Jerry gnupg.user at
Wed Mar 23 13:06:29 CET 2011

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:21:26 +0100
Johan Wevers <johanw at> articulated:

> Robert J Hansen wrote:
> > If the
> government *alleges* that you *committed a crime*, the government
> needs to enter into evidence *how you committed that crime*.

Not true. The government only need show that a crime was committed.
Exactly how the crime was committed is not a legal requirement;
although, it is usually something that a jury wants to hear about. It
is the same as charging an individual with murder even though a body
cannot be produced. If the government can show that the individual(s)
can reasonably be viewed as responsible for the death of another, even
without the body, they can be charged with the crime. This again,
pertains to USA law.

> The problem is of course the fact that hiding evidence for some crime
> you commit is itself a crime in the USA. It makes having to prove
> your innocence via this trick possible.

You have over simplified this. As the defendant in a criminal case you
are never required to submit any evidence; however, failure to do say
may lead jurors to question your innocents such as when a defendant
takes the 5th. ( avails him/her self of the fifth amendment rights
against self incrimination) multiple times during a court proceeding.
The act of hiding or failing to produce evidence is not a crime if
committed by the defendant. This pertains to USA law. How it is
adjudicated in other countries is beyond my scope of knowledge.

Jerry ✌
GNUPG.user at
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list