Quote Originally Posted by Patler View Post
The charge against Brady is involvement/knowledge/complicity. His destruction of a source of potential evidence can be interpreted if not presumed to be an act to conceal damning evidence against him. He can weaken that by explaining the destruction as "in the course" of standard activity, but the existence of the earlier phone pretty much negates that argument.
If he has destroyed all other phones and that phone belonged to one of his kids, it doesn't tell you much. I haven't gone through the entire transcript but I have not seen if he was asked or offered a reason for that phone's continued existence.

They have no evidence of involvement, knowledge or complicity. All they have on Brady is a _possible_ cover up. The physical evidence doesn't add up to a violation. The only direct piece of evidence of tampering is the guy in the bathroom for 90 seconds.

The cover up violation, or more properly, failure to cooperate, has been adjudicated in the past with fines.

Roger has constructed a casserole in order to cover up the weakness of the ingredients.