----- Original Message ---- From: Jed Rothwell
I do not understand this comment. Why would he need a grant of immunity?!? This makes no sense. He is not accused of bringing down the buildings, is he? Not that I am aware of - but that is FAR from his only problem. ... in case you are unaware of it, it can be a serious crime in itself to have evidence of another's serious crime EVEN IF YOUR ARE NOT INVOLVED - and to fail to make some effort to report it. Does "accessory after the fact" ring a bell? Of course, he and many others who were NOT involved in any way in the initial incident "could be" prosecuted for a serious felony as accessories - and - this sad fact would be the** leverage** that some folks in government could be using to ensure continuing silence. To get full cooperation, any investigation would absolutely have to give immunity, or else this witness or any other would be foolish to come forward now -- after all these years as (arguable) accessories - with that kind of potentially incriminating information. If he or anyone had found evidence back then, any evidence at all pointing to a hasty demolition to bring down a crippled building, and of course, given that there were deaths or injuries involved, both prior to and after the demolition - and if he had withheld that information - even if he was ordered at the time to withhold it by Federal or State authorities, then he is at risk. And that could be the leverage which culpable parties now hold over his head - also this leverage includes his ability to get Federal demolition contracts in the future. Jones
