Quote Originally Posted by trot View Post
Oy. Why are people trying so hard to prove their innocence.... it actually, doesn't double down on making their job difficult.

what makes that job difficult is saying "I don't have any obligation to answer your questions or provide anything.". That is difficult. Providing all sorts of documentation lets them verify that documentation. And if employee (a) at company (b) is an idiot, and says that receipt never came from company (b), well, now you've given them circumstantial evidence to work with. Wherein, you provide nothing, say nothing, there is nobody to go to, nobody to lie about or screw it up, nobody to claim to have lost records or to be an expert on how your full of shit, etc.

Make sense?

Nothing ever goes into the courtroom with the prosecuting attorney pointing his finger at you and saying "I think he's suspicious!" With the judge raising his eyebrow and saying.... ".......and?"

Say it with me.... "I-dont-have-an-obligation-to-answer-your-questions."

There you go. I'm proud of you.

PS: Little known fact. Quite literally, anything you said that is positive to your cause is not admissable in court (hearsay). However, anything that would point to your possible guilt is admissable (hearsay exemption for admissions). So quite literally, anything you say CAN and WILL be used against you. (nothing ever can be used FOR you). Wonderful system, is it not?
Ya, wonderful...
As stated by the Supreme Court in People v. Ward 154 Ill. 2d 272 (1992): "[a] defendant has no right to introduce portions of a statement which are not necessary to enable the jury to properly evaluate the portions introduced by the State.".... "the admission of evidence under this doctrine is limited to that which is relevant, material, and concerns the same subject at the same time." Ward, at 312.


The advice in Post #23 is accurate and smart people will heed it... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc