11-29-2012, 01:24 AM
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Riverside: Melbourne
My Ride: 325Ci ClubSport
| Yes and those "stories" will have to be said under oath?
Obviously was a criminal lawyer you would known think or two lol
But the way I see it,
I doubt a police officer will lie under oath.
And I think it's pretty easy for Renae to say that she was 100% not in possession of a phone while in control of a motor vehicle..under oath
The officer will probably say "I think"
And renae will say she "WAS NOT"
Originally Posted by BrisM3
^^^ If it only it were that easy.
I do not dispute for one second what the OP says, which is that she was not on the phone. So if that is the case why was a ticket written in the first place?
The answer to that is that it is likely that the police had her under observation for a very short period of time, THINK they saw her on the phone, are not sure but decided to issue a ticket anyway. This does not mean that she was on the phone.
They will (and this is natural and not necessarily a criticism of the police because everyone does it) now convince themselves of what they saw.
Whether the OP was on the phone or not is entirely immaterial. In the absence of any specific direct evidence to the contrary it will be a he said (or they said if there was more than one copper)/she said trial.
It will be then for the Magistrate to decide as a matter of fact whose story they believe to be more credible.
Having said that the CCRs and reverse CCRs will assist the OP greatly in increasing her prospects of acquittal.
Find me on Instagram
Originally Posted by all4show
who da F done that?
prestige warehouse or who?