Any lawyers or law enforcement officers reading this?
I think small exorcisms, after several years of work, may have a snag. A “takes out the central underpinning” snag.
The story goes like this. Thirty years ago, Frank took Mischa into his home and trained him in the art of illegal fighting when Mischa had run away from home. Months later, Frank drugged Mischa before a fight that wound up nearly killing Mischa. Hurt (in more ways than one), Mischa informed the police what happened, spilling the beans about the illegal fight organization, etc. The police arrested Frank, and in the course of that investigation, found that Frank had killed two people a year earlier. Frank was brought up on two charges of first degree murder, along with attempted murder (in Mischa’s case). My story is that Mischa testified against Frank in court, and thus helped send him to prison for thirty years.
My question now is this: Did he?
Did Mischa testify?
Would he have needed to? Mischa was 15 years old at the time. He would have been a witness for the prosecution (albeit a somehow hostile one; Mischa really liked Frank and was badly hurt by the betrayal). But would he have been called?
I ask because if he didn’t, then Frank’s rage (to me, anyway) becomes a bit less legitimate. He had drilled into Mischa’s head that ratting someone out is a major no-no; why would he suspect Mischa turned him in?