Soldato
My other foot moves backwards to take the weight of my body, or I will fall over. As OP didn't fall over, he must also have done this.
My rights as a supsect.......
- Thread starter plasmahal
- Start date
My other foot moves backwards to take the weight of my body, or I will fall over. As OP didn't fall over, he must also have done this.
You are basically using the OPs own words, against him. This is exactly what the Police will do. The more he says, the deeper he is likely to land himself into trouble.
The caution does state that if you do not offer a defence when originally questioned...it may harm your defence. This is true. However, if somebody does not have the ability to explain their innocence well enough, then they may do more harm than good, but answering all questions.
If the Police have no evidence against the OP, except for an accusation by some random man off the street; an accusation does does not constitute evidence. If the OP admits to the Police that he was involved and may have kicked the car, this may constitute evidence. If CCTV clearly shows the OP kicking the car, this definitely constitutes evidence. Even then though, for criminal damage, the prosecution will need to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the "kick" was performed with an intent to cause damage to the car.
If there is no admission by the OP and no evidence or witnesses...then there is absolutely no way that the Police can prosecute this case. The only chance they have is if they can get hold of CCTV OR if they can get the OP to talk about the incident.
I also stated earlier in this thread that there could be a million reasons why someone would say nothing during an interview. Just because you choose to say nothing does not mean you are guilty. Some people, like myself, are very defensive and prefer to say little. Some people despise the Police and don't want to help them in their enquiries. It does not make them guilty of criminal damage.
Ultimately, it will be best for the OP's solicitor to advise him, but based on the information provided in this thread, the OP would be best advised to keep quiet and wait for things to develop. From what he has said there is zero evidence against him, at this point in time. Nothing. Zip. Correct me if I am wrong. Only a complete loon would offer up a statement, for the Police to pick apart and then possibly use against them.
Soldato
Incorrect usage detected.
Because if he hasn't kicked the car (I'm not saying he did) and it hit him like he says then the tables will turn on the BMW driver.
Soldato
Exactly. This might have been done, but no twisting is even needed. He states his foot might have caught the car, we question how this is possible and he can't answer.
This is what I said. From what he tells us, he doesn't look good, so he shouldn't go to the police station because as it is, they have nothing.
[TW]Fox;19823537 said:
We only have the op's word that the car was really going that fast, he may be exaggerating and as a mere human, is not capable of accurately judging speed anyway.
I don't believe that the car appeared out of nowhere in 1 second as he makes out because even at a short distance away it would take a few seconds from seeing the car to reach the crossing.
Last edited:
Soldato
there seems to be damage to the car for starters, a claimant and proof of the OP being there at that time since he contacted authorities and claimant has photos.
the damage to to the car may not be caused by the OP, but it is still evidence that the claimant is using. wether it's true will be the result of an investigation. also not sure how a car hits you with its door unless the driver opens it as he is driving by with that intent, either that or the car spun out of control
Staying silent because you despise the police is just stupid, at interview it is your opportunity to put over your version of events prior to going to court. If you fail to give a valid reason and stay silent for you being questioned if you are involved can and will cause an inference in court as you have had an extended period to make up a story. A prepared statement is your best course of action if you only wish to put your point across and nothing more.
To say nothing to help enquires is completely different to being a suspect of a crime.
Lmfao. Throwing that in there to make your post seem better?
[TW]Fox;19821193 said:
exactly
this sounds so straightforward that id just go to CAB.
its his word against yours and your platform friends words. i really wouldn't worry so much about it and i would be asking the police to come and interview me rather than travelling 30 miles.
if OP is innocent then he only really needs a solicitor/lawyer when the police actually accuse/threaten him.
its my opinion that the car was already damaged and the guy is after a fix.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Of course but the observations will now be passed around the experts of which I'm not one.
Andy, we only have the OP's statement to go on. As we do not have the other side of the story, we have no choice but to base all assumptions on the OP's story.
That comment was not for you, but for an earlier post who was asking me why I am hoping that the OP "gets off".
Twisting the words is probably a bad way of putting it. Basically, you are giving his full statement (from the original post), a sinister slant. This is exactly what the Police will do. It is their job after all to dig up information and flaws in someone's defence. This is great when someone is guilty, but when they are innocent - not good.
Now, if the OP is innocent, by him offering up a statement (similar to the original post), is more likely to hinder him than help him. The fact that so many people are now doubting his account of the incident, is proof enough of that.
With regards to his foot being very high - were you there?
Have you seen the CCTV?
Do you know how the OP walks?
Do you know exactly what happened?
Are you an expert in human anatomy?
Only the OP and the witness know what actually happened. If I were looking at a statement, I would be more inclined to believe the OP (or a witness) than any OCUK detective, simply because they weren't actually there.
Remember, a criminal case must be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt.
You would need to prove:
1. His foot made sufficient contact with the vehicle, to put a dent in it. A light tap isn't enough.
2. He fully intended to kick the car AND cause damage to the vehicle.
Go on Andy...your turn. And I promise, I won't use the defence of the John Cleese walk, unless I absolutely have to
The OP did that in his first post. And look where it's got him: people arguing that he is guilty. If the OCUK detectives are taking that stance, don't you think the Police would take the same stance?
As I stated, it's up to his solicitor to advise him correctly, but I think giving the statement is actually doing more harm than good. As far as we know, there is zero evidence against the OP. IF this is the case, the only way that the Police can charge him, is if he says the wrong thing (either verbally or on paper) and lands himself in it. Remember, not everybody has the eloquence or the gift of the gab, to talk themselves out of a tricky situation.
If the OP is innocent, he has managed to convince a lot of people in here, that he is guilty. Would you honestly trust someone like that to be able to give a statement (verbal or written), without making themselves look guilty? Be honest.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 1 May 2007
- Posts
- 1,150
dont know why but the story makes me think the bloke maybe has a mate working for BTP and has got him to look into it...
why are BTP even involved? its a road incident and they police the railways. i'm thinking the driver probably told them you booted his car in the carpark maybe.
either way i will eat my hat if you get done based on your story. no evidence.
why are BTP even involved? its a road incident and they police the railways. i'm thinking the driver probably told them you booted his car in the carpark maybe.
either way i will eat my hat if you get done based on your story. no evidence.
Was more referring to the incorrect usage of sic.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Because the incident occured on railway property.
Soldato
Yes, but we're allowed to ask questions. That's all we're doing. We are suggesting what we think might have happened, which again, is fair to do, this is a forum after all.
Again, we're suggesting what we think might have happened, or what we think just doesn't add up. Yes, this is what any un-biased person should do. Given what they're told, question what doesn't make sense and then form an opinion.
No, we're going on what OP has said... and guess what, asking questions on what doesn't make sense... which OP can't answer. Hence why I said I don't think he should go to the police.
Do I know where my foot is? Check.
Do I know how to walk? Check.
