Rebecca Zahau Wrongful Death/ADAM SHACKNAI FOUND RESPONSIBLE #5

[Lezah]

Just my guess but I think the shock and awe is because the Judge required the Plaintiff to keep the doll covered totally with only hands and ankles displayed when used for demonstrative purposes during trial. It was not entered as an exhibit and then the Plaintiff exposed it's life-like nudity for 'shock and awe' during closing arguments in what appeared to be an attempt at re-creation. I know closing arguments can't be considered as evidence by the jury. It's possible the closing arguments of attorneys are covered under completely separate "rules" of the court. We will have to see how it comes out on appeal.

Further to my previous post, here are additional comments from the appellant courts ruling regarding considerations on the use of a ‘demonstrative‘ and your comments regarding how the appellant court may consider and ‘see how it comes out on appeal’

( it is important to note that the judge gave several very clear and concise instructions to the jury as how the demonstrative could be and should be interpreted, and the court transcript will reflect this fact, and no doubt be a factoring consideration of the appellant court should this be proposed by the defense)

“...As noted the trial court viewed Exhibit No. 4 before it was shown to the jury, and because of the superior vantage point occupied by the trial court for balancing the probative value and prejudicial effect of demonstrative evidence of this type, it necessarily is vested with a broad discretion in admitting or rejecting such evidence. State v. Love, supra at p. 452.

Demonstrative evidence which tends to establish any fact in issue or throw light on the controversy and aid the jury in any way in arriving at a correct verdict is admissible within this rule, and if it accurately portrays the event or circumstances sought to be shown, it should not be rejected because by presenting an accurate portrayal it tends to be inflammatory. State v. Swenson, 551 S.W.2d 917, 921 (Mo.App.1977).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Lezah]

I am picturing the team of 9 attorneys doing a post mortem wrap up of the case and coming to the conclusion that a Powerpoint for a wrongful death defense wasn’t a very peachy idea.

Yes...I mentioned in an earlier post that their clients must be abandoning ship faster than a toupee in a hurricane...

I wonder if Dr Lucas was doing the post Mortem wrap up...?

I’m saying nothing more....!


Just my opinion....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Lezah]

Not sure what cost has to do with it & why Greer would need to deny the cost of a completely lifelike mannequin made to order. I think we all would assume that's not cheap. So...???

You are completely on point here IMO. In several cases I have read, on appeal there are numerous cases where lifelike and realistic mannequins are used as demonstratives ( particularly in car crash and industrial injury cases) where they were claimed by the defense to be prejudicial and it was rejected by the appellant court as an invalid argument ( for the reasons I have already cited)

 

[Lezah]

Regarding the mannequin (aka "sex doll") used as a demonstrative aid in court, I'd like to point out that using a cost effective Resusi Anne (with no arms or legs) "could" have been used....by Mr. Webb.......to demonstrate exactly "how" it is that Mr. Adam Shacknai cut down the hanging and bound victim, while standing on a 3 legged table, and attempting to administer CPR while on the phone with 911.

Except it would have been pretty hard for Mr. Webb to re-construct a demonstration of Adam Shacknai performing CPR on a mannequin with NO arms, since the actual arms of the actual victim were unquestionably bound up in a red ski rope and nautical knots. And the ankles, too.

So, Mr. Greer chose to research the options to demonstrate the position of the body, with arms and legs, bound and hanging. And the standard cheap Resusci Anne(without arms and legs) would not have been a very effective demonstrative aid, no? The victim had arms and legs, both bound.

BUT-- Mr. Greer (Or Mr. Webb) could have spent thenecessary $$ for an ADVANCED version of Resusci Anne WITH arms (and legs!) costing an average of $7100-8500.

https://www.schoolhealth.com/resusc...0jQrIQUlzo2o4MSGbTFYAVx5DxoEt5bYaAjauEALw_wcB

So, the custom built court demonstrative aid, quoted at $8000, is unquestionably well within the ACTUAL cost of a far inferior product for this particular demonstration, IMO.

I hope that if it comes to that in appeals, Mr. Greer will bring up that salient point.

The mannequin was a highly effective demonstrative aid in court, and not at all, IMO, over priced for what it had-- arms AND legs. Just like the victim.

Perhaps Mr Webb could have created a mannequin of Adam Shacknai for demonstration purposes, but they couldn't find a factory to create a ‘three armed’ version....

Just my opinion...

 

[Lezah]

I'm surprised you are surprised that TOS requires links when stating facts such as what a verified attorney on WS posted about Jonah's letter to the AG.

To preserve the integrity of the factual information contained herein, Websleuths does not participate in rumor mongering. When claiming something as a “fact,” you must prove it. Be able to provide links to information from approved third party sources; for instance, mainstream media (MSM), law enforcement (LE), and admin-verified case insiders.


https://www.websleuths.com/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

It substantially weakens an argument when there is a mischaracterization regarding the content and substance of the original post.


Just my opinion....

 

[MyBelle]

I think it would have been a very effective presentation for Mr. Webb to have used a demonstrative aid, such as a mannequin, to demonstrate how Adam Shacknai cut down a hanging victim, who was bound hand and feet, and gagged, using a kitchen knife, while standing on a 3 legged table, and using a cell phone.

I think the jury would have really been interested in seeing exactly how Adam Shacknai did each of those tasks.

Mr. Webb chose not to use any demonstrative aids related to the hanging. Mr. Greer did. They each had the opportunity to present their case in court, with consent of the judge, the way they wanted to present it, for the benefit of their clients.

I personally don't feel bad at all for Mr. Webb, or for AS-- he had a highly professional, extremely expensive defense team of 9 attorneys, plus numerous " assistant minions". He had more than "adequate" representation.

I'll continue to be baffled why Mr. Webb was supposed to demonstrate anything at all. This was a wrongful death lawsuit, not a criminal trial and his client was the defendant and the burden of proof rested totally on the plaintiff. That said, Mr. Greer also was not present and yet the Judge allowed a salacious re-creation in his closing. I'll continue to question if that really is allowed and we'll just have to wait and see if the appellate court agrees with Mr. Webb. Unless, the Judge intervenes before then, of course.

 

[Lezah]

Additional appellant court ruling regarding the appropriate use of a mannequin as a demonstrative.

(This was was used in the jury room(!)

“Defendant contends the court erred in permitting the prosecutor to use a life-size mannequin, with a wooden probe sticking through it, to represent the trajectory of the bullet that killed Craig Martin.

The mannequin, along with most of the other exhibits, was present in the jury room during deliberations during both the guilt and penalty phases of trial.

In defendant's view, the mannequin both lacked probative value and was "highly prejudicial."

We disagree.

The mannequin was used by the prosecutor to demonstrate the likelihood that Martin was in a kneeling position when shot, i.e., that he was executed. Thus, the mannequin was relevant to show defendant's intent to kill, as well as his identity as the same person who executed victims Ariza and Metal.

We have upheld similar use of mannequins in prior cases, including Medina I, supra, 51 Cal.3d at pages 898-899. (See also People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233, 1291 [18 Cal. Rptr.2d 796, 850 P.2d 1] ["Mannequins may be used as illustrative evidence to assist the jury in understanding the testimony of witnesses or to clarify the circumstances of a crime."]; People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 442-443 [250 Cal. Rptr. 604, 758 P.2d 1135].)

As for potential prejudice, we find no basis for concluding the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence and allowing its presence in the jury room. As we said in Medina I, supra, 51 Cal.3d at page 899, "[t]he trial court was in a far better position than we to assess the potential prejudice arising from the display of such physical evidence”

(Reference links are within the quote)

I have several other examples, but I think the two posted demonstrate the weakness of the defense argument regarding the potential appellant value re the demonstrative use of the mannequin.

*** in this case the mannequin is evidence as opposed to a demonstrative.***




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MyBelle]

It substantially weakens an argument when there is a mischaracterization regarding the content and substance of the original post.


Just my opinion....

I agree which is why I posted the direct link to the TOS about posting links. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[elfie]

A life-like mannequin wasn't needed during the trial when the knot-tying expert was on the stand displaying the knot-tying which he proclaimed were simple and a gorilla, spider or anybody could copy. (I paraphrase.) I can't answer why the Plaintiff decided $8,000 was needed just for closing arguments which can't be considered evidence. Perhaps an explanation will be provided after appeals are filed.

I have seen 3’“recreations” of the wrist lashing and knot but not a single example among them approached the elaborate knot that was used on RZ.

1. SDSO
2. Defense expert
3. ABC News investigation with retired NYPD detective

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/retired-nypd-detective-examines-womans-death-case-worth-53478931

None of these attempted recreations achieved a knot similar to the one found on Rebecca.

 

[MyBelle]

Additional appellant court ruling regarding the appropriate use of a mannequin as a demonstrative.

(This was was used in the jury room(!)

“Defendant contends the court erred in permitting the prosecutor to use a life-size mannequin, with a wooden probe sticking through it, to represent the trajectory of the bullet that killed Craig Martin.

The mannequin, along with most of the other exhibits, was present in the jury room during deliberations during both the guilt and penalty phases of trial.

In defendant's view, the mannequin both lacked probative value and was "highly prejudicial."

We disagree.

The mannequin was used by the prosecutor to demonstrate the likelihood that Martin was in a kneeling position when shot, i.e., that he was executed. Thus, the mannequin was relevant to show defendant's intent to kill, as well as his identity as the same person who executed victims Ariza and Metal.

We have upheld similar use of mannequins in prior cases, including Medina I, supra, 51 Cal.3d at pages 898-899. (See also People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233, 1291 [18 Cal. Rptr.2d 796, 850 P.2d 1] ["Mannequins may be used as illustrative evidence to assist the jury in understanding the testimony of witnesses or to clarify the circumstances of a crime."]; People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432, 442-443 [250 Cal. Rptr. 604, 758 P.2d 1135].)

As for potential prejudice, we find no basis for concluding the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence and allowing its presence in the jury room. As we said in Medina I, supra, 51 Cal.3d at page 899, "[t]he trial court was in a far better position than we to assess the potential prejudice arising from the display of such physical evidence”

(Reference links are within the quote)

I have several other examples, but I think the two posted demonstrate the weakness of the defense argument regarding the potential appellant value re the demonstrative use of the mannequin.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That case you cite seems to be about a mannequin entered into an exhibit. I really can't tell because you fail to post a link.

Was the mannequin entered as an evidence exhibit in the Shacknai trial? Was it present in the jury room during deliberations? If it was, I missed that.

 

[MyBelle]

I have seen 3’“recreations” of the wrist lashing and knot but not a single example among them approached the elaborate knot that was used on RZ.

1. SDSO
2. Defense expert
3. ABC News investigation with retired NYD detective

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/retired-nypd-detective-examines-womans-death-case-worth-53478931

None of these attempted recreations achieved a knot similar to the one found on Rebecca.

iirc, the Plaintiff's own witness referred to it as a knot commonly used for tying shoes. He even added that a gorilla and spiders could tie it.

Under cross-examination from Shacknai attorney Dan Webb, though, Philpott acknowledged that both knots are simple and widely used.

Describing the overhand knot — the kind used to tie shoelaces — Philpott noted, “Children can do it, gorillas can do it, birds can do it, people of all kinds can do it.”

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/sd-me-zahau-day5-story.html

 

[Seattle1]

BBM

Yes, a huge Freudian slip error IMO! Rebecca has been demeaned by everyone who insists she committed suicide, even by this well-respected attorney. There was absolutely no reason to refer to a realistic mannequin this way just because of the manufacturer, other than anger and sleaze. As I mentioned when discussing Webb’s press release earlier, equating this mannequin of Rebecca with a sex doll is indicative IMO of how Adam viewed her and used her.
JMO, MOO, etc

All references by Mr. Greer and the Court to the "silicone mannequin for trial demonstration" exclude the description "sex doll." In fact, I believe the manufacturer used the term "companion doll." Nobody fooled here by the post trial degradation. This is certainly not the first time silicone mannequins used in court for demonstration purposes!

Wasn't it the defense that attempted to use a live, female RZ look alike model at trial?

 

[Lezah]

I agree which is why I posted the direct link to the TOS about posting links. Thanks for pointing it out.

Please allow me to further explain my point.

You stated that when quoting a fact, the TOS require a link. This is understood, and a very reasonable requirement.

However, I did not quote a fact in the post you refer to. I was very clear in that my reference was an observation of a previously mentioned post ‘to the best of my recollection’

Therefore, I feel you have you mischaracterized my post - IMO - in order to fit your narrative.

I don’t believe this is appropriate or reasonable, especially when I further attempted to politely address the issue by commenting that this serves only to dilute and weaken an argument.

I respect the rules and the posters here, including yourself. Mischaracterizing my post, particularly in order to utilize it to berate or scold a fellow poster is not fair play, IMO.

Respectfully,

Just my opinion...

 

[Lezah]

That case you cite seems to be about a mannequin entered into an exhibit. I really can't tell because you fail to post a link.

Was the mannequin entered as an evidence exhibit in the Shacknai trial? Was it present in the jury room during deliberations? If it was, I missed that.

LINK as requested
https://www.leagle.com/decision/1980741609sw2d1321741

I also referenced with a highlight that the second example I used was where the mannequin was used as evidence, rather than merely a demonstrative, but the appellant court still agreed it was appropriate.

 

[Lezah]

LINK as requested
https://www.leagle.com/decision/1980741609sw2d1321741

I also referenced with a highlight that the second example I used was where the mannequin was used as evidence, rather than merely a demonstrative, but the appellant court still agreed it was appropriate.

Second link as requested

https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-medina-31256




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

Webb's got a big problem on his hands, the way I see it.

Because the vote wasn't split, I don't know how he can extricate Adam's responsibility for the murder without touching the jury's decision it was murder. The process the jury had to go through was to deliberate the evidence for murder first and then consider whether Adam was responsible.

Sorry I realize I've taken your post off track, but your comment about Webb's anger sparked my thought process.

Guys and gals, I've slept on this and it's still buzzing around my head.

Maybe a lawyer can weigh in because I think this is huge.

Webb's remit was only to defend Adam in the lawsuit, he was not representing the law enforcement agencies.

To reach its decision that Adam was responsible the jury had to find that Rebecca was murdered and did not commit suicide. Webb had one task - to defend Adam - and since his sideshow of convincing them it was suicide was weak and bound for failure, he could have chosen a different tack. To work on the aspect that the evidence does stack up for murder but his client did not do it - side with the Zahau's in that respect and agree that law enforcement must reopen the case and find whoever was responsible. I can't say it enough, Webb was only representing Adam's interests.

Obviously Greer took a big risk by not having the vote split that if he didn't convince them it was Adam he would lose the finding of murder too. But it works both ways (IMO). The defense is now lumbered with murder and Adam was responsible rendered in one verdict. The evidence for murder (what happened) is separate from the evidence that Adam was responsible (who did it). The jury rejected defense evidence for suicide but suicide was only strategy for trying to convince them there was no murder hence Adam could not be responsible. Their strategy, their choice completely.

Even if he get's Adam out of there I think the vote for murder has to stand since Webb is not defending the investigation he was using it as argument.

Which side petitioned the court to split the vote? If it was Greer it is doubly excellent news, because if Webb objected he lost his opportunity to use the combined vote as grounds for an appeal. Not so good if it was Webb who applied for it.

Sorry for the rambling explanations. I've got a woolly head on today.

All opinion only - IANAL

 

[Tortoise]

Perhaps Mr Webb could have created a mannequin of Adam Shacknai for demonstration purposes, but they couldn't find a factory to create a ‘three armed’ version....

Just my opinion...

Nice one Lezah

 

[Tortoise]

iirc, the Plaintiff's own witness referred to it as a knot commonly used for tying shoes. He even added that a gorilla and spiders could tie it.


http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/sd-me-zahau-day5-story.html

Well did Robert Chisnall not even learn to tie his own shoes then?

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Here you are Mrs Threadgoode


http://www.latimes.com/sd-me-zahau-trial-20180405-story.html

[/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR]

You are so very kind, Tortoise ... thank you! [emoji4]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Mr. Greer admitted it was a sex doll and said it cost $8,000. Not sure why Mr. Webb is being criticized by stating a fact which he intends to bring up on appeal. The manufacturer of the doll has an age restricted website. I won't post link because it is a pornographic site.



http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/sd-me-zahau-trial-20180405-story.html

A pornographic site?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk