I was told by a lawyer for my story, that the case would go to trial, when it doesn't and it does not come off as believable. In my story what happens is, one night a cop on patrol, gets a glimpse of some suspicious activity, he decides to watch, such as two guys search another guy for weapons or a wire, or doing that type of search. The cop decides to follow them very discretely in his unmarked car, not to far, to a secluded location near by. He cannot identify faces from his distance, but he sees they meet up with more men wearing masks and gloves. It's a 'blood in', which is a term for when a gang gets a new member they are recruiting to spill the blood of another person in order to see if that person can be relied upon to be a fellow member. In this case the new member has to assault the new kidnap victim. As the cop observes, he sees that an innocent kidnapped hostage is about to be likely harmed, so he intervenes, saves the kidnap victim, and manages to arrest one of the suspects, while the others get away in the process. Unbeknownst to the investigators though, the hostage, was actually a fellow gang member posing a hostage, as part of the blood in. The member posing as a hostage, agreed to part of a staged assault, where she wouldn't really take much damage, since it was just a test to see if he could do it. The reason the gang did this, was in case the new recruit may not have been an undercover cop or something, they did not want to be caught with a real kidnapped hostage, and can create deniability of a crime, should the blood in be a set up. So when the cop, arrests one of them, and saves the hostage, the hostage then makes up the story, that she and the arrested suspect are actually friends, and they were playing a role playing. They say that they went out drinking the night before, met the others, and then brought them back to her property for a role playing fantasy game. The police ask her who the other's are and why they ran, and she says that since she met them and brought them back after a night of drinking, she didn't get their names, and just brought them back to play. Why they ran, she doesn't know and assumes they must be wanted for something else, she says. She of course does not want to name the others. She also reports a complaint towards the cop who rescued her, saying that he threatened her into testifying against her arrested friend, or he will make things bad for her in the future. Even though it's her word against the cops, she still wanted to complain anyway, just to save face to help her look innocent. The prosecutor, thinking that these two suspects could be part of the same gang, still tries to take it to a judge to see if there is anything more they can do, but a judge dismisses it on lack of evidence of a crime actually happening, aside from maybe mischief charges. So there is not enough evidence to charge her or the other suspect, with any crimes, since it was just role playing, on her property, and there is no crime, and no victim of a crime. After the other gang members get away and escape, they gas down the car with the phony plate and burn it. The building that the cop also spotted the fake 'blood in' in, was also owned by the woman, so it doesn't lead to any other suspects, other than her and the one guy. Now I was told by a lawyer that this case would not be dismissed at a deposition, and it would go to trial, because a jury would not believe the woman. The jury would just think that she is a kidnap victim who is denying everything on the stand, and that it's also suspicious how the defendant never opens his mouth, even to the police beforehand to corroborate her story. He said that the jury would convict the defendant of kidnapping and assault charges, cause they wouldn't believe he is innocent if he did not corroborate her story. However, even though she is lying, she aims to get the defendant off, since she is working with him. Now if the defendant were to tell the same lie as her, that would mean that is attorney is advising him to lie, to the police and to the court, if it goes to trial. Would a defense attorney tell his client to tell the same lie as the witness who is exonerating him, just so he can appear more innocent to the court, and to a jury later on? Would this case go to trial or no? Or am I wrong and a jury would convict on this evidence and maybe I am missing the little things? The lawyer told me that the defendant looks suspicious for not corroborating and that if the cop says he saw a kidnapping, the judge is going to believe him over the alleged victim, cause the cop's word would have the most weight in this case. What do you think?