With all of your research, you have probably also found, as I have, that polygraph evidence is not admisable iat all n American courts and that circumstantial evidence won't bring a guilty verdict if there is forensic evidence that trumps the circumstantial evidence. So far, the Zahaus have nothing. Not one piece of physical evidence. Not one.
I keep asking for any physical evidence at all that ties any of the three to the room Rebecca hung herself from. ANYTHING that proves one of them was even in that room. Anything. Any at all. One thing.
So far, no one has given me anything but imagined theories and speculation.
And I keep telling you: physical evidence isn't necessary, where the circumstantial evidence stacks up sufficiently. The forensic evidence can be shown to be horrifically tainted and mismanaged by SDSO, whose crime scene and general investigations of the case leave a great deal to be desired. Huge mistakes were made -- coincidentally or otherwise, many in the Shacknai's favour. Tests that should have been done were not. Questions that should have been asked have not been. Coincidentally or not, all in the Shacknai's favour.
I hope this is raised as a rebuttal to the shoddy physical evidence reports regarding the suicide verdict that will get trotted out, missing (as they are now) huge and vital portions of what should be there. I hope the arrogance of Gore is pointed out, when he announces that HIS sheriff's dept does not *have to* test every bit of evidence at the scene of a suspicious death, and indeed in this case did not, too bad, so sad.
Thanks to this sheriff's office, coincidentally or not, we can't actually
trust the physical evidence. For example, where extremely valuable evidence may have been gathered from examination of Rebecca's body as to core temperature, livor mortis patterns and insect activity, for example, SDSO inexplicably (really.. how can they possibly justify THIS?) left her body lying in the open sun and air,
for 13 hours before removing it to autopsy. All that evidence means nothing, therefore, and speaks absolutely nothing as to what may have happened to her. All conclusions drawn from those and any other aspects of the autopsy affected by this heinous and unthinkably irresponsible treatment of Rebecca's remains cannot be trusted.
The balcony evidence is smirched by the large, misplaced boot of LE. Items at the crime scene were not examined. Missing items were not sought, and therefore not located. And those vital tests... not done, Rebecca's underwear... not located... so evidence was lost that may have helped the case, in either direction.
People who should have been interviewed and asked for samples were not. Gloves that ought to contain strong individual samples from the last person who wore them yielded, inexplicably, only weak 'mixed' dna. It goes on and on...
An awful lot of errors and bad calls of judgement, all happening at once. Quite incredible, when you look at it from a few steps back. So, as important portions of the physical evidence were spoiled, or never gathered properly, or at all, perhaps the circumstantial case isn't as overwhelmed by material evidence as some might hope.
You are quite right about one thing though - Aussie crooks do actually cuss inappropriately during police interviews. The stupid ones, anyway.
Polygraph evidence is, according to my incredibly magnificent and sparkly, strawberry-flavoured research skills (and about 15 seconds on Google), allowed in some states of the US, under some circumstances. In California, for example:
[8][9] "Evidence Code section 351.1 states
that 'the results of a polygraph examination,
the opinion of a polygraph examiner, or any
reference to an offer to take ... or [the]
taking of a polygraph examination, shall not be
admitted into evidence in any criminal
proceeding, including ... post conviction ...
hearings, ...
unless all parties stipulate to
the admission of such results.'
http://www.polygraphplace.com/articles/polygraph_evidence_approved.htm
I also found this:
States like California, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, and Florida allow the tests if everyone agrees to them, but may put different emphasis on the test's accuracy.
California lawyers, for instance, can present the results to the jury, and allows them to draw whatever inferences from it they wish.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/admissability-of-polygraph-tests-in-court.html
And this:
The Constitutional rights of a criminal defendant cannot be abrogated by a state statute.
In a civil case (if able to lay a foundation) polygraph evidence is admissible.
http://www.duilawyerlosangeles.com/for-attorneys/admit-polygraph-evidence-for-rebuttle/
And isn't it basically a free for all, polygraph-wise, in New Mexico?
Not that I think AS will agree to having those results aired in court -- after all, it's such a great (and potentially damning) addition to a circumstantial case. But your assertion that polygraphs are not permitted "at all" is clearly ..
wrong.
