zlacker

>>tafda+(OP)
Curiously, the charge he pled guilty to as part of the plea deal has nothing to do with planes. He pled guilty to obstructing a federal investigation (of the crash). Makes sense. Proving his intent w.r.t. the crash back then would be harder than proving that he DID remove the wreck and subsequently destroyed it.

>>dmitry+63
I dunno. I believe the guy is guilty and should be punished for recklessness, etc. but I don’t like it when authorities rely on indirect charges to “get” someone.

Prove the original crime, don’t rely and peripheral procedure like “they lied to a federal agent” (uhh) cop-out. Do your job.

Likewise I’m not don’t of people getting off on “technicalities” (Some more than others)

>>mc32+04
> Prove the original crime

The evidence of which was destroyed?

>>sgjohn+j4
"I Crashed My Airplane" - TrevorJacob

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbYszLNZxhM

>>rain1+o91
Yes, obviously the FAA/NTSB/whatever agency needed the remains of that plane to prove their case that the crash landing was staged.

I don't think that the video alone gets past the reasonable doubt standard.

>>sgjohn+uu6
What’s the angle? The fuselage doesn’t crumple one way if it’s staged and another way if it was an accident. The metal and construction materials cannot know intent.