She was there, with a foraging basket, and a knife to cut mushrooms, and was specifically looking for those inkcaps, but she totally didn’t forage any on that day from that park.
That seems more than just an interest in mycology. And if the park is a protected area, they are right to enforce it.
What you’re using is conjecture, especially since there’s no actual evidence she did indeed take the aforementioned mushrooms. Her gathering tools are not evidence, merely coincidence.
“It seems someone had followed me, taken pictures of my car registration and passed them on to police.”
It could be that someone (possibly one of the volunteers) found this photogenic orange-haired girl suspicious, alas had no evidence that she did indeed take said mushrooms (no photos/videos, actual evidence), yet reported her anyways.
There is incomplete information in this story to form a logical conclusion or bias. Besides, the officer failed to enforce anything, especially as she never signed the agreement (the husband did, so it was rescinded).
She could have just easily been a contract killer with a silenced uzi there to murder her target and put their head in the basket as confirmation of the kill.
If youre going to accuse people of crimes based purley on circumstantial evidence you might as well go big right?
They showed up because of a witness report and did not attempt to convict her. A “remember not to do this for this reason” is an appropriate response to the (circumstantial) evidence
She was there, with a foraging basket, and a knife to cut mushrooms, and was specifically looking for those inkcaps, but she totally didn’t forage any on that day from that park.
That seems more than just an interest in mycology. And if the park is a protected area, they are right to enforce it.
What you’re using is conjecture, especially since there’s no actual evidence she did indeed take the aforementioned mushrooms. Her gathering tools are not evidence, merely coincidence.
It could be that someone (possibly one of the volunteers) found this photogenic orange-haired girl suspicious, alas had no evidence that she did indeed take said mushrooms (no photos/videos, actual evidence), yet reported her anyways.
There is incomplete information in this story to form a logical conclusion or bias. Besides, the officer failed to enforce anything, especially as she never signed the agreement (the husband did, so it was rescinded).
She could have just easily been a contract killer with a silenced uzi there to murder her target and put their head in the basket as confirmation of the kill. If youre going to accuse people of crimes based purley on circumstantial evidence you might as well go big right?
They showed up because of a witness report and did not attempt to convict her. A “remember not to do this for this reason” is an appropriate response to the (circumstantial) evidence