I agree with you, in part. The chair did say that what happens in 5 years time. He did not indicate that these were cases that were just to try and fool the Commission, there is nothing in the record for that. And again, the policy for reporting a case based on the testimony of one
And again, the policy for reporting a case based on the testimony of one witness is a legal decision and for secular parts of their reporting policy. The GB has the right to keep in tact their policy that two witnesses is needed for congregational actions. So a matter will be submitted to authorities based on the single witness rule. That person's standing in the congregation would still be dependent on a two witness rule. So again two different things, one is reporting it to the police and the second is that of how the congregation sees it. Now if a person is either convicted of child abuse or if it is generally accepted in the community that he is a child abuser, then regardless if there are two witnesses or not and regardless if the person confesses or denies it, Branch restrictions will be imposed on that person. The restrictions would include limiting their ability to go out in service and handle even very trivial matters for decades.
I highly doubt that Watchtower will ignore this since it is their policy for one major reason and that is liability. I am going to step from Australia to California for this. In the Conti case, the only thing that the Appeals Court found that Watchtower did wrong was violating their own policy when Conti and Kendrick went in service.
From the Conti Case:
Allen Shuster, a Watchtower official in New York, testified that Watchtower policy allowed a known child molester to continue to perform field service, but not alone or with a child. Defense expert Monica Applewhite, whose testimony is discussed further below, said that Watchtower policies were implemented by letters sent “to all bodies of elders in the United States.” However, Shuster was unable to identify any church-wide writing that documented the limitations on field service by known child molesters. He said this policy was implemented by letters to elders on a case-by-case basis.2
...
Even if Watchtower had a policy of preventing known child molesters from performing field service alone or with children, there is no evidence that Watchtower did anything to implement that policy in Kendrick's case. Elder Abrahamson testified that Watchtower, not the Congregation, determined how matters such as the one involving Kendrick were handled. (Fn.1, supra.) Shuster said that such matters were addressed by Watchtower through letters of instruction to the elders of individual congregations, but no such letter was produced in this case. Insofar as it appears from the evidence, Watchtower placed no limits whatsoever on Kendrick's field service.
