Estate of Rebecca Zahau et al v. Shacknai et al

[kittychi]

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

BBM: Pre-emptive strike? :sick:

 

[*Lash*]

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.

Hi Katydid23!

I agree with something's you have stated. It upsets me at times, too. I'm curious, does it bother you when you read posts slandering Rebecca and her minor sister? Rebecca's surviving family have been characterized as gold diggers. Does it trigger the same emotion? TIA

 

[DeDee]

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:

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 – 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!

It is doubtful money exchanges hands between the 2 families or depositions ever taken. Due to alibis, the judge, most likely, will throw out the lawsuit unless he believes Nina could have killed RZ, with or without the assistance of AS.

It is doubtful that the defendants are shaken by the Zahau lawsuit. It may be inconvenient but they are not fearful of revealing their version of the truth. While it is correct that an attorney will accept a case pro bono, that does not mean he/she will spend their own resources limitlessly. Experts cost money. Depositions cost money. Etc. The estate raised less than $6000.

There is little reason for suing a poor 15yo child. The child's rights are most likely protected due to her tender age at the time and likely non-prosecutorial.

Sheriff Gore made it clear there is more to RZs suicide investigation that the SDSO would not release due to the sensitive nature to the victim. Dina made an on-camera remark that she discovered information, while investigating Maxie's death, that she could not discuss publically yet.

Introducing children to Shakespeare is part of the Common Core so I hardly doubt reading his works passes as theatrical. Conversely, Rebecca's exotic and highly dramatic histrionic suicide effectively took all eyes away from Maxie's death.

There is no star. Only Max, the victim. And Rebecca who thought life could turn out like it does in the movies.

 

[bourne]

It is doubtful money exchanges hands between the 2 families or depositions ever taken. Due to alibis, the judge, most likely, will throw out the lawsuit unless he believes Nina could have killed RZ, with or without the assistance of AS.

It is doubtful that the defendants are shaken by the Zahau lawsuit. It may be inconvenient but they are not fearful of revealing their version of the truth. While it is correct that an attorney will accept a case pro bono, that does not mean he/she will spend their own resources limitlessly. Experts cost money. Depositions cost money. Etc. The estate raised less than $6000.

There is little reason for suing a poor 15yo child. The child's rights are most likely protected due to her tender age at the time and likely non-prosecutorial.

Sheriff Gore made it clear there is more to RZs suicide investigation that the SDSO would not release due to the sensitive nature to the victim. Dina made an on-camera remark that she discovered information, while investigating Maxie's death, that she could not discuss publically yet.

Introducing children to Shakespeare is part of the Common Core so I hardly doubt reading his works passes as theatrical. Conversely, Rebecca's exotic and highly dramatic histrionic suicide effectively took all eyes away from Maxie's death.

There is no star. Only Max, the victim. And Rebecca who thought life could turn out like it does in the movies.

Dina was the one who accused Rebecca and her teen sister XZ on live tv and the media of "assaulting and causing the homicide" of her "one and only child Maxie". I did NOT put that in her mouth. So for her to go through 2-years of this public sham and not bring forth a wrongful death suit against Rebecca's estate (as she had threatened to do) makes her disingenuous at best, and slanderously evil at worst.

No. Dina doesn't have to sue a poor child XZ. But she can sue the *estate of Rebecca*. After all, isn't it the *truth and justice for Max* she wanted, and not money? But as I've said many moons ago prior to the 2-year statute of limitations, Dina is too much of a *coward* to sue the Zahaus because she knows all the lies she's put forth to condemn and persecute Rebecca and XZ and the Zahaus are simply that: LIES, and that what instead would be disclosed had she chosen to litigate would be FACTS and MORE EVIDENCE implicating Dina in the crime of murder.

I'm also NOT the one who called the deaths a "show" nor did I start calling anyone a "star" until LoveAlways used those labels to describe key players in the Zahau case. So don't put that on me. And when I spoke about how Dina was into "drama", "theatrics" and "embellishments", I'm referring to EVERYTHING she's done throughout her life, including throwing herself on top of Jonah's moving car, crying out for him not to leave her, using props and building an elaborate stage for Max and other people to perform on, creating and holding a "screening" dramatizing Max's life, calling herself a "scientist" and "statuesque" and claiming to read all sorts of mature, sophisticated poetry to Max, clearly exaggerating to make herself sound like a mother of the year renaissance goddess in the "Boy, Interrupted" article, falsely claiming that Rebecca and XZ "torpedoed" Max to his death, etc, etc, etc. Yes, all these actions of Dina are what I call *dramatic embellishments* and *theatrics*.

I strenuously disagree that there was only one victim. There were TWO: Rebecca, a murdered victim, and Max, an accident victim. RIP to both.

 

[time]

Dina was the one who accused Rebecca and her teen sister XZ on live tv and the media of "assaulting and causing the homicide" of her "one and only child Maxie". I did NOT put that in her mouth. So for her to go through 2-years of this public sham and not bring forth a wrongful death suit against Rebecca's estate (as she had threatened to do) makes her disingenuous at best, and slanderously evil at worst.
.

Uh, yeah.... she claimed Max was murdered. Why would it be about money anyway if what she really wanted was the truth?

 

[inthedark14]

Hi DeDee..please see my responses below in p-i-n-k and please do tell me what you think. TIA

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeDee View Post

It is doubtful money exchanges hands between the 2 families or depositions ever taken. Due to alibis, the judge, most likely, will throw out the lawsuit unless he believes Nina could have killed RZ, with or without the assistance of AS.

So why do you think the Z family is asking for a jury trial and not a bench judgment? Regarding alibis, DS doesn't have one other than phone triangulation and a visual witness placed her (not her smaller, blonder sister) at the house the night RZ was murdered, NS has stated, she was there, but she "didn't touch the gate", I do wonder what else she did touch. AS, well, that is a big ole' can of worms. There may be such a thing as the Ambien defense, but I doubt it involves such elaborate means.


It is doubtful that the defendants are shaken by the Zahau lawsuit. It may be inconvenient but they are not fearful of revealing their version of the truth. While it is correct that an attorney will accept a case pro bono, that does not mean he/she will spend their own resources limitlessly. Experts cost money. Depositions cost money. Etc. The estate raised less than $6000.[/quote]



It is true that the internet campaign only raised that much money, did you also know that donations could be accepted anonymously, not on a website?



There is little reason for suing a poor 15yo child. The child's rights are most likely protected due to her tender age at the time and likely non-prosecutorial.

There are cases we see every day (sadly) on WS where children younger than XZ are prosecuted for their crimes. If DS had anything on the young girl, she would have taken action. XZ is a victim of DS and I wholeheartedly hope that her family has taken measures to protect her from someone who would publicly accuse and threaten her.


Sheriff Gore made it clear there is more to RZs suicide investigation that the SDSO would not release due to the sensitive nature to the victim. Dina made an on-camera remark that she discovered information, while investigating Maxie's death, that she could not discuss publically yet.

Could you please link this off camera remark? I'm sure it would be very telling. Also, Gore threatened RZ's family and their attorney with flagrantly making public any and all information regarding the case. I do wonder what would be made of the private conversations and lives of DS, NR and AS.


Introducing children to Shakespeare is part of the Common Core so I hardly doubt reading his works passes as theatrical. Conversely, Rebecca's exotic and highly dramatic histrionic suicide effectively took all eyes away from Maxie's death.

Poor MS was not dead when RZ died. That is a FACT. Statements such as what you have posted above are dramatic and histrionic, not to mention very misleading

There is no star. Only Max, the victim. And Rebecca who thought life could turn out like it does in the movies.

Another slandering statement. Yes MS was a victim, the world should have never lost this little boy. I'm still on the fence about what happened to that poor baby boy, but RZ is also a victim. Quite possibly a victim of MS's fate...because his family had to blame someone.

TIA for your response and ALWAYS MOO

 

[kittychi]

I just saw this post on Coronado Patch:

Salem September 09, 2013 at 09:45 PM
Justice for Rebecca coming soon! I heard that the Judge wants the trial to go proceed! WOOHOO!!!!!!

http://coronado.patch.com/groups/br...knai-family-members?ncid=newsltuspatc00000010

 

[LoveAlways7]

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!!

http://www.760kfmb.com/story/161948...-case-file-may-be-opened?clienttype=printable

""I believe there's an implied threat in the letter that they would release information hurtful to the victim and her family," said Rudoy. "It has chilled our willingness to release relevant information to the media that would help the public determine what happened in this case.""

In my extremely humbler than humble opinion... if there was no "hurtful" information, there would be nothing to be "chilled" about.

 

[DeDee]

Hi DeDee..please see my responses below in p-i-n-k and please do tell me what you think. TIA

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeDee View Post

It is doubtful money exchanges hands between the 2 families or depositions ever taken. Due to alibis, the judge, most likely, will throw out the lawsuit unless he believes Nina could have killed RZ, with or without the assistance of AS.

So why do you think the Z family is asking for a jury trial and not a bench judgment? Regarding alibis, DS doesn't have one other than phone triangulation and a visual witness placed her (not her smaller, blonder sister) at the house the night RZ was murdered, NS has stated, she was there, but she "didn't touch the gate", I do wonder what else she did touch. AS, well, that is a big ole' can of worms. There may be such a thing as the Ambien defense, but I doubt it involves such elaborate means.


It is doubtful that the defendants are shaken by the Zahau lawsuit. It may be inconvenient but they are not fearful of revealing their version of the truth. While it is correct that an attorney will accept a case pro bono, that does not mean he/she will spend their own resources limitlessly. Experts cost money. Depositions cost money. Etc. The estate raised less than $6000.

It is true that the internet campaign only raised that much money, did you also know that donations could be accepted anonymously, not on a website?

There is little reason for suing a poor 15yo child. The child's rights are most likely protected due to her tender age at the time and likely non-prosecutorial.

There are cases we see every day (sadly) on WS where children younger than XZ are prosecuted for their crimes. If DS had anything on the young girl, she would have taken action. XZ is a victim of DS and I wholeheartedly hope that her family has taken measures to protect her from someone who would publicly accuse and threaten her.

Sheriff Gore made it clear there is more to RZs suicide investigation that the SDSO would not release due to the sensitive nature to the victim. Dina made an on-camera remark that she discovered information, while investigating Maxie's death, that she could not discuss publically yet.

Could you please link this off camera remark? I'm sure it would be very telling. Also, Gore threatened RZ's family and their attorney with flagrantly making public any and all information regarding the case. I do wonder what would be made of the private conversations and lives of DS, NR and AS.

Introducing children to Shakespeare is part of the Common Core so I hardly doubt reading his works passes as theatrical. Conversely, Rebecca's exotic and highly dramatic histrionic suicide effectively took all eyes away from Maxie's death.

Poor MS was not dead when RZ died. That is a FACT. Statements such as what you have posted above are dramatic and histrionic, not to mention very misleading

There is no star. Only Max, the victim. And Rebecca who thought life could turn out like it does in the movies.

Another slandering statement. Yes MS was a victim, the world should have never lost this little boy. I'm still on the fence about what happened to that poor baby boy, but RZ is also a victim. Quite possibly a victim of MS's fate...because his family had to blame someone.

TIA for your response and ALWAYS MOO

Oops! Misquoted again!

Me:
"Sheriff Gore made it clear there is more to RZs suicide investigation that the SDSO would not release due to the sensitive nature to the victim. Dina made an on-camera remark that she discovered information, while investigating Maxie's death, that she could not discuss publically yet."

inthedark:
Could you please link this off camera remark? I'm sure it would be very telling. Also, Gore threatened RZ's family and their attorney with flagrantly making public any and all information regarding the case. I do wonder what would be made of the private conversations and lives of DS, NR and AS.

There is a search planned for that particular video with Dina's on-camera remarks especially since there was other information revealed that I just remembered.

When the Zahau's released part of the case file and when they attempted to shade it in a negative fashion contrary to the LE findings, Sheriff Gore threatened to release all of the file, thereby, providing information that he deemed harmful to Rebecca.

While I can't pretend to read the collective minds of the Zahaus, the Zs are requesting $10 million in the suit which one can assume means they feel the chances of a large settlement will be granted by a group of folks opposed to a single judge.

The Zahau fundraising video has been viewed. Monetary funds could come pouring in from any number of places via "the internet campaign". If they win any settlement, it will be divided into whatever pre-determined percentage agreed upon with their attorneys with the defendants footing the bill for court costs and legal fees.

Me:
"Introducing children to Shakespeare is part of the Common Core so I hardly doubt reading his works passes as theatrical. Conversely, Rebecca's exotic and highly dramatic histrionic suicide effectively took all eyes away from Maxie's death."

inthedark:
"Poor MS was not dead when RZ died. That is a FACT. Statements such as what you have posted above are dramatic and histrionic, not to mention very misleading."

You are indicating both of the quoted statements are dramatic and histrionic, not to mention very misleading? Could you be more specific? For instance, how is it misleading to state that the highly unusual suicide effectively took all eyes away from Maxie's death?

Me:
There is no star. Only Max, the victim. And Rebecca who thought life could turn out like it does in the movies.

"Another slandering statement."

J/K, right? What could possibly be slanderous in those three statements?



The older comments on both of the following sites, including viewing links deemed trustworthy, is quite the interesting read.

http://rebeccazahau.blogspot.com/

http://coronado.patch.com/groups/po...nds-agency-s-probe-of-spreckels-mansion-death

My humble opinions only

 

[time]

H
Introducing children to Shakespeare is part of the Common Core so I hardly doubt reading his works passes as theatrical. Conversely, Rebecca's exotic and highly dramatic histrionic suicide effectively took all eyes away from Maxie's death.

TIA for your response and ALWAYS MOO

Interesting. Can you link to the Common Core in Grade 1 about learning Shakespeare?

 

[bourne]

Uh, yeah.... she claimed Max was murdered. Why would it be about money anyway if what she really wanted was the truth?

Precisely! If Dina cared about truth and justice for Max, WHY did she not pursue any proper legal actions through appropriate legal channels? Why did she not ask the CA AG to reopen Max's case? Why did she not file a wrongful death suit against Rebecca's estate? (Yes, you can sue the estate of a dead person to get justice and remuneration).

Why instead did Dina simply go to a Town Hall meeting and ask people with absolutely NO AUTHORITY to reopen cases to do so? Why did she commission two experts to write a report concluding that Max was assaulted and his death a homicide, and then go on national tv and other media to broadcast her so-called "expert" opinion, falsely claiming or at the very least, exaggerating and embellishing her professional credentials asserting that she's a "scientist" when IIRC, all she has is an unlicensed PsyD degree for which she has never had any clients and to date, she's only published one single, solitary paper and that paper was a mandatory school requirement for her PsyD, and that "science doesn't lie", and that she "had proof that Max's death was a homicide" by the "only two people who were present in the house that day, namely, Rebecca and her younger sister XZ" and that "one or both of these people caused the homicide of Max".

I call her whole publicity tour to supposedly advocate justice for Max an utterly disgraceful SHAM. Otherwise, she'd have filed the WDS against the Zahau estate. IMO, Dina's claims of holding credentials as a scientist and practicing clinical psychologist are BOGUS and so was her advocacy for justice on behalf of Max.

 

[bourne]

Interesting. Can you link to the Common Core in Grade 1 about learning Shakespeare?

Clearly like Dina, someone's exaggerating. My children attend very progressive elementary schools and they don't even touch Shakespeare until at least the third or fourth grade.

Quoting "to be or not to be" is not the same as READING and COMPREHENDING or STUDYING Shakespeare. :floorlaugh:

 

[K_Z]

I think it’s wonderful when any loving parent takes an interest in their child’s education, and especially when a parent reads with their child. No one can deny that reading with a child is a good thing, and to be encouraged.

The bigger issue, IMO, that is bugging some folks is the concept of “competitive parenting”. Parents have always bragged about their child’s accomplishments, and expressed pride and wonder in what their child can accomplish. And children thrive when the adults who love them recognize their efforts— especially when the child’s sincere efforts sometimes do not lead to instant success. That goes beyond the boisterous and ubiquitous, but empty “good job!” praise that seems to be so popular, as well as “helicopter parenting”. This is pretty much a phenomenon of middle and upper class parenting styles. There is a great book out recently (well, 2009!) that examines this phenomenon and the effect on kids as they grow:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/NurtureShock-New-Thinking-About-Children/dp/0446504130/ref=sr_1_1/177-3547354-1357517?ie=UTF8&qid=1378856907&sr=8-1&keywords=nurture+shock"]NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children: Po Bronson, Ashley Merryman: 9780446504133: Amazon.com: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41lutuWcGML.@@AMEPARAM@@41lutuWcGML[/ame]

So, IMO, the reason all of this “Shakespeare” talk bugs some folks, is that it is more an indication of competitive parenting that reflects on the efforts of the parent, rather than the accomplishments of the child. And it bugs folks even more, because Dina has held herself out as a child psychologist, who should know better. IMO.

Dina, in her upper socioeconomic group, appears to have been very vulnerable to competitive parenting, and never seems to miss an opportunity to show how her parenting and the opportunities she provided for her child made Max “more” special than other kids. It's not about Max, the child-- it's about Dina, the parent, KWIM?

That’s why the Shakespeare stuff and Rebecca’s healthy cooking comes up over and over. Dina apparently seems to feel that Rebecca was attempting to “one up” her by preparing healthy meals for Max—that came thru to me loud and clear in the first Phoenix Magazine article. Dina even bragged that Max was the “youngest” child ever to be on the NY Stock Exchange floor in one of her writings on her websites (I’m not going to link that here, FWIW). Now, that’s fun trivia, but that bit of information is really much more about showcasing the socioeconomic opportunities of the parents, than the child, KWIM? The child is just along for the ride, and hasn’t really accomplished anything. But it does demonstrate that the parents took the child with them to lots of places, so it reinforces the image of involved, loving parent.

Part of Dina’s whole “food nazi” criticism of Rebecca is this concept of competitive parenting, IMO. It’s a way for Dina to engage in tit- for- tat retribution, and “one up” Rebecca. Rebecca was a threat to Dina (IMO) because sometimes Rebecca was another mother figure for Max, and that infuriates Dina (to this day). That’s not uncommon in a lot of divorce situations, and sadly, it seems to be the case here. I mean, who in their right mind would criticize anyone who took time to prepare healthy meals for their child?? Boggles the mind.

The really sad thing about kids caught up in competitive parenting is that the child can evolve to mirror the parent, and the parent’s secondary gain becomes the goal of the parent-child relationship. Kids as little pawns and trophies. I’m not saying that this is completely what happened here, but it appears to be part of the story. IMO.

Another example: Jonah chose to make his memorial foundation focused on something Max loved, that was a big part of Max's life. Dina chose to start a "memorial" non profit based on her false narrative that "if only" she had been able to more easily and efficiently stalk the new partner of her ex, Max would be alive. Maxie's House is all about Dina the parent, and her "needs", and not at all about Max or his safety, IMO. Maxie's House was never about Max at all, IMO. Sadly.

I want to make it clear that I'm not criticizing the Shakespeare reading, or candy drawer, or the indoor stage, or NYSE floor trip-- what I'm criticizing is the exaggerations and bragging about these as evidence of "good parenting", and then using healthy food preparation as evidence of Rebecca's "bad parenting", lol! No one ever questioned that Dina loved Max or was an attentive parent when she had her custody time. It was only when Dina began to TALK ABOUT how she interpreted her role as a parent that folks began to scratch their heads. A great example of how she is her own worst enemy, and has squandered the public sympathy that she had from the beginning. IMO.

 

[bourne]

I think it’s wonderful when any loving parent takes an interest in their child’s education, and especially when a parent reads with their child. No one can deny that reading with a child is a good thing, and to be encouraged.

The bigger issue, IMO, that is bugging some folks is the concept of “competitive parenting”. Parents have always bragged about their child’s accomplishments, and expressed pride and wonder in what their child can accomplish. And children thrive when the adults who love them recognize their efforts— especially when the child’s sincere efforts sometimes do not lead to instant success. That goes beyond the boisterous and ubiquitous, but empty “good job!” praise that seems to be so popular, as well as “helicopter parenting”. This is pretty much a phenomenon of middle and upper class parenting styles. There is a great book out recently (well, 2009!) that examines this phenomenon and the effect on kids as they grow:

NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children: Po Bronson, Ashley Merryman: 9780446504133: Amazon.com: Books

So, IMO, the reason all of this “Shakespeare” talk bugs some folks, is that it is more an indication of competitive parenting that reflects on the efforts of the parent, rather than the accomplishments of the child. And it bugs folks even more, because Dina has held herself out as a child psychologist, who should know better. IMO.

Dina, in her upper socioeconomic group, appears to have been very vulnerable to competitive parenting, and never seems to miss an opportunity to show how her parenting and the opportunities she provided for her child made Max “more” special than other kids. It's not about Max, the child-- it's about Dina, the parent, KWIM?

That’s why the Shakespeare stuff and Rebecca’s healthy cooking comes up over and over. Dina apparently seems to feel that Rebecca was attempting to “one up” her by preparing healthy meals for Max—that came thru to me loud and clear in the first Phoenix Magazine article. Dina even bragged that Max was the “youngest” child ever to be on the NY Stock Exchange floor in one of her writings on her websites (I’m not going to link that here, FWIW). Now, that’s fun trivia, but that bit of information is really much more about showcasing the socioeconomic opportunities of the parents, than the child, KWIM? The child is just along for the ride, and hasn’t really accomplished anything. But it does demonstrate that the parents took the child with them to lots of places, so it reinforces the image of involved, loving parent.

Part of Dina’s whole “food nazi” criticism of Rebecca is this concept of competitive parenting, IMO. It’s a way for Dina to engage in tit- for- tat retribution, and “one up” Rebecca. Rebecca was a threat to Dina (IMO) because sometimes Rebecca was another mother figure for Max, and that infuriates Dina (to this day). That’s not uncommon in a lot of divorce situations, and sadly, it seems to be the case here. I mean, who in their right mind would criticize anyone who took time to prepare healthy meals for their child?? Boggles the mind.

The really sad thing about kids caught up in competitive parenting is that the child can evolve to mirror the parent, and the parent’s secondary gain becomes the goal of the parent-child relationship. Kids as little pawns and trophies. I’m not saying that this is completely what happened here, but it appears to be part of the story. IMO.

Another example: Jonah chose to make his memorial foundation focused on something Max loved, that was a big part of Max's life. Dina chose to start a "memorial" non profit based on her false narrative that "if only" she had been able to more easily and efficiently stalk the new partner of her ex, Max would be alive. Maxie's House is all about Dina the parent, and her "needs", and not at all about Max or his safety, IMO. Maxie's House was never about Max at all, IMO. Sadly.

I want to make it clear that I'm not criticizing the Shakespeare reading, or candy drawer, or the indoor stage, or NYSE floor trip-- what I'm criticizing is the exaggerations and bragging about these as evidence of "good parenting", and then using healthy food preparation as evidence of Rebecca's "bad parenting", lol! No one ever questioned that Dina loved Max or was an attentive parent when she had her custody time. It was only when Dina began to TALK ABOUT how she interpreted her role as a parent that folks began to scratch their heads. A great example of how she is her own worst enemy, and has squandered the public sympathy that she had from the beginning. IMO.

Actually I don't find anything wrong with a parent reading and explaining sophisticated classic literature (as long as it's not pornographic) to their kids because as a parent, you want to open the minds of your kids to the world and promote their curiosity and wonder about learning new things.

It was another poster's absurd assertion that Shakespeare is part of a first grade educational curriculum that drew my attention and criticism.

Also, I do question whether Dina genuinely loved Max because if she did and she had all these complaints about Rebecca "parenting" him, why did she not hire a full-time nanny (not Rebecca) to care for him? Additionally, if she truly believes that Max was *assaulted and a victim of homicide by one or both of two people in the Spreckels mansion that fateful Monday in 7/11/2013*, why did she not pursue a wrongful death suit against those she deemed as his murderers? Anyway you slice and dice this, it appears to me that Dina used Max as a *pawn* in her game against Jonah and Rebecca (and the Zahaus) in order to gain self-serving financial and social benefits for herself and her big narcissistic ego.

 

[DeDee]

Actually I don't find anything wrong with a parent reading and explaining sophisticated classic literature (as long as it's not pornographic) to their kids because as a parent, you want to open the minds of your kids to the world and promote their curiosity and wonder about learning new things.

It was another poster's absurd assertion that Shakespeare is part of a first grade educational curriculum that drew my attention and criticism.

Also, I do question whether Dina genuinely loved Max because if she did and she had all these complaints about Rebecca "parenting" him, why did she not hire a full-time nanny (not Rebecca) to care for him? Additionally, if she truly believes that Max was *assaulted and a victim of homicide by one or both of two people in the Spreckels mansion that fateful Monday in 7/11/2013*, why did she not pursue a wrongful death suit against those she deemed as his murderers? Anyway you slice and dice this, it appears to me that Dina used Max as a *pawn* in her game against Jonah and Rebecca (and the Zahaus) in order to gain self-serving financial and social benefits for herself and her big narcissistic ego.

Interesting. Can you link to the Common Core in Grade 1 about learning Shakespeare?

My original quote has already been altered by bourne and time:

Introducing children to Shakespeare is part of the Common Core so I hardly doubt reading his works passes as theatrical. Conversely, Rebecca's exotic and highly dramatic histrionic suicide effectively took all eyes away from Maxie's death.

"The standards mandate certain critical types of content for all students, including classic myths and stories from around the world, foundational U.S. documents, seminal works of American literature, and the writings of Shakespeare."

http://www.corestandards.org/resources/key-points-in-english-language-arts

 

[inthedark14]

Hi DeDee, is this where the Core Standards is coming from? I'm just trying to make sure everyone can understand what the principals are without clicking unknown links.

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RL/1

English Language Arts Standards » Reading: Literature » Grade 1

Standards in this strand:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.1CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.2CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.3CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.4CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.5CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.6CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.7CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.9CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.10
Key Ideas and Details

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.1 Ask and answer questions about key details in a text.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.2 Retell stories, including key details, and demonstrate understanding of their central message or lesson.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.3 Describe characters, settings, and major events in a story, using key details.
Craft and Structure

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.4 Identify words and phrases in stories or poems that suggest feelings or appeal to the senses.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.5 Explain major differences between books that tell stories and books that give information, drawing on a wide reading of a range of text types.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.6 Identify who is telling the story at various points in a text.
Integration of Knowledge and Ideas

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.7 Use illustrations and details in a story to describe its characters, setting, or events.
(RL.1.8 not applicable to literature)
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.9 Compare and contrast the adventures and experiences of characters in stories.
Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.10 With prompting and support, read prose and poetry of appropriate complexity for grade 1.

 

[bourne]

My original quote has already been altered by bourne and time:




"The standards mandate certain critical types of content for all students, including classic myths and stories from around the world, foundational U.S. documents, seminal works of American literature, and the writings of Shakespeare."

http://www.corestandards.org/resources/key-points-in-english-language-arts

:floorlaugh: Nobody distorted your post. You brought out that implication yourself with your far-fetched statements. You stated that Shakespeare is part of Core Curriculum as an answer to why Dina was reading sophisticated literature to her 6-y.o. (presumably 1st grade) son Max. Do you know how logic works?

Here's a link to help you out:
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_reasoning"]Logical reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[Inparadise]

Hi DeDee, is this where the Core Standards is coming from? I'm just trying to make sure everyone can understand what the principals are without clicking unknown links.

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RL/1

English Language Arts Standards » Reading: Literature » Grade 1

Standards in this strand:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.1CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.2CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.3CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.4CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.5CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.6CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.7CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.9CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.10
Key Ideas and Details

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.1 Ask and answer questions about key details in a text.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.2 Retell stories, including key details, and demonstrate understanding of their central message or lesson.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.3 Describe characters, settings, and major events in a story, using key details.
Craft and Structure

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.4 Identify words and phrases in stories or poems that suggest feelings or appeal to the senses.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.5 Explain major differences between books that tell stories and books that give information, drawing on a wide reading of a range of text types.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.6 Identify who is telling the story at various points in a text.
Integration of Knowledge and Ideas

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.7 Use illustrations and details in a story to describe its characters, setting, or events.
(RL.1.8 not applicable to literature)
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.9 Compare and contrast the adventures and experiences of characters in stories.
Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.1.10 With prompting and support, read prose and poetry of appropriate complexity for grade 1.

I seriously doubt that Shakespeare is part of the "Common Core" for first graders at Phoenix Country Day School..... IMO, Dina thought of max as her "show pony" by pretending that he was so interested in/gifted in fine arts in order to make up for her short comings.

 

[*Lash*]

I personally believe Rebecca was murdered and the murderers continue to torture Rebecca to this very day. Rebecca is attacked for her choice of eye shadow, her cosmetic surgery, shoplifting, wearing a bikini while riding a bike, the food she fed Max and even accused of murdering Max. Rebecca's family has been ridiculed and mocked. XZ has been accused of murder, Mary accused of being a gold digger. Rebecca's torturing continues even after death. Why are these things so important? In my opinion, the murderer continues to attack Rebecca because they want others to loath Rebecca as much as they did. I tend to believe the murderer is also trying to convince themselves and others that Rebecca got what she deserved. I also believe the verbal attacks are an attempt to intimidate the Zahau family. The murderer is an unhinged person. In my opinion, the attacks will never stop unless justice prevails. They will forever continue unless proven wrong. This is the very reason I pray the Zahau family does not accept a settlement. Money will not bring Rebecca back, but justice will allow her legacy to rest in peace.

Justice for Rebecca!

 

[K_Z]

I agree, Lash.

And when the Zahaus prevail and win their case, I sincerely hope that part of the judgement is a "forever" gag order on the defendants from ever speaking publicly about Rebecca in the future. No more media junkets, TV interviews, or print interviews accusing her ever again. That would be some measure of justice, IMO. A permanent "STFU" order about Rebecca, with penalties for violating it.

IMO, Dina appears to understand these kinds of court orders, at least where her money is concerned. She very carefully avoids ever mentioning Jonah. Jonah was very shrewd to make that part of the divorce settlement, IMO.