Ok skeeter, I've read the article and do agree that the WTS will be looking to minimise exposure here. What, however, would be the implications of this type of prosecution? There must be 1000s of churches and charitable organisations in US alone that, were the DA's office to be successful, would then be at risk of criminal prosecution. Some will be tiny but what about the Catholic Church? Is a DA's office somewhere in the US going to subpoena the Pope?
I don't mean to pour scorn on your proposal as I think the WTS have been in the game long enough to know that it's always worth trying to pre-empt a situation. I would not be surprised if more heat does come on the leadership of organisations when it is clear that the organisational processes offered scant protection and potentially allowed abuse to continue. I also do see that the charge of knowingly covering up the abuse does present a direct risk to the GB. I can also see that by delegating the responsibility for appointing elders there is a potential abstraction of culpability.
My gut feel remains that the reality of a DA trying to bring such a prosecution would present such legal ramifications and have such limited chance of success that the legal resources available to the WTS are a far more effective risk management weapon than making the COs carry the can. I suspect that if there were to be a groundswell of action along these lines then public prosecutors would go for some lower hanging fruit than the WTS.
It would be very, very, very sweet if I was completely wrong however!