4 ms·

Mr. Fennell protected the presumed killer by refusing to testify. Do you have any evidence for this, or are you assuming that protecting the murderer was Mr. F

• nate_meurer 7y ago
  > are you assuming that protecting the murderer was Mr. Fennell's motive? Who gives a shit what his motivation was? The legal system sure doesn't. The effect of his refusal to testify was that the killer could not be brought to justice. His participation in the attack and his refusal to cooperate after the man's death makes him morally and legally culpable in that death. This is not controversial in any modern legal jurisdiction that I'm aware of. > Was he offered immunity for his testimony? If not, then he has very good legal reasons, not to mention the Constitutional right, to remain silent. You appear to be confusing this issue with our Fifth Amendment indemnity against self-incrimination. Mr. Fennell was not examined as a witness, but rather as a defendant. If you refuse to testify against an accomplice, and you expect to be somehow protected from a charge of accessory-after-the-fact, you're in for a rude surprise.