I'll ask again. WHO is guilty of "destroying evidence" in that case? Unless you can articulate that, you have no argument whatsoever that a criminal act has occurred.

Period.

End of discussion.

>You're not very bright. Concede that.

At least I understand that for a crime to be committed there has to be an entity (organization or person) who committed it. That only requires a grade school level of legal understanding. But given your insults, I'm beginning to understand that maybe that's just about the upper limit of your intellect.