This theory has never made any sense to me and here's why: The right people still need to accept this evidence as valid to even begin thinking about arresting and prosecuting someone. So for this theory to make any sense at all, all the right people must already be "on our side". But if that is the case, why bother with a funky back channel FBI raid at all, why not just present the evidence directly? Well the only reason I feel that you wouldn't do that is if the evidence was not obtained legally. If the evidence was obtained illegally, does planting it at someone's home who isn't the person the evidence is going to be used against, and then raiding that home to get the evidence, magically make the evidence legal? Obviously not, otherwise why bother with stuff like the Patriot act? You'd just put the evidence in a coworker or friends home, raid it, not prosecute them, bam legal evidence against anyone you want. Clearly this is not the case.

So I have to ask the question, is there a way to explain all this such that the "How do you introduce evidence" theory makes sense? I really don't think there is, if the evidence was obtained legally it makes no sense, and if the evidence was obtained illegally it really makes no sense. If they don't have the right people "on our side" already it won't matter even if they present video evidence which of course has already happened and nothing was done about it.