Oh absolutely not, I was just taking further to show even if they did this isn’t even a case the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) would allow the police to press charges for.
they have no obligation to reveal any part of it that would indicate your innocence
So you just don’t understand how the legal system works at all, amigo. What you described is completely false. One of the first phases of any court case is discovery, where the opposing party supplies the evidence that they have to support their case. Not including this type of evidence during discovery could get an attorney disbarred and a court case thrown out entirely.
To expand on that, the prosecution wouldn’t have an obligation to reveal that evidence to the jury, but they would have an obligation to provide it to the court and/or defense during discovery. And, you know, that seems like something the defense would both use and request if it were missing.
No, I read that - it’s just not substantial. If the ding already existed, my point is that the driver is overlooking it in the photo we’re seeing. That is proof that it is not new damage and shouldn’t be considered in this case. I get that you’re trying to CYA, but it doesn’t need to be to this degree of hyper-vigilance.
deleted by creator
After reading your posts, I’ve come to the conclusion that you know absolutely nothing about the law or how a case would be tried.
Please do not listen to this person on any legal matters.
Or anyone else that your arnt paying to be your lawer, even if they are a lawyer.
deleted by creator
So they use the video as evidence of the person placing the note. The same video the defence will view to show that their client did not hit the car.
I doubt that any cop would even bother writing a report for it.
Oh absolutely not, I was just taking further to show even if they did this isn’t even a case the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) would allow the police to press charges for.
deleted by creator
So you just don’t understand how the legal system works at all, amigo. What you described is completely false. One of the first phases of any court case is discovery, where the opposing party supplies the evidence that they have to support their case. Not including this type of evidence during discovery could get an attorney disbarred and a court case thrown out entirely.
To expand on that, the prosecution wouldn’t have an obligation to reveal that evidence to the jury, but they would have an obligation to provide it to the court and/or defense during discovery. And, you know, that seems like something the defense would both use and request if it were missing.
deleted by creator
Then that snippet wouldn’t be admissible in court.
deleted by creator
If the prosecution obtains it as evidence, I would think evidence handling procedure would make said discarding a no-go.
deleted by creator
How many things will you make up to avoid just being wrong?
You should try AI. It’s pretty good at telling you what you want to hear.
And which bit of damage did you confess to? They have no evidence of what you confessed to doing.
deleted by creator
And how do you prove that ding is the one the note leaver caused?
deleted by creator
Like a photo of the driver circling the car, unable to spot where the damage was, immediately after reading the note? Hmmmm…
deleted by creator
No, I read that - it’s just not substantial. If the ding already existed, my point is that the driver is overlooking it in the photo we’re seeing. That is proof that it is not new damage and shouldn’t be considered in this case. I get that you’re trying to CYA, but it doesn’t need to be to this degree of hyper-vigilance.
just because its a civil court doesnt mean it is based off vibes
“Yes Officer, he damaged my car. this damage right here. The Proof? I say so your honor. I rest my case.”
“Here’s a note that I promise they left”
deleted by creator
What if they removed the word “hit” from the note.
So it just said “I accidentally your car”
Then you’re not really admitting to anything.
Would also probably frustrate the guy even more.
Just go super ambiguous
“Sorry about your car. Call me.”
“Sorry about that, please call me! I have the thing that fell out”