I believe that there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence in Dylan's disappearance, pointing to MR.*
The following is first, a definition of circumstantial evidence, 2nd a break down of the actual evidence I believe we have, then 3rd, the legal authority cited to support that evidence:*
Circumstantial evidence is a series of events or characterization that implies guilt. *It can actually be more powerful than direct evidence because each piece can reinforce the other ones.*
HTTP://EN.M.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/CIRCUMSTANTIAL_EVIDENCE
Timothy McVeigh
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26793,00.html
Scott Peterson
People of the State of California vs. Scott Peterson
1) MR was the last person to see DR
When 3 women were found murdered, and it was discovered they were all staying at a nearby lodge, lodge staff were the first people questioned. It turned out a dishwasher at the lodge was responsible for the murders.
http://www.cengagesites.com/academic/assets/sites/4827/bertino_chapter2
2) MR has made several contradictory statements, such as he went by Tristan's and he had not seen Dylan then later he says he went by Tristan 's and no one was there.*
Prior Inconsistent and Contradictory statements*
...are admissible In criminal cases, for one, to *impeach the defendant with a voluntary prior inconsistent statement if the defendants legal team and the court know about the statement, *and to allow the defendant to make an informed decision on testifying or not*
Doran v. State, 606 A.2d 743, 746-48 (Del. 1992).
*For example, a statement obtained in violation of the defendants Miranda rights, if it was made voluntarily, is still admissible to impeach the defendant if the defendant testifies.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
They are admissible by means of polygraph, witness first hand testimony, voice recordings, and other means, for the impeachment of a witness or the impeachment of the defendant if he chooses to testify after knowing the statement will be used. *
http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/evid/evid22.htm
3) MR had no plans for the holiday and only enough food for 2 days. *Mr did very little searching or communicating with mom after the disappearance,*
Behavior
Actions of the defendant, such as etc...is admissible to show frame of mind of the defendant and lack of grief for the missing loved one, as well as to show premeditation. *More examples are learning to shoot a gun for several weeks before the loved one was shot by a gun, or going on a shopping spree when you are suspect in a robbery. *
People of the State of Florida vs. Casey Anthony
People of the State of California vs. Scott Peterson
4) Phone Pings may lead to something in this case.*
Forensic evidence (a category of Circumstantial) like DNA, sound recordings, blood, finger prints.
bleach and buckets were admitted into evidence to show Scott Peterson had murdered his wife.*
People of California vs. Scott Peterson
In People of the State of Texas v. Michael Morton, circumstantial evidence was ignored and the wrong man went to prison. *
5) MR has a legally reported history of Domestic Violence.
In Colorado, history of domestic violence is not admitted to prove defendant did the crime of which he is accused but is admissable to show motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake and lack of accident.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule 404
6) MR failed or produced inconclusive Polygraph results.
Polygraph results are admissible to the Grand Jury to get an indictment or if passing results, a no bill.
http://www.khou.com/news/harris_cou...easing_number_of_criminal_cases-93376954.html
Usually, polygraph results are admissible in a criminal trial to impeach a witness or to impeach the defendant for inconsistent or contradictory statements, as long as he knows the prosecution is going to do that. *If defendant doesn't know it will not be admissible. McLemore v. State, 87 Wis. 2d 739, 275 N.W.2d 692 (1979).*
The 9th Circuit Court has held that polygraph results are admissible but up to the individual court to allow it or not.
Magistrates may consider polygraph evidence when determining whether probable cause to issue an arrest warrant exists;*
United States v. Lindell, 881 F.2d 1313, 1326 (5th Cir.1989)
The recent court opinion from the Dallas, Texas, Court of Appeals ( Leonard v. Texas), which decided that polygraph test results are admissible evidence in a probation revocation hearing
Although polygraph test results, testimony concerning such test results, and offers or refusals to submit to polygraph tests are not admissible into evidence, voluntary statements made before, during, or after a polygraph test may be admitted into evidence, provided that the statements also are consistent with other applicable constitutional and evidentiary rules. *If a statement is voluntary and consistent with other applicable constitutional and evidentiary rules, the statement can be introduced into evidence.  
State v. Damron (Tenn. 2004) 
7) Motive and Character: MR has shown extreme disdain for ex wife ER and MR recently lost child support and instead was ordered to pay ER child support.
Testimony regarding child support and spousal revenge can be admissible in criminal court to show motive.
In Rabinovitz, Jonathan (1993-12-11). and Jones, Charisse (1993-12-09).past behavior testimony was allowed in to show Collins growing anger and authority issues, as well as to show his racial issues.*
Also admissible in custody hearings in Colorado: *Statute 14-10-124 Best Interest of the Child.*
Freedom to be with other women and no children- admissible for motive in Scott Peterson Case*
Freedom to party in Casey Anthony Case.
For Character testimony, for example, from Cory to say when he thinks he is in the right or believes in something he is the first to speak up and be out in front.
8) Proof of Domestic Violence is admissible in criminal court when it is relevant to crime and to show propensity for anger and violence and history with the victim. It is generally not admissible to prove he committed the act he is charged with.
http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2003/4/Kovach.pdf
*
