Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California, #2

[chasing.halos]

I didn't mean to sound dramatic about ducking out... just seems to be an air of... well, almost rage in this thread. That said, I completely understand the feeling of injustice and I appreciate the passion here.

I am an insider. But I do not want to be seen as a "supporter" of only one side. I'm a supporter of Max and Rebecca and justice. I can sympathize with both sides here. I think the autopsies and investigations of both were shady to say the least (IMHO).

 

[MzOpinion8d]

To bad it will be dismissed in Oct. for lack of evidence to prove the Zahaus claims.

Why hasn't it been dismissed already, then, if there's no evidence?

 

[K_Z]

I didn't mean to sound dramatic about ducking out... just seems to be an air of... well, almost rage in this thread. That said, I completely understand the feeling of injustice and I appreciate the passion here.

I am an insider. But I do not want to be seen as a "supporter" of only one side. I'm a supporter of Max and Rebecca and justice. I can sympathize with both sides here. I think the autopsies and investigations of both were shady to say the least (IMHO).

I'm glad you have come back.

And you are correct-- there is rage about this case. On both sides. It would be less than honest to minimize that.

I think we all want discussion that is productive and respectful. I hope we can all continue to work towards that. Some days here are better than others, obviously! There is a lot for all of us to learn about this complicated case, and how it works when there is both a federal case, and a simultaneous state case, moving along.

The state wrongful death lawsuit that is moving forward, and progressing through discovery and depositions, has encouraged passions on both sides of the issues here. I think it's doubtful at this juncture that anyone posting here with a strong opinion is going to change it, but I think it's a worthwhile process to continue to look at the issues and try to find a way to discuss the new developments.

Anyway, I'm glad you decided to check back in for a while. I'm interested to hear your observations and insights. :seeya:

 

[K_Z]

Does anyone have any thoughts about Dina's February 7 NBC interview? Specifically, why she chose to do that interview at this point in time?

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...ado-Spreckels-Mansion-291021201.html#comments

Personally, I highly doubt that the news station contacted her out of the blue to do an interview. I think she contacted them to give her "exclusive", while she was in San Diego for other lawsuit business. I'm thinking that the depositions and discovery are not proceeding the way Dina might have wanted that to go, so she is choosing to get out ahead of the story with "damage control."

And her not mentioning Adam Shacknai at all-- that is very, very strange, IMO. Why go to all that trouble to set up an interview, with a San Diego news local , when Dina lives in Arizona? I'm guessing Dina was in San Diego for some appearance or meeting related to the lawsuit, perhaps even attending/ observing a deposition, and took advantage of the travel op to do some PR management in San Diego. I doubt Dina has been deposed yet-- her attorneys will make sure that is delayed as long as possible. IMO. Till "the end" if possible, so that they have benefit of the knowledge of all of the depositions before hers.

Because all 3 of the defendants are essentially one "conglomerate defendant"-- none can be severed from the others. I just can't shake how obvious and disturbing it is to listen to that recent interview, and not hear a single word about Adam-- 1/3 of the defendants, who was staying on the property. Why mention Nina, but not Adam.....beyond the obvious rationale that Dina and Nina are twins, and family supports family. Does anyone think Dina's attorneys put her up to this, thinking this interview was a good thing to do? Or did she do this on her own, perhaps in opposition to what her team of attorneys recommends? I just can't believe her attorneys are very happy with this kind of interview. She's a loose cannon, IMO. The high priced and experienced attorneys would want a VERY tight script, and control over personal media appearances, IMO-- no room for impromtpu editorializing.

I think Dina might be a very challenging client for her attorneys. Unpredictable and impulsive with the media appearances, IMO.

 

[Inparadise]

Does anyone have any thoughts about Dina's February 7 NBC interview? Specifically, why she chose to do that interview at this point in time?

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...ado-Spreckels-Mansion-291021201.html#comments

Personally, I highly doubt that the news station contacted her out of the blue to do an interview. I think she contacted them to give her "exclusive", while she was in San Diego for other lawsuit business. I'm thinking that the depositions and discovery are not proceeding the way Dina might have wanted that to go, so she is choosing to get out ahead of the story with "damage control."

And her not mentioning Adam Shacknai at all-- that is very, very strange, IMO. Why go to all that trouble to set up an interview, with a San Diego news local , when Dina lives in Arizona? I'm guessing Dina was in San Diego for some appearance or meeting related to the lawsuit, perhaps even attending/ observing a deposition, and took advantage of the travel op to do some PR management in San Diego. I doubt Dina has been deposed yet-- her attorneys will make sure that is delayed as long as possible. IMO. Till "the end" if possible, so that they have benefit of the knowledge of all of the depositions before hers.

Because all 3 of the defendants are essentially one "conglomerate defendant"-- none can be severed from the others. I just can't shake how obvious and disturbing it is to listen to that recent interview, and not hear a single word about Adam-- 1/3 of the defendants, who was staying on the property. Why mention Nina, but not Adam.....beyond the obvious rationale that Dina and Nina are twins, and family supports family. Does anyone think Dina's attorneys put her up to this, thinking this interview was a good thing to do? Or did she do this on her own, perhaps in opposition to what her team of attorneys recommends? I just can't believe her attorneys are very happy with this kind of interview. She's a loose cannon, IMO. The high priced and experienced attorneys would want a VERY tight script, and control over personal media appearances, IMO-- no room for impromtpu editorializing.

I think Dina might be a very challenging client for her attorneys. Unpredictable and impulsive with the media appearances, IMO.

My guess is that she did this on her own. From what I have been told by those close to her,she has a history of not listening to her attorneys.........

 

[MyBelle]

Does anyone have any thoughts about Dina's February 7 NBC interview? Specifically, why she chose to do that interview at this point in time?

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...ado-Spreckels-Mansion-291021201.html#comments

Personally, I highly doubt that the news station contacted her out of the blue to do an interview. I think she contacted them to give her "exclusive", while she was in San Diego for other lawsuit business. I'm thinking that the depositions and discovery are not proceeding the way Dina might have wanted that to go, so she is choosing to get out ahead of the story with "damage control."

And her not mentioning Adam Shacknai at all-- that is very, very strange, IMO. Why go to all that trouble to set up an interview, with a San Diego news local , when Dina lives in Arizona? I'm guessing Dina was in San Diego for some appearance or meeting related to the lawsuit, perhaps even attending/ observing a deposition, and took advantage of the travel op to do some PR management in San Diego. I doubt Dina has been deposed yet-- her attorneys will make sure that is delayed as long as possible. IMO. Till "the end" if possible, so that they have benefit of the knowledge of all of the depositions before hers.

Because all 3 of the defendants are essentially one "conglomerate defendant"-- none can be severed from the others. I just can't shake how obvious and disturbing it is to listen to that recent interview, and not hear a single word about Adam-- 1/3 of the defendants, who was staying on the property. Why mention Nina, but not Adam.....beyond the obvious rationale that Dina and Nina are twins, and family supports family. Does anyone think Dina's attorneys put her up to this, thinking this interview was a good thing to do? Or did she do this on her own, perhaps in opposition to what her team of attorneys recommends? I just can't believe her attorneys are very happy with this kind of interview. She's a loose cannon, IMO. The high priced and experienced attorneys would want a VERY tight script, and control over personal media appearances, IMO-- no room for impromtpu editorializing.

I think Dina might be a very challenging client for her attorneys. Unpredictable and impulsive with the media appearances, IMO.

I think her attorneys not only are encouraging her media interviews, they also are creating her key message points to get across in her interview and also the questions she can be asked.

JMO

 

[K_Z]

I think her attorneys not only are encouraging her media interviews, they also are creating her key message points to get across in her interview and also the questions she can be asked.

JMO

Interesting. Why do you think that?

Do you think Kim Schumann et al were "there" at the interview, okaying what could be asked and what couldn't? Why? Why not just remain silent and out of the public, at this point? What's in it for them? Why didn't Kim Schumann give a statement, like he has before?

What's to be gained by pretending Adam Shacknai isn't a part of this?

ETA: And do you think Nina and her attorneys were in agreement with this? Why?

Do you think Adam's attorneys were in agreement, and supporting this? How did this benefit THEIR client?

Ahhhh...so you think Dina's attorneys WANT her to keep talking and giving interviews? Even knowing how that has worked out with her public reputation in the past? Have you looked at any of the comments from any of the recent articles after her interviews? Brutal criticism of her. No support. None at all.

 

[screecher]

Does anyone have any thoughts about Dina's February 7 NBC interview? Specifically, why she chose to do that interview at this point in time?

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...ado-Spreckels-Mansion-291021201.html#comments

Personally, I highly doubt that the news station contacted her out of the blue to do an interview. I think she contacted them to give her "exclusive", while she was in San Diego for other lawsuit business. I'm thinking that the depositions and discovery are not proceeding the way Dina might have wanted that to go, so she is choosing to get out ahead of the story with "damage control."

And her not mentioning Adam Shacknai at all-- that is very, very strange, IMO. Why go to all that trouble to set up an interview, with a San Diego news local , when Dina lives in Arizona? I'm guessing Dina was in San Diego for some appearance or meeting related to the lawsuit, perhaps even attending/ observing a deposition, and took advantage of the travel op to do some PR management in San Diego. I doubt Dina has been deposed yet-- her attorneys will make sure that is delayed as long as possible. IMO. Till "the end" if possible, so that they have benefit of the knowledge of all of the depositions before hers.

Because all 3 of the defendants are essentially one "conglomerate defendant"-- none can be severed from the others. I just can't shake how obvious and disturbing it is to listen to that recent interview, and not hear a single word about Adam-- 1/3 of the defendants, who was staying on the property. Why mention Nina, but not Adam.....beyond the obvious rationale that Dina and Nina are twins, and family supports family. Does anyone think Dina's attorneys put her up to this, thinking this interview was a good thing to do? Or did she do this on her own, perhaps in opposition to what her team of attorneys recommends? I just can't believe her attorneys are very happy with this kind of interview. She's a loose cannon, IMO. The high priced and experienced attorneys would want a VERY tight script, and control over personal media appearances, IMO-- no room for impromtpu editorializing.

I think Dina might be a very challenging client for her attorneys. Unpredictable and impulsive with the media appearances, IMO.

I agree with everything ^. Particularly the part where you were speaking about the depositions and discovery. Dina is impulsive and reckless. Not only with herself, also with others. Yes. A loose cannon.

My guess is that she did this on her own. From what I have been told by those close to her,she has a history of not listening to her attorneys.........

Does she listen to anyone?

I think her attorneys not only are encouraging her media interviews, they also are creating her key message points to get across in her interview and also the questions she can be asked.

JMO

Key message points? Do you mean what she said about her and Nina not being at the mansion that night?

Interesting. Why do you think that?

Do you think Kim Schumann et al were "there" at the interview, okaying what could be asked and what couldn't? Why? Why not just remain silent and out of the public, at this point? What's in it for them? Why didn't Kim Schumann give a statement, like he has before?

What's to be gained by pretending Adam Shacknai isn't a part of this?

ETA: And do you think Nina and her attorneys were in agreement with this? Why?

Do you think Adam's attorneys were in agreement, and supporting this? How did this benefit THEIR client?

Ahhhh...so you think Dina's attorneys WANT her to keep talking and giving interviews? Even knowing how that has worked out with her public reputation in the past? Have you looked at any of the comments from any of the recent articles after her interviews? Brutal criticism of her. No support. None at all.

I can't imagine Nina and her lawyer is very happy with that interview, nor Adam and his lawyer.

 

[*Lash*]

The SDSO, FBi, and DOJ did not find those witnesses credible. Perhaps they were one of the people posting in the Patch. It is not unusual for mentally disturbed people to try to interject themselves in crime cases. And since Anne Bremner is the one they contacted, instead of LE, well, that just tells me a lot. LE found them uncredible for a reason.

BBM-

The first sentence in the quote says the passerby reported it to the police following Zahau's death.

Snip -
A passerby did notice a woman at the house that night and reported it to police following Zahau's death July 13. But that witness's description of the woman does not match that of Nina Romano, according to Zahau family attorney Anne Bremner.

 

[bourne]

I agree with everything ^. Particularly the part where you were speaking about the depositions and discovery. Dina is impulsive and reckless. Not only with herself, also with others. Yes. A loose cannon.



Does she listen to anyone?



Key message points? Do you mean what she said about her and Nina not being at the mansion that night?



I can't imagine Nina and her lawyer is very happy with that interview, nor Adam and his lawyer.

BBM. Glad you noted the behavioral pattern with Dina -- that she's IMPULSIVE and RECKLESS. Can there be more history and behavioral evidence pointing to Dina having been literally propelled to seek hateful vengeance upon Rebecca that fateful Tues evening? Especially upon abruptly hearing that Tues evening from Dr. Peterson that her one and only son would "never walk or talk again".

Anyway anyone looks at this, it is DINA who had the most motive (the mother who lost her one and only son from a multibillionaire who blamed Rebecca for this tragic loss), and it is DINA who had the opportunity (she was NOT at the hospital as she claimed because NO surveillance tapes showed her there per Sheriff Gore's press conference), and it is DINA who had the means (she had a father in the Navy who would take the twins Dina and Nina out boating so those knots were known to her). PLUS Dina's long, long history of reported Impulsive, Reckless, Violent, Volatile past behaviors.

In a nutshell, all arrows point to DINA as being the vindictive murderer of Rebecca. Blood-tied and dependent upon Dina for financial support, Nina, and Adam, clearly stooges.

 

[bourne]

Could one of the three/a witness be communicating with the Zs?

Wouldn't it be ironic if the ADT system was disengaged because Jonah was installing additional videocameras for the Spreckels home and the videos actually caught Dina murdering Rebecca?

 

[*Lash*]

Respectfully snipped -

Does anyone have any thoughts about Dina's February 7 NBC interview? Specifically, why she chose to do that interview at this point in time?

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...ado-Spreckels-Mansion-291021201.html#comments

When I first watched her interview, I was certain it was another spontaneous Dina moment. After further thought, I'm not so sure. I agree Dina was likely on a business trip related to the WDS. Danya Bacchus, NBC interviewer, has been covering this case since the beginning. I tend to believe Dina contacted Danya. I'm not sure Dina didn't have help from her attorneys or PR firm. IIRC, this is the first interview where Dina is not in a closeup talking. It appears to me this was intentional. Then the side step of NOT mentioning Adam is actually a good move on their part. Throw suspicion on Adam, away from Dina and Nina by using the comment about them not being there. Anyone who really knows this case, knows Nina admitted to being on the property. BUT, to the average reader this may come across as Dina saying she and her sister have alibis. Dina chose her words wisely. Dina didn't say they were not on the property that night (I know for a fact I was not there and neither was my sister). Where is there? Imo, not there during the murder.

Another interesting part of the interview, Dina does not mention XZ. Instead she said Rebecca was the only person there at the time. No way do I believe Dina has changed her mind about Rebecca and XZ both being there. In my opinion, there may be a restraining order protecting XZ or Dina was protecting her image by not verbally attacking a minor. This shows control. I tend to believe it was rehearsed. PR at work.

You asked about the timing of the interview. Scottsdale Soccer has a Blackhawks Max Shacknai Invitational. The tournament was Feb. 20th-22nd. I may be way off here, but I think the Feb. 7th interview had a targeted audience. The interview went viral, even reaching prime media outlets. If you think about the group of people participating in this event, I'm sure there would be plenty of talk amongst each other regarding Dina and Rebecca's death. First topic of discussion, did you see Dina's recent interview? Followed by, Dina said she nor her sister were there. Did you notice she doesn't mention Adam? I think you get my point.

2015 BLACKHAWKS MAX SHACKNAI INVITATIONAL - WELCOME AND THANK YOU
Welcome to all of our 376 teams that are participating in the largest tournament in Arizona this year and the largest in Scottsdale Soccer ‘Blackhawks’ history. Thank you in advance to the Tournament Committee and the army of volunteers who will make the experience an incredible one for all participants. We have blue skies, great weather and a Blackhawks welcome to all of you.

http://www.scottsdalesoccer.com/Tournament/index_E.html

 

[*Lash*]

Wanted to add last years Blackhawks Max Shacknai Invitational had a very wide audience. 317 teams. 70 out of state, including California.

​

Welcome to THE BLACKHAWKS MAX SHACKNAI INVITATIONAL 2015!

Last year's record attendance of 317 teams,including 70 Out of State from Cal North, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Texas, Washington, and Arizona proved to be our biggest event yet...

 

[time]

<Respectfully snipped>
You asked about the timing of the interview. Scottsdale Soccer has a Blackhawks Max Shacknai Invitational. The tournament was Feb. 20th-22nd. I may be way off here, but I think the Feb. 7th interview had a targeted audience. The interview went viral, even reaching prime media outlets. If you think about the group of people participating in this event, I'm sure there would be plenty of talk amongst each other regarding Dina and Rebecca's death. First topic of discussion, did you see Dina's recent interview? Followed by, Dina said she nor her sister were there. Did you notice she doesn't mention Adam? I think you get my point.

Good researching Lash... hasn't this sort of timing happened before, e.g., when Jonah was putting on an event (maybe the first time was when Jonah formed the nonprofit?). I have always thought there was something pathological about this competition between the two. I believe at some point it might have gone both ways, but now it's a one way street. I agree that this was another instance of planned PR and carefully executed and maybe it was just opportunistic, having nothing to do with competition anymore.

 

[screecher]

Wanted to add last years Blackhawks Max Shacknai Invitational had a very wide audience. 317 teams. 70 out of state, including California.

​

WOW. The invitational went HUGE !!!! Good for them !!!

 

[kittychi]

The SDSO, FBi, and DOJ did not find those witnesses credible. Perhaps they were one of the people posting in the Patch. It is not unusual for mentally disturbed people to try to interject themselves in crime cases. And since Anne Bremner is the one they contacted, instead of LE, well, that just tells me a lot. LE found them uncredible for a reason.

The FBI? I missed something, I'm afraid.

Could someone please point me to a thread or link about the FBI talking to witnesses or anything else in this case? I am totally drawing a blank.

TIA

 

[LuckyLucy2]

^ Hi LuLu. Remember saying the suit is going to be dismissed/thrown out? I believe you believe it to be true.

Sooo why are you making yourself :crazy: trying to figure out how the Zahau's lawyer is going to show otherwise?

I'm pretty sure you'd be more than welcome to join the other websleuthers once the trial starts, right posters?

I'd like to know how the Zahau posters here think they can PROVE these allegations. So far, no one wants to answer any of these questions. Is that because even the Zahau supporters have NO CLUE how ANYONE prove such obviously ridiculous charges?

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Why hasn't it been dismissed already, then, if there's no evidence?

Because that is scheduled for October. It is not October yet, IIRC.

The Judge has not yet seen ANY evidence. The cases were accepted because the FOURTH version the Zahau's filed met the criteria. It was NOT accepted because the allegations were true or believed by the Judge. Again, he has not ruled on any EVIDENCE to date. AZ Lawyer does a beautiful job of explaining this in the lawyer thread.

But remember, the case the Zahaus brought against the SDSO was DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Does anyone have any thoughts about Dina's February 7 NBC interview? Specifically, why she chose to do that interview at this point in time?

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...ado-Spreckels-Mansion-291021201.html#comments

Personally, I highly doubt that the news station contacted her out of the blue to do an interview. I think she contacted them to give her "exclusive", while she was in San Diego for other lawsuit business. I'm thinking that the depositions and discovery are not proceeding the way Dina might have wanted that to go, so she is choosing to get out ahead of the story with "damage control."

And her not mentioning Adam Shacknai at all-- that is very, very strange, IMO. Why go to all that trouble to set up an interview, with a San Diego news local , when Dina lives in Arizona? I'm guessing Dina was in San Diego for some appearance or meeting related to the lawsuit, perhaps even attending/ observing a deposition, and took advantage of the travel op to do some PR management in San Diego. I doubt Dina has been deposed yet-- her attorneys will make sure that is delayed as long as possible. IMO. Till "the end" if possible, so that they have benefit of the knowledge of all of the depositions before hers.

Because all 3 of the defendants are essentially one "conglomerate defendant"-- none can be severed from the others. I just can't shake how obvious and disturbing it is to listen to that recent interview, and not hear a single word about Adam-- 1/3 of the defendants, who was staying on the property. Why mention Nina, but not Adam.....beyond the obvious rationale that Dina and Nina are twins, and family supports family. Does anyone think Dina's attorneys put her up to this, thinking this interview was a good thing to do? Or did she do this on her own, perhaps in opposition to what her team of attorneys recommends? I just can't believe her attorneys are very happy with this kind of interview. She's a loose cannon, IMO. The high priced and experienced attorneys would want a VERY tight script, and control over personal media appearances, IMO-- no room for impromtpu editorializing.

I think Dina might be a very challenging client for her attorneys. Unpredictable and impulsive with the media appearances, IMO.

And perhaps Adam aksed Dina not to speak for him. Or perhaps Dina felt it was not her place to speak for him...he is her ex-brother in law, after all.

I also think it was high time for Dina to speak to the press, after all, the Zahaus have accused her in the SD media of MURDER, at least 4 or 5 times since they filed the lawsuit.

But I do appreciate your imagination concerning Dina and her lawyers, K.Z. No snark intended.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Interesting. Why do you think that?

Do you think Kim Schumann et al were "there" at the interview, okaying what could be asked and what couldn't? Why? Why not just remain silent and out of the public, at this point? What's in it for them? Why didn't Kim Schumann give a statement, like he has before?

What's to be gained by pretending Adam Shacknai isn't a part of this?

ETA: And do you think Nina and her attorneys were in agreement with this? Why?

Do you think Adam's attorneys were in agreement, and supporting this? How did this benefit THEIR client?

Ahhhh...so you think Dina's attorneys WANT her to keep talking and giving interviews? Even knowing how that has worked out with her public reputation in the past? Have you looked at any of the comments from any of the recent articles after her interviews? Brutal criticism of her. No support. None at all.

Yes, I've looked at comments and most seem supportive of Dina and actually lash out at the Zahaus for trying to make money off of innocent people. Most of the tax payers of San Diego are disgusted at the waste of taxpayer dollars for a sham Civil Case.