It is not likely that Angelou damaged Tays car.

Mrs Freils statement cannot be included as evidence

against Angelou, because, in the general information, it said that many people on the street
complained of the traffic problems the school parking situation caused. She also did not say when
the incident occurred. Angelou could have just been angry that day. There is no proof that his threat
was backed by any desire for real action. Mrs Thomas argument, as discussed in part c, was
invalidated due to many factors. The main reason being that if she had really seen Angelou kick Tays
car she would have told Tay. Professor Smiths statement, as discussed in part b, has limited, if any,
reliability, because it is based on speculation and opinion. The only part of his statement with any
sort of slight validity was that the car was already damaged at 4:30, which, if true, would also show
Angelou to be innocent. Dr Angelous statement supports not only his innocence, but corroborates
the fact that he was not happy about the cars being parked in front of his house. It is therefore, likely
a true statement. Carla Tay based her conclusion that Angelou damaged her car on the fact that he
was mean and that he was there. With everyone elses statements pretty much invalid, this
reasoning has no backing, and no weight is not likely that Angelou damaged Tays car. Mrs Freils
statement cannot be included as evidence against Angelou, because, in the general information, it
said that many people on the street complained of the traffic problems the school parking situation
caused. She also did not say when the incident occurred. Angelou could have just been angry that
day. There is no proof that his threat was backed by any desire for real action. Mrs Thomas
argument, as discussed in part c, was invalidated due to many factors. The main reason being that if
she had really seen Angelou kick Tays car she would have told Tay. Professor Smiths statement, as
discussed in part b, has limited, if any, reliability, because it is based on speculation and opinion. The
only part of his statement with any sort of slight validity was that the car was already damaged at
4:30, which, if true, would also show Angelou to be innocent. Dr Angelous statement supports not
only his innocence, but corroborates the fact that he was not happy about the cars being parked in
front of his house. It is therefore, likely a true statement. Carla Tay based her conclusion that
Angelou damaged her car on the fact that he was mean and that he was there. With everyone
elses statements pretty much invalid, this reasoning has no backing, and no weight. It is not likely,
based on the evidence (and its lack of validity) that Angelou purposely damaged Tays car.