I jave had the misfortune of being tangentially involved in two separate CSAM investigations, and in both cases, the inventory of items seized was pretty detailed, including serial numbers when they were legible.
In one case the suspect was innocent and no evidence was planted to try to convict. (The daughter of the woman who made the initial report admitted several months later that her mom had made the report up in order to bolster her child custody case- there were no consequences for the woman who made the false report...)
In the other case, the suspect admitted guilt forthrightly.
Now, I can't say what the norm is across the country/world, just my own experience with the system.
The principal activity of higher level spooks and investigators is coercing people. Even when they don't have anything on the coercee, they can have, or claim to have, things on someone one cares about: a spouse, parent, sibling. Spooks are mainly supposed to coerce information delivery. Cops are supposed to coerce confessions and (if necessary, false) testimony.
They may choose to coerce other things, of course, of less interest to their employers. Sociopaths love these jobs.
> "Admitted guilt forthrightly" is also suspicious.
Not really. IMHO, it's pretty common impulse try to apologize when caught doing something in order to get less punishment. An apology is often effectively a confession.
> The principal activity of higher level spooks and investigators is coercing people...
So? Even if there are people who do stuff like that, it's a tiny fraction of cases like this.
> Are you unfamiliar with the definition of "principal activity"?
Yes. I'm just saying bringing up spies in this case is a distraction. Unless you have some compelling evidence to say it's spies, it's not spies. Your looking for the exotic when the mundane is far, far more likely.
While there is always some chance of that, I know enough about this particular case to say I don't have any reasonable doubt that the person was in fact guilty.
In one case the suspect was innocent and no evidence was planted to try to convict. (The daughter of the woman who made the initial report admitted several months later that her mom had made the report up in order to bolster her child custody case- there were no consequences for the woman who made the false report...)
In the other case, the suspect admitted guilt forthrightly.
Now, I can't say what the norm is across the country/world, just my own experience with the system.