Committeechairman, I won't say anymore on the matter because you saw it work. I don't want to say that calling "Mother" first is always a bad thing. If Mother's interest was to make sure that the first priority was to the welfare of an alledged victim, and the second priority was to the reaction to the alledged predator, then the third priority was to comply with all laws (as laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction) and the protection of the organization was left to Jehovah to worry about, then FINE AND DANDY. I fecognize that there are no easy answers in these situations.
It's just that we already know from wonderful people like Barbara Anderson and others that first priority is the organization, second and third (debatable which is before the other) are reaction to the alledged predator (in order to protect the first priority) and how best to be in compliance with the law (and still protect the first priority), and alledged victims are dealt with as a last priority. Whether the victim contributed to the situation even takes priority over the victim's welfare.