police and circumstantial evidence
We all know the police love to convict people for hard crimes based purely on circumstantial evidence. If someone admits to a crime, without the presence of hard evidence, that's considered circumstancial evidence. What do you think is the likelyhood that the Oakland Police will take me seriously with the 2257 docs that were stolen by the model I had in here the other day?
I've got a missing checkbook, I've got missing model releases... and I've got a cashed check written to the theiving model, and photos of the model's ID's, and the ID next to the model's face.
The police were trying to give me some shit about "did you see this happen?". I'm thinking maybe I just should have said "yes, I did" if that would make them take me seriously. I think it's pretty cut and dry because the releases were here before they came, and were gone when they left.
Should I kiss the content goodbye?
I've got a missing checkbook, I've got missing model releases... and I've got a cashed check written to the theiving model, and photos of the model's ID's, and the ID next to the model's face.
The police were trying to give me some shit about "did you see this happen?". I'm thinking maybe I just should have said "yes, I did" if that would make them take me seriously. I think it's pretty cut and dry because the releases were here before they came, and were gone when they left.
Should I kiss the content goodbye?
Comment