" Surely the court testimony should be sufficient to see this guy df'ed."
It is dangerous to make such assumptions when we don't even know what is in the court transcripts. We don't know any arguments that the Defense made or any of the lines of questioning that they pursued.
If your sole argument is: "the jury convicted, therefore the evidence and testimony must be damning," then you should keep in mind that a jury also acquitted Rose of sexual indecency in 1995 (a jury also acuitted O.J. Simpson in 1995) If you think that the first verdict might have been wrong, then you also have to accept that there is an equal chance that the second verdict might also have been wrong. Any good lawyer will tell you that juries can be unpredictable and emotional. It is much safer to get the actual transcripts and read the arguments of the Prosecution and Defense for yourself, and then form your own opinion.
Hi Teary,
I can see your points and agree that the situation is perhaps not as clear cut as portrayed. What I don't understand however is why there is a such a double standard in all of this.
There are numerous examples of where individuals have faced kangeroo JCs, accused of some sin yet never known who their accusers (forming the legendary two witnesses) are let alone had the opportunity to grill them.
I can understand that, in principle, this guy could have been incorrectly found guilty. There is still the fact that during the trial witnesses are called to present evidence. I've not read the transcripts and I don't know how much of the witnesses' evidence was accepted but it was certainly enough to convince a jury to convict. The judge is perfectly free to control what evidence is viewed as acceptable or unacceptable and instruct the jury accordingly.
The elders are perfectly free to take that evidence into account. They are perfectly free to listen to accusations privately. There was no need to permit a cross-examination in such a setting. It does not happen in any other JC circumstance and could have been handled very differently.
What I am interested to know is the circumstances that promted this sequence of events. I can understand your point of logic on the choice of the women in this matter however what is not know is what the context of this choice to meet the elders and Rose in this circumstances were. It seems wholely inappropriate to engage the various parties in this manner - even in a court of law there is the option for the victim not to have to face the alleged perpetrator.
Whatever the context, it seems to me to be yet another example of, at best, a ridiculous level of naivety on the part of the elders. They no doubt were operating under the instruction of the WTS Legal department so this has to be an institutional level of ignorance on how these matters could be handled in a way that meets the needs of "scriptural" justice whilst recognising the psychological impact on victims.