Investigative Methodology & Standards

How we verify, categorize, and report allegations of abuse and misconduct in religious institutions

Evidence Classification System

Alleged

Claims reported by a single source without corroborating documentation. While unverified, these allegations are included when the source is credible and the claim is specific.

Example: Victim testimony without supporting documents

Documented

Allegations supported by text messages, emails, photographs, audio recordings, or multiple corroborating witnesses. Evidence has been reviewed by our editorial team.

Example: Text messages showing cover-up attempts, emails from church leadership

Verified

Claims corroborated by official documents, court filings, police reports, independent investigations, or credible media reporting from established news organizations.

Example: Court documents, police reports, independent investigation findings

Adjudicated

Matters that have been decided by a court of law, resulted in criminal conviction, civil judgment, or official denominational finding. These are established facts, not allegations.

Example: Criminal convictions, civil court judgments, official denominational rulings

Our Verification Process

1

Initial Report

We receive allegations through our tip line, direct contact, or public reporting. Each claim is logged and assigned for review.

2

Source Verification

We verify the identity and credibility of sources. We assess their connection to the case and potential motivations.

3

Evidence Collection

We request and review supporting documentation: text messages, emails, photos, audio recordings, official documents, and witness statements.

4

Corroboration

We seek additional sources and evidence. We cross-reference claims with public records, court documents, and media reports.

5

Right of Reply

Before publication, we contact the accused party or institution to provide opportunity for response, clarification, or rebuttal.

6

Editorial Review

Our editorial team reviews all evidence, assesses legal risks, and determines appropriate evidence classification before publication.

Abuse Category Definitions

We use specific categories to classify different types of alleged misconduct. Each case may involve multiple categories. All categories use the word "Alleged" to indicate these are claims that may be disputed.

Category Types:

Physical/Sexual Abuse: Direct harm to individuals including sexual abuse, physical assault, child abuse, grooming, and CSAM

Institutional Misconduct: Organizational failures including cover-ups, misuse of authority, failure of due process, and retaliation

Spiritual/Doctrinal Abuse: Misuse of religious authority including spiritual abuse, doctrinal misrepresentation, and manipulation of scripture

Reputational Harm: Attacks on character including slander, libel, character assassination, gossip, public shaming, and smear campaigns

Financial Misconduct: Fraud, embezzlement, financial misrepresentation, and misuse of church funds

Psychological Harm: Emotional abuse, intimidation, coercion, manipulation, and cult-like control

Legal Standards & Protections

Use of "Alleged": We use the term "alleged" to indicate claims that have not been proven in court or may be disputed. This reflects journalistic caution and fairness while allowing us to report credible claims of misconduct.

Good Faith Reporting: All reporting is conducted in good faith with reasonable efforts to verify information. We do not publish claims we know to be false or with reckless disregard for the truth.

Right of Reply: We provide accused parties opportunity to respond before publication. Responses are included in our reporting when provided.

Public Interest: Our reporting focuses on matters of public interest, particularly patterns of institutional failure, abuse of authority, and protection of vulnerable individuals.

Source Protection: We protect the identity of confidential sources and victims who request anonymity, while maintaining our ability to verify their credibility.

Updates & Corrections

We are committed to accuracy and transparency. As cases develop and new information emerges:

  • We update evidence classifications when new documentation becomes available
  • We add new allegations as they are verified through our process
  • We publish corrections prominently when errors are identified
  • We note when allegations are resolved, dismissed, or adjudicated

Questions About Our Methodology?

We welcome questions about our investigative process and standards.

Contact Our Editorial Team