Rebecca Zahau Wrongful Death/ADAM SHACKNAI FOUND RESPONSIBLE #5

[elfie]

This report was published (Mar. 2012) after both Dr. Lucas' & Dr. Wecht's autopsy of Rebecca:

Fracture of the cricoid as a potential pointer to homicide. A 6-year retrospective study of neck structures fractures in hanging victims.
Godin A1, Kremer C, Sauvageau A.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22442828

It is the link to the abstract, but the study includes a large sample. Note that per the AR by Lucas the cricoid was identified as fractured. "There is a corresponding left cricoid fracture anteriorly."

 

[Lilibet]

Well this one would know what goes on behind those closed doors:

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/s...KNAI-FOUND-RESPONSIBLE-5&p=14037487#post14037

For sure this one knows. Wonder if in that specific WDS trial the jury found 11 - 1 for the plaintiff ? This one helped the defense to get a mistrial.

I’d like to hear about how much jurors are told about evidence and witnesses not used. I think nothing, but I don’t know.

Perhaps it was split like this one 9-3. If you can get one juror disqualified for misconduct, that’s enough. But it’s 11-1 and one juror is disqualified, does the verdict still stand because there are still 10 for the plaintiff?

 

[MsFacetious]

Thank you, Tortoise! Tight, concise, illucidating. In the thousands of articles written since RZ’s death only one that I have seen states tthat she was found lying in the grass with wrists and ankles bound and a noose and shirt wrapped around her neck. And that was only at the end of the lawsuit, and a huge outcry here on WS about the fact that the main suspect’s narrative was so early on (from day 1) promulgated by SDSO to the media.

This would be like if the articles read:
"Caylee has been taken by Zanny the Nanny."

I know I should be able to come up with more, but that's all I have.
Most of these are "according to the parent" or "according to the witness."
Rarely do they say how the person was found unless it comes from LE.
What made these people so special?!

 

[Brit]

I’m curious if jurors know what is blocked and who doesn’t testify. Aren’t those discussions handled without the jurors present? For example, did they know that the ME was withdrawn as a witness at the last minute? But I’d love to think they did know about the psychiatric records and the ME, and that it made them wonder. But I suppose that’s not fair to wish for since absence of evidence isn’t something they can use in deliberations. Must be fair, Lilibet.

I'm sure that the jurors don't know who is being blocked from testifying like what happened with the psychiatrist. However, Webb explained to the jury during closing they reason they didn't call Lucas. I wouldn't think that the Jury would know who was on the witness list, but they would wonder why the ME who conducted the original autopsy and who made this ultimate conclusion that this was a suicide wasn't testifying as this whole case wouldn't exist without his conclusions. All my opinions

 

[Verboten]

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.

Amen, Tortoise. Great post. With all the wonderful court watchers here, we were able to obtain some information regarding the plaintiffs' case, and of course we did not have people who were there every day, so there was much missed. All the MSM reporting was basically the defense case. There was STUNNING information brought to light with every direct & every cross by Greer--but no reporter reported the probs with lead detective you mention, no reporter reported JS completely contradicted himself regarding RZ understanding of knots, no reporter reported how Greer got each consecutive SDSO investigator to show they based their opinion of suicide, not on full knowledge of the evidence, but almost (basically) on peer pressure. On and on... none of it came across. This makes me angry. Coverage of this trial was atrocious. It would seem to be intentionally so.

 

[Tortoise]

Amen, Tortoise. Great post. With all the wonderful court watchers here, we were able to obtain some information regarding the plaintiffs' case, and of course we did not have people who were there every day, so there was much missed. All the MSM reporting was basically the defense case. There was STUNNING information brought to light with every direct & every cross by Greer--but no reporter reported the probs with lead detective you mention, no reporter reported JS completely contradicted himself regarding RZ understanding of knots, no reporter reported how Greer got each consecutive SDSO investigator to show they based their opinion of suicide, not on full knowledge of the evidence, but almost (basically) on peer pressure. On and on... none of it came across. This makes me angry. Coverage of this trial was atrocious. It would seem to be intentionally so.

I recall Greer mentioning the very same thing in one of Tricia's podcasts. It'll be comical if the defense tries to use that angle. They would have to show examples. The spamming of social media from certain quarters didn't assist their cause.

 

[*Lash*]

I found this list of Community Board Members...

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sd-community-advisory-board-htmlstory.html

Thank you, Lezah!

One board member stands out like a cut out figure :laughing: . Imo, would be supportive of LE in Rebecca’s case. Definitely would cross paths with Sheriff Gore, too.

Former chief of police for the city of San Diego and former US Marshall for CA. Past president of the CA Police Chiefs Association...

Bejarano lives in Bonita and recently retired after 35 years in law enforcement. His most recent position was as police chief of the Chula Vista Police Department. He is also the former chief of police for the city of San Diego and former U.S. Marshal for the Southern District of California. Bejarano is immediate past president of the California Police Chiefs Association. His community service includes serving on the boards of the San Diego Food Bank, Sharp Hospital — Chula Vista and South Bay Community Services. He was also appointed by the governor to serve on the State Board of Community Corrections.

This board member served as a SD City attorney during the same time Pfingst was DA. Prior to being a city attorney he was a SD Superior Court Judge.

Goldsmith lives in Coronado and is an attorney with the Procopio law firm. He served as San Diego city attorney from 2008 to 2016. He previously served as mayor of Poway, a member of the California State Assembly (1992-1998) and a San Diego Superior Court Judge (1998-2008). He was also adjunct professor of law at the University of San Diego School of Law, California Western School of Law and Thomas Jefferson School of Law. Goldsmith is co-founder of Blue Sky Ecological Reserve, Poway, and serves on the board of advisers for the USD School of Law.

 

[*Lash*]

This struck me as well. I mentioned somewhere a while back that the tactic of dumping endless amounts of useless rhetoric sounded vaguely familiar Tammy Taylor is also the Stirick rep listed as the contact for Webb's extremely angry and inflammator press release.

Yes, thank you BBL :daisy:

I agree. The same rhetoric we have seen on these very boards. Imo, the same tactic attempting to derail the discussion here at WS.

The name TT reminds me of the initials, LL, and many of the unique names we have seen over the years here. It has become obvious lately, may be time to change strategy?

In my opinion the question is, why here? What are we doing “here” that needs deflected?

 

[*Lash*]

Since he's currently running for re-election, it was probably an interview for endorsement by the editorial board. Candidates have to sit through those and answer questions before the board decides which candidate to endorse in the race. It will be interesting to see who they endorse in that race.

Thank you, BettyP! Call me a skeptic, did this board meeting occur the very same week as the wrongful death suit reached a verdict? Article is dated the 5th, verdict came down on the 3rd. The same media outfit reporting the verdict was unexpected? Probably just a coincidence.

 

[Hraefn]

Guys, re the doll / mannequin...

The argument about the use of a doll as a demonstrative being argued as good cause for an appeal.

I’ve been doing some research and here’s a snippet from an appellant courts judgement about the use of a mannequin as a demonstrative tool for the jury. I feel this illustrates my point that this is not the case.

“...Exhibit No. 4 ( a lifelike mannequin showing the stab wounds on the victim) 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 cases cited are listed within the quote for reference

Hope this is useful...




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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

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.

These are all very insightful and good finds but all are Missouri cases and have no precedence at all in California. Did you find any similar CA cases?

IMO the mannequin will not cause the case to be overturned, I just think it is one of their best avenues for appeal. As you have seen and shown it is a common claim on appeal. I'm interested in how the CA Appellate Court will handle it. I think and hope they will defer to the lower court Judge.

 

[Hraefn]

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

I'm a plaintiffs' attorney and work on wrongful death cases somewhat often. I was completely shocked they didn't at least include "even if she was murdered, it wasn't AS" as a secondary defense. I thought that was by far their best defense. It may be as simple as only one out of eight of AS's attorneys having wrongful death experience or because they are all such prominent/wealthy/non-diverse lawyers they think the general public would defer to a sheriff's investigation and it wasn't worth their time. But like I said it truly shocked me to not see that "it wasn't AS" as their primary argument.

 

[Hraefn]

Thanks. I'm presuming from this that you weren't confident they showed AS was responsible?

It is so hard to say without actually being there for everything the jury witnessed, but I didn't think the evidence against AS was there to convince a jury it was him, neither the circumstantial evidence of DNA or a fingerprint or a witness seeing him flee the main house, or direct evidence of someone witnessing the actual murder. It seemed the only provable argument was that he was on the same property as Rebecca that night. IMO the evidence did succeed in showing that Rebecca was more likely than not murdered, but I just struggled to find anything tying AS to the murder except lack of evidence of anyone else being there, which I did not think would convince a jury he was responsible. But there is so much evidence I didn't see or hear so my opinion is faulty to say the least.

 

[Betty P]

Amen, Tortoise. Great post. With all the wonderful court watchers here, we were able to obtain some information regarding the plaintiffs' case, and of course we did not have people who were there every day, so there was much missed. All the MSM reporting was basically the defense case. There was STUNNING information brought to light with every direct & every cross by Greer--but no reporter reported the probs with lead detective you mention, no reporter reported JS completely contradicted himself regarding RZ understanding of knots, no reporter reported how Greer got each consecutive SDSO investigator to show they based their opinion of suicide, not on full knowledge of the evidence, but almost (basically) on peer pressure. On and on... none of it came across. This makes me angry. Coverage of this trial was atrocious. It would seem to be intentionally so.

Yes, this, from the very first day . I was only grateful that the jury was hearing all of it even if the public wasn't .

 

[Tortoise]

It is so hard to say without actually being there for everything the jury witnessed, but I didn't think the evidence against AS was there to convince a jury it was him, neither the circumstantial evidence of DNA or a fingerprint or a witness seeing him flee the main house, or direct evidence of someone witnessing the actual murder. It seemed the only provable argument was that he was on the same property as Rebecca that night. IMO the evidence did succeed in showing that Rebecca was more likely than not murdered, but I just struggled to find anything tying AS to the murder except lack of evidence of anyone else being there, which I did not think would convince a jury he was responsible. But there is so much evidence I didn't see or hear so my opinion is faulty to say the least.

Ah ok. I think you might have missed quite a bit.

I mean the door message had to be someone in the family. And then it had to be a male or a very strong female with the amount of physical restraining and carrying of Rebecca involved. He is the only male family member who was there. Then there was the knot tying and the similarities in the slope of the handwriting. And his unexplained admission to masturbating that morning, perhaps too much of a coincidence for the jury to ignore with the evidence of sexual assault. Then there was no need for climbing on the table, demonstrated by the height of the mannequin, and his lies about cutting her down while he was on the table and holding the phone, the knife and Rebecca at the same time (so she was more likely than not already on the grass and he was acting), as well as his distancing from her. There was quite a bit linking Adam, not least the sight of Rebecca not looking like a suicide to anyone but Adam. Jonah's testimony damaged the case too IMO.

 

[*Lash*]

I'm a plaintiffs' attorney and work on wrongful death cases somewhat often. I was completely shocked they didn't at least include "even if she was murdered, it wasn't AS" as a secondary defense. I thought that was by far their best defense. It may be as simple as only one out of eight of AS's attorneys having wrongful death experience or because they are all such prominent/wealthy/non-diverse lawyers they think the general public would defer to a sheriff's investigation and it wasn't worth their time. But like I said it truly shocked me to not see that "it wasn't AS" as their primary argument.

It is insightful to hear your POV :tyou: I was not surprised this defense did not use “it was not AS” and stayed with the “suicide” theory. In my very humble opinion, there was never a plan to use SDSO. To suggest someone else did it, would be putting a spotlight on questioning SDSO’s investigation. They could have went with confirmation bias, but it still would put a spotlight on SDSO. Have you ever had a WDS where as a plaintiff’s attorney, you and your client questioned the findings of LE?

 

[Imp]

This would be like if the articles read:
"Caylee has been taken by Zanny the Nanny."

I know I should be able to come up with more, but that's all I have.
Most of these are "according to the parent" or "according to the witness."
Rarely do they say how the person was found unless it comes from LE.
What made these people so special?!

My SWAG (scientific wild-azz guess): Most people have limited funds and would never even contemplate hiring a "reputation management firm" in these situations. Imo

 

[Imp]

Amen, Tortoise. Great post. With all the wonderful court watchers here, we were able to obtain some information regarding the plaintiffs' case, and of course we did not have people who were there every day, so there was much missed. All the MSM reporting was basically the defense case. There was STUNNING information brought to light with every direct & every cross by Greer--but no reporter reported the probs with lead detective you mention, no reporter reported JS completely contradicted himself regarding RZ understanding of knots, no reporter reported how Greer got each consecutive SDSO investigator to show they based their opinion of suicide, not on full knowledge of the evidence, but almost (basically) on peer pressure. On and on... none of it came across. This makes me angry. Coverage of this trial was atrocious. It would seem to be intentionally so.

From my observation, reporters and journalists these days are happy to have their work written in whole or in part by outside parties. Gone are the days of actual investigators or even mildly curious reporters.

That's why so many news articles are nearly identical - one "journalist" writes up a quick piece and it is copied/pasted across all the other media outlets. Obviously, this level of laziness in media leaves the door wide open for reputation management firms and other outside entities to provide them with vast amounts of (biased) information, and all they have to do is plug the ready-made content into their preferred format.

It's pretty scary when you think about it. I could name probably 6 recent very well-known events just off the top of my head that were erroneously reported from the beginning, proven over time to be entirely inaccurate, and the vast majority of news consumers still believe the original erroneous version.

 

[Hraefn]

It is insightful to hear your POV :tyou: I was not surprised this defense did not use “it was not AS” and stayed with the “suicide” theory. In my very humble opinion, there was never a plan to use SDSO. To suggest someone else did it, would be putting a spotlight on questioning SDSO’s investigation. They could have went with confirmation bias, but it still would put a spotlight on SDSO. Have you ever had a WDS where as a plaintiff’s attorney, you and your client questioned the findings of LE?

We have never had one that was intentional (murder), at least in the 5 years I have been with this firm. We have only had accidents or major screw ups constituting negligence or gross negligence. So we have never had reason to doubt LE in things we deal with like car accidents, gas leaks, and medical practitioner error.

 

[Hraefn]

Ah ok. I think you might have missed quite a bit.

I mean the door message had to be someone in the family. And then it had to be a male or a very strong female with the amount of physical restraining and carrying of Rebecca involved. He is the only male family member who was there. Then there was the knot tying and the similarities in the slope of the handwriting. And his unexplained admission to masturbating that morning, perhaps too much of a coincidence for the jury to ignore with the evidence of sexual assault. Then there was no need for climbing on the table, demonstrated by the height of the mannequin, and his lies about cutting her down while he was on the table and holding the phone, the knife and Rebecca at the same time (so she was more likely than not already on the grass and he was acting), as well as his distancing from her. There was quite a bit linking Adam, not least the sight of Rebecca not looking like a suicide to anyone but Adam. Jonah's testimony damaged the case too IMO.

IDK I mean it could have been a non-family member, other people were told about the accident. And it could have been any stronger person with that slant in their writing. A lot of people masturbate daily. Climbing on the table may have been out of shock or panic, people don't think logically when they walk upon a body. I still don't see any evidence that it was AS. I'm not saying all this to say what I personally believe happened but just trying to be neutral minded like how jurors are instructed to be and think if it's more likely than not that it was AS versus anyone else. Coincidences aren't the same as circumstantial evidence. AS comes off as an egotistical jerk and liar, but that doesn't mean there's evidence he did this. I was just surprised the 9/12 threshold was met. Don't get me wrong I am not juror bashing at all, I have faith in them and that they came to their conclusions fairly, within the confines of the law, and I hope it is upheld on appeal. I am thrilled to see this justice for Rebecca!

 

[Lezah]

These are all very insightful and good finds but all are Missouri cases and have no precedence at all in California. Did you find any similar CA cases?

IMO the mannequin will not cause the case to be overturned, I just think it is one of their best avenues for appeal. As you have seen and shown it is a common claim on appeal. I'm interested in how the CA Appellate Court will handle it. I think and hope they will defer to the lower court Judge.

Yes, I included a second CA based case.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk