulsive about being at cause and about always doing something about whatever happens, especially where scientology is concerned.

They will attack. Be sure of that. They will investigate all the people from the Australian justice system who are involved. If a jury becomes involved they will make folders for the jurors and find out everything they can about them. They will find the crimes of everyone involved and make them publicly known. If they can't find crimes they will invent them.

If they can possibly get Jan Eastgate acquitted they will do that. They will, however be in unfamiliar territory as the Australian justice system is different from that of the United States. If the case goes badly for them and Jan Eastgate is convicted or looks like she will be convicted, the people in scientology will abandon her. The scientology organization is psychopathic and that's what psychopaths do. They will then do everything they can to assign all possible blame on Jan Eastgate so that scientology is left squeaky clean.

If Jan Eastgate is lucky she will get a short term sentence accompanied with some excellent therapy that helps her to jettison scientology. Potentially Jan Eastgate could become a rabid critic of scientology. Scientology's management knows that's possible and they fear that happening. That's why I said I hope she gets protected by Australian justice authorities.

One of the scientology organization's problems is that their strict adherence to Hubbard's directions makes their actions extremely predictable. Hey, they might surprise us, but I doubt it.

Thank you, Wieber and Mr. Bad. A second question for both of you. I've been a little out of the loop lately so please forgive me for being slow here.

Mr. Bad, why do you feel the case against her is strong? To me this looks like a "he said she said" situation where the only solid evidence (let's say there's a notation something to the effect of, "not comfortable not calling the police" somewhere in Phoebe or Carmel's folders) is already in the hands of OSA and easily removable. I'm not being a pessimist; it's just that due to the nature of the auditing process, CCHR's lawyers have easy access to a volume of information that could potentially discredit the witnesses (and it's not like they wouldn't use it). Full control over the folders and a history of corrupt legal maneuvers leaves me a little skeptical. Additionally, to my understanding, in order to get a conviction it is not sufficient to prove that the conduct actually did, or had a tendency to pervert the course of justice. The evidence must prove that Eastgate INTENDED that it would do so. I'm thinking requires some pretty powerful evidence on the part of the prosecution. Other than info potentially in the folders, what do you think that might consist of? (Actually, I open this question to anyone who may have a thought...)

Wieber, you said, "no. 5. that Tommy Davis will decry Jan Eastgate's action and say that scientology would never get involved in such an action nor would it condone anyone doing such a thing and then say scientology is very much in support of protecting the rights of children and blah, blah, woof, woof." Do you think that "Scientology" (via Davis or anyone else in the main organization) will publicly defend "Scientology," or perhaps might they will distance themselves from this situation and the CCHR all together?

They would not require her to get psychiatric counseling, as it is "against her religion." Maybe she could request an auditor come in and provide her with auditing to help her run this most unfortunate incident of being arrested!

It would have to be more than "He said, she said" for the Australian authorities to forcibly detain a citizen of another country and confiscate her passport. That's pretty serious stuff. I think Scientologists leave themselves open sometimes due to being overzealous because they think they are superior beings and that's when they start making mistakes. They actually believe they are untouchable and the cult has their back when it doesn't. And that's when they get thrown under the bus.

It's just the feeling I got, but you're right, this might just be a case of he said/she said. The part that made me feel like there was something there was the fact that they confiscated her passport. It also seems like a tidal shift has taken place in Australia where there is strong sentiment against $cientology. So, if there is any decent evidence, I don't think it's going to go well.

From perusing the various message boards, and looking at what those have said ( no hearsay) we have the following:


JE is charged with perverting the course of justice. She will not get a slap on the wrist, or be able to plea bargain from what I have seen happen in simlar cases. Shes "deep in da poo" to put it mildly.

The Police obviously have strong evidence... the victims statement always weighs heavily in sexual abuse cases, and when its supported by independednt witnesses, well its more than enough. Not only do we have her mother and Carmel backing up her evidence, but the perpetrator was found guilty.. and admitted he was surprised at the light sentence he got ..and stated it was most likely because the victim had "minimised" the accusations against him. This also indirectly supports the "coaching" accusations.

They arrested her, seized her passport. They wouldnt do that if they were not sure of their facts.

JE is literally "up the proverbial creek in a barbed wire canoe without a paddle".

CO$ has a BIG problem ..the best they can do here is to try to minimise its publicity ... and bunker down against the backlash from not only the public , but DM's rage

Dont be surprised if Cyrus and his cronies lock the doors..... not to keep the media out but to stop staff from blowing!