this is an interesting case and I hope we get to hear what ultimately happens.
Here is the thing. There have been court cases that addressed this before. The kind of "confession" that the WT does is not unlike this one, other than the fact that others can be called in for judgement and possible expulsion from the congregation.
" Massachusetts: In Commonwealth v. Drake [(1818) 15 Mass., 154], it was argued on the one side that a confession of a criminal offence made penitentially by a member of a certain Church to other members, in accordance with the discipline of that Church, may not be given in evidence. These others (who were not clergy) were called as witnesses. The solicitor-general argued that religious confession was not protected from disclosure. He also took the point that in this case "the confession was not to the church nor required by any known ecclesiastical rule", but was made voluntarily to friends and neighbours. The court held that the evidence was rightly received (not protected)."
Chief justice Berger said this (and it speaks to why the WT does NOT qualify under this condition, ""The priest penitent privilege recognizes the human need to disclose to a spiritual counselor, in total and absolute confidence, what are believed to be flawed acts or thoughts and to receive priestly consolation and guidance in return."
That has NOTHING to do with Judicial Committees. Never has, never will.
