Ethelred,
Thank you Nemmersdorf, for that clarification, which also brings us back on topic.
It is irritating that things are constantly having to be re-explained, clarified, or repaired, due to so many various naysayers, who seem to constantly attack the sources and parse the content so as to distract from the meaning and import.
Facts in evidence that need no clarification and are indisputable:
1) Mr. Krah testified on more than one occasion, the latest being the current appeal.
2) His testimony on both occasions was very negative
3)His most recent testimony was negative, damaging, insuting, and amounts to public detraction.
4) Mr. Krah is employed by the SSPX and it is almost impossible that his bad actions have not been approved of in Menzingen. This is directly implied by the fact, that he was not instructed between the first incidence and the second, to alter his tone and characterization of Bishop Williamson.
Based upon these simple facts and Mr. Krah's questionable affiliations with the enemies of the Faith, there is certainly justification for serious concern and more intensive scrutiny of these and other related matters.
And one question, did not one of the clerics from the Society state in a communique or interview that Mr. Krah's duties with the Society had been terminated? If so who is responsible for issuing the false statement which objectively, would be a lie? Please correct me if this is not so.