It is a fact that evidence that may be used in a suit already filed, or used in contemplation of a suit MUST BE PRESERVED. the intentional destruction of that evidence is called Spoliation and in some states may be a separate charge in itself in a law suit. in other states, it is used as a charge to the jury, that the destroyed evidence may be used as evidence against the defendant. Either way, the destruction of the evidence is a stupid move by the defendant and has ramifications, and reconstituting the evidence itself is not really necessary. this of course assumes we have honest judges, which are becoming rare these days.

It is a fact that evidence that may be used in a suit already filed, or used in contemplation of a suit MUST BE PRESERVED. the intentional destruction of that evidence is called Spoliation and in some states may be a separate charge in itself in a law suit. in other states, it is used as a charge to the jury, that the destroyed evidence may be used as evidence against the defendant. Either way, the destruction of the evidence is a stupid move by the defendant and has ramifications, and reconstituting the evidence itself is not really necessary.