After all, we know that those pics are not being used to show the actual location of the discovered evidence, because we know the FIB removed the evidence from boxes and scattered it on the floor.

That's what they do while cataloging documents. It's more than just photographing a box full of documents. There has to be documentation of each of the documents that are in the box.

That way, they can't slip in extra documents later without everyone knowing. This is why investigators are supposed to go through every document where the items were originally found.

They make a summary of what the document is, and put all the standard info on the cover sheet, sign off on it, and photograph it. Each document is then digitally uploaded and given a file number. Even blank pieces of paper and empty folders are given a summary of what they are and file numbers and all of that. They have to catalog everything they find there, even if it's just blank paper. Then the actual, physical documents are filed away until they are needed again, such as when they're produced as evidence at trial. This keeps the document safe until when it is needed. So until then, the investigators and lawyers are using the digital uploads. The cover sheets are important because they contain summaries of the document (even if it's something as unimportant as "blank piece of printer paper) and all the information about who collected the evidence, when and where, the case number, file number, etc... That is the reason for the cover sheet.

While they are doing this, there is often someone else making a digital recording of all of this.

It's part of how they establish chain of evidence.

Where are you getting the idea that all of that was "unidentifiable paper"?

I'm not opposed to the idea that there is fraud here, but there needs to be more evidence than "some person online said this" and "this is what I think happened".

Just curious, did you ever do any research into the procedures they must follow when documenting evidence? If so, what was the source you found? If you never did any research into it, then where are you getting your ideas on what they're supposed to be doing?

After all, we know that those pics are not being used to show the actual location of the discovered evidence, because we know the FIB removed the evidence from boxes and scattered it on the floor.

That's what they do while cataloging documents. It's more than just photographing a box full of documents. There has to be documentation of each of the documents that are in the box.

That way, they can't slip in extra documents later without everyone knowing. This is why investigators are supposed to go through every document where the items were originally found.

They make a summary of what the document is, and put all the standard info on the cover sheet, sign off on it, and photograph it. Each document is then digitally uploaded and given a file number. Even blank pieces of paper and empty folders are given a summary of what they are and file numbers and all of that. They have to catalog everything they find there, even if it's just blank paper.

While they are doing this, there is often someone else making a digital recording of all of this.

It's part of how they establish chain of evidence.

Where are you getting the idea that all of that was "unidentifiable paper"?

I'm not opposed to the idea that there is fraud here, but there needs to be more evidence than "some person online said this" and "this is what I think happened".

Just curious, did you ever do any research into the procedures they must follow when documenting evidence? If so, what was the source you found? If you never did any research into it, then where are you getting your ideas on what they're supposed to be doing?