Curiosity Never Kills the Cat: Legal Questions for VERIFIED LAWYERS- ~No Discussion~

[Serpico]

chinacat67. thanks for the letter. Appears only Anne received file.I have such mistrust for Gore.....hard to fathom his reluctance to let the media/public see the entire file.The Zahau family didn't request the file be closed.....surprised that some local tv/news station didn't push legal envelope to force Gore into court before a Judge.

 

[bourne]

Pretty much spot on!

Clear as mud now, right? :floorlaugh:

Bringing it back around to the beginning---I imagine we all agree that file would be hugely interesting to review. It could help answer sooooo many questions.

The problem is, it would be a total time suck and super frustrating to put in a request and I don't have the time now to devote to it, but I'd love it if somebody else did.

It would be a time suck and frustrating because this is how it would go:

1. Write asking Sheriff for file.
2. Sheriff's Office says no
3. Have to appeal to next administrative level
4. That office will say no
5. Only then can file first action in court to argue they are wrong in their holding back for all the reasons we've been tossing around.

That is not a short amount of time and is a large level of bureaucratic stonewalling and hassle (can you tell I've done this before?)

Maybe Dina is reading here and can get her lawyers on it....

What about Becky's possessions (cellphone, computer, cameras, etc.) that LE is still holding? Does the Zahau attorney have to formally request these items from LE? Isn't LE obligated to return a deceased victim's personal belongings after the case is officially closed?

 

[JBean]

This thread is to ask legal questions of our verified lawyers, not to have regular case discussion-there is an entire forum for that.
If you are not a verified attorney- please refrain from answering any legal questions.

Make it easy for the lawyers to find the questions by limiting discussion only to that which is necessary to ask questions of the lawyers.

Thank you.

 

[bourne]

Looks like the WS admin made the singular decision to revise my original title for the thread for only verified lawyers.

Serpico, you made some valid points re: Jonah. Can you repost your theory in question form to the lawyers so we can discuss it here? I had wanted to address a few of your points but didn't get a chance to when I first read your post last week because of Easter holidays and the kids

I don't think Jonah directly harmed Becky because according to Ann Rule, there's videotape evidence that shows Jonah was either at hospital or RMH during the time surrounding Becky's death. So Jonah has an alibi if we believe Ann Rule. But I think the “negligence” part of the wrongful death against Jonah can be pursued by the Zahaus.

For the lawyers on WS, to argue wrongful death, the plaintiff must show "proximate cause" or "negligence". Does this mean the plaintiff can show either "proximate cause" OR "negligence", or must they show evidence of both?

E.g., if the Zahaus sue Jonah for the wrongful death of Becky, do the Zahaus have to show that:
Ia) Jonah was physically on the premises the night/morning of Becky's death; and
b) Jonah purposefully with wilful intent did something directly to Becky to cause her death?

Or can the plaintiff Zahaus simply argue Jonah was "negligent" by showing proof that:
IIa) Jonah purposefully turned off/disabled ADT the night Becky died; or
b) Jonah specifically requested someone else turn off/disable/cause the malfunction of the ADT system; and/or
c) Jonah instructed others to do Becky harm?

Or can the Zahaus simply show proof that:
IIIa) there was a stable, consistent pattern wherein the ADT system was functioning and turned on the days and months prior to Becky's death but then the ADT suddenly malfunctioned or was powered off the day of Becky's death? and
b) that Jonah was the one who caused this deviation from the usual ADT security pattern?

Must the Zahaus in a wrongful death suit prove either I, or II, or III? Or must they prove I, and II, and III? Or I and II but not III? You get the picture.

 

[MyBelle]

Nothing overly substantial vis a vis her limitations. You can get "temporarily" admitted for a specific case in almost any state---pro hac vice is the legal term and, additionally, most out-of-state counsel hires local counsel and works with them to make sure have everything straight (and to help with the filings). When I was actively practicing we would serve as local counsel for NY attorneys all the time. They run the case, they are "attorneys of record" and we help them with local law and filing things and appearances when needed. Not unusual at all.

I'm thinking, as such, that Rudoy is exactly that---local counsel. Usually they are not overly vocal or overly visible though, so not entirely sure....

Has Ms. Bremner said she's filing a wrongful death lawsuit? Would a local lawyer attach his name to a lawsuit and work for free? I'm trying to see how any wrongful death lawsuit could possibly succeed in a death that is closed and ruled a suicide. Facing such obstacles, the investment of time and expenses such as court filing fees, clerical, expert witnesses by plaintiff's counsel would be considerable, would it not? I'm trying to understand why anyone thinks Ms. Bremner or any other attorney would be willing to take on such a project. Thanks for your insight!

 

[JBean]

Looks like the WS admin made the singular decision to revise my original title for the thread for only verified lawyers.

<snipped for emphasis>

If it is a legal thread that is focused on questions for verified lawyers then that is what it is. It cannot be a thread for everyone to share their legal understanding. It is confusing and misleading to members when people give legal advice and information when they are not verified as experts and we do not allow it.
Hope that helps.

 

[AZlawyer]

Looks like the WS admin made the singular decision to revise my original title for the thread for only verified lawyers.

Serpico, you made some valid points re: Jonah. Can you repost your theory in question form to the lawyers so we can discuss it here? I had wanted to address a few of your points but didn't get a chance to when I first read your post last week because of Easter holidays and the kids

I don't think Jonah directly harmed Becky because according to Ann Rule, there's videotape evidence that shows Jonah was either at hospital or RMH during the time surrounding Becky's death. So Jonah has an alibi if we believe Ann Rule. But I think the “negligence” part of the wrongful death against Jonah can be pursued by the Zahaus.

For the lawyers on WS, to argue wrongful death, the plaintiff must show "proximate cause" or "negligence". Does this mean the plaintiff can show either "proximate cause" OR "negligence", or must they show evidence of both?

E.g., if the Zahaus sue Jonah for the wrongful death of Becky, do the Zahaus have to show that:
Ia) Jonah was physically on the premises the night/morning of Becky's death; and
b) Jonah purposefully with wilful intent did something directly to Becky to cause her death?

Or can the plaintiff Zahaus simply argue Jonah was "negligent" by showing proof that:
IIa) Jonah purposefully turned off/disabled ADT the night Becky died; or
b) Jonah specifically requested someone else turn off/disable/cause the malfunction of the ADT system; and/or
c) Jonah instructed others to do Becky harm?

Or can the Zahaus simply show proof that:
IIIa) there was a stable, consistent pattern wherein the ADT system was functioning and turned on the days and months prior to Becky's death but then the ADT suddenly malfunctioned or was powered off the day of Becky's death? and
b) that Jonah was the one who caused this deviation from the usual ADT security pattern?

Must the Zahaus in a wrongful death suit prove either I, or II, or III? Or must they prove I, and II, and III? Or I and II but not III? You get the picture.

They must show negligence (at least) and proximate cause of harm, but neither of those things requires any showing of any intentional act. If they prove I, that would show intent (which is more than negligence so OK) and proximate cause. If they prove II, that's tougher to say because of your "and/or" in there. If they can prove that Jonah intentionally turned off the system so someone could get in and hurt Becky, that would certainly be enough. If they can only prove that Jonah negligently failed to ensure that the system worked that night (and this would go for your part III as well), then IMO they will not be able to prove proximate cause, because it would not be reasonably foreseeable that the failure to set the alarm system one night would end up allowing your girlfriend to be murdered. The murderer's action would be what's known as a "superseding cause," which means it is not the job of ordinary people to anticipate that a murderer will come along and take advantage of little negligent opportunities left for them.

 

[chinacat67]

Has Ms. Bremner said she's filing a wrongful death lawsuit? Would a local lawyer attach his name to a lawsuit and work for free? I'm trying to see how any wrongful death lawsuit could possibly succeed in a death that is closed and ruled a suicide. Facing such obstacles, the investment of time and expenses such as court filing fees, clerical, expert witnesses by plaintiff's counsel would be considerable, would it not? I'm trying to understand why anyone thinks Ms. Bremner or any other attorney would be willing to take on such a project. Thanks for your insight!

I tend to agree with you for those reasons--I would be surprised if one was filed....and I still think that the whole investigative file issue is the key here---the circumstances to date really imply that there are things in the file that the family of Rebecca doesn't want publicized---and any court case is public record for the most part and the defense in any wrongful death suit would make darn sure any seemingly negative information on the decedent was brought to light and made public.

That said, I suspect they have looked into whether or not to do so---on AB's FB page she noted some time back that there were still things going on and it sounded like local counsel might be involved....I'll go see if I can find that post. Since she is a public figure, confirmed as attorney for the family, and uses her FB as her media source, is it ok to post her FB posts here, mods? Thanks for any clarification on that!

Looking forward to having bourne back in the conversation soon

PS. AZ, I'm embarrassed that I was talking about my FOIA/RTK experience---you must be an expert not only in AZ but also in FL!!!

 

[AZlawyer]

I tend to agree with you for those reasons--I would be surprised if one was filed....and I still think that the whole investigative file issue is the key here---the circumstances to date really imply that there are things in the file that the family of Rebecca doesn't want publicized---and any court case is public record for the most part and the defense in any wrongful death suit would make darn sure any seemingly negative information on the decedent was brought to light and made public.

That said, I suspect they have looked into whether or not to do so---on AB's FB page she noted some time back that there were still things going on and it sounded like local counsel might be involved....I'll go see if I can find that post. Since she is a public figure, confirmed as attorney for the family, and uses her FB as her media source, is it ok to post her FB posts here, mods? Thanks for any clarification on that!

Looking forward to having bourne back in the conversation soon

PS. AZ, I'm embarrassed that I was talking about my FOIA/RTK experience---you must be an expert not only in AZ but also in FL!!!

BBM

No way--it was just so darn EASY to get public records in Florida! I was expecting the usual stonewalling I get in AZ, but instead they were practically tripping over themselves to help me get what I wanted.

 

[bourne]

They must show negligence (at least) and proximate cause of harm, but neither of those things requires any showing of any intentional act. If they prove I, that would show intent (which is more than negligence so OK) and proximate cause. If they prove II, that's tougher to say because of your "and/or" in there. If they can prove that Jonah intentionally turned off the system so someone could get in and hurt Becky, that would certainly be enough. If they can only prove that Jonah negligently failed to ensure that the system worked that night (and this would go for your part III as well), then IMO they will not be able to prove proximate cause, because it would not be reasonably foreseeable that the failure to set the alarm system one night would end up allowing your girlfriend to be murdered. The murderer's action would be what's known as a "superseding cause," which means it is not the job of ordinary people to anticipate that a murderer will come along and take advantage of little negligent opportunities left for them.

Thanks, so both proximate cause of harm and negligence are needed to prove a defendant, more likely than not, caused the wrongful death of a victim.

I agree that even if Jonah did disarm the ADT system, that this action alone is not sufficient to prove wrongful death because as you say, it is not "reasonably foreseeable" that disarming the ADT system would somehow cause someone to take that opportunity to murder anyone in his home.

However, and I think Lash already said this in a post above, that if it can be shown that Jonah had KNOWLEDGE that someone wanted to and would harm Becky that Tues night and he did not stop it, then Jonah can be held "negligent", yes? Is this negligent behavior by Jonah sufficient to satisfy the "proximate cause of harm" as well?

 

[K_Z]

(***I feel strongly that the medical record holds answers to many questions surrounding Rebecca's death, as well as Max's.)


1. If Dina were to file a wrongful death suit, would Max's medical records from the fall and hospitalization become available as evidence?

If yes,

- Would the entire medical record of the hospitalization be available to attorneys as evidence, or only carefully selected "cherry picked" sections?

- Is there any legal way for plaintiff attorneys to keep the medical record "out" in a wrongful death lawsuit?

2. Would Dr. Peterson be compelled to testify/ be deposed as a witness, or could he avoid this somehow? (I'm sure Rady attorneys aren't eager to have him testify. He as been commendably silent since the incident, and has never spoken publicly. I'm quite sure he was advised to remain silent by attorneys for the hospital.)

3. Would other hospital caregivers (docs, nurses, techs, etc) be named as witnesses, or would the medical record "speak" for them?

4. Since Max was a minor, is it correct that only Dina or Jonah (his legal parents) could bring a wrongful death lawsuit?

- What kind of damages could be reasonably recovered in a wrongful death suit involving a child?

 

[MyBelle]

Thanks, so both proximate cause of harm and negligence are needed to prove a defendant, more likely than not, caused the wrongful death of a victim.

I agree that even if Jonah did disarm the ADT system, that this action alone is not sufficient to prove wrongful death because as you say, it is not "reasonably foreseeable" that disarming the ADT system would somehow cause someone to take that opportunity to murder anyone in his home.

However, and I think Lash already said this in a post above, that if it can be shown that Jonah had KNOWLEDGE that someone wanted to and would harm Becky that Tues night and he did not stop it, then Jonah can be held "negligent", yes? Is this negligent behavior by Jonah sufficient to satisfy the "proximate cause of harm" as well?

If Jonah had knowledge that someone wanted to harm Becky, wouldn't that have been of interest to police investigating the death as a murder nearly two years ago? And especially to the ME who ruled the death a suicide? I'm not understanding the legal basis for a wrongful death lawsuit against Jonah that focuses on a security system. Rebecca also lived in the home and her body was found outside, not inside. I hope one of our legal experts can explain the legal basis because I'm just not seeing it.

 

[K_Z]

Regarding "elective" release of information contained in Max's medical records by his parents:

1. Can Dina request Max's complete records (which she presumably did for her experts to review) and release or publicly post anything herself, or must she have some kind of permission from Jonah, since they had joint custody?

2. Was Dina required to have Jonah's permission before posting and releasing Max's EMS record on her maxshacknai.com website? (I am very doubtful that she even had a conversation with him about it. It appears they only communicate thru lawyers at this point, if at all.)

3. Was Dina required to have Jonah's permission to request and provide Max's medical records to her experts Bove and Melinek?

 

[*Lash*]

Could an expert opine on why an attorney would work pro bono on a wrongful death suit? I understand one reason could be for the fame and exposure. I also understand an attorney may anticipate receiving monies if the suit is won. What other reasons might an attorney take on a wrongful death suit pro bono? In your opinion...

 

[chinacat67]

BBM

No way--it was just so darn EASY to get public records in Florida! I was expecting the usual stonewalling I get in AZ, but instead they were practically tripping over themselves to help me get what I wanted.

Not to get O/T, but wow, really? Amazing! That is seriously fascinating...why do you think that was? Do you think that is Florida in general or that case in specific?? Completely interesting either way! Of course, your whole experience with that is really interesting either way!

To bring it back around to Becky---I have no doubt in my mind that we would wish for stonewalling compared to what we would get with this one. :/

 

[inthedark14]

Not to get O/T, but wow, really? Amazing! That is seriously fascinating...why do you think that was? Do you think that is Florida in general or that case in specific?? Completely interesting either way! Of course, your whole experience with that is really interesting either way!

To bring it back around to Becky---I have no doubt in my mind that we would wish for stonewalling compared to what we would get with this one. :/

Hi chinacat67! Thank you for all the information you've given all of us. It truly is selfless and wonderful of you to do so. I'm just curious as to what you'd think we'd get with this? What could be worse than the stonewalling? Flat out refusal?

 

[bourne]

Could an expert opine on why an attorney would work pro bono on a wrongful death suit? I understand one reason could be for the fame and exposure. I also understand an attorney may anticipate receiving monies if the suit is won. What other reasons might an attorney take on a wrongful death suit pro bono? In your opinion...

I'm not an expert, but from observations of legal cases, most wrongful death suits are contingency-fee based. The lawyer defers his fee until the case is resolved. Fee is based on a percentage of recovery (generally 20-50%) obtained by lawyer. If there is no recovery, the lawyer receives nothing.

 

[MyBelle]

I'm not an expert, but from observations of legal cases, most wrongful death suits are contingency-fee based. The lawyer defers his fee until the case is resolved. Fee is based on a percentage of recovery (generally 20-50%) obtained by lawyer. If there is no recovery, the lawyer receives nothing.

I hope an expert does answer the question because I have a hard time believing any lawyer receives nothing at all if the case is lost. I would think wrongful death cases can take quite a chunk of time and there are administrative staff costs, filing fees and fees for expert witnesses that surely are expected to be paid by somebody before a case ever gets to trial.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks, so both proximate cause of harm and negligence are needed to prove a defendant, more likely than not, caused the wrongful death of a victim.

I agree that even if Jonah did disarm the ADT system, that this action alone is not sufficient to prove wrongful death because as you say, it is not "reasonably foreseeable" that disarming the ADT system would somehow cause someone to take that opportunity to murder anyone in his home.

However, and I think Lash already said this in a post above, that if it can be shown that Jonah had KNOWLEDGE that someone wanted to and would harm Becky that Tues night and he did not stop it, then Jonah can be held "negligent", yes? Is this negligent behavior by Jonah sufficient to satisfy the "proximate cause of harm" as well?

Yes, it would be IMO. Of course, that would be up to a jury to decide.

 

[AZlawyer]

(***I feel strongly that the medical record holds answers to many questions surrounding Rebecca's death, as well as Max's.)


1. If Dina were to file a wrongful death suit, would Max's medical records from the fall and hospitalization become available as evidence?

If yes,

- Would the entire medical record of the hospitalization be available to attorneys as evidence, or only carefully selected "cherry picked" sections?

- Is there any legal way for plaintiff attorneys to keep the medical record "out" in a wrongful death lawsuit?

2. Would Dr. Peterson be compelled to testify/ be deposed as a witness, or could he avoid this somehow? (I'm sure Rady attorneys aren't eager to have him testify. He as been commendably silent since the incident, and has never spoken publicly. I'm quite sure he was advised to remain silent by attorneys for the hospital.)

3. Would other hospital caregivers (docs, nurses, techs, etc) be named as witnesses, or would the medical record "speak" for them?

4. Since Max was a minor, is it correct that only Dina or Jonah (his legal parents) could bring a wrongful death lawsuit?

- What kind of damages could be reasonably recovered in a wrongful death suit involving a child?

1. I assume Dina could get the entire medical record for Max just because she's his mother. She doesn't need a lawsuit.

2. Yes, he could be compelled to testify.

3. Yes, the other caregivers could be named as witnesses, if they have something relevant to say.

4. The suit would be brought on behalf of Max's estate and his heirs. Most likely one of his parents would get authority to manage the suit for the estate. Damages for the heirs (parents) would include funeral expenses and loss of companionship. Damages for Max's estate (which would also go to his parents) would include medical expenses and lost income for his expected lifetime.