1. Jane Doe reports her suspicion to elders that her JW husband is sexually molesting their two daughters.
2. JW elders initiate an investigation.
3. Suspect husband denies the crime.
4. Children do not corroborate the accusation.
5. Medical examiners do not offer any corroboration of the accusation.
In this case if Jane Doe went on to report her suspicions solely to secular authorities then current WTS policy does not suggest bringing an accusation of slander against her within is judicial process. This is because her accusation is not made outside of protected confidential sources. The same could be said if she were to make her accusations to a medical examiner of her children or to an attorney hired to offer legal counsel on the matter. BUT if Jane Doe made her accusations outside a protected agency then, according to WTS policy, a case of slander could be brought against her within the JW judicial system and in many secular jurisdictions too.
When elders have sanctioned a JW who keeps their accusations within protected agencies then they have acted contrary to WTS policy. This happens all the time, and the WTS knows it. We see Brown actually deflecting hard questions with this bit of fact in his public comments on the subject. Here is the question: at what point is the WTS responsible for inappropriate actions of local elders?
There are many avenues of defense here, but when an elder acts as they think they should and there is no WRITTEN policy against it or otherwise well understood, then they will most likely be viewed legally as acting as an agent of the WTS. There is an important legal aspect to split here, one I am sure barrister Anderson (of the Berry lawsuit) is more than well aware of. For example, since the WTS tells JWs to report cases of rape to secular authorities then any elder who advises otherwise is acting outside WTS policy and, in this instance, might not be viewed legally as an agent of the WTS’ policy. What this elder would be guilty of is acting contrary to WTS policy, and if found out should be at least warned of his offense, if not removed. If the WTS knew of such an incident and failed to take appropriate disciplinary action (warning and training, at least) then the WTS would be culpable in future cases where the same thing occurred, even though its WRITTEN policy says otherwise. So, every action of an elder may not be legally construeable as them acting as a WTS agent, but many can, depending on circumstances.
On the question of WTS agent or not, agency is particularly evident when an ENTIRE body of elders acts in concert. This demonstrates common understanding. Whether a policy is WRITTEN is easy enough to find out—just check official records. But when an entire body acts in concert then one of two things is evident. 1- That actual WTS policy is as those elders acted or 2- that those elders have not been trained adequately for how they are APPOINTED to act. This means in cases where an entire elder body acts in concert that, WRITTEN policy or not, it is evident the WTS holds at least a measure of blame. Either they failed to provide adequate policy or else they failed to train appropriately for what they APPOINTED those elders to do. Either way the WTS is to blame.
One of the problems facing the WTS in the Berry case is that prior to 1989 (I believe) the WTS did not provide very good WRITTEN policies to elders about how to handle cases of reported child abuse. This left individual elders and bodies of elders to act as WTS agents as THEY thought best. This led to many out of court settlements where the WTS settled civil claims by offering monetary compensation to victims. This avoided leaving a paper trail having the effect of establishing the WTS held culpability across the board when other elder bodies acted the same way. It was a cost cutting maneuver.
If the Berry case goes the distance it could leave precedent leading to a virtual avalanche of these claims, with many of them being successful. The important precedent would not be that the WTS is responsible in the Berry case. Many factors could lead to that end for the Berry case. The important precedent would be that WTS policies were, at the time, legally insufficient or legally wrong and therefore the WTS is culpable. This precedent could bankrupt the WTS. For this reason we can expect WTS legal to fight harder to keep this precedent from being set than trying to avoid a simple judgment of culpability in the Berry case. Loosing the Berry case is not what bothers the WTS. Establishing WTS policy as inappropriate or inadequate is what scares them. Barrister Anderson knows perfectly well that if the Berry case can set the RIGHT precedent then he can go about the task of advertising for other similar WTS victimizations prior to 1989 with practical certainty of court sanctioned settlements.
My two cents.