In John 8, Jesus did not apply the temporal punishment of stoning to death. He obeyed the Law.
There were not enough men to condemn her. That is why He said he did not condemn her. Why does this forgive her sins?
The thief on the cross had no sin since Jesus stated he would be in heaven. He was holy enough to enter heaven. The meaning is implicit in the text. Where is the implicit forgiveness in John 8.
I continue to think there is more to this story than another example of Jesus forgiving the sins of the woman.
No doubt there is more to the story. But it seems to me that you are arguing that there is less to the story–namely that Jesus just chose, for no particular reason, to involve himself in a domestic civil dispute (something he explicitly refused to do elsewhere):
One of the multitude said to him, “Teacher, bid my brother divide the inheritance with me.” But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?” (Luke 12:13-14)
It also assumes that the Christian community, which wrote down this incident, saw no particular spiritual importance in this act, but just thought we’d want to know about this bit of trivia.
It also assumes that there was nothing in the charge that she had been caught in the very act of adultery. All it took was two or three witnesses to establish the charge. The point of the story was that she was indeed quite guilty, not that the witnesses against her were all lying.
Finally, it overlooks the fact that the Good Thief condemned himself out of his own mouth as worthy of the punishment he was receiving (Luke 23-40-41). So the claim that the Good Thief “had no sin” is refuted by his own words.
Both stories are about the power of Christ to forgive sins. That’s because everything in the gospels is related to the Paschal Mystery: the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus whereby he pours out his forgiving grace on us and enables us to become partakers of the divine life of the Blessed Trinity. The story of the woman taken in adultery is no exception.