01-14-2017, 07:57 PM
This is driving me a wee bit crazy. The blood oath could not truly have been worded any other way. Why would Renard agree to it if it were worded differently? Renard did not know for sure that the Grand Jury hearing would be "fixed". There was every chance in the world that he would not get his way. Nick, or actually Adalind at Nick's behest, had to have some skin in the game or there was no reason for the oath. If Renard was so very sure he was going to get off there was no reason for him to participate in the oath. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose. If Adalind's testimony had not cleared him he would not have had to uphold his end of the bargain, he instead would have gone to trial. There is no way Renard would have agreed to have to go ahead and let Nick off the hook if he did not get let off the hook himself.
They were bargaining for each others freedom. If the oath were only that Adalind had to testify she could have thrown Renard under the bus without any worries. Renard would not have gone for that. Just like Nick and Adalind would not have gone for less from Renard than all charges dropped and reinstatement. The only thing Nick had to offer was Adalind's testimony. Though she was the one taking the risk, not Nick.
They were bargaining for each others freedom. If the oath were only that Adalind had to testify she could have thrown Renard under the bus without any worries. Renard would not have gone for that. Just like Nick and Adalind would not have gone for less from Renard than all charges dropped and reinstatement. The only thing Nick had to offer was Adalind's testimony. Though she was the one taking the risk, not Nick.