Late last week, Patsy Brumfield had a quick drive by in her blog to sneak in this little nugget.

A source close to the case says the government has “misrepresented” the results of the polygraphs, and they actually were “inconclusive.”

That’s interesting, but it brings up two more interesting points.

1. If Zach is as innocent as he says he is, why would results be “inconclusive”? Why wouldn’t they be definitive in the way that he didn’t know?

2. Why is that source anonymous? Scruggs inside lawyers have been chewing the ears of friendly reporters seeding doubt in the hopes that it will tip the balance a bit if they can just catch a break.

Like I’ve had the chance to tell thousands of people for Kings of Tort presentations, they won’t ever give up. They don’t think they’ve done anything wrong.

Just wait and watch.

hattip NMC