Candace, “he was subsequently promoted” is doing a hell of a lot of work here.
If an officer destroyed evidence, expose it. Show what was in the bag, its connection to Charlie’s murder, and what links the promotion to its disposal. “After” doesn’t establish “because.”
Andrew Wilson pressed the same problem: finding holes in the prosecution’s case doesn’t establish your alternative. You put Robinson’s chance of being the shooter at 0%. That’s a conclusion you need to justify.
Moon landings, Brigitte Macron, Egyptian planes, an explosive microphone: every claim needs its own evidence. Your audience’s distrust of government cannot supply it.
You told Wilson you wanted to “drip out the evidence.” That gives us another episode. It doesn’t supply the missing connection.
The state must prove its case. You must substantiate the accusations you publish. Scrutinizing police conduct is legitimate. Implying a promotion was payment for destroying evidence requires more than putting both events in the same sentence.
Show the footage. Show the records. Establish the connection.
“The government has lied before” is a reason to check the evidence. It isn’t evidence for whatever story you sell next.