“Why would anyone need to make a deal to tell the truth?
It was not a plea deal because Dela Cruz did not admit guilt.”
Maybe I have it wrong, but I believe that DeLaCruz was telling a different story before he got immunity.
If you are given immunity and you refuse to testify, or are found to be lying your immunity goes away, so the deal is - tell the truth this time and we will not come after you.
Dela Cruz’s lawyer said he never changed his statements. Another attorney said he changed his statements five times.
Do both lawyers have reason to misrepresent the facts? Yes. Which, if either, is telling the truth? We won’t know until we get our hands on all the documents.
For now, I would go with the IO’s reports. He found Dela Cruz’s testimony worthless in any event.