Looks like WT didn't like getting schooled by Angus on the no-witness rape in Deut.
Geoff later sent in a written statement:
329 It was suggested to Mr Jackson that this Scripture provided the basis for the Governing
Body not to apply the two‐witness rule in the case of sexual abuse, or that it called into question the proper foundation to the two‐witness rule in the case of sexual abuse. Mr
Jackson’s answer was to say that the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that there is a proper
foundation to the rule because of the number of times that it is emphasised in the
Scriptures.607 Mr Jackson did not say that there is no prospect of modifying the
application of the two‐witness rule within Scriptural requirements so as to make it
inapplicable to cases of sexual abuse.
330 In a statement provided to the Royal Commission after the close of the public hearing,
Mr Jackson offered an alternative explanation of Deuteronomy 22:23‐27 to that which
he had accepted in oral evidence.608 In his statement Mr Jackson explained that the
man’s guilt had been judged at an earlier stage in Deuteronomy, and that the referenced
verses dealt only with establishing guilt (or absence thereof) on the part of the
woman.609 In his statement, Mr Jackson did not seek to explain the reason for the
difference between his oral and written evidence as to context of Deuteronomy 22:23‐
331 It is submitted that there is little utility in attempting to resolve the conflict between Mr
Jackson’s oral and his subsequent written evidence on the subject of the relevance of
Deuteronomy 22:23‐27 to the flexibility of the two‐witness rule.However, it is open to
the Royal Commission to note the difficulty experienced by even a member of the Governing Body in arriving at an interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:23‐27 which renders it irrelevant to the application of the two‐witness rule.
Hey, what happened to: