If you don’t keep logs, and someone has evidence you did something wrong, then there won’t be any opposing evidence that you were in the right. So the jury will start out siding against you, and you won’t have any way to win them back.
In fact if a judge thinks you didn’t keep logs because you were afraid they would incriminate you, then they will tell the jury to consider the lack of logs as further evidence against you.
If you don’t keep logs, and someone has evidence you did something wrong, then there won’t be any opposing evidence that you were in the right. So the jury will start out siding against you, and you won’t have any way to win them back.
In fact if a judge thinks you didn’t keep logs because you were afraid they would incriminate you, then they will tell the jury to consider the lack of logs as further evidence against you.
They don’t have any evidence.
They’re saying it sounds similar.
That’s circumstantial evidence. Which will always beat zero evidence.