One point among many

Claims have been made, that in the Sheriff Court case of April-June 1996, Principal Donald Macleod, on two occasions on 17 June 1996, (once, during examination by the Dean and once, during cross-examination by the Fiscal) stated, in response to questions/interruptions by Sheriff Horsburgh, that, though he had been a member of the Training of the Ministry Committee (ToM) which investigated certain allegations concerning himself, he had not taken part there in any matter related to himself.
These were statements which, apparently, carried weight with Sheriff Horsburgh at the trial because, on 24 June 1996, during the Summing up by the Fiscal, after reference had been made to the ToM, Sheriff Horsburgh interrupted her and stated, "But he (i.e. Donald Macleod) left (the Committee) if dealing with him".
These apparent claims by Donald Macleod that he did not participate in matters related to himself in the ToM investigations are seemingly not in accordance with what actually transpired at the meeting of the ToM of 4/10/94. That was the occasion when the accounts of the last three complainants were brought before that Committee. Donald Macleod was asked by the Convener to leave the meeting when the matter came to be dealt with. He refused to do so and participated in the discussion concerning these complaints.
It is important that the veracity of these claims be either proved or disproved! Is it not high time the Church investigated in detail whether there were indeed discrepancies between, on the one hand, the public testimony given in Edinburgh Sheriff Court by the three members of the ToM who testified for the defence there and, on the other hand, what actually transpired at within that Committee?