A crime not having been committed, one of the chief ways you would find out that something is "evidence" is by someone charging you with a crime, as I said, and

A crime not having been committed, one of the chief ways you would find out that something is "evidence" is by someone charging you with a crime, as I said, and notice that I do not claim that's the ONLY way to find out. But "finding out" i.e. knowing, is required, for the crime of destruction of evidence to be on the table, as you said. This part of the point doesn't apply to the Tunick case, as I said. RE being colloquially guilty of a crime, "Obviously we can talk about such a condition in everyday conversation," as I said. It's fine if you want to disengage; I've certainly had much more stimulating discussions, where it actually went somewhere, like a dance.