Estate of Rebecca Zahau et al v. Shacknai et al

[Carioca]

BBM
<respectfully clipped for focus>
And again, YOU hit the nail on the head with your querying of the secrecy of the Zahau lawyers. Yes, probably a bargaining chip. But I would not delude myself into thinking that the Zahau's want all the info out there. For goodness sakes... THEIR attorney said they would not release information due to there being information "hurtful to the family." Pretending that isn't so doesn't make it not so. They said it was so.

BBM Huh? Please provide a link to that. TIA. I do recall Gore stating, threatening something along those lines to intimidate (if needed I'll hunt it up), but certainly IIRC has any attorney representing the Zahau family ever EVER made such a statement. What on this earth could possibly be more hateful than the countless statements Dina and her enablers have made about Rebecca, her three sisters, her little brother, and her parents!!

 

[bourne]

BBM
YOU have hit the nail on the head.... This is and has always been about the star of the show. Dina is not the Star. Adam is not the Star. And the Star is the one that will be directing how this will play out on Dina and Adam's sides of this case.

I find it exceedingly disrespectful and tasteless to call two real life tragic deaths of a young boy and a young woman a "show" -- as if their deaths were all part of some type of screenplay for audience entertainment.

But using your line of odd reasoning, are you saying that Jonah is "the Star" in this tragedy of horrors? Because what we do know from the "Boy, Interrupted" article about Dina is that she was very much into plays, dramatic exaggerations, and screening theatrics.

"She read him poetry from an early age, migrating from Maurice Sendak to Shakespeare to Pablo Neruda...and organized elaborate playdates at the home. She even built a small stage in the living room so he and his friends could bang on drums and indulge their inner Biebers.

In a remembrance video commissioned by Dina and screened for his friends and family at the Paradise Valley home last April, Max is seen hamming it up with his sister, Gabby, on the stage &#8211; lip-synching to Celine Dion."

http://www.phoenixmag.com/lifestyle/valley-news/201208/boy--interrupted/

And we do know how melodramatic, elaborate and theatrical Rebecca's tortured murder was, don't we? I mean, the nudity, the elaborate rope-bindings of Rebecca's wrists and ankles, the noose, the mouth gag and neck wrap, the long-drop "torpedoed" style, noose-hanging of Rebecca off a 2nd storied balcony into a publicly visible courtyard, the cryptic painting of words "SHE SAVED HIM CAN YOU SAVE HER" with heavy black paint on a bedroom door leading to the hanging balcony, the dramatic displays sprawled on the carpet of TWO paintbrushes, TWO knives, multiple gloves, etc.

Yes, a "STAR" concocted, premeditated and executed the murder of Rebecca. And we know who that real star is. Patterns of past behaviors are excellent indicators and predictors of future behaviors. Thanks for pointing out who the real MURDERER, er, I mean "STAR" is!

 

[K_Z]

To prevail, the Zahau lawyers must prove the defendants were the cause and the death is already ruled a suicide. JS is not a defendant so there is no reason for him to settle anything. If I were a named defendant, I wouldn't be worried, either, because the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

JMO

BBM. Jonah is not a named defendant, but as sure as the sun comes up tomorrow, he will be a witness! And, of course, subject to interrogatories and/ or deposition. Jonah is part of this, even if he isn't one of the "Big Three" named defendants. IMO.

And, BTW, there are 50 "John/ Jane Does" also named as defendants in the filing. It is possible Jonah could be named later, but I think if the Zahaus were heading that way, Jonah would have been named with the "Big Three" right from the beginning. I don't think that's where they're going with this.

Now, certainly one of the first strategies an attorney might make is to get the 50 Does dismissed. But which attorney for which respondent will make that one of their first priorities in defending their client? Well, if Jonah and Adam have the same attorney, or team of attorneys, that might make sense. Otherwise, why would Dina's or Nina's attorneys make that a priority?

"Preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case is a vastly different burden of proof than a criminal murder case "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I must say I'm surprised by your brashness, when you say you would not be worried if you were a named defendant in this case. Wow! That is quite a bold statement. I think it would be foolish for any of the named defendant to not be worried. I think this case probably will need a great deal of their time and attention (and $$ for attorney fees) for months to come. That would worry most people, IMO.

I think all three of the named defendants are very worried. As they should be, IMO. I'm sure the whole mess keeps them up at night. Their lives will never be free of the cloud of suspicion that surrounds each of them, and that has to be hard to adjust to.

Jonah and Adam have done a very good job of remaining silent, and out of the media. That has helped their images, IMO, and may be very helpful to them as the civil suit proceeds. Dina, and to a lesser extent, Nina, have only hurt themselves with their media interviews. Neither of them are sympathetic characters anymore, IMO.

Dina squandered the sympathy of the public over the past 2 years, IMO.

 

[Nom de plume]

IMO, the Zahaus have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. In this type of civil suit, IINM, attorneys for the plaintiffs will take the case on a contingency basis. If they didn't think they had a good shot at winning (or settling for a large sum) they wouldn't take it. So no $ out of the plaintiffs pocket up front.

The defendants on the other hand have everything to lose. Just because they might offer a settlement, should Jonah choose to fund it, does not mean that the plaintiffs have to take it. (Personally, I don't think they're nearly as interested in the money as they are seeing the guilty party(s) exposed, and possibly charged with murder.) The defendants could have a huge judgment against them, that they may or may not be able to pay. If Jonah decided not to fund a settlement, at least for Dina and/or Nina, it could be financially devastating. What's far worse for them, IMO, is that hard evidence may be uncovered in depositions and they could face criminal charges. lease: :jail:

 

[katydid23]

IMO, the Zahaus have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. In this type of civil suit, IINM, attorneys for the plaintiffs will take the case on a contingency basis. If they didn't think they had a good shot at winning (or settling for a large sum) they wouldn't take it. So no $ out of the plaintiffs pocket up front.

The defendants on the other hand have everything to lose. Just because they might offer a settlement, should Jonah choose to fund it, does not mean that the plaintiffs have to take it. (Personally, I don't think they're nearly as interested in the money as they are seeing the guilty party(s) exposed, and possibly charged with murder.) The defendants could have a huge judgment against them, that they may or may not be able to pay. If Jonah decided not to fund a settlement, at least for Dina and/or Nina, it could be financially devastating. What's far worse for them, IMO, is that hard evidence may be uncovered in depositions and they could face criminal charges. lease: :jail:

Imo, if there was any hard evidence to uncover, there would have been some criminal charges. As this was already ruled a suicide, there is little chance that the defendants are going to be facing any charges from this.

If Dina was guilty of murdering RZ then I doubt she would have been out there
trying to get an investigation opened on Maxie's death. She would be lying low.

This suit seems like a desperate, last ditch effort that will be fruitless, imo.

 

[time]

Imo, if there was any hard evidence to uncover, there would have been some criminal charges. As this was already ruled a suicide, there is little chance that the defendants are going to be facing any charges from this.

If Dina was guilty of murdering RZ then I doubt she would have been out there
trying to get an investigation opened on Maxie's death. She would be lying low.

This suit seems like a desperate, last ditch effort that will be fruitless, imo.

Hi Katy ... not so sure if the hard evidence you mention was so easy to come by if everything LE found wasn't shared. Remember there is still another suit asking specifically for all that evidence.

It does seem to me that Dina is laying low now. I think we have heard from her once since the current law suit. Why do you think she didn't file a lawsuit before the date passed?

 

[katydid23]

Hi Katy ... not so sure if the hard evidence you mention was so easy to come by if everything LE found wasn't shared. Remember there is still another suit asking specifically for all that evidence.

It does seem to me that Dina is laying low now. I think we have heard from her once since the current law suit. Why do you think she didn't file a lawsuit before the date passed?

LE had the evidence and shared it with the DA and yet no charges were brought against the people now being sued. So I don't think there is any 'hard' evidence against them.

Now she seems to be lying low. But she certainly wasn't earlier. She took a media tour and did many interviews and appearances pleading for her son's case to be reexamined. I doubt she would have done so if she had killed RZ. JMO

 

[time]

LE had the evidence and shared it with the DA and yet no charges were brought against the people now being sued. So I don't think there is any 'hard' evidence against them.

Now she seems to be lying low. But she certainly wasn't earlier. She took a media tour and did many interviews and appearances pleading for her son's case to be reexamined. I doubt she would have done so if she had killed RZ. JMO

Frankly, you could be right that there isn't enough evidence. Not sure that means Rebecca wasn't murdered and with a DA it's often a judgment call. I think they saw this as a messy case that would suck up a lot of resources and may not end in a conviction. Although, I also think they called it too early to really know. I feel they thought it was easier to call it a suicide and close it out, but I respect your opinion.

As far as people being in the limelight even when guilty ... well, it happens quite a bit (Hans Reiser, Peterson, etc.) and my opinion is that Dina tried to get the media blitz while she could. I don't know if we will see much more from her because any serious news show would now ask some tough questions I think.

 

[inthedark14]

LE had the evidence and shared it with the DA and yet no charges were brought against the people now being sued. So I don't think there is any 'hard' evidence against them.

Now she seems to be lying low. But she certainly wasn't earlier. She took a media tour and did many interviews and appearances pleading for her son's case to be reexamined. I doubt she would have done so if she had killed RZ. JMO

Hi katydid23! Since DS did go on her media tour to request a reopening of MS' case, would you say that only his case should have been reopened? Isn't it possible with while looking at that case alone, that both of these cases should be reopened? IMHO, both RZ and MS were done an injustice. BOTH of the cases should have been reopened and reexamined. Do you have an opinion on why DS didn't file a suit to get all the evidence regarding MS' death? She openly stated, on Dr. Phil I believe that she wanted to have XZ disposed. She had the opportunity to do that with a civil suit. Any thoughts why she didn't? TIA.

 

[K_Z]

Hi Katy ... not so sure if the hard evidence you mention was so easy to come by if everything LE found wasn't shared. Remember there is still another suit asking specifically for all that evidence.

It does seem to me that Dina is laying low now. I think we have heard from her once since the current law suit. Why do you think she didn't file a lawsuit before the date passed?[/QUOTE]

Excellent question, time. Lots of discussion potential.

I think I will start a new thread with that question.

I think it's relevant to note that neither of Max's parents filed a civil wrongful death lawsuit, either together, or separately.

 

[screecher]

LE had the evidence and shared it with the DA and yet no charges were brought against the people now being sued. So I don't think there is any 'hard' evidence against them.

Now she seems to be lying low. But she certainly wasn't earlier. She took a media tour and did many interviews and appearances pleading for her son's case to be reexamined. I doubt she would have done so if she had killed RZ. JMO

BBM

You're not the only one who has posted the bolded above.


Rebecca's death was ruled a suicide, correct? Hence, Dina Romano was probably feeling emboldened. Yaaa. 'They think the Food Nazi murdered herself!! Now I can continue to beat the crop out of her and her sister.' Via Maxie.

Supposedly she tried and failed to get Maxie's case opened. Why did she give that speech to town board or whatever it's called. You know...the one where she declared herself a scientist? That speech was pointless in getting Maxie's case opened. Dina Romano knows/knew the steps and the different offices one is required to get a case open. She chose not to take those steps. Instead, she went on her media tour. And more beating on Rebecca and her sister.

Yeah so IMO she was embolden with RZ's death ruled a suicide. Cripes. She didn't even file for a civil action. Her mission was to destroy Rebecca and he and her family.




JMO

 

[katydid23]

Hi Katy ... not so sure if the hard evidence you mention was so easy to come by if everything LE found wasn't shared. Remember there is still another suit asking specifically for all that evidence.

It does seem to me that Dina is laying low now. I think we have heard from her once since the current law suit. Why do you think she didn't file a lawsuit before the date passed?[/QUOTE]

Excellent question, time. Lots of discussion potential.

I think I will start a new thread with that question.

I think it's relevant to note that neither of Max's parents filed a civil wrongful death lawsuit, either together, or separately.

How could they file a wrongful death lawsuit? The person she holds responsible is dead.

 

[TorisMom003]

How could they file a wrongful death lawsuit? The person she holds responsible is dead.

One of the people she holds responsible is dead, the other is very much alive.

 

[katydid23]

BBM

You're not the only one who has posted the bolded above.


Rebecca's death was ruled a suicide, correct? Hence, Dina Romano was probably feeling emboldened. Yaaa. 'They think the Food Nazi murdered herself!! Now I can continue to beat the crop out of her and her sister.' Via Maxie.

Supposedly she tried and failed to get Maxie's case opened. Why did she give that speech to town board or whatever it's called. You know...the one where she declared herself a scientist? That speech was pointless in getting Maxie's case opened. Dina Romano knows/knew the steps and the different offices one is required to get a case open. She chose not to take those steps. Instead, she went on her media tour. And more beating on Rebecca and her sister.

Yeah so IMO she was embolden with RZ's death ruled a suicide. Cripes. She didn't even file for a civil action. Her mission was to destroy Rebecca and he and her family.

JMO

It is very interesting the way that Dina is characterized here on this board. She is a 'lazy, bad mother' who orders pizza for her kid at lunchtime and allows him to eat candy. And yet she reads him Shakespeare and builds a stage indoor to increase his creative flow. That does not sound like something a lazy, disinterested mother would do.

And she is characterized as an inept, incompetent professionally, who does not 'deserve' her professional license because she is a phony. And yet, she supposedly knows exactly how to get a case reopened but is so cunning that she only pretended to try to do so.

I think that some are painting her in the way they would like to see her for their own purposes. She is being twisted into their own version of how they see her. If she orders pizza for her son, that that means she is a lazy bad mother. I think that is quite a stretch to make. I ordered many a mushroom and dried tomato pizza for my kids. Does that make me a lazy mom?

They criticizie her for being a lazy, bad mom, and then discuss how she read her son Shakespeare and classic poems and I have to laugh.

 

[bourne]

It is very interesting the way that Dina is characterized here on this board. She is a 'lazy, bad mother' who orders pizza for her kid at lunchtime and allows him to eat candy. And yet she reads him Shakespeare and builds a stage indoor to increase his creative flow. That does not sound like something a lazy, disinterested mother would do.

And she is characterized as an inept, incompetent professionally, who does not 'deserve' her professional license because she is a phony. And yet, she supposedly knows exactly how to get a case reopened but is so cunning that she only pretended to try to do so.

I think that some are painting her in the way they would like to see her for their own purposes. She is being twisted into their own version of how they see her. If she orders pizza for her son, that that means she is a lazy bad mother. I think that is quite a stretch to make. I ordered many a mushroom and dried tomato pizza for my kids. Does that make me a lazy mom?

They criticizie her for being a lazy, bad mom, and then discuss how she read her son Shakespeare and classic poems and I have to laugh.

Lumping the diverse opinions of different posters together and then claiming one consensus opinion for an entire group of varied posters' differential opinions so you can mock them is offensive and irrational. To me, THAT is a real joke. LOL

 

[K_Z]

It is very interesting the way that Dina is characterized here on this board. She is a 'lazy, bad mother' who orders pizza for her kid at lunchtime and allows him to eat candy. And yet she reads him Shakespeare and builds a stage indoor to increase his creative flow. That does not sound like something a lazy, disinterested mother would do.

And she is characterized as an inept, incompetent professionally, who does not 'deserve' her professional license because she is a phony. And yet, she supposedly knows exactly how to get a case reopened but is so cunning that she only pretended to try to do so.

I think that some are painting her in the way they would like to see her for their own purposes. She is being twisted into their own version of how they see her. If she orders pizza for her son, that that means she is a lazy bad mother. I think that is quite a stretch to make. I ordered many a mushroom and dried tomato pizza for my kids. Does that make me a lazy mom?

They criticizie her for being a lazy, bad mom, and then discuss how she read her son Shakespeare and classic poems and I have to laugh.

I'd like to speak only to the bolded portion above (BBM). The rest is pretty far off topic.

I can't speak to whether or not Dina "deserves" a professional license. But I can say that Dina does not HOLD a professional license. She graduated and earned her psychology clinical doctorate. She had some difficulty being approved to complete licensure, but did clear that up with the Board. She has chosen not to become licensed as a professional psychologist, according to AZ state professional practice databases. Why she chose not to pursue licensure is her business, but to hold herself out as a licensed professional, with "an established professional practice", is pretty close to professional fraud, IMO.

I think one of the reasons Dina is widely reviled is that she tends to embellish her own credentials, and ignore her own part in the serious domestic discord in her marriage with Jonah, which includes a documented history of domestic violence. And 13 police calls in 2 years to their residence.

And then she stands on her professional credentials as a paragon of virtue and an example of successful co-parenting. And then is hypocritical enough to think she can serve as an example and proponent for legislation validating stalking of new partners by bitter ex-wives. I think that's why a lot of people might think she is not a very honest, upstanding, person, and lacking in integrity and character.

And then she has spent 2 years making accusations against a dead woman and bullying, accusing, and intimidating a young, traumatized teenager. Nice behavior for someone who considers herself a child psychologist, right?

But that's just my opinion, and it has nothing to do with whether or not she has a history of ordering a lot of pizza, or whether she read poetry to her son, or had a candy drawer, FWIW.

 

[katydid23]

I'd like to speak only to the bolded portion above (BBM). The rest is pretty far off topic.

I can't speak to whether or not Dina "deserves" a professional license. But I can say that Dina does not HOLD a professional license. She graduated and earned her psychology clinical doctorate. She had some difficulty being approved to complete licensure, but did clear that up with the Board. She has chosen not to become licensed as a professional psychologist, according to AZ state professional practice databases. Why she chose not to pursue licensure is her business, but to hold herself out as a licensed professional, with "an established professional practice", is pretty close to professional fraud, IMO.

I think one of the reasons Dina is widely reviled is that she tends to embellish her own credentials, and ignore her own part in the serious domestic discord in her marriage with Jonah, which includes a documented history of domestic violence. And 13 police calls in 2 years to their residence.

And then she stands on her professional credentials as a paragon of virtue and an example of successful co-parenting. And then is hypocritical enough to think she can serve as an example and proponent for legislation validating stalking of new partners by bitter ex-wives. I think that's why a lot of people might think she is not a very honest, upstanding, person, and lacking in integrity and character.

And then she has spent 2 years making accusations against a dead woman and bullying, accusing, and intimidating a young, traumatized teenager. Nice behavior for someone who considers herself a child psychologist, right?

But that's just my opinion, and it has nothing to do with whether or not she has a history of ordering a lot of pizza, or whether she read poetry to her son, or had a candy drawer, FWIW.

I don't see anything in what was listed above, that indicates she is not upstanding, or lacks character or integrity. If one goes through a very nasty and volatile divorce, and the police come to one's residence to calm things down----does that mean one lacks integrity or character? I don't think that has anything to do with ones honesty or integrity.

If someone successfully completes their education and does the required practice hours but does not decide to pursue their professional license, does that make them lacking in character and integrity? Maybe they decided not to pursue a professional practice, but just wanted the knowledge to be used in another way.

Maybe she had a reason for making those accusations. Others have made similar accusations and many rumors abound. Maybe Dina was on the right track. Why do you assume she was needlessly bullying and not actually trying to uncover the truth? What if the traumatized teen was actually covering up what really happened? If it was my little boy that died then I would be relentless and intimidating as well, if I had those same suspicions.

 

[katydid23]

Lumping the diverse opinions of different posters together and then claiming one consensus opinion for an entire group of varied posters' differential opinions so you can mock them is offensive and irrational. To me, THAT is a real joke. LOL

I agree. It is a joke. I lumped together some of the various criticisms that people here have made against a grieving mother. It is a joke that she was criticized for 'frequently' ordering pizza for her sons lunch. And that makes her lazy and disinterested somehow. And that criticism was lodged by a verified insider. I think it is a joke that it is allowed to even be posted. WHO CARES if she ordered pizza delivery? FGS.

People here are just piling on, imo.

 

[screecher]

It is very interesting the way that Dina is characterized here on this board. She is a 'lazy, bad mother' who orders pizza for her kid at lunchtime and allows him to eat candy. And yet she reads him Shakespeare and builds a stage indoor to increase his creative flow. That does not sound like something a lazy, disinterested mother would do.

And she is characterized as an inept, incompetent professionally, who does not 'deserve' her professional license because she is a phony. And yet, she supposedly knows exactly how to get a case reopened but is so cunning that she only pretended to try to do so.

I think that some are painting her in the way they would like to see her for their own purposes. She is being twisted into their own version of how they see her. If she orders pizza for her son, that that means she is a lazy bad mother. I think that is quite a stretch to make. I ordered many a mushroom and dried tomato pizza for my kids. Does that make me a lazy mom?

They criticizie her for being a lazy, bad mom, and then discuss how she read her son Shakespeare and classic poems and I have to laugh.

BBM

Responding to the bolded. Are you implying Dina Romano doesn't/didn't know the proper procedure to get Maxie's case reopened? How could she not know? Seriously. She had surrounded herself with professional people, one being a lawyer. How could she not know?

I was dubious of her stated 'plan' to get Maxie's case reopened once she began the rounds in the media. It became blatantly apparent the true nature of her intent was to target, slander, threaten and intimidate XZ and her family. Certainly not to reopen her son's case. One has to follow the chain of command. She didn't do that.

JMO

 

[kittychi]

I voted that the case will be settled. I also believe that even though JS was not named in the civil suit, he has numerous reasons to influence the case settlement and thus will interject himself no different than the influence he has peddled for over two years now. He is powerful and that, my friends, is why we have the many injustices seen - starting with Rebecca's naked body on display for over 13 hours. That was BTW the biggest mistake in all of this as it set the tone of what was to come. Big mistake that was unrecoverable.

Having said that, however, I firmly believe the Zahau family is driven by justice. The reality is that they simply do not have the resources to fight this giant which is the continuing theme of Rebecca's sad death.

BBM1: Excellent post, justice be served. I could not agree with you more.

BBM2: IMO, leaving RZ's body was not a mistake. Too bad they cannot be named in the lawsuit as "contaminating the crime scene" or at least "compromising" the scene by omission or reckless incompetence.

BBM3: RZ's family has demonstrated this again and again. And no, they do not have the resources. It may be tempting to them to help JS "make this all go away" and IMO, a settlement offer from JS could come in the form of a legally set up "trust" of some kind and not even have JS's name attached to it. But I do think they will hold out for justice.

However, they know as well as we do that money doesn't only play an overt role here, IMO. The power in who you know, favors granted and returned, patting of each other's backs, promises of future appointments or political contributions, are modus operandi of the powerful to get what they want, not traceable to a specific event. IMO, the players in this story are all in that club: PP, the sheriff, the AG, JS and probably many more.

IMO: Bottom line, even if Mary and family hold out for justice, they still may not get it because of the system of the powerful.