Right here so I can just walk by. >> There's damage to your car in the same spot. Absolutely not. No. >> So how did this damage get here? Right here on the side of your car. All this. >> I have no idea. That's not from today. And that's dust. >> So this is a >> There she goes trying to wipe it off again. So this female driver is absolutely adamant that there was no contact between these two vehicles. And she says she doesn't have any damage on her vehicle and her vehicle's brand new and this is just an insurance scheme. And then this officer who is trained to investigate collisions looks at her car and says, "Well, right here on your front bumper there's damage and then there's damage on your rim and all of that damage is consistent with striking a car side to side." And then all of a sudden her story changes to "I was rear-ended last night. Then I hit a curb and the damage on the bumper, well, I have no idea how that got there. It's definitely not the collision that I was just involved in cuz I wasn't involved in a collision. But there's mysterious damage all of which lines up exactly with the version of events as described by the male driver. So I I again, there's just no credibility to this woman's story. And then she goes, "Hey, can I just not be cited for this? I if I was involved in a non-collision I there's no way I would ask to "Oh, can I just not be cited?" I would demand it because nothing happened. But she seems to really accept the fact that like the gig is up and that the officer isn't buying her version because it just