defender: Why was Spinks questioned as to whether the organisation should use professionals to assess whether a pedophile is fit to rejoin the JW community (or whether they are still a danger), let alone be reappointed.. And yet Jackson, one of the policy makers in the org, was not even spoken to about pedophiles being judged as 'repentant' and even safe to be reappointed, by incompetent elders??
I think the reason was exactly like you stated - Spinks had already been questioned about it. And, the Commission has the documents to show the WTS' stand on the matter. Questioning Jackson about it would have been redundant.
It appeared like the Counsel had a game plan and that time constraints did not allow for all lines of questioning to be persued and it didn't help that Jackson launched into a sermon whenever he was given half a chance. Jackson's bibble pontificating consumed lots of clock time.
I would suspect that if Jackson was questioned about some of the policies that the counsel didn't bring up, that he would have just replied "that's not my area" and then he would have found somewhere in his bibble to qualify how helpers are the ones who do all that while the GB is busy preying and making "scriptural" decisions.
Jackson could have been days on the stand if all lines of questioning were pursued.