I've always felt that there's nothing wrong with the 2 witness rule itself per se. The problem is that unqualified individuals are handling something that they shouldn't to begin with, and then if there aren't 2 witnesses they don't take it seriously. They should simply recuse themselves from hearing any such accusation and immediately ENCOURAGE (which isn't the same as "we do not discourage") people to take the matter to the proper authorities. This isn't even hard.
Instead, it is all about control with the cult. They need you to need them. They need you to bring everything to them to exert dominance. Then once you do they have standards above what could likely be met and history shows that over and over they actually have discouraged people from going to the proper authorities. The whole thing is a mess.
I do agree that you can't just run with and condemn people based on accusations, but the proper authorities have training on how to handle such matters and know what evidence to gather. Many elders are morons and should never be handling such matters. They certainly should never be handling them in the deplorable manner that many do, asking horrifically sensitive questions as people unqualified to deal with the answers.
The whole thing is simply inappropriate. I do agree that a focus on the 2 witness rule itself is probably a focus in the wrong direction. However, it's also erroneous to simplify the 2 witness rule to the base rule itself and to ignore everything that its existence within the cult entails.