comment: >
  
  
  provably
  
  Therein lies the problem
context: It's only clear if one can prove they were originals, not copies.  I'm all for holding them accountable but you toss the baby out with the bath water. Be rational and logical. >
  
  I’m sure they brunt copies because that’s what you do with incriminating evidence copy it and burn the copies. Jesus man. >
  
  I'm just saying... rationally speaking, if you can't prove they were original documents, you cannot jump straight to "yep that's it, hang em".  Are the odds good that they were originals?  I'd say yes, but you have to prove it. >
  
  He was a participant in a criminal conspiracy and he burned documents I would vote to convict. >
  
  Without evidence?  What you mentioned is circumstantial.  If you're willing to convict someone of a specific crime without specific evidence to back it up, you're no better than they are.  You would be acting on emotion and bias rather than evidence and proof.  This is how lots of people end up locked up who are actually innocent of the crime in question because they are judged based on other behavior.  That is not justice served. >
  
  If you provably conspired to murder someone provably and we find human blood stains on your rug its ok to consider it further proof of the same crime we already proved. 
  There is ample evidence of the criminal conspiracy. There is no motivation in any possible universe where someone guilty of criminal conspiracy burns  government documents and we believe that the governments were copies.
  Please note the word reasonable in reasonable doubt.