TheLivingShadow on 22 September 2011
| thetonestarr said: You didn't specify anything about evidence on the car. For now, I'm going to say that means there is none, except maybe some blood on the tires. I would gather the boy up and drive him to the hospital, then say that I found the two of them in the middle of the road - someone ELSE had hit them - and that the blood on my tires was from when I drove through. In the case there IS other evidence, the police wouldn't be investigating my car for another couple hours in any given situation, except MAYBE the case of the boy being somebody important's child. That's more than enough time to eliminate any blood, skin, or hair that may happen to be on the car. Simply put, just because you take the kid to the hospital doesn't mean you'd automatically be suspected of being the one that hit them. Realistically, you wouldn't be suspected for a while. |
In my opinion, the highlighted assumption is wrong, unless the detectives are really stupid. I know I would think of you as my first biggest suspect if only because by this point, you and the kid are the only two known people concerned in the story. AT LEAST, it warrants that your car is checked as soon as possible for any suspicious marks exactly because you may erase them to hide culpability.
I don't think detectives would be so unintelligent to let that pass up...but I admit it's one of the best tries you could do.
