(as a result of item #33, you've decided to come forward as a witness to
those events. You learn that, according to the authorities, the
altercation was a mob hit gone awry, and that the struggle resulted in an
"unwitnessed" murder. You are the only one who has come forward so far as
a witness, and are really the only person linking the defendant to the
crime, even though you never actually saw the gun pulled.)

(All of the evidence in the case is circumstantial, save for your
testimony, which is essential to cracking the defendant's alibi. Do you
agree to testify?)

8 responses total.

In principle yes, because it would be wrong not to.  But in reality, I
just don't know.  If it ever happens I will have to make that decision,
but I sure hope it never does.

part #3 will come later. ;)

3?  how many are on the way?
don't know.  i have witness protection progrems...
isn't the mob mostly defunct now anyway?

1)  If the mob is defunct, where is all the money coming from
to fund pro-casino campaigns in Detroit?  I was just wondering.

2)  Now the real question:  I probably would have testified before
I had a family.  I probably wouldn't, now.  Coward?  Probably. 

I would agree to testify as long as I would be given
protection..

I would ask for Federal Protection under the Federal Witness Protection Act and
then testify as to only what I saw. Gang activity in Organized Crime is a
Federal Offense.

I would testify only if I could do it underwater, and in Portugese.

I would testify, privately, with my identity hidden, somehow, for I do have
a family.However, because of my response to part one, there would be no reason
to testify, since the assailant would be dead.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss