You sound disgusted and I don’t blame you. It is all very depressing. Again I say the victims of this cover up are outstanding and courageous people.

Perhaps a reminder is in order here. FWIW, over the years the one thing I’ve realized concerning cover-ups is, like the abusers themselves, they stem from the misconception that abusers feel they have power to control “truth”. They have disdain for the intelligence of others around them. They use their ‘authority’ and arrogance to intimidate and this works well until victims realize that it’s their voice that has importance and power. Secrets are only powerful while they remain secret. These victims have spoken with dignity and courage and that is something NO ONE can take from them. It’s out there and the door cannot be shut. It is far too late for that. The victims have the courage to say ‘the emperor has no clothes’ and it doesn’t take much to realize that there are some at ‘Project Truth’ that are running a circus.

Panther

In my opinion, to release “such” a statement to the news media for publication in the middle of interviewing a witness and therefore, “during” an “ongoing testimony” of “a” witness, to me, is a blatant, overt abuse of power, miscarriage of justice and dare I say, “obstruction”, besides other criminal offences.

In my opinion, the newspaper article basically implies the witness, Gerry Renshaw must be a liar and any of his testimony is henceforth, discredited. This “press release” totally “obstructs” with the witnesses testimony.

Anyone else see a real or perceived “conflict of interest” here?

Clearly, the “powers that be” must feel cornered to take such a “desperate leap”.

Do/did any other witness have the opportunity to publicly amend or modify testimony, or, to comment publicly on the testimony of other “parties” granted Standing at this public inquiry, while the witness is “still on the stand”, so to say? (contemplate that one theorists, i.e “still on the stand”).

The elitist’s are permitted to play by their own rules, which is, no rules, for them.

Dare we speak out? Dare anyone speak out?

Transcript manipulations, abuse of power, etc., etc., and we wonder why so many people have always “sensed” cover-up. (…”if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, guess what….it’s a duck”.)

In my opinion, if “anyone” else was fortunate enough to have unmitigated access to the news media, such as the “AG” appears to have and “they” merely utterred a statement with equivalent weight, “they” would be jailed immediately.

Does anyone else think the witness may now be a little intimidated?…and the wolverine waits, to cross-examine Gerry. Oh yes, scales of justice.

Under this type of circumstance, I would probably take the same route David Silmser took, but for different reasons. Q: Would I return to the witness stand? A: No.