Cosmetic aplogies & retracting

I've wondered for some time about this. I was just looking at the article ‘Peter Amsterdam’s Admission of Guilt’ (in the Articles section of this board) where WC questions it as just one more cosmetic apology, & thinking back, given recent events, it’s obvious that that’s what it was.

Back in the late 80's/early 90's the Family put out two statements about child abuse. The first, I recall, was a 4 page thing absolutely denying charges of abuse & calling them lies by bitter backsliders jealous of the Family's success at soul-winning. The second statement was a longer one admitting to a 'few' abuses but giving pages of qualifications & explanations & righteous-sounding 'don't do it' quotes by Father David.

Then came the British court case where the Family was finally forced to admit that widespread abuse had happened. Berg spoke from the grave saying, 'You can blame it on me,' & Peter Amsterdam openly admitted to judge Ward that abuses had happened & that Berg was the one responsible for turning them loose on the Family.

But now in the months since Ricky’s & Angela’s deaths when many more SGs are speaking out about the abuse they suffered, it seems the Family is trying to return to square one & deny that abuse happened. Tho Clair Borowick makes passing statements that 'all inappropriate contact between adults & children was stopped in [insert year]'—thus somewhat admitting that some abuse happened—the main impression one gets from reading myConclusion.com is of one young Family adult after another saying they were never abused & of them calling the SGs on MovingOn liars.

It seems like one more phase of the Family’s elaborate act of dancing a little sidestep. First deny it & call ‘detractors’ liars. Then give a qualified denial. Then admit it & apologize to SGs who ‘may’ have been harmed. Then have dozens of Family members deny it & call older SGs liars once again.