Rebecca Zahau Wrongful Death/ADAM SHACKNAI FOUND RESPONSIBLE #5

[Lezah]

There is a positive from the defense having had the assistance of the spinmeister. They won't be able to claim that the jury decision was influenced by media reporting. I don't think they would be able to find one report that wasn't heavily biased in the defense's favor.

In an investigation that only lasted 7 weeks, lead detective Angela Tsuida could not offer any justification to the court for waiting 2 days past the 30 day deadline for an attempted retrieval of the deleted voicemail. That is sabotage IMO. Try finding one media report that mentions it. I couldn't find ONE. All I could find was reporting of the defense case.

We had to rely on our lovely Lezah being in court to very kindly report back. Lezah's post on Greer's questioning of Det Tsuida can be found here https://www.websleuths.com/forums/s...rage-and-discussion-2&p=13998653#post13998653

The same team of detectives who immediately suspected homicide saw nothing wrong in taking the word of the brother of the prime suspect with the inconclusive polygraph, rather than fact checking the evidence at their disposal!

I know I didn't believe the detective, I wonder if the jury did.

Report from Sep 2011:



So did SDSO make up the influential part that JS informed RZ of Max's imminent death?
Or did JS say that back in 2011 and change his story in 2018?
Why would JS make up a story like that to give SDSO if indeed he did?
Why didn't JS correct SDSO and the media after this erroneous statement was published, because it was surely pivotal to their conclusion of suicide.
Is it standard practice for SDSO to claim to know uncorroborated information given to them by the homicide suspect's brother as a fact, when there are conflicting accounts from the doctor and the mother?

Even now reporters cling to the narrative that Max's accident leading to Jonah's voicemail (stated as fact) endorses LE's conclusion of suicide.

Not one news outlet states the reality, what came out in the civil suit:

By deciding that AS was responsible for battering and killing Rebecca, the jury decided that Jonah's voicemail, if she ever even heard it, played NO part in her death. There is evidence of sexual battery, strangulation and thereafter a simulated hanging. While SDSO's findings remain in place for the time being, a jury was presented with evidence that shows their findings concerning the voicemail message were flawed, contradicted by Jonah himself and the doctor treating Max, and therefore baseless. The ME signed off his report based on the findings of the investigators. There is no connection with Max beyond his uncle being the person found responsible for assaulting and killing Rebecca.

Tortoise, Thankyou for this great post.

The media aspect ( in the negative reporting aspect) is a very valid point. I agree with you, as, as a SD local, the media painted this very much as a picture of suicide based on the fact a child was injured in RZs care.

Yesterday - I met with a group of friends and shared my trial experience. I didn’t share the outcome, and I asked them to recall RZs death. Every one of them said they knew about it, and the police said it was suicide, but they couldn’t believe it when they heard the details of her death at the time.

Most didn’t even KNOW about the trial, let alone the verdict. Every one was grateful he had been found responsible for the sake of RZ family when I told them.

They ALL wanted to know when he would be criminally charged.....




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

Another excellent post Tortoise, thank you.

Does anyone on here know where I may search to learn of deadlines for 'appeals' in WDS s in SD County?

I don't know if this is the relevant authority on the matter? Could be 30 days? Hopefully I will be corrected if it's wrong -

http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=55,1567251&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

 

[Lezah]

I’m comforted to know there is NO statute of limitations for murder.

There was a recent trial, regarding the death of Irene Garza...her family never gave up in seeking justice for her murder, the authorities would not charge the man concerned because there was ‘no evidence’

The family rallied around electing a new DA, he promised to reopen the investigation.

He was a man of his word.

It took 50 years but the man went to trial...is in prison now, Guilty of murder as charged.

There was no DNA.

He was an arrogant, narcissistic ******** in my opinion.

( apologies if you all already know about this case!!)






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Tortoise]

Actually I may have got that wrong - as this is $5 million it could be "Civil - Unlimited" which is 60 days.

I hope someone who knows can step in to help.

 

[Lezah]

I don't know if this is the relevant authority on the matter? Could be 30 days? Hopefully I will be corrected if it's wrong -

http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=55,1567251&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

I believe Mr Greer mentioned that it was 60 days they had to appeal, so maybe it’s the ‘unlimited civil’ verdict rather than the ‘limited’ one ( 30 days) I don’t know what the ‘limit’ refers to.

Handy link to have too...thanks!

 

[Lezah]

Actually I may have got that wrong - as this is $5 million it could be "Civil - Unlimited" which is 60 days.

I hope someone who knows can step in to help.

Posting together! Sorry!

 

[Tortoise]

Posting together! Sorry!

Don't be sorry, that was good timing

 

[screecher]

Appeal Timelines

Timelines for Filing An Appeal

Criminal Appeal - Felony 60 days from the date of sentence or order appealed from
Criminal Appeal - Misdemeanor 30 days from the date of sentence or order appealed from
Juvenile-Delinquency/Dependency 60 days from the date of disposition
Traffic - Infraction 30 days from the date of sentence
Civil-Unlimited Deadline as early as 60 days after the judgment or order appealed from(California Rules of Court, rules 8.100; 8.104)
Civil-Limited Deadline as early as 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from (California Rules of Court, rules 8.822; 8.823)
Family Law/Probate Deadline as early as 60 days after the judgment or order appealed from(California Rules of Court, rules 8.100; 8.104)
Small Claims 30 days from the date of delivery or mailing of the Notice of Entry of Judgment (CCP 116.750)

So is Rebecca's case 'limited' or 'unlimited'???


:laughing: just read the other two posts

 

[Lezah]

you’re correct. The same outfit where san diego sheriff gore was at an editorial board meeting? Does anyone know if gore is on the board?

wow....!

 

[Lezah]

I wonder if we can find a good investigative journalist to do a national piece on this story?

If they have a website we can all contact via their online form and ask them to consider it....

There are a few good ones left....!

 

[MzOpinion8d]

I think Mr. Webb was hired because this case was tried in the court of public opinion for years and the verdict was anticipated. He's considered one of the top litigators in the country and I think very capable of winning on appeal. JMO

I'm surprised you say this verdict was anticipated, because previously it seemed the defense was confident there would never even be a trial. Seems contradictory to expect a favorable plaintiff verdict in a case that never makes it to trial.

 

[wyatt]

Even now reporters cling to the narrative that Max's accident leading to Jonah's voicemail (stated as fact) endorses LE's conclusion of suicide.

Not one news outlet states the reality, what came out in the civil suit:

I'm flabbergasted. I understand hiring a firm for media and public relations, but what is the incentive for media to report biased information?

 

[Lezah]

Kind of replying to myself about Jan Ronis and the David Westerfield trial, which just reminded me of AS's defense's claims that the mannequin was prejudicial evidence.

IIRC, in the Westerfield trial, the defense claimed that linking the charges pertaining to Danielle's death with the child *advertiser censored* charges was prejudicial.

I repeat, sixteen years later, I am not aware of any successful appeals by DW regarding this issue.

IANAL and I realize these cases are vastly different in many ways, but I am thinking that any claims that the mannequin was prejudicial in AS's trial will be equally unsuccessful.

I agree!

Here’s recap of the link for an appellant court ruling on use of a mannequin being acceptable and why the defense is on a highway to nowhere with the argument....IMO

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1980741609sw2d1321741

Extract
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). Exhibit No. 4 admittedly was an accurate portrayal of the number and location of the stab wounds. If the showing of their location and number tends to be inflammatory it is because any accurate portrayal, whether presented by oral testimony, or by a photograph, or as in this case by use of a paper maché mannequin, would be inflammatory. Notwithstanding its possible inflammatory nature, the exhibit met every test of probativeness. The exhibit visually demonstrated the nature and location of various wounds inflicted. State v. Jones, 515 S.W.2d 504, 506 (Mo.1974); State v. Wallace, 504 S.W.2d 67, 72 (Mo.1973); State v. Whiteaker, 499 S.W.2d 412, 418 (Mo.1973). It also enabled the jury to better understand the facts elicited from the witnesses, State v. Crow, 486 S.W.2d 248, 256 (Mo. 1972); State v. Perkins, 382 S.W.2d 701, 704 (Mo.1964), and it corroborated the testimony of the State's witnesses. State v. Wallace, supra at p. 72, and State v. Jackson, 499 S.W.2d 467 (Mo.1973). In addition Exhibit 4 constituted demonstrative evidence which, if the jury determined that appellant perpetrated the homicide, would aid the jury in determining the intent with which the homicide was committed, and for that reason the jury was in a better position to determine whether appellant should be found guilty of capital murder, second degree murder, or manslaughter, all of which were the subject of an instruction to the jury.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence Exhibit No. 4, and in permitting its use as demonstrative evidence.

 

[wyatt]

I wonder if we can find a good investigative journalist to do a national piece on this story?

If they have a website we can all contact via their online form and ask them to consider it....

There are a few good ones left....!

Well, you know who comes to mind? That couple of gals who produced a documentary featuring Steven Avery.

 

[wyatt]

Well, you know who comes to mind? That couple of gals who produced a documentary featuring Steven Avery.

Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi

 

[Brit]

A few things-



I’m not understanding this “sex doll” phrase that the defense and some media have thrown out there. Who cares where the mannequin was made? The point of the mannequin was to demonstrate knot tying and the height of the hanging. Where the mannequin was made and the price of it has nothing to do with anything and in my opinion just a way to divert the narrative of the facts that are actually relevant to this case.

I think it’s interesting that Webb is directing his anger of this verdict on to Greer, the zahaus and the jury. Why not be upset with the LE who botched up this investigation? The fact that so many things in evidence was not tested, things that should have been collected as evidence was not collected and all LE’s own testimony at trial was made them seem so biased and willing to back up their own theories even when it sounded ridiculous to do so. Examples of this testimony was when tsuida was asked about her communication with JS, she talked to him 8or 9 Times, but talked to zahau’s only twice. The second time is when they informed the zahau’s of the suicide conclusion. Testified about taking JS word that he left the type of message that he said he did on voicemail. Taking his word that the underwear was his daughters friends. The dress that was found in the picture FINALLY but was NEVER collected into evidence. The list goes on and on. In my opinion LE destroyed their case.

It’s also interesting that Adam stated in that interview that he was glad LE put out their statement immediately saying they weren’t going to reopen the case. Wouldn’t he want the case reopened so LE can investigate the new details in this case to prove that Adam was not involved in this?

Does anyone know if there is a time limit for appeals? I would think the decision to appeal would be made by JS if ge bankrolled the defense.....I’m wondering if he would just want this to go away at this point? For two reasons.....1..with appeal, there would be a possibility for the plaintiff to provide more evidence proving AS Involvement. 2..on Tricia’s podcast,Caitlin Rotherham stated that she had sources that said that during the initial investigation JS had been making comments to LE saying that this was effecting his stocks and employees pensions and that everyone knew this was his house. If this is true then it seems he wanted this investigation done quickly and he knew what he wanted the outcome to be. So does he want the press for this case to continue or fade away?

Anyone else’s opinion on this?

Sorry for the rambling, was a busy weekend and haven’t had time to post.

 

[Imp]

I wonder if we can find a good investigative journalist to do a national piece on this story?

If they have a website we can all contact via their online form and ask them to consider it....

There are a few good ones left....!

I don't know of any in the crime world, sorry. There are a couple of political investigative journalists who are excellent, but they seem to have their hands full at the moment, lol. I'm not looking forward to the treatment all the various "who done it" shows will give this case if they rely on media and Sitrick et al for their information.

I can't imagine Mary Zahau will want to talk to anyone in media about this, but I would almost encourage her to do so after she's had a nice long rest. Otherwise, their side of the story will continue to be misrepresented.

 

[Imp]

I'm flabbergasted. I understand hiring a firm for media and public relations, but what is the incentive for media to report biased information?

Imo, plain old laziness coupled with lack of investigative skills. Media today essentially reports what other media outlets are reporting. It's one big circle you-know-what these days, with very few exceptions.

 

[Tortoise]

I believe Mr Greer mentioned that it was 60 days they had to appeal, so maybe it’s the ‘unlimited civil’ verdict rather than the ‘limited’ one ( 30 days) I don’t know what the ‘limit’ refers to.

Handy link to have too...thanks!

So anyway, that makes the deadline June 3rd.

 

[Lezah]

The message on the door...

I have been watching AS in all his available interactions...his testimony, and his after trial interviews, lie detector....etc and trying to reconcile the third person message on the door. Trying to better understand the psychology of the author rather than the actual meaning behind the words.

When looking at AS, particularly the panic attacks and severe anxiety referred to on the stand, the social ‘awkwardness’, the arrogance ( “all the questions are going to be easy...&#8221 ...his general demeanor...

So, I have been looking through published research on personality types conducive with my observations of AS..and the research references regards anxious, socially awkward personality types ...were often associated with illeism, it was pure coincidence ...but how very, very interesting.

Typically, the use of the third person by individuals themselves (called illeism..who knew!) is generally associated with egocentrics and ‘oddball characters’ - individuals tendency to be characterized as self-obsessed or perhaps appearing ‘detached from reality’...

Remind you of anyone?

( NB my recollection of AS/DS testimony re AS communications with family, writing and stories - third person descriptions as it were, of his life experiences... also, never publishing or openly sharing his writings, the reluctance on the stand to elaborate his writings - stays with me - it gave me the impression his writing was perhaps a ‘vicarious way of living’, perhaps another example of his ‘detachment’..)

Anyhoo... the reaseach indicates that Illeism can often be used by these personality types - particularly in heightened anxiety situations as a distancing, coping mechanism to deal with ‘out of control’ situations.

Extract - illeism and socially anxious individuals:

“These findings have multiple implications for research and theory on social anxiety, as well as coping more generally. With respect to social anxiety, they highlight the effect that shifting the language people use to refer to the self under stress has on the cascade of events during and after a social interaction. In this vein, the fact that we observed beneficial effects of non-first-person language use on postevent processing—a cognitive process that has been linked with maladaptive psychological and physical health outcomes in both healthy and clinical populations (e.g., Nolen-Hoeksema et al., 2008)—is particularly noteworthy. It suggests that the current findings may have broad implications for self-control research and practice in multiple populations.

Link

http://selfcontrol.psych.lsa.umich....egulatory_mechanism_How_you_do_it_matters.pdf

(Edited to add - it should be noted that the personality type of RZ in in no way similar to AS. As evidenced in testimony fro AS, DS, JS as well as her own family, RZ was a loving, caring socially interactive person)

Just my opinion....