Anna

I hope so! The ability to edit is also gone (for me anyway). I need that, since after reading over what I have already posted I always find some nonsense that I have written that needs changing! (including grammar)

Personally, I did not have a dilemma, I was just showing how there could be a dilemma because  the text is not clear. Of course, as you suggest, you would interpret this as meaning go to the elders. That is how I see it too. But, this could not be proved in court either way (that is what the courts found so frustrating) because the wording is so ambiguous and it could be argued that it means go to secular authorities. Unless you know the "culture" of Jehovah's Witnesses, then you understand it means go to the elders.

It must be stressed though that NOW it is clearly in writing that sins are handled by the congregation, and crimes are to be handled by secular authorities:  https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/

Oh I sure do!!! Thank you, I never thought of looking there! Thank you!!!!

Very true. And although I am not news media (😀) I made that classic mistake of NOT reading properly, and assuming! Shame on me.

:))) is this "sexism" ?

You are right about one thing, these discussions should be moved to a topic of its own, as 4jah2me suggested, because none of us are now actually discussing JTR  (except for you). There was one comment with information about his current status, as all had been wondering what had happened to him, some fearing him dead. You may not have noticed, but most were quite fond of him and expressed sympathies. But now, this is no longer a thread discussing JTR, so it should be split into another thread. Unfortunately I don't know how to do that. 

It is not "just" of the internet, it is from a county sheriff's office. 

I think using the word excuse is unfair since no one wants to see a child harmed.

Yes. I had jumped the gun there and had him already convicted. I apologize. JWI mentioned that the trial has now occurred....
By the way my comment was not meant to be about JTR, I just used him as an example of what can happen in situations like this.

Whose Responsibility Is It? WT 97/8/15
"When elders learn about serious wrongdoing, they approach the individual involved to give needed help and correction. It is the elders’ responsibility to judge such ones inside the Christian congregation. Keeping a close watch on its spiritual condition, they assist and admonish anyone who is taking an unwise or wrong step.—1 Corinthians 5:12, 13; 2 Timothy 4:2; 1 Peter 5:1, 2.
But what if you are not an elder and you come to know about some serious wrongdoing on the part of another Christian? Guidelines are found in the Law that Jehovah gave to the nation of Israel. The Law stated that if a person was a witness to apostate acts, sedition, murder, or certain other serious crimes, it was his responsibility to report it and to testify to what he knew. Leviticus 5:1 states: “Now in case a soul sins in that he has heard public cursing and he is a witness or he has seen it or has come to know of it, if he does not report it, then he must answer for his error.”—Compare Deuteronomy 13:6-8; Esther 6:2; Proverbs 29:24".
Unfortunately, nowhere in this WT excerpt is there clear direction to whom this "serious wrongdoing" should be reported to.
One of the scriptures mentioned is Esther 6:2 where Mordecai reports a matter about two court officials plotting to kill the king, it is not clear to whom he reports the matter, but it was obviously to a secular authority. (logical, since the matter involved a secular king).
However, the other references from the Hebrew scriptures involve reporting to those under the mosaic law, and those from the Christian Greek scriptures involve fellow Christians in a congregation setting reporting “on the inside”.  So there doesn’t seem to be anything in the Bible about Christians reporting to those on the “outside”; i.e. the secular authorities.
When D. Ali, was questioned by the Australian Royal commission he was not quite sure what action he was supposed to take if he was told that a member of the congregation killed another member. (this is what @4Jah2me may have been referring to)
(transcript):
THE CHAIR:   Q.   If a different crime, to take the most  extreme, murder.  If you were told that a member of the congregation had killed someone else, would you report that  to the police? 
 A.   We would encourage the person to do that. 
 Q.   Would you do it yourself? 
 A.   No.  I would try very hard not to - not that I would  try very hard not to, but I would encourage the person continually to do that.  That's a decision they need to make. 
 Q.   What if the person wasn't prepared to go to the police, but they told you that they saw the killing  happen - what would you do? 
  A.   Am I being asked on the present day circumstances? 
  Q.   Yes. 
  A.   Yes.  I would take the action of ringing the branch and getting some legal advice on that. 
  Q.   You are living in Queensland, aren't you? 
  A.   Yes. 
 Q.   Do you have any knowledge of the law or legal obligations to report knowledge of crimes at all? 
  A.   Not - not really, no. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time and time again it has been remarked on by the courts and commissions such as the one above that nowhere in JW  publications was there any clear written direction on reporting crimes (which includes CSA) to secular authorities that could be referred to.*
It would also appear from Ali's remark ("Am I being asked on the present day circumstances"?) that in the past one would not seek direction from the branch to seek legal advice. (I am assuming that the legal department would be familiar with the "legal obligations" in Queensland to report crimes  and would have advised Ali to that effect). But I wonder what would happen "not" in present day circumstances......
* This as we know has now changed (thanks to the ARC) and the direction is clear for those who wish to report. Unless they are elders, since that is unfortunately contingent on mandatory reporting. But nevertheless, a massive improvement.

I'm glad.

Whose Responsibility Is It? WT 97/8/15
"When elders learn about serious wrongdoing, they approach the individual involved to give needed help and correction. It is the elders’ responsibility to judge such ones inside the Christian congregation. Keeping a close watch on its spiritual condition, they assist and admonish anyone who is taking an unwise or wrong step.—1 Corinthians 5:12, 13; 2 Timothy 4:2; 1 Peter 5:1, 2.
But what if you are not an elder and you come to know about some serious wrongdoing on the part of another Christian? Guidelines are found in the Law that Jehovah gave to the nation of Israel. The Law stated that if a person was a witness to apostate acts, sedition, murder, or certain other serious crimes, it was his responsibility to report it and to testify to what he knew. Leviticus 5:1 states: “Now in case a soul sins in that he has heard public cursing and he is a witness or he has seen it or has come to know of it, if he does not report it, then he must answer for his error.”—Compare Deuteronomy 13:6-8; Esther 6:2; Proverbs 29:24".
Unfortunately, nowhere in this WT excerpt is there clear direction to whom this "serious wrongdoing" should be reported to.
One of the scriptures mentioned is Esther 6:2 where Mordecai reports a matter about two court officials plotting to kill the king, it is not clear to whom he reports the matter, but it was obviously to a secular authority. (logical, since the matter involved a secular king).
However, the other references from the Hebrew scriptures involve reporting to those under the mosaic law, and those from the Christian Greek scriptures involve fellow Christians in a congregation setting reporting “on the inside”.  So there doesn’t seem to be anything in the Bible about Christians reporting to those on the “outside”; i.e. the secular authorities.
When D. Ali, was questioned by the Australian Royal commission he was not quite sure what action he was supposed to take if he was told that a member of the congregation killed another member. (this is what @4Jah2me may have been referring to)
(transcript):
THE CHAIR:   Q.   If a different crime, to take the most  extreme, murder.  If you were told that a member of the congregation had killed someone else, would you report that  to the police? 
 A.   We would encourage the person to do that. 
 Q.   Would you do it yourself? 
 A.   No.  I would try very hard not to - not that I would  try very hard not to, but I would encourage the person continually to do that.  That's a decision they need to make. 
 Q.   What if the person wasn't prepared to go to the police, but they told you that they saw the killing  happen - what would you do? 
  A.   Am I being asked on the present day circumstances? 
  Q.   Yes. 
  A.   Yes.  I would take the action of ringing the branch and getting some legal advice on that. 
  Q.   You are living in Queensland, aren't you? 
  A.   Yes. 
 Q.   Do you have any knowledge of the law or legal obligations to report knowledge of crimes at all? 
  A.   Not - not really, no. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time and time again it has been remarked on by the courts and commissions such as the one above that nowhere in JW  publications was there any clear written direction on reporting crimes (which includes CSA) to secular authorities that could be referred to.*
It would also appear from Ali's remark ("Am I being asked on the present day circumstances"?) that in the past one would not seek direction from the branch to seek legal advice. (I am assuming that the legal department would be familiar with the "legal obligations" in Queensland to report crimes  and would have advised Ali to that effect). But I wonder what would happen "not" in present day circumstances......
* This as we know has now changed (thanks to the ARC) and the direction is clear for those who wish to report. Unless they are elders, since that is unfortunately contingent on mandatory reporting. But nevertheless, a massive improvement.

I know a number of people who have been convicted and later proved to be innocent...I don’t know what is going on here...and I’m not going to comment on this because I don’t have proof of anything....it seems he has yet to go to trial???....

Yes, i understand. If elders make decision about, that sin is forgivable, than congregation follow direction.

No offense, but isn’t this a first for you? I think Anna raises a good point—if it is someone you know, and thus can see as more than one-dimensional, it makes a difference. Someone else, you posted headlines of being a “sex beast,” despite the touching offense (more serious than this case) being decades in the past and never repeated. “One would think that Epstein and Maxwell would have taught that source what a “sex beast” was,” I mentioned, and you disagreed. 
People are many-faceted. They are not just one thing. If it is judged that JTR has done wrong, there will be a price to pay. Hopefully thereafter he will get his life back on track. I wish him well in that regard. 
This is a ridiculous statement. All it means is that there is sometimes not enough evidence upon which to take action. Why don’t you suspend evidence altogether? If anyone is accused of anything, off to jail they go.
It is all irrelevant anyway. There is no reproach in reporting an abuser to police that he has not already brought upon himself—this was made absolutely clear in that WT of last year, studied by the whole congregation. Thus, regardless of what the congregation does, secular authorities can investigate and possibly punish with their own enhanced methods—examining hard drives, for instance.
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/02/the-reproach-of-child-sexual-abuse-falls-on-the-abu.html
The problem of a “culture of insularity” has been solved. If anyone thinks an abuser has pulled the wool over the eyes of elders, there is no stigma in going to outside authorities, as that study article makes clear.

I think it would be dependent on surrounding circumstances and handled on a case by case basis, as no situations are alike...I think, it may even be possible to visit the person in prison to establish some facts...

I can't think of any real life situations that I am personally familiar with. But from gathering information from various sources it seems that there is a clear separation of sin and crime.  A sin can be forgiven by the congregation, but the person still obviously has to be punished by secular authorities for the crime. I do know of an example, nothing to do with CSA but theft and fraud. My friend studied with the  man, and the man became JW. His sins were forgiven, because he repented and stopped doing those things. However, he still had to go to the police and give himself up to serve a prison sentence. So it might work similarly with someone convicted of CSA. If they admit to it, but are remorseful and repentant, they may be forgiven by the congregation, but will still have to pay for their crime. However, if they denied everything in front of the elders, but the authorities found evidence to convict him of his crimes, then I think that would serve as a reason to disfellowship. 
So its on the basis whether the convicted person was honest with the elders and has shown true remorse and signs of repentance, or if he denied and lied. 

There is good money to be made from JW literature, and it is all profit to those who have freeloaded
https://www.ebay.com/b/Antiquarian-Collectible-Books-Jehovah-Witness-Watchtower/29223/bn_55470279

I don't think you understood my comment. In context I said that usually it's one person's word against anothers, because rarely are there any witnesses, the point was: so who do you believe? Lack of witnesses creates a dilemma and fear of accusing someone wrongly. It's like if someone came forward and told the elders that 6 years ago you touched them inappropriately. There is no proof whether your denial is true, or whether their acusation is false.
The two witness rule is as good as "innocent until proved guilty". It is an aid to establishing guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
Of course as has been mentioned many times, the two witness rule plays no role in whether someone goes to the authoroties or not. It is only for the congregation and for the handling of the sin aspect of the crime, not the crime itself.
Not just CSA, but any accusation, to do with anything.
I brought out the point that as per this example we have with JTR, (whom we "know") we can perhaps understand a little how difficult it is to condemn people we know. It's easy to "righteously judge" a situation we only know of from our computer screens or the news etc. 
Which brings me to John Buttler who seemed to do just that. And the lesson is as mentioned above ☝️ Don't judge if you don't know the facts.

I suppose this can be a lesson for all of us, especially the likes of John Butler (pity he isn't around anymore). As an experiment, I try to think of someone I know well and am really close to. They have always been a loyal friend, always there for me. Then I imagine another adult person I know, tell me my friend did something bad to them when they were a child. How would you feel?
It's easy for us to judge elders for mishandling matters and say why didn't they do this or that. Sometimes it must be so difficult to comprehend the whole situation, especially if we know the person well and he is a "really nice guy". It's someones word against an other's, because of course there are rarely any witnesses. It must be especially difficult when it is an adult survivor that comes forward years later, a long time after the alleged crime . Who do you believe? Surely those must be repressed memories that are somehow skewed. They must have misunderstood, got it all wrong. Surely brother "really nice guy" wouldn't do anything like that!
The fact is, people who do these things usually ARE "really nice people".
A lot of different factors come into play when an accusation is made against someone, including not wanting to be wrong. What if the brother IS actually innocent, and we drag his life through the mud? He has a wife and children, and is that really nice guy.
It's easy for us, behind our computer screens, to shout; hang him!

But what are we doing now? I don't see anyone shouting hang JTR. No, we are all sad over the situation. But we know he has done these things because he has been convicted, there must have been proof. Now imagine there is no proof. Just an accusation, and not against a person on a forum (whom we don't really know) but against someone we know personally, someone who is a "really nice guy".....now try and handle that.

How does it do that?

That's how I read it too. I hadn't seen your post until after I posted and came back. I realize that I also said a court appearance was to be today. I should have said yesterday, but it hadn't made the newspaper ( gastongazette.com/news/courts ) yet, so I had a note to check again today.

Did I read the report wrong? Bond has been posted. Lock-up was “pre-trial.” I don’t believe he has been.

There may very well be proof. But his trial was to start today.

It seems like he saw a storm coming.