All interesting questions, but they don’t answer my question, which is “WHY are notes destroyed if not to deny information to a litigation adversary?”
You want the presumption of innocence for an investigator who destroys notes, but not a presumption of an accidental cause for the fire? (I know, that’s another issue.) The easiest way to be granted the presumption of innocence is to exhibit the appearance of innocence. Destroying notes does not present such an appearance.
Not presenting a retained expert because he has been declared a consultant is not the same as destroying notes. There have been many times when I developed information unfavorable to a client. I did not shred my file. If my client was legally entitled to keep my information confidential, there is not much I can do about that. Usually what happens in such cases is that they are resolved by settlement.
On the other hand, if I were involved in a criminal case for the prosecution and developed exculpatory evidence, it would be the prosecutor’s duty to reveal that information under Brady. It is not allowed for agents of the government to hide or withhold exculpatory evidence—period. So, in the event that I thought the prosecutor was going to fail to perform his legal duty, I would consider going to the defense. It would probably be just as effective to tell the prosecutor I planned to do so. He or she would then give up the information.
But this is dodging the question. Why destroy notes?
John Lentini, CFI, D-ABC
Fire Investigation Consultant
Florida Keys
[
www.firescientist.com]