Because it is circumstantial evidence. My car was scratched, a bumper was next to the car in the street, a van parked close by has a part of his bumper missing that matches the part left in the street.
If the bumper I have matches the van's missing bumper, and he can't explain what happened to his bumper, does that not show that in all probability, he is guilty?
Dont the police have a duty to investigate hit and runs fully?
If I confront the neighbour, I risk being done for harrassment, I would have thought.
I don't know how else to rephrase it. They could show him the bumper left next to my scratched car, show that it matches the missing part on his van and ask him to explain how his bumper came to be missing.
Or are you saying it is not necessary to physcially show the bumper, just ask him to explain his missing bumper?
Thank you for your answer but the issue is not whether the scratches on the car match the bumper, it is whether the part of the bumper found by my car following the crash fits the van that has part of its bumper missing.
If it does fit, then it would suggest that it was on the van at the time of the impact, unless the driver has a plausible reason why his part of a bumper is missing. Surely a lay person could hold the part of the bumper up to the van and see whether in all probability it fits? The van is parked outside the man's house and the police are due to call on him at this house so I wouldn't have thought it would be impractical.
My main question was what can I expect the police to do in this situation? What are they legally obliged to do?
Ok, that is fine. I just wanted to make sure the police were doing as much as they should.