Question: in the WDS, will Dina have to provide solid evidence such as video footage and eyewitnesses of her presence at the hospital during the time frame in question, or will she be able to use SDSO's evidence of her cell phone's location as proof she was there?
Good Question!
In WDS, as justicebeserved provided, the burden of proof is on the *plaintiffs*, in this case, the Zahaus.
Dina need not do anything. She doesn't have to prove her innocence. The Zahaus, OTOH, has to prove *beyond preponderance of evidence* (this only means greater than 50% in other words, *more likely than not*) that Dina had committed the actions charged in the WDS complaint.
So the Zahaus need to prove, more likely than not, Dina had the:
a)
opportunity (which Zahaus should have this in the bag since Dina has NO alibi (her cellphone has alibi but she herself most certainly does NOT; Dina was NOT at the hospital as she claimed -- Dina has NO eyewitnesses AND was not on surveillance video as opposed to her ex-husband Jonah who was captured on video which itself should have been an obvious physical sign that something was wrong -- how can one man be captured on surveillance videos at the hospital while his ex-wife is NOT caught on same hospital surveillance video anytime during the same times?? --
AND MOST CRITICALLY, Dina was EYEWITNESSED "ACTING BIZARRELY" and "Carrying a HUGE BLACK BAG" at the Spreckels mansion by impartial bicycle family during time period Rebecca was MURDERED); and most evidently Dina *lied* to authorities that she was "sitting vigil" at her braindead son's deathbed (now why would she LIE about her whereabouts except to cover up where she truly was -- at Spreckels stalking, torturing & killing Rebecca); AND
b)
means (Dina had sailing/rope-tying/knotting experience via her childhood navy father; AND she knew others Nina and Adam, who were ALSO present at the Spreckels and were both capable of rope abilities and Dina could easily manipulate either Nina and Adam to help with the murder because of their relationship to Max); AND
c)
motive (This one's a freebie because the plaintiffs need not have to prove motive for a crime but it lends more credence to WHY a crime was committed. In this case, it is self-evident that Dina had the most motive, her one and only biological son conceived with a multibillionaire ex-husband was BRAINDEAD; she blamed Rebecca for his accident AND she hated Rebecca with a vengeance because she felt Rebecca STOLE her ex-husband multibillionaire Jonah away from her, plus other obvious factors such as jealousy and loss of prestige, status, and financial support from Jonah).
Given the 3-prongs above (opportunity, means and motive), any reasonable jury/Judge should easily come to the logical, evidence-based conclusion that Dina -- more likely than not -- had wrongfully stalked, assaulted and murdered Rebecca.
