LuckyLucy2
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2013
- Messages
- 1,506
- Reaction score
- 0
It's easy to assume a jury would be shown pictures of Rebecca Zahau's alleged suicide. Especially the pictures of the overturned chair and red dog bone. The room SDSO stated showed no signs of struggle. A jury would most likely see the list of items taken into evidence, which did not include the chair or the dog bone. In my opinion, a reasonable jury will look closely at the pictures and after hearing about the 4 injuries to her head wonder why the big red dog bone was not seized nor tested. A jury may even be as curious as to how the detectives determined so early in the investigation the chair and dog bone were not pertinent pieces of evidence. As well, it's feasible a jury might be curious to why panties found in a guesthouse of a defendant who admitted viewing *advertiser censored* before allegedly discovering a woman hanging nude were not tested. I think the Zahau attorneys would also delve into how gloves taken into evidence could be missing DNA. I can only assume the plaintiffs might then call an expert on Confirmation Bias. The expert might explain how decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign weight to evidence that confirms their theory, and ignore evidence that could disconfirm their theory. Otherwise known as Selection Bias. JMO.
How does any of the above prove the very detailed elaborate story the Zahau's are alledging? Please, please, explain.