I'm still trying to catch up on the RC broadcast posted to YouTube, and I haven't been able to keep up with everything discussed here about it. However, there have been a few points that I wish I could submit. Here's the first:
Repeatedly it has been stated that unless there is a confession, JCs can only act on testimony if it is corroborated by two or more witnesses to the wrongdoing. Basically, they said that unless someone happened to walk in and be an eyewitness to wrongdoing, there was no other way for a JC to ever judge a case. That is not true. The elders manual includes two exceptions to that rule on the same page, p. 129.
12. In some cases adultery is not proved, but it is established by confession or by two or more witnesses that the mate stayed all night in the same house with a person of the opposite sex (or a known homosexual) under improper circumstances.... Even if adultery is not established, it may be that the Christian was involved in an immoral sleeping arrangement.
In this case, it is not required for there to be two witnesses to adultery/fornication. It requires two witnesses to circumstantial evidence that the JC can choose to accept or reject as proof of an "immoral sleeping arrangement". Witnesses of such circumstantial evidence is not the same as being witnesses of seeing two people engaging in sexual relations.
13. Even if the accused mate is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses (disfellowshipped, disassociated, or never baptized), two witnesses are also generally required to establish wrongdoing that would provide a bases for Scriptural freedom. An exception may be made, however, if the unbeliever privately makes an unambiguous confession of adultery to the Christian mate. In such a case, if the innocent Christian mate believes that the confession is true and does not wish to reconcile, he can submit a letter to the elders outlining his situation. The body of elders should then consider the letter. Is there any known reason to conclude other than that the unbelieving mate has been immoral?.... If there is no known reason to conclude otherwise, the innocent mate can be allowed to take responsibility before Jehovah for obtaining a Scriptural divorce; if he remarries, no judicial action will be taken.
In this case, no two witnesses are required. The JW only needs to be aware of this rule in the elders' manual and he can be the only witness testimony required, emphatically state that his nonJW wife had privately made an unambiguous confession of adultery, and submit a letter stating that. The elders will not look for any evidence that the nonJW was unfaithful, rather "Is there any known reason to conclude other than that the unbelieving mate has been immoral?" Basically, the nonJW is considered guilty unless someone on the judicial committee is prepared to prove her innocence. (WT chose to use "he" in the last sentence, I'm just following that example.)
So when the dubs at the RC keep saying that JWs have to stick to the biblical requirement of two eyewitnesses to wrongdoing, that's not true. They accept two witnesses to circumstantial evidence in order to prove wrongdoing, or they accept the word of one witness who is aware of that loophole in the rule.
Was this covered anywhere in the RC? Are there other exceptions to the two witness rule? Is this even making sense? I'm really tired and trying to be coherent and not ramble... okay, now I'm rambling...