[Guest]

the child watched in total amazement as a man blew up a bank, killing three people. the child had a clear view of the whole event and was the only one to witness what was going on. the policedid not need to question him. why?

1. the child was 12 years old

2. the child had told his parents what he had seen and they did not report it

3. the family were not afraid of repercussions

4. the man was not known to the child but he could describe the killer and all of the events clearly

5. the child was not one to lie

6. the killer did not own up to killing

[Magic_luver101]

there was video proof

he died too when the place blew up

Edited February 14, 2009 by Magic_luver101

[Guest]

first one your on the right track

and second one no

[Guest]

the police did not need to question him, as the robber was caught in the act.

[Magic_luver101]

he told someone so the cops were there to arrest him

he turner himself in

there was adio proof such as conversation over a cell

[Guest]

It was a video game?

[Guest]

The child was watching TV or a movie.

[Guest]

He saw it on TV....or was playin a video game

[Guest]

umm yeah devi, vaxnyi ur correct

[Guest]

umm yeah devi, vaxnyi ur correct

He was the only one to witness what was on TV? You wanna explain that?

[Guest]

Wouldn't whoever filmed the whole event be a witness. If it was fiction, then who cares?