I finished going through the transcripts yesterday and have been mulling the mess ever since. At some point it dawned on me that I didn’t recall any mention of lawyer/canon lawyer and “alleged” paedophile Jacques Leduc throughout Ron Leroux’ examination in chief. That seemed strange enough that I actually went back into the transcripts and did a word search on “Leduc.” No. Nowhere to be found. Not in the examination in chief. Only when Allan Manson (Citizens for Community Renewal) started his cross-examination was the name Jacques Leduc uttered. But not before. Amazing.
I’ll get back to this once I get things sorted out. I am now about to group Ron’s muddled testimony and numerous recantations into categories so it’s a little easier to grasp the significance and impact of this witness’ recanted testimony. I think I may also post another copy of his 13 November 1996 affidavit with strike outs and some commentary – I think that may be the simplest way to put the recantations into context. I may do likewise with his 04 December 1996 statement. Regardless I still plan to post an in-depth recap of Ron’s testimony to date.
Enough for now,
Sylvia
Ron Leroux was believed in the past when he told stories of rituals and clan meetings. He now says he never saw any of those things.
Is he still to be believed? If you read through the transcripts, count how many times he says things like he just wants to set the record straight or he wants the truth to be told or he wants to take responsibility for starting some of the rumours.
People believed him then but don’t believe him now. Was he telling the truth in the past and now he’s not?
The lawyer for the church has been criticized for suddenly taking Ron’s story as truth because it suits the church agenda that nothing bad ever happened.
How can we all do the same thing and say Ron is now lying when we all have believed him for so long? If he says he’s now finally telling the truth and wants to set the record straight, why don’t we be believe him?