The police is a subset of the govt. There have been plenty of instances of the police acting against the govts wishes, while there have also been plenty of instances of the govt instructing the police to act a certain way.
I’m asking if you think the govt pushed said police to destroy the evidence you think was destroyed, or if the police destroyed it in fear of the govt finding out.
For bulldozing it down? Absolutely. I live in a fairly heavy crime metro. It’s not unheard of for crime ridden condemned buildings to be levelled.
As do I, crack houses, condemned buildings on unstable foundations, buildings that are falling apart etc. may be taken down, a building being used to train children to commit crimes is a completely different thing.
By destroying the evidence they hinder the ability to challenge the official story
Any of the millions of people that have read about it.
Like me or you for example. Let’s just say hypothetically that one of these millions of people is some kind of fruitcake that has a crime scene fetish or any number of psychological maladies and goes to this crime scene to do what ever it is he wants to do there, and gets injured or killed by some fluke of misadventure.
Now who is responsible for that? The local authorities, because they left that scene unsecured.
The jury walkthroughs and whatnot are the stuff of police dramas, not real life. In reality, its just like any other scene. They just have to take pics, maybe some video or something and move on. It sounds like the place was a disease ridden dump. What else can one be expected to do with it?
Maybe the owner of the property then again, the person would be guilty of trespassing. And why do they need to leave it unsecured anyway? That was the only option?