Will pictures of a car accident be enough proof to clear false claims in a collision?

[Stephanie]

Long story short, I was in a car accident 2 weeks ago. I hit the car in front of me and a truck hit me from behind because 2 other drivers (aside from us 3) pulled over and said they had slammed on their brakes due to traffic. The 2 cars did not hit each other nor were they damaged in the front or back, yet they still stuck around for police as "witnesses". However, our insurance company told us that the 2 cars in front of the car I hit claimed that I caused the car in front of me to hit both cars in front of him. Even the guy who I hit said the same thing, which is simply not true. I took photos of the cars at the scene, so I have proof that neither cars that claimed to have gotten hit due to me have any damages or scratches what so ever. At the site, it was established that I had hit the car in front of me and then someone rear-ended me, that's it. Neither of the drivers in front of the car I hit said they got hit nor did the police give me their information. We all thought they were simply there as witnesses, but apparently not. Will the photos I have of the cars who are claiming to have gotten hit be enough to prove their statements wrong? I did get a ticket for failing to control speed in a accident and I will admit fault for the car in front of me, but I don't understand why the two cars ahead of him are getting involved all of a sudden claiming I caused them damages. At the site, they simply just left after the police investigated. I feel that photos should be enough since neither of the cars have any scratches, dents, nor were they even touched. What do you think?

[Randy]

The photos will show nothing about what happened before or what happened after. They only show that split second in time.

Same thing you were told earlier by many people....call a lawyer.