• monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Well when I worked in government we had a ton of paperwork all over the place. Was early 2000s and we were scanning everything into archives. Maybe things have changed.

    I would imagine the prison holding the most notorious and infamous people would have more records than even a normal federal prison.

    But maybe not. If shit was destroyed the medical and incoming/outgoing records would be the only things that I would think relevant to destroy. And destroying it all is probably better than just destroying specific items. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    • Maeve@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      Ffs, I work government adjacent and it is insane how many paper documents and digital trails of those documents are required.

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      Things have for sure changed, primairly in that the attitude is now that while there’s still lots of paperwork, that paperwork is the bulk of what’s shredded. If it’s not worth digitizing it’s not worth archiving, and once it’s digitized why do you need to keep the hard copies? It’s far easier to store a few boxes of 40TB LTO than it is the millions of documents they contain. As a result practically nothing is worth archiving as hard copies.

      I don’t know why MCC would have been any different - it wasn’t a supermax or something fancy, it was mostly just a holding facility for people pending trial / a glorified jail.

      • monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        Yeah. IDK. This facility holds high profile people who are indeed awaiting trial. If I was there I would probably want to keep good records. But like I said, it’s all conjecture.

        I was thinking along the lines of documents within a few days of his death.

        Obviously this is just my imagination at this point but if I was gonna kill someone and wanted to leave as little evidence as possible I would probably burn it all. Destroying everything I could find would be the next best thing. If I were there for nefarious reasons, I wouldn’t want even a scribble of a note in a some document margin saying I was there.

        All that to say, it may be good to investigate what/if things were indeed destroyed.

        • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          While I agree, my issue here is that the investigation saved so many documents that were incriminating. There’s not much to investigate in the destruction of documents since document destruction is absolutely routine - it just seems pointless to investigate it since those documents will have already been destroyed, and we have heaping mounds of documents from that same time frame that are already massively damning and which may indicate missing records id they’re ever actually examined.

          • monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            Totally fair. But to destroy evidence they probably had to involve more people. Conspiracies collapse when there are a lot of people. If they can flip one of the lower players, they can work their way up the ladder. A random security guard probably can’t afford a lengthy legal battle. Isn’t that how investigations usually go?

              • monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 days ago

                No worries. Wasn’t clear. I’m saying they should investigate to see if they catch one of the guys doing the shredding. If they find them, prosecutors can try to “flip” them. Get the person to give up (or turn) who told them to destroy things.

                Imagine Bill Barr ordered the destruction. The guy he ordered could turn him in.

                • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  We know that, though - according to this it was ordered by the BoP team, and they aren’t some unknown group. If you mean who were ordering them then yeah, there may be something there - but they haven’t flipped yet, and if they were in on the conspiracy it’s weird they left so many incriminating documents unshredded which were then later released.

                  • monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    7 days ago

                    There’s a reason that they say: “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up.”

                    Don’t underestimate what people will do when they think they are up against a wall.

                    In this case the cover-up has been pretty good.