I can certainly see why serious questions might be raised by the elders. Please allow me to play Devil's Advocate and speak from the perspective of the Defense for a moment.
1) Rose never admitted guilt at any point. He maintained his innocence from the beginning to the end.
I don't really see why that matters. People claim innocence all the time which is why the judicial process seeks to establish the truth of the matter based on evidence and witnesses. In the context of the JC then lets presume innocence. There was still no need or justification for a face to face grilling under the direction of unqualified men.
2) Jane Doe 0 had already made apparently false accusations against Rose in the past, so her involvement in this new case and her behind the scenes coordination with the other women should be a giant red flag.
Fair comment but that was taken into account in the legal process yet there was still a conviction.
3) Rose's behavior around the family of Jane Doe 1 is not consistent...
That means nothing as other posters have pointed out. Guilty people do all sorts of strange things. There are cases of child abduction and murder here in the UK where the perpetrator has been right there in the forefront of the search, acted as a spokesperson for the family and raised their profile not just to the family but to the media.
4) Jane Doe 2 was apparently quite the wild child...
Ok, there is the basis for examining the possibility of a grudge based wild accusation but it would also be unfair to assume that is case.
I accept that the Shepherd book does not expressly forbid a face to face meeting of more than one witness with an accused but it is extraordinary. You might argue this was an extraordinary case and perhaps in the world of WT fuzzy logic the process of allowing the accused to answer a charge was required. There was still no need to have a face to face grilling. This whole WT setup in these situations places the burden of proof to be on the victim and not the accused yet in most other JC situations it's the other way round and the accused is usually afforded little opportunity to counter the evidence of witnesses, especially if there are two. Pistoff has summed this up perfectly.
There were two, because Jane Doe 0's testimony should not have carried any weight at that point.
Accepted however there were still two witnesses and the whole setup was poorly handled. Whatever the context of how these women came to meet with Rose and the BOE, their objectives and agenda it would have been WT Legal, through the BOE, calling the shots. They had control over the nature of the meeting and they failed to manage it in a way that was cognisent of the risk of emotional harm to the victims and in a way that is consistent with how accused ones are treated in other far less serious circumstances.