How is this any different than analyzing any other evidence that someone tried to destroy? Using some infrared or whatever filter do determine what a burnt document said? Determining that your fireplace has human remains? Does the acceptance of these techniques indicate we're living in a police state?
It's different because they are not assigning guilt based on forensic analysis of evidence that someone tried - but failed - to destroy. Instead, they're assigning guilt because something, which may or may not be evidence, was destroyed.
It's as if they discovered that you used some documents (now unreadable) which you'd run through your paper shredder to light a fire, and that you cleaned out your fireplace after you were done. A clean fireplace? You must be burning human remains in it!
"Facts not in evidence." You're ascribing malice to the judicial system and making it sound like a conspiracy.
There's a fact - data was destroyed. An investigation may be able to determine what that data was. Either the human who deleted the data or the firmware can tell you why.
I delete files all the time and so do you. Describing this normal and routine occurrence using the nefarious sounding and certainly biased term "destroying data" is absurd.
That is one of the reasons I objected to the article - it uses emotionally loaded language. We're in agreement there. But continuing in that vein doesn't advance anyone's knowledge.
'Fascism' = 'Peace'?