This article is about me and I just want to set the record straight.

1. I never, every admitted to texting, because I wasn't. The phone was on the floor because it fell of my lap.

2. What the article doesn't mention is that my car stalled, which is the first thing that I told the police. The car stalled as it went to shift and I lost my power steering and I couldn't turn the wheel hard enough. The article (and all the other ones) conveniently leave that part out, to make me look like an idiot.

3. The police officer accused me of texting and he said "The time of the message matched the time of the accident". Which means 2 things. Number one, obviously he saw my sent box if he saw a time, which means that I wasn't mid text like the article suggests. Number two, the times don't match up. I was leaving another house when I turned onto the road where the pole was, and I sent that last text while I was still there. Not to mention that for him to have found it with text on the screen as the article suggests, he would have had to have gone into the van within the first few minutes because the phone goes blank after a few minutes if it is idle. They didn't touch the car until at least 15 minutes after the accident because of the danger of the pole being down.

It's really fantastic that the papers only tell a portion of the story though. If you're going to write an article, get the whole story first.