Listen carefully at the Motion hearing and hear Boyle even trying to avoid the 3 requirements that must be met under Illinois, unchallenged (as that was Boyle’s job, to challenge).
Another observation is the question of how the recommendation to dispose of crucial evidence would prejudice the trial's outcome, given that at this early stage there was no consensus on the direction the trial would take and there was not even a formal admission of guilt made. A lawyer may also ask - how does this comply with the rules of evidence (I think we know the answer to that) .
The ‘legal’ process did away with the need to prove any of the impossible tales & anomalies in this story. Convenient?
Listen carefully at the Motion hearing and hear Boyle even trying to avoid the 3 requirements that must be met under Illinois, unchallenged (as that was Boyle’s job, to challenge).
Another observation is the question of how the recommendation to dispose of crucial evidence would prejudice the trial's outcome, given that at this early stage there was no consensus on the direction the trial would take and there was not even a formal admission of guilt made. A lawyer may also ask - how does this comply with the rules of evidence (I think we know the answer to that) .