Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
He hasn't, but it appears quite likely he destroyed evidence. So my point is that the law allows for an inference that "innocent people don't act this way" and the destruction of salient evidence would certainly seem to qualify, would it not?
|
And I would argue that destroying a surveillance system, in and of itself, is evidence of nothing. I could walk upstairs and tear out my ADT Pulse system and it wouldn't prove that I committed a crime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
And yes, I did say that an individual is silly to cooperate with law enforcement. There's a big big difference between not voluntarily disclosing information and actively destroying evidence.
|
If the only thing he destroyed was his surveillance system, I still don't view that as a crime in and of itself. There's no way to prove that anything of substance had been recorded on said system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
That's why the law doesn't allow you to infer guilt from someone hiring a lawyer but will allow you to infer guilt from a number of other acts/omissions.
|
I understand and I also understand that warrants are issued so that law enforcement can attempt to ascertain and collect evidence. I also believe that things don't appear to be going so well for Hernandez in this particular case.
But I'm not ready to convict him based on what little evidence we have at this time.