@Nitty-Gritty
It takes both sides to agree to any settlement. If a SC appeal was so sure to go in the Watchtower's favor, then why would WT agree to a settlement? Since the original decision was in Candace's favor, it was likely WT that initiated a settlement offer.
While you infer some sinister reason as to why Candace didn't appeal, I understand that the WT was only successful in overturning the punitive portion of the award. If Candace had appealed the unfavorable appeal decision, that would seem to better support your claim that she was only in it for the money. Since she didn't appeal, it appears you have little to brag about.
There are also adulterers, fornicators, liars and the like in Congregations. But guess what, no one can control what you do, it is up to individuals to apply Bible principles and not do these things. Some lead a double life for a while, before they are found out, but once they are found out to be practicing these things they are disfellowshipped and no longer JWs.
A sin committed is not the issue. In the matter of sexual abuse which is a crime, at issue is what happens after it becomes known by Elders as well as the lack of protection demonstrated for those already abused and other members of the congregation.
Without being either witnessed by two parties or a full confession by the accused, there is nothing that will be done to further protect others from the abuser, least of which reporting a crime to proper authorities for them to investigate. The abused is often told to keep quiet, thereby keeping the matter secret.
While Kendrick already had a history of abusing other children, nothing was demonstrated as to have occurred, to protect Candace and others from a known offender who was in good standing within that congregation.
While you state:
who was not in it for the money but to change policies, settled without changing anything?
Candace cannot change WT's policies - that is WT's responsibility to do. Candace could only expose WT's policies as defective and inappropriate, hoping the public exposure would motivate WT to initiate policy changes. While Candace did what she could, so far WT has been uncooperative.
While appropriate policy changes would serve to to help protect those needing protection, the question arises as to why WT opposes making changes?
A further question is; why do you continue to defend an organization which clearly shows it has no interest in protecting or at least assisting in the protection of the most vulnerable within the congregation?