[CA Conservative]

Once again, they didn’t tamper with the evidence. The transcript of what was said is there to read. The tape is the evidence, not the indictment. The fact that the wording was changed slightly in the indictment does not constitute evidence tampering or change what the prosecution has to prove in court. The only way this could be evidence tampering is if the grand jury was not allowed to hear the tape or read the transcript, and the prosecutor only gave them an altered version of the statements on the tape to consider in their investigation. As long as they had access to the actual, unaltered evidence to review, the prosecution selectively editing the statement in the indictment, while sleazy, does not constitute evidence tampering.

[Colo9250]

So it’s okay to alter evidence presented to a grand jury in order to get an indictment?

That really seems like a stretch of the law to me.

[DallasBiff]

Once again, they didn’t tamper with the evidence. The transcript of what was said is there to read. The tape is the evidence, not the indictment. The fact that the wording was changed slightly in the indictment does not constitute evidence tampering or change what the prosecution has to prove in court.

So, if an actual quote was say "you know I'm not a rapist", but the prosecutor presents a quote "you know I'm a rapist.

That's not tampering with evidence?

[kvanbrunt2]

, the prosecution selectively editing the statement in the indictment, while sleazy, does not constitute evidence tampering.>>> Did they review the actual document?