No, not necessarily. In the UK, for example, all phone intercept is always inadmissible.
The main incentive for paralleling something is to protect the source, to maintain its effectiveness.
The main incentive for paralleling something is to protect the source, to maintain its effectiveness.
Parallel Reconstruction is used to avoid scrutiny of the original source of evidence. Even when used to legitimate ends (and I have doubts how often it's used as such), there are fundamental problems with dodging accountability.