Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California, #4

[screecher]

I'm not sure what to make of the photo, it could be a person in a hospital parking lot or an airport parking lot. Given we don't know who it is, conjecture seems premature.

However, I can tell you that the local Coronado boards have lit up. And, I have yet to see ONE comment that this was suicide. It is kind of heart warming.

All of San Diego is abuzzing!!! Bus stops, trolley stops, restaurants, hotel desks!!!

All believe justice is coming 😎

My take on this shot from the video - file it in the FWIW category. I took the still and put it in a photo program then zoomed in.

I believe the top left photo of the person in the striped shirt is definitely taken in a parking lot. I believe the person is a woman wearing a crossbody purse on her left hip. She is wearing a striped top with a long sleeve light weight cardigan over it, unbuttoned. To me she appears to have long dark brown hair which approximately reaches her breast in length.

In the photo to our right of the note I interpret it as being of a person walking into a public building through glass doors. There seems to me to be multiple doors that's why I said it was a public building.

I don't know what the first diagram on our left is of. The one on our right is of the balcony bedroom.

I certainly wish I could see more. It would be wonderful to see the raw footage the station took.

 

[*Lash*]

It was at the bottom of the written story that accompanied the video.

Hi CricketFern & welcome :wave:

The article originally read "a federal judge will decide Friday", it was updated 6 hrs later to "a federal judge will decide next week". It was likely updated by the time you first read the article.

Lawyer: New evidence proves Zahau was murdered
Posted: 5:41 AM, Feb 19, 2016
Updated: 11:22 AM, Feb 19, 2016

I hope that Greer gives other interviews in that room so that we can see more of the images on the walls!

I'm still confused what the "new evidence" could be. Other than the handwriting analysis I mentioned previously there was nothing new to me. Can anyone address how compelling "new evidence" needs to be to get a case reopened?

Thanks

I understand the confusion concerning the "new evidence". Whatever the reason, it is the title the reporter chose to give the article. I'm uncertain if the title it is a direct quote from Greer? It infers as much, but there is no direct quote in the body of the article. Maybe the reporter saw something we didn't?

ETA - Honorable Judge Bacal is a state judge not federal, correct? The article states federal.

 

[K_Z]

The new Minute Order, #290, from Friday's scheduled hearing, is posted. Appears everything was just moved back and re-scheduled at the direction of the Judge/ court until next week, 2/26/16.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
MINUTE ORDER TIME: 01:30:00 PM
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Katherine Bacal
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CENTRAL

DATE: 02/19/2016
DEPT: C-69 CLERK: Jay Browder
REPORTER/ERM: Not Reported
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: Robert Trombley
CASE NO: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL
CASE INIT.DATE: 11/13/2013 CASE TITLE: Estate of Rebecca Zahau vs. Shacknai [IMAGED]
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited
CASE TYPE: PI/PD/WD –
Other EVENT TYPE: Civil Case Management Conference
MOVING PARTY: Pari Z Zahau, Estate of Rebecca Zahau, Estate of Robert Zahau, Mary Zahau-Loehner

CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Complaint, 11/13/2013 EVENT TYPE: Demurrer / Motion to Strike MOVING PARTY: Adam Shacknai
CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint, 06/01/2015
EVENT TYPE: Demurrer / Motion to Strike MOVING PARTY: Dina Shacknai
CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 06/16/2015 STOLO

APPEARANCES STOLO No Appearance by all parties

Stolo Prior to calendar call, at the direction of the Court, the clerk calls plaintiff's counsel and informs his office that the Court did not have time to post the tentative ruling that continued the hearing to 2/26/2016. Plaintiff's counsel's office informs the clerk that plaintiff will give notice of the continued hearings. Civil Case Management Conference is continued pursuant to Court's motion to 02/26/2016 at 01:30PM before Judge Katherine Bacal. Demurrer / Motion to Strike is continued pursuant to Court's motion to 02/26/2016 at 01:30PM before Judge Katherine Bacal. Demurrer / Motion to Strike is continued pursuant to Court's motion to 02/26/2016 at 01:30PM before Judge Katherine Bacal.

STOLO MINUTE ORDER DATE: 02/19/2016 Page 1 DEPT: C-69 Calendar N

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...A-290_02-19-16_Minute_Order_1455983570039.pdf

 

[CricketFern]

All of San Diego is abuzzing!!! Bus stops, trolley stops, restaurants, hotel desks!!!

All believe justice is coming 

In the name of God I certainly hope so!!!!!

 

[Imp]

My take is that the arms are bent at the elbows so it's hard to tell the length.

I hope that Greer gives other interviews in that room so that we can see more of the images on the walls!

I'm still confused what the "new evidence" could be. Other than the handwriting analysis I mentioned previously there was nothing new to me. Can anyone address how compelling "new evidence" needs to be to get a case reopened?

Thanks

Yes, her arms are bent, which is how I can tell the elbows don't quite seem to make it to her waist. In the few photos I've seen of Rebecca, she had long, lovely, toned arms. I could certainly be wrong - just thought it was worth mentioning, since I notice arm lengths and many people don't!

As for "new evidence," that picture of the gal is new, along with some of the information in the cryptic notes on the white board. I'm personally ecstatic at the mere possibility of compelling new evidence!

 

[*Lash*]

Itica Milanes, reporter from KGTV 10 news article, Twitter account. Below is a photo she posted on Twitter. This frame was not included in the news video. Atty Greer is pointing to the picture on the top right side. This pic does appear to be of the balcony showing a footprint with a measuring tool. It is a better still pic and you can see the brick tiles.

https://mobile.twitter.com/10NewsMilanes/tweets

 

[bourne]

Itica Milanes, reporter from KGTV 10 news article, Twitter account. Below is a photo she posted on Twitter. This frame was not included in the news video. Atty Greer is pointing to the picture on the top right side. This pic does appear to be of the balcony showing a footprint with a measuring tool. It is a better still pic and you can see the brick tiles.

https://mobile.twitter.com/10NewsMilanes/tweets

I don't see any woman in the so-called "new pic". It looks like Godwin's pic of footprints that were present on the dusty balcony. I think it's an old pic wherein Godwin demonstrated someone else had to stand on balcony in order to throw Rebecca over. No way no how Rebecca could have hopped and jumped over the high and wide balcony without scraping more than a few minute centimeters of dusty railing and NOT leave any prints or DNA behind on balcony.

When I saw the recent news video and read the news article, it appears that the "new evidence" may be that a graphologist determined that it was likely a man around 6 feet tall who wrote the "SHE SAVED HIM CAN YOU SAVE HER" cryptic message in third person on the door.

I hope there is more new evidence such as videotapes found the night Rebecca was murdered either at the hospital or at the Spreckels mansion which shows Rebecca's murderers.

 

[CricketFern]

Itica Milanes, reporter from KGTV 10 news article, Twitter account. Below is a photo she posted on Twitter. This frame was not included in the news video. Atty Greer is pointing to the picture on the top right side. This pic does appear to be of the balcony showing a footprint with a measuring tool. It is a better still pic and you can see the brick tiles.

Wow - I totally misinterpreted that photo! I thought it was someone walking through glass doors - this image is much clearer. It just goes to show what speculating does when you don't have complete information. I think I just want to see an answer to this so much...

I do have a question. I thought I read (maybe the AR, not sure because I can't find it now) that the "bootprint" was left by a police officer on the scene? Did I imagine that too? And this maybe a stupid question suggested by TV but don't cops wear protective booties over their shoes (like surgical booties) when they go into a crime scene?

 

[Waitaminute]

hi there! google up 'dr Maurice Godwin Zahau shoe print analysis' and you will find a trove of interesting news about those prints!

Wow - I totally misinterpreted that photo! I thought it was someone walking through glass doors - this image is much clearer. It just goes to show what speculating does when you don't have complete information. I think I just want to see an answer to this so much...

I do have a question. I thought I read (maybe the AR, not sure because I can't find it now) that the "bootprint" was left by a police officer on the scene? Did I imagine that too? And this maybe a stupid question suggested by TV but don't cops wear protective booties over their shoes (like surgical booties) when they go into a crime scene?

 

[Imp]

^^^Wow, Waitaminute ... the Examiner.com article on Dr. Godwin's findings was an eye-opener! It's a crying shame that it took outside experts not involved in the initial "investigation" into Rebecca's death to bring evidence like this to light. Thank God they took an interest and were willing to refute the findings of local LE.

 

[Gilgamesh]

^^^Wow, Waitaminute ... the Examiner.com article on Dr. Godwin's findings was an eye-opener! It's a crying shame that it took outside experts not involved in the initial "investigation" into Rebecca's death to bring evidence like this to light. Thank God they took an interest and were willing to refute the findings of local LE.

It's also a crying shame that Dr. Godwin was dropped from Anne Bremner's crew. He had a lot to offer. I hope he's back.

 

[Imp]

It's also a crying shame that Dr. Godwin was dropped from Anne Bremner's crew. He had a lot to offer. I hope he's back.

Yes, I didn't understand that. I read what he said in another article (same Google search) about being dropped from the case, something about the Dr. Phil show's involvement. I hope he's back as well, since he's apparently the only expert who did a thorough investigation of the balcony evidence.

 

[Waitaminute]

I actually went straight to Dr Godwin's website, it has the blow up of pictures with explanations of each finding, fascinating!

^^^Wow, Waitaminute ... the Examiner.com article on Dr. Godwin's findings was an eye-opener! It's a crying shame that it took outside experts not involved in the initial "investigation" into Rebecca's death to bring evidence like this to light. Thank God they took an interest and were willing to refute the findings of local LE.

 

[CricketFern]

I actually went straight to Dr Godwin's website, it has the blow up of pictures with explanations of each finding, fascinating!

I agree! He lays everything out very clearly. I don't understand why he was "forced" off the case though, does anyone have any info that explains that aspect?

 

[K_Z]

Forensic expert Dr. Maurice Godwin, who was hired by Rebecca Zahau‘s family after the San Diego Sheriff’s Department ruled her death a suicide, is no longer working with the family, and the renowned expert thinks Dr. Phil is the reason he was let go from the investigation, RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting.

“I have been forced off the Zahau case. It appears that there is a clique of people who now have been picked by the family team,” Dr. Godwin tells RadarOnline.com exclusively. “The Dr. Phil show put one of their investigators on the case. I was also excluded from the Dr. Phil show after they read my analysis, despite the fact that the unknown shoe print ridges on the balcony that I found is the only evidence anyone currently has that puts another person on the balcony with Rebecca.”

Meanwhile, Godwin believes that “a detective or assistant D.A. should be at the autopsy.”

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/10/rebecca-zahau-investigation-forensic-expert-forced-case/

Posted on Oct 27, 2011

BBM

 

[Waitaminute]

I agree! He lays everything out very clearly. I don't understand why he was "forced" off the case though, does anyone have any info that explains that aspect?

It never has made any sense to me either.

 

[justice be served]

The new Minute Order, #290, from Friday's scheduled hearing, is posted. Appears everything was just moved back and re-scheduled at the direction of the Judge/ court until next week, 2/26/16.



https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...A-290_02-19-16_Minute_Order_1455983570039.pdf

Since this delay until the following Friday was by order of the court, does anyone have any idea why the judge would do that? Is it maybe as simple as the fact that they ran out of time to hear all of the motions or something?

It doesn't seem like anyone in particular made the request for the delay?

 

[screecher]

Since this delay until the following Friday was by order of the court, does anyone have any idea why the judge would do that? Is it maybe as simple as the fact that they ran out of time to hear all of the motions or something?

It doesn't seem like anyone in particular made the request for the delay?

Well. The weather has been sunny, warm...beach weather...perhaps she and her family/friends spent some much needed days at the beach with the most magical beautiful golden sand ever?

Probably the same one (across the street) Rebecca and Maxie visited daily.

 

[screecher]

Perhaps she is taking a time out?

 

[*Lash*]

3 new entries today on San Diego ROA:

*New - Ex Parte scheduled for Thursday
*New - NN's Motion for Protective Order changed from 2/26/16 to 11/4/16

296 02/23/2016
Ex Parte scheduled for 02/25/2016 at 08:45:00 AM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal.

295 02/23/2016
Motion Hearing (Civil) scheduled for 11/04/2016 at 01:10:00 AM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal.

294 02/23/2016 The Motion Hearing (Civil) was rescheduled to 11/04/2016 at 01:10:00 AM in C-69 before Katherine Bacal at Central.

New schedule-

02/25/2016 08:45 AM C-69 Ex Parte
02/26/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Civil Case Management Conference - Complaint
02/26/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Demurrer / Motion to Strike - Demurrer
02/26/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Demurrer / Motion to Strike - Demurrer
03/11/2016 01:30 PM C-69 Demurrer / Motion to Strike
08/05/2016 11:00 AM C-69 Discovery Hearing
11/04/2016 01:10 AM C-69 Motion Hearing (Civil) - Motion for Protective Order
01/13/2017 08:45 AM C-69 Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil)

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml
Case Number: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL