Yeah sure. But the stuff in this report is evidence. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with how actual litigation works, but it's not always the case that you have crys

Yeah sure. But the stuff in this report is evidence. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with how actual litigation works, but it's not always the case that you have crystal clear surveillance video of something or "I did the bad things" written in a recovered email. You have to decide what the most plausible version of events is given the preponderance of the evidence. You have to use what you can see to decide the most likely scenario that you can't see. All this deleting end hiding things is evidence of bad acts, it speaks to the behavior and intent of the people in question, and it's entirely and thoroughly inconsistent with the actions of someone who was behaving ethically. People talk about circumstantial evidence like it's a "gotcha" that means there's no real evidence. That's a common fallacy. Circumstantial evidence is evidence. And activity consistent with a cover up is in fact evidence that supports allegations of underlying bad behavior. The legal system isn't a computer program, it uses people and their judgement and intuition about human behavior to figure things out. That's by design.