Under civil law, a finding that evidence was destroyed implies a finding of the fact that the destroyed evidence would have supported. I'm not sure how this would affect a criminal law proceeding, though I'm reasonably the prosecutor would be allowed to introduce that fact to prove guilt. (Ultimately it would be up to the jury to decide.)
Plaintiff: "There was a dead-body in the toilet, but the defendant has been regularly flushing, thereby destroying the evidence and proving his guilt."
I was referring specifically to civil matters, not criminal ones. A relevant example would be a claim that D defrauded P; a finding that D intentionally destroyed evidence that would prove the fraud could be used to support a finding of fact that the fraud occurred.
