Rebecca Zahau Wrongful Death/ADAM SHACKNAI FOUND RESPONSIBLE #5

[Brit]

I have been pondering the fact that the jury are seeking more evidence for DNA. Personally, my gut feeling is that it does not bode well for the plaintiff.

I believe we are in an age where DNA appears to be the only incriminating evidence juries seem to feel they can consider as evidence of guilt, or even evidence of involvement.

Personally I feel very strongly the evidence I have seen presented is enough to indicate AS is liable, when combined with good old common sense...

...so perhaps it’s just ‘jury jitters’?

I’ve never wanted so hard to be wrong, and I’m genuinely hoping this jury restores my faith in the justice system, because what has been shown at trial regarding the police investigation certainly hasn’t.

How does everyone else interpret the jury question? Am I reading too much into it?

Just my opinion...








Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I also see it as somewhat hopeful that they requested more information on three main factors greer wants them to consider.
Gloves = wipe down scene
underwear = sexual assault
Red Stained Tissue = blood from assault

it is very difficult that there is very little dna evidence, and i wish that greer could've somehow presented that there are plenty of studies that show that it's quite common for a crime scene not to have the killer's dna all over it.

 

[ilovewings]

I have to say this case really bothers me from the perspective of the San Diego Police- good grief, what a shoddy investigation and horrible conclusion -- if the plaintiff wins in this case will the police have to (or will they) open a criminal investigation into
AS? I am so appalled that anybody could believe the BS that she committed suicide. It is an outrage really.

 

[kittychi]

The message on the door is something you would read about in a murder mystery. "She saved him can you save her?" -- I interpret this as being a challenge and a taunt. If Adam originally staged this to look like a murder and later changed his mind after realizing a suicide made more sense, this is the murderers challenge to whomever finds her.

It can also be a message to Rebecca herself, in a sarcastic and taunting way "She saved him" Rebecca saved max (but like Jonah said on the stand, not really) , "Can you save her?" Tell Rebecca, "Lets see if you are any better at saving yourself" But I don't know why he would put "She" and then "You".

In my opinion, the first scenario is more believable.

To me it reads very much like a revenge message. I believe that's why, at first, DS was suspected of being the mastermind because we knew how she felt about RZ and that she would also have a, IMO rightful anger, toward RZ and her ex-husband JS.

 

[minorone]

I have been pondering the fact that the jury are seeking more evidence for DNA. Personally, my gut feeling is that it does not bode well for the plaintiff.

I believe we are in an age where DNA appears to be the only incriminating evidence juries seem to feel they can consider as evidence of guilt, or even evidence of involvement.

Personally I feel very strongly the evidence I have seen presented is enough to indicate AS is liable, when combined with good old common sense...

...so perhaps it’s just ‘jury jitters’?

I’ve never wanted so hard to be wrong, and I’m genuinely hoping this jury restores my faith in the justice system, because what has been shown at trial regarding the police investigation certainly hasn’t.

How does everyone else interpret the jury question? Am I reading too much into it?

Just my opinion...








Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I hope that evidence/lack of evidence will influence the decision of the jury:

"The blunt force trauma from something rounded, smooth surface" against the scalp, thus not producing a laceration". The hemorrhage on her head.
Tape residue on her legs and no tape found
The table not needed.
The 911 call inconsistencies.
The writings in her dairy were from eight months prior to her death.
The ropes, the t-shirt, the hog tie
The forensic technician who only saw two right foot toe prints on the balcony
Lack of dna and fingerprints where they should be
No dna on the paint tube
The voice mail message never recovered by police

I need to start keeping a list of all these items....

 

[Brit]

To me it reads very much like a revenge message. I believe that's why, at first, DS was suspected of being the mastermind because we knew how she felt about RZ and that she would also have a, IMO rightful anger, toward RZ and her ex-husband JS.

This could very well be the case, especially IF there was a voicemail from Jonah and it contained the info he claims it did, and she perhaps listened to the voicemail and went to fill Adam in on it, and he reacted in a fit of rage.

 

[Myvice]

My first instinct on hearing what the jury asked for was that they were questioning why these things weren't tested and possibly realizing that there was no proof of Adam killing her because so many things weren't tested. IMO

 

[Tortoise]

I'm not worried about those very early jury questions.

Having served on a jury my recollection of the initial couple of hours was just an unburdening, of letting everything out that you have not been able to discuss yet. Some things stick out during the trial that bother you, and you wait to see if you're going to get your explanation in the closing speeches. It's hard to let go of them, just as a matter of wanting to know everything. We had a significant witness that wasn't called. Someone wanted to ask a question about that witness even though we had been told in judge's instructions that we had all the evidence we were going to get. So a question was sent out to the judge asking why that witness was not called and the reply came back that we were not to speculate about it one way or the other. It was not a representation of our jury that one juror wanted to ask that question. 12 people is a lot of thoughts, and I doubt they had time yet to streamline those thoughts, hoping of course that they will be able to.

 

[Mica]

I also see it as somewhat hopeful that they requested more information on three main factors greer wants them to consider.
Gloves = wipe down scene
underwear = sexual assault
Red Stained Tissue = blood from assault

it is very difficult that there is very little dna evidence, and i wish that greer could've somehow presented that there are plenty of studies that show that it's quite common for a crime scene not to have the killer's dna all over it.

They could be looking for the forensics done on these pieces of evidence.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

I have been pondering the fact that the jury are seeking more evidence for DNA. Personally, my gut feeling is that it does not bode well for the plaintiff.

I believe we are in an age where DNA appears to be the only incriminating evidence juries seem to feel they can consider as evidence of guilt, or even evidence of involvement.

Personally I feel very strongly the evidence I have seen presented is enough to indicate AS is liable, when combined with good old common sense...

...so perhaps it’s just ‘jury jitters’?

I’ve never wanted so hard to be wrong, and I’m genuinely hoping this jury restores my faith in the justice system, because what has been shown at trial regarding the police investigation certainly hasn’t.

How does everyone else interpret the jury question? Am I reading too much into it?

Just my opinion...








Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I see it as a possible shout out from the jury that this information should have had DNA evidence results one way or the other. And it was not tested. It was not followed up. And it may be that they cannot come to the conclusion because they do not have the results of that testing, and they are pointing out that is it is not their fault, it is the fault of law enforcement to not have that information at the ready for them to look at.

Imho

 

[Brit]

I'm not worried about those very early jury questions.

Having served on a jury my recollection of the initial couple of hours was just an unburdening, of letting everything out that you have not been able to discuss yet. Some things stick out during the trial that bother you, and you wait to see if you're going to get your explanation in the closing speeches. It's hard to let go of them, just as a matter of wanting to know everything. We had a significant witness that wasn't called. Someone wanted to ask a question about that witness even though we had been told in judge's instructions that we had all the evidence we were going to get. So a question was sent out to the judge asking why that witness was not called and the reply came back that we were not to speculate about it one way or the other. It was not a representation of our jury that one juror wanted to ask that question. 12 people is a lot of thoughts, and I doubt they had time yet to streamline those thoughts, hoping of course that they will be able to.

This is great insight. I think that the jury will likely have many more requests from the judge. I would think that they are going to be picking apart Adam's testimony piece by piece. The fact that he changed his recollection about loosening the ropes on her hands, and how he went thru the house or around the house to figure out the address, and that he didn't recall other things like if he cut her down before he called 911 or after.

I would think that the jury would also be looking at the use of the table and how adam might have cut her down. If they think that the table really wasn't used, then they would have to wonder why adam would lie about this detail.

My fear is that they only look at the forensics aspect because of the lack of testing of items, but if they requested to see the gloves already, perhaps the question that the crime scene might have been wiped down and gloves used might be in discussion.

 

[Tortoise]

I can't pretend I'm not disappointed that the 12 pages of rebuttal didn't get aired. However, and that is a big however, I think what Mr Greer did is more impactful than a half hour rebuttal. He received some insight in that moment that told him to trust in the universe. IMO.

 

[Brit]

I can't pretend I'm not disappointed that the 12 pages of rebuttal didn't get aired. However, and that is a big however, I think what Mr Greer did is more impactful than a half hour rebuttal. He received some insight in that moment that told him to trust in the universe. IMO.

Same.
I get being emotional, but I was disappointed. There were many things that Webb said that were misrepresentations of the facts, but maybe he really didn't think that Webb's closing arguments made a big impact on the jury. In my opinion, Webb went in really hard on Mary and Greer saying that they are making up fiction to fit their own scenario. And he harped on this and repeated it many times, with Mary sitting right in front of him. It might be a good thing that Greer rebutted the way that he did, making it look like "Here this poor family is yet again being victimized by the more powerful". Especially that Pari Zahau was at the plaintiff's table, who was clearly very emotional the entire time the judge was giving directions to the jury.

the $5000.00 and 1 penny suggestion for compensation was very smart on greer's part, because that counters webb's theory that Mary is making anything up possible to prove her own narrative, but they would have to wonder why? $5000.00 annually for her mother is not breaking the bank.

all my opinions

 

[sdmike1974]

Local independent channel KUSI-TV -- has done a decent job with multiple interviews of author and journalist Caitlin Rother. Good coverage IMO.

But unfortunately they have no midday news. No news program until 5 p.m. Pacific. For those of us who live in the area the ABC, NBC and CBS affiliates all have midday news. Of course this is only for locals -- whereas most of us want the news of a verdict (or even news of more questions) more quickly than once per day.

Also is it correct to assume there will be no live video coverage of the verdict by any outlet? Or am I wrong? Plus what good would it be if we have no way of knowing it's about to take place.

All the best for Rebecca's family for the justice they so desperately desire.

What (or whom) are you folks monitoring for the LATEST courtroom activity?

Remember the good ol' days of Court TV and TruTV when there used to be 30 minute warnings to viewers that a verdict was in -- which would then be televised?

 

[Brit]

Local independent channel KUSI-TV -- has done a decent job with multiple interviews of author and journalist Caitlin Rother. Good coverage IMO.

But unfortunately they have no midday news. No news program until 5 p.m. Pacific. For those of us who live in the area the ABC, NBC and CBS affiliates all have midday news. Of course this is only for locals -- whereas most of us want the news of a verdict (or even news of more questions) more quickly than once per day.

Also is it correct to assume there will be no live video coverage of the verdict by any outlet? Or am I wrong? Plus what good what it be if we have no way of knowing it's about to take place.

All the best for Rebecca's family for the justice they so desperately desire.

What (or whom) are you folks monitoring for the LATEST courtroom activity?

Remember the good ol' days of Court TV and TruTV when there used to be 30 minute warnings to viewers that a verdict was in -- which would then be televised?

As I recall, the judge did say that she would give the attorney's a 20 minute time period

 

[Carioca]

I believe that Mary had mentioned in her updates on the , that Rebecca wrote in her Journals and letters to her parents in their own language of Zahau.
https://www..com/rydrn-justice-for-rebecca
"Jonah also chose to keep her journal and all letters from my father to Rebecca. Most of them are in my language, Zahau. Instead he gave that to the defense and they have tried to use it during depositions and trial to try and show Rebecca did not have good relationship with her parents"

So cruel to deny her family her belongings. Am saying cruel rather than what i really feel so as not to violate TOS...

 

[NotAtAll]

Exactly, Lezah! That is definitely a more accurate description!

 

[kittychi]

I have to say this case really bothers me from the perspective of the San Diego Police- good grief, what a shoddy investigation and horrible conclusion -- if the plaintiff wins in this case will the police have to (or will they) open a criminal investigation into
AS? I am so appalled that anybody could believe the BS that she committed suicide. It is an outrage really.

BBM: Among the MANY other things that made this a shoddy investigation, besides not testing all of the evidence including RZ's phone and messages: they dragged it out until the end of summer to do, IMO a very arrogant and not believable, dog and pony show. IMO They strategically chose the Friday before a holiday weekend (Labor Day) for this to get as little attention as possible.

The lack of testing and consideration of evidence indicates, IMO, that the decision to call it suicide came very quickly within the first hours of the investigation (after Paul Pfingst's visit???). The first responders called it a homicide, said she died violently, I believe. Then a day or two later they sent out the "trial balloon" that they were considering that it was suicide. That they waited almost two months to announce this was just a piece of their game to insult the intelligence of San Diegoans and everyone else paying attention to this horrible crime.

With all that has gone on it is IMO a huge miracle that the case has even come to a civil trial.

[Edited to add: I know many of us know all of the above, the info is mostly for those who are newer to the case and may not know this. I think it's an important component.]

RIP Rebecca, prayers to the Zahau family, Godspeed to the jurors.

 

[Jade]

My thought on the door phrase is that it was derived from the American author Henry James’ book “The Ambassador”.

The third-person narrative is told exclusively from Strether's point of view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ambassadors


I can’t get the link to work so to search for it: Google Books using these phases and it should open to the page.

<<<It appeared, however, to strike him as his business to add: “The fact remains nevertheless that she has saved him.” >>>

“Certainly; so that it’s as if she had saved him FOR us.”

“It strikes you accordingly then,” the young man threw out, “as for you all to save HER?”

IMO

 

[NotAtAll]

Exactly, Lezah! That is definitely a more accurate description!

 

[kittychi]

My thought on the door phrase is that it was derived from the American author Henry James&#8217; book &#8220;The Ambassador&#8221;.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ambassadors


I can&#8217;t get the link to work so to search for it: Google Books using these phases and it should open to the page.









IMO

Wow...it would be interesting to know what experience AS "the writer" has with the writings of Henry James. He doesn't strike me as a reader, but then he doesn't strike me as a writer either. (Referencing a post on a recent thread that DS mentioned she thought he was a good writer.)