Another point brought out in the "letter":
The fact that just any "two or three" eyewitnesses are not sufficient. According to the letter, they have to be two or three credible eyewitnesses.
In a court of law, the character of any witnesses is extremely important. However, they are well defined: Honest, trustworthy, good charcter, exemplary citizen, taxpayer, respectfully dressed...all of these things are important in a court of law. Even young children can be credible witnesses in a court of law.
But...What defines a credible witness in the Society's eye for judicial matters? My experience tells me that they would have to be regular in the field ministry, spiritually mature, respected in the congregation, examples to others within the congregation, and regular at the meetings.
In the Society's eyes, are any of the following credible eyewitnesses?: Children, irregular Publisher's, disfellowshipped or disassociated ones, non-JW's, those irregular with meeting attendance, those not reaching out, and those that may not be moderate in their dress and grooming.
Basically, the Society has given itself absolute power in deciding who is credible and who is not. They are, in essence, telling certain ones who come forward with an allegation: "Nice story. However, we don't think you're good enough to be believed."
Nice policy for the so-called Christian Congregation!
Edited for a typo!