Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California, #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
LuckyLucy2 said:
Jonah, Ann Rule revealed in her book that the 2010 Korean movie, "The Housemaid" was taken into evidence in Rebeccas suicide. Who purchased this DVD?

Is this a movie that Rebecca had seen multiple times?

Did Rebecca ever say she identified with the main character who was to take care of the rich man's children and house in the movie? If so, what did she say?

Did Rebecca ever comment on the scene where the main character hangs herself from the balcony? If so, what did she say?

Did Rebecca ever comment on the fact that the main character puts her hair under the noose when she hangs herself? If so, what did she say?

Did Rebecca ever comment that the main character should have been nude when she hung herself? If so, what did she say?

Do you think Rebecca copied her suicide from this movie?

Do you know if Rebecca ever saw the originial 1960 version of the of the movie?

If so, did Rebecca ever comment on the scene where the main character causes the rich man's son to fall down a flight of stairs to his death? If so, what did she say?

Do you think Rebecca copied Max's accident from this movie?
Click to expand...

Not sure where Ann Rule got this information, but there is no listing of this movie in the SDSO or Coronado PD case documents. One would assume that, if this movie was found and taken as evidence, it would show up somewhere in the case files.
 
AZlawyer said:
I haven't seen the movie, but I did read the Wikipedia entry (which as we all know is infallible) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Housemaid_(2010_film)), and it seems that the housemaid herself is the victim of the "accident" on the stairs. She also hangs herself from the chandelier (near the stairs) rather than from the balcony and lights herself on fire.

In the original movie (again, according to Wikipedia) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Housemaid_(1960_film)), the housemaid does cause the man's son to fall down the stairs (and poisons his daughter), then commits suicide (with the man) by taking rat poison.
Click to expand...

Question for Dina, Nina, Adam, and Jonah:
1) Have you watched "The Housemaid"?
2) Do you know who purchased/rented the video?
3) Do you know when the video was purchased/rented?
4) What do you think of the painting of nude woman in red gown in Jonah's bedroom?
5) Do you think Rebecca is beautiful?
6) Have you had anger/rage issues that resulted in physical violence?
7) Was any of the violence witnessed by Max?
8) Do you think Max was harmed by your physical and verbal violence?

To Dina, Nina: Are you jealous of Rebecca?
1) Did your navy dad teach you how to tie ropes?
2) Did you go yachting and boating with your dad and Jonah?
3) Are you familiar with ropetying?
4) Show us how you tie this rope.
5) Do you know how to make a noose?
6) Do you consider yourself an artist?
7) Do you paint?
8) What type of gloves do you use?
9) Which paintbrushes would you use to write black, bold capital letters?
 
@bourne-I saw that painting(question #4) in the pictures when the house was for sale. It was a nude picture of a woman on a red blanket right? Do you still have the link for that?
 
Betty P said:
Not sure where Ann Rule got this information, but there is no listing of this movie in the SDSO or Coronado PD case documents. One would assume that, if this movie was found and taken as evidence, it would show up somewhere in the case files.
Click to expand...

Thank you Betty P!

It is worth repeating. The movie is NOT among the 33 items on the receipt and inventory sheet from SW 41227.

SW 41227-
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kfmb/misc/warrant_41227.pdf
 
Betty P said:
Not sure where Ann Rule got this information, but there is no listing of this movie in the SDSO or Coronado PD case documents. One would assume that, if this movie was found and taken as evidence, it would show up somewhere in the case files.
Click to expand...

Well, don'tcha know? Everything Ann Rule writes is absolute fact. According to a poster here, anyways.
 
screecher said:
Well, don'tcha know? Everything Ann Rule writes is absolute fact. According to a poster here, anyways.
Click to expand...

I would hope that the Zahaus have asked for Ann Rules papers and any documentation that there is pertaining to her writing this book. Interview notes/tapes, manuscript revisions, etc.. Typically, these would be stored away.

Thinking this through, I also would think they'd want to dispose her editor (since she has since died). I think it would be very interesting to understand the process and hurdles Ann had as she work her book.
 
New entry #219 on the San Diego Register of Actions in the Zahau state WDS case.

219 08/14/2015 Motion Hearing (Civil) scheduled for 09/04/2015 at 01:30:00 PM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal was vacated.
Click to expand...

So, apparently the motion hearing to quash the SDSO subpoena (Jonah's interested party motion) has been cancelled for Sept 4.
 
LuckyLucy2 said:
Jonah, Ann Rule revealed in her book that the 2010 Korean movie, "The Housemaid" was taken into evidence in Rebeccas suicide. Who purchased this DVD?

Is this a movie that Rebecca had seen multiple times?

Did Rebecca ever say she identified with the main character who was to take care of the rich man's children and house in the movie? If so, what did she say?

Did Rebecca ever comment on the scene where the main character hangs herself from the balcony? If so, what did she say?

Did Rebecca ever comment on the fact that the main character puts her hair under the noose when she hangs herself? If so, what did she say?

Did Rebecca ever comment that the main character should have been nude when she hung herself? If so, what did she say?

Do you think Rebecca copied her suicide from this movie?

Do you know if Rebecca ever saw the originial 1960 version of the of the movie?

If so, did Rebecca ever comment on the scene where the main character causes the rich man's son to fall down a flight of stairs to his death? If so, what did she say?

Do you think Rebecca copied Max's accident from this movie?
Click to expand...

WOW!

I have not seen this movie, but if those are the scenes in it.... How bizarrely macabre!

Between the XZ questions which point at a scarily cunning or violent or both plotting against Max and this business of the movie reflecting to an undeniable degree the events that happened there... it seems if Rebecca were responsible she would have to be a master of criminal plotting, intents and acts!

Which is strange... since she couldn't even get away with stealing a couple pieces of jewelry from Macy's.
 
ms ex-shacknai #2 did not get her interrogatories to JS's attorneys in a timely manner. Probably because she has been up in that infamous third floor bedroom, with earplugs in and all phones shut down, recouping from some mysterious illness. lol Inparadise, do you know if she still has that house in Coronado?

JS filed motion to dismiss.

https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.g...=CV2013-009289
 
Thanks, Screecher. I think that Dina's case against Jonah will be dismissed very soon. I don't think she will get (extort? Blackmail?!) any more millions out of Jonah. Or even petty cash.

But hey, there is an upside for Dina when the case is dismissed! She will no longer have to pay her new attorney for legal work for that case! That's money back in her pocket. But then, she still needs to settle up the $3300 court ordered payment to Jonah before she and he can part company again. And it's possible the court will order Dina to pay ALL of Jonah's attorney fees when the case is dismissed. (That would be interesting. Jonah getting the court to order Dina to pay him some of his own money back, lol!) I'm sure he's probably spent thousands defending this frivolous and harassing case so far.

NOTE: DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION FOR SANCTION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDER --AND -- MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
Click to expand...

Filed 8/17/15, on the Maricopa county site.
https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2013-009289

Im currently mobile, but if anyone has those 2 motions handy, I think many of us would like to read them.
 
K_Z said:
Thanks, Screecher. I think that Dina's case against Jonah will be dismissed very soon. I don't think she will get (extort? Blackmail?!) any more millions out of Jonah. Or even petty cash.

But hey, there is an upside for Dina when the case is dismissed! She will no longer have to pay her new attorney for legal work for that case! That's money back in her pocket. But then, she still needs to settle up the $3300 court ordered payment to Jonah before she and he can part company again. And it's possible the court will order Dina to pay ALL of Jonah's attorney fees when the case is dismissed. (That would be interesting. Jonah getting the court to order Dina to pay him some of his own money back, lol!) I'm sure he's probably spent thousands defending this frivolous and harassing case so far.



Filed 8/17/15, on the Maricopa county site.
https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2013-009289

Im currently mobile, but if anyone has those 2 motions handy, I think many of us would like to read them.
Click to expand...

Fascinating how Jonah continuously and repeatedly filed Motions to Dismiss with prejudice against Dina's frivolous WDS against Jonah since 12/4/2013 to present (August 2015) while Dina has yet to file a single one against the Zahaus' WDS against her. This can only mean two things: Dina has no solid alibi for the depraved and heinous murder of Rebecca AND there is preponderance of valid, solid evidence that Dina murdered Rebecca, while Jonah apparently has a solid alibi and/or knows there is no bona fide evidence against him in Max's accidental death.
 
Bourne... good evening :)

A third thing it could mean is that Dina has incompetent counsel, and a fourth thing it could mean is that Dina is not adept at negotiating her legal bills and a fifth is that she makes poor legal decisions, after being given counsel.
 
Three new entries on the San Diego Register of Actions in the Zahau civil lawsuit (220, 221, & 222).

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml
Case number: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL

220 08/25/2015 Discovery Hearing scheduled for 10/09/2015 at 01:30:00 PM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal was vacated.
Click to expand...

221 08/26/2015 The Motion to Quash (Civil) was rescheduled to 10/09/2015 at 01:30:00 PM in C-69 before Katherine Bacal at Central.
Click to expand...
222 08/26/2015 Motion to Quash (Civil) scheduled for 10/09/2015 at 01:30:00 PM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal.
Click to expand...

It appears that Jonah's recent motion to quash the "computer subpoena" has been rescheduled in place of a discovery hearing-- but that's just an observant guess.
 
AZlawyer said:
I haven't seen the movie, but I did read the Wikipedia entry (which as we all know is infallible) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Housemaid_(2010_film)), and it seems that the housemaid herself is the victim of the "accident" on the stairs. She also hangs herself from the chandelier (near the stairs) rather than from the balcony and lights herself on fire.

In the original movie (again, according to Wikipedia) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Housemaid_(1960_film)), the housemaid does cause the man's son to fall down the stairs (and poisons his daughter), then commits suicide (with the man) by taking rat poison.
Click to expand...

Gosh, that exactly like what happened.

Only not.
 
screecher said:
Well, don'tcha know? Everything Ann Rule writes is absolute fact. According to a poster here, anyways.
Click to expand...

Which is especially disturbing considering that Ann Rule was suffering from Dementia for the last several years of her life.
 
New entries on the San Diego Register of Actions, #223, and 224.

223 08/31/2015 Order - Other (Order Granting REquest to File Letter Rogatory) filed by Shacknai, Dina. Shacknai, Dina (Defendant)
Click to expand...

224 08/31/2015 Correspondence (Copy of Request for Letter Rogatory) filed by Shacknai, Dina. Shacknai, Dina (Defendant)
Click to expand...

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml
Case Number: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL

As this is filed by Dina, I'd guess it has something to do with a Zahau family member residing outside the U.S. that she wants to depose, or compel to answer something like written interrogatories. And IIRC, Rebecca's sister, Snowem, resides in Germany. That's my best guess-- Dina has deposed Mary, and now wants to depose Snowem, or file interrogatories, or something similar.

(The actual document may be available in a day or so-- there is often a lag, as I have noticed on this site. The entry is posted, then a day or so later, the document is available.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_rogatory

A letter rogatory or letter of request is a formal request from a court to a foreign court for some type of judicial assistance. The most common remedies sought by letters rogatory are service of process and taking of evidence.
Click to expand...

Courts may serve documents only to individuals within the court's jurisdiction. One exception to this rule is states that invoke universal jurisdiction, granting their courts ubiquitous domain. Therefore a person seeking to take an action against a person in another country will need to seek assistance from the judicial authorities in the other country. This is of course assuming the court in his own country has jurisdiction to hear the case matter. As a hypothetical example, Alice in the United States wishes to sue Roberto in Argentina. Alice issues her summons in a U.S. court, and must then petition a court in Argentina by means of a letter rogatory to serve the process on Roberto.

Another reason why a court may require assistance from a foreign court is to obtain evidence from a witness. This evidence may be to answer questions relevant to the determination of an issue of fact, or for disclosure of documents.
Click to expand...

Courts only have power to subpoena witnesses from within their own country. So for example Alice in the U.S. could not summon Jean from France to the U.S. courthouse. Instead the U.S. court would issue a letter rogatory to a French court, who would then examine Jean in France, and send a deposition back to the requesting court.
Click to expand...

BBM. Deposing Snowem seems a logical/ obvious goal for this filing, IMO. But there may be other uses. Perhaps AZlawyer can lend more insight as to how this process may be applied in civil lawsuits.
 
Actually, now that I've read a bit more about letters rogatory, I wonder if this has something to do with Dina's quest to find out more about the immigration details of the Zahau family members. Germany should be a signatory to some european inter-country conventions that ease the process of requesting lawsuit information, depositions, etc. However, Burma/ Myanmar (the country of origin of the Zahau family) may not be part of those Hague conventions, and the letter rogatory process might be more applicable. (Hoping AZlawyer will weigh in.)

So, I wonder if this is an attempt to circumvent the difficulties Dina encountered in trying to get information here in the U.S. about the Zahau family immigration status.

And as the "order" entry in my above post was filed by DS, and not the court (and was followed by a correspondence request), I'm guessing it's one of those "ghost written" orders that are prepared by attorneys for Judges to guide them in their decision making. In other words, it may be a request for an order by DS -- "please do this"-- not an actual order. Just speculation.
 
More indication that Dina's WDS against Jonah is on very thin ice.

The recent entries (last 8 weeks) on that case indicate Dina and her attorneys are pretty much ignoring the case, deadlines, court orders, etc. Defense is officially letting the court know the plaintiff isn't cooperating with the civil process, and asking for another formal ruling by the Judge. (If I have interpreted Rule 7.1 correctly.)

This appears to refer to the defense's second (or third?) request related to attorneys fees and costs that were ordered to be paid by the plaintiff DS, by July 26. Failure of plaintiff DS to formally object to the order to pay, and failure to pay the fees to the defendant JS.

9/1/2015 NOT - Notice 9/1/2015
NOTE: DEFENDANT’S RULE 7.1 NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO SERVE A RESPONSE/OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
Click to expand...

https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2013-009289

Info on Rule 7.1:

MOTIONS (Rule 7.1, Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure)
A motion is a request made by a party asking the court to issue a ruling or order. If a party files a motion of any kind with the court and the opposing party has objections to the motion made, those objections must be filed in writing with the court within ten (10) legal working days of service of the motion. The judge will consider the motion and any objections thereto and enter an order either granting or denying the motion. Or, on request of either party, the court may schedule a hearing before ruling on the motion.
Click to expand...

http://pinalcountyaz.gov/Department...Civil/CV11-105 Civil Packet FORM 09152008.pdf

ETA: Come to think of it, this notice could also be related to the plaintiff DS's failure to respond to the defendant JS's motion from 8/17/2015 to dismiss with prejudice, and requesting award of all attorney fees. The original motion for dismissal was 6/16/2015.

8/17/2015 MOT - Motion 8/18/2015
NOTE: DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION FOR SANCTION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S ORDER --AND -- MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

7/31/2015 REQ - Request 7/31/2015
NOTE: JONAH SHACKNAI'S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REASONABLE COSTS

7/13/2015 NOT - Notice 7/14/2015
NOTE: DEFENDANT’S RULE 7.1 NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO SERVE A RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTION OF DISMISSAL AND NOTICE THAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO ORDER SHOULD BE SUMMARILY DENIED AS MOOT

6/16/2015 MOT - Motion 6/16/2015
NOTE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT’S DISCOVERY ORDER -- AND -- MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 144 more.
Total: 389 (members: 145, guests: 244)

Online statistics

Members online
145
Guests online
244
Total visitors
389
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,546
Messages
18,255,451
Members
234,684
Latest member
lampshade_run
Back
Top