IF it is asked what the advocate will then do for the denounced person in his capacity as legal representative when the names of the witnesses are revealed neither to him nor to his client (what the denounced person hankers after most is for them to be revealed), the response is that he should receive information from the judge about the specifics contained in the protocol. If he does wish to have a copy, it should be handed over to him, with the names of the witnesses suppressed. Being informed in this way, he should approach the denounced person and set out the specifics to him. If the content so dictates, that is, because it is quite prejudicial to the denounced person, then the advocate should urge him to endure. When the denounced person again and again insists that the witnesses should be made known to him, he can answer, “From the deeds denounced against you, you will be able to conjecture who the witnesses are. For Such-and-Such had a son (or domestic animal) affected by sorcery.” Or “You said to Such-and-Such man (or woman), because the person was unwilling to provide you with such-and-such a thing that you were asking for, ‘You will realize that it would have been better for you to have lent the thing to me.’ After these words, Such-and-Such suddenly fell ill. Your deeds shout out as testimony, and this testimony is given more weight than is the testimony of words.” Or “Even you know that you have a bad reputation and have for a long time been suspected of many acts of sorcery and of losses inflicted on humans.” By repeating words of this kind the judge will finally reach the point where she will either allege enmities, claiming that the reproaches cast at her derive from enmity, or say, “I admit that I said these words, but with no intention of causing harm.”