The two witness rule for child molestation just seems like a "hide-behind-scripture" rule to protect pedophiles. So it invites speculation as to why anybody would protect pedophiles ever...
I'll continue my skepticism - looking at JW doctrine and judicial procedures, I think it's impossible in most cases to work out which ones came from misapplication of scripture and which ones came out of someone's ass and they then proceeded to misapply scripture to support it.
They're making stuff up as they go along, and it's difficult to tell if they get stuff wrong because it suits them, or if they're just getting stuff wrong because they're stupid. Sometimes it's obvious when they're shaping doctrine to suit their selfish goals, but in this case I don't think we have enough information. Furthermore, the policies that endanger children today were instituted before any of the current GB members were in power, so if this all came about because of a molester, they're dead now. It seems most likely to me that the current GB just doesn't want to be seen as capitulating to their critics.
Thanks for your well-wishes.