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.
“He found Dela Cruz’s testimony worthless in any event.”
Which makes granting him immunity all the more curious, does it not ?