I just thought of something else about this: I shall call it THE POLICEMAN ANALOGY.
The elder's are the self-proclaimed and de-facto policemen of the congregation. (Actually, they are also the Crown Attorney and the Justice, but I digress).
Imagine a situation where a uniformed policeman tells a young woman "come with me down to the station, we are interrogating a criminal and you need to confront him".
Later, when the dim-witted cop gets in trouble for causing so much grief to the young woman he ordered to go to the confrontation, he claims in court "she came downtown of her own free will. I didn't force her."
Surely the court would recognize that a uniformed police officer would not be able to make such a ridiculous claim post hoc. Surely the justice would roll her eyes if presented with such a weak defence.
Yet this describes exactly what we have here. The established person(s) in authority, carrying the full weight of the (religious) law, ordered young Vic to go to the confrontational meeting, but are now trying to say the meeting was optional and Vic was not forced to go.
Sorry, I don't think the judge would buy that story from a cop, and I hope she will see the analogy and not buy it from "Tweedle-Dee" and "Tweedle-Dum".
See you on Monday at the court.