Here's the whole story first. I drove my car onto the side of a field when its sprinklers were on and someone got my plate number. I'm a female and they claimed a guy was driving and that I pulled donuts in the field. I have never lent my car out and I didn't pull these donuts.
What can I do to prove that it wasn't me?
Will a polygraph test or something work?
Also, the cop doesn't believe that I was driving because of this witnesses 'male driver' claim.
2007-08-16 12:57:24 · 7 answers · asked by Sexxiful.Biitch 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
I'm not trying to get out of what I did. I'm admitting to that. But I'm being blamed for the things I didn't do.
2007-08-16 13:07:32 · update #1
I know I'm safe because he thinks the driver was a guy. But since the car is registered to my mom, she's going to get the charge.
2007-08-16 16:30:45 · update #2
There are tire tracks in the field associated with the offense. Go there and take some photos of the tracks to show that the tire pattern does not match those on your vehicle. There is always evidence of some sort left on any scene. Besides there is no real proof that it was you other than someone getting your license plate number and the witness report is inconsistent with you being the driver.
2007-08-16 13:11:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We all get blamed for things we didnt do. I lost my children because someone made false allegations against me that werent true to the department of community services. No one investigated properly if at all. Vicious gossip can destroy lives. And ignorance can take it all away. So because i was sick and tired of being called a liar i plunged into DNA research that helped me to come up with a new technology, and to explain it to you in the simplest of terms it goes a little like this... where you can collect a drop of the accused persons blood or the persons trying to defend themselves by then exctracting the memory cell dna of the brain, place it onto a silicon microchip, hooked up to a computer and screen, turn it on and whala you have before your very eyes all the information of that persons dna including everything they ever did see through their own eye from the day they were born to the day they died and everything they did indeed see, what they did or didnt do right up there on the plasma screen. Pretty scary stuff ay? It would be strictly used for court proceedings and unsolved mysteries and i guess for spouses who needed to know if their partners had ever cheated on them. But for people like you and me it would prove our innocence and really point out the guilty and put law and order into a position that would enable the truth to be seen for what the truth really is... The truth. This technology will scare many. But only the liars. The truth tellers will want it ushered in asap to prove their innocence, including people on deaths row, rape cases, murder trials, through the eye of the beholder the truth will be seen for what the truth really is. Anyone who resists this kind of technology would only be the liar who cannot tell the truth unless the truth came back to haunt them. Matter of time now. I call it "GODS THIRD EYE WITNESS" and i say bring it on. Let me know what you think about this kind of technology? Liars beware! The truth will set us free. Eventually.
2007-08-16 13:47:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Polygraph tests are NOT admissible in many jurisdictions because of their unreliability.
But if the investigating officer doesn't believe you were driving, then you are sitting pretty good. A criminal trespass charge or a criminal mischief (vandalism) charge must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Your denial plus the officer's testimony in support of your account would certainly create reasonable doubt in the court/jury's mind.
Finally, eyewitness testimony frequently is lacking. Have the officer attest to that fact based on his/her experience.
2007-08-16 13:10:37 · answer #3 · answered by Darla N 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know it's a stretch in today's world, but as I remember, it is up to them to prove beyond any doubt you're guilt. It is not supposed to be where you have to prove innocence.
Unless this is charged as a criminal offense, I don't think polygraph would even be considered.
2007-08-16 13:10:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your word against the person who called and against the cops, judges tend to go with the people everyone else feels is in the right. You can't fight the law, sad but, true, wow two different song lyrics in one sentence, sorry!
2007-08-16 13:04:24 · answer #5 · answered by skipmastaflash 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Eye witnesses are frequently wrong. Challenge the witness to lie detector tests.
2007-08-16 13:03:14 · answer #6 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And now we don`t know the rest of the story !
Sorry it does sound kinda fishy .
2007-08-16 13:11:01 · answer #7 · answered by bigfred1954 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋