Giving the benefit of the doubt to the prosecutor goes against the “innocent until proven guily” ideology. You’re basically saying, “he unknowingly deleted evidence he didn’t know was evidence. That proves it’s a conspiracy because we now don’t have evidence to prove our case”
It’s the reason cops are seen as immune to the law; The courts give them the benefit of the doubt a lot.
It's clearly evidence of knowingly deleting data. It may not be evidence of knowingly deleting evidence. The distinction matters, because deleting data is not a crime.
Degaussing 3 times. Who does that when deleting data? Unless they don't want investigators to find the data? And isn't the data in this case a public record? Why delete a public record indelibly unless they had manipulated that record and wanted to hide the fact..?
