Wrongful death trial begins. Trial coverage and discussion #2

[Jessica2012]

In one of Greer’s recent Websleuth interviews, he said the Asian *advertiser censored* had been viewed on Monday evening on one of Rebecca’s computers, but he said something like, “she may have exaggerated, and it really wasn’t important.” What? What does that mean? How could it not be important?

If I were on the Jury, from what I have seen to date, I would have to vote Not Guilty. They have not proved Adam had anything to do with her death, and there is no reason he would all of a sudden at his age, have to rape his brother’s girlfriend. It sounded like he and Jonah were close despite their age difference. Their is no indication in his past. No violence it seems, whatsoever. Why would he sexually assault or rape Rebecca? It just makes no sense to me.

I have leaned towards it being suicide since learning about the physical evidence, and am even more confident that is correct from seeing the testimony so far. Unless something major - which includes physical evidence which shows Adam was in the balcony room - I image I won’t change my mind.

Just my opinion.

 

[Seattle1]

Relative to AS call to 911 and all his activity including running, table jumping, CPR, etc., is there any evidence indicating AS was using bluetooth or hands-free device? IMO, AS breathing is detectable, constant throughout 911 call. I don't recall any info/comments about this.

 

[Seattle1]

Preponderance of the Evidence vs. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

In the United States legal system, there are two standards of proof that must be met before the judge decides who wins a case. Civil courts use a lower standard of “preponderance of evidence”, while criminal courts use a higher standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Preponderance of the Evidence

Civil courts require a plaintiff to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence. This means the person who is suing (i.e. Plaintiff) must prove that there is a greater than 50% chance, based on all the reasonable evidence, that the defendant did the wrong that caused the damage. The plaintiff can use testimonial and physical evidence to prove her case.

The defendant does not have to do anything to defend their case if the plaintiff fails to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. And as a result, the defendant wins

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

However, in criminal courts, there is a higher level of proof. The prosecutor must prove that the accused did the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This means there is a great likelihood that the accused committed the crime.

Although most courts refuse to attach any numbers to the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt,” some people believe it means 90%, 95%, or even 99% confidence that the accused did the crime.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-libr...he-evidence-vs-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.html

RZ et., al vs AS is a civil court matter

 

[Imp]

In one of Greer’s recent Websleuth interviews, he said the Asian *advertiser censored* had been viewed on Monday evening on one of Rebecca’s computers, but he said something like, “she may have exaggerated, and it really wasn’t important.” What? What does that mean? How could it not be important?

If I were on the Jury, from what I have seen to date, I would have to vote Not Guilty. They have not proved Adam had anything to do with her death, and there is no reason he would all of a sudden at his age, have to rape his brother’s girlfriend. It sounded like he and Jonah were close despite their age difference. Their is no indication in his past. No violence it seems, whatsoever. Why would he sexually assault or rape Rebecca? It just makes no sense to me.

I have leaned towards it being suicide since learning about the physical evidence, and am even more confident that is correct from seeing the testimony so far. Unless something major - which includes physical evidence which shows Adam was in the balcony room - I image I won’t change my mind.

Just my opinion.

Wow. Well, if you're still not convinced by the evidence that there's little to no possibility Rebecca could've killed herself in such a fashion, or that she was assaulted, I'd have to say it's a good thing you're not on the jury, because clearly your mind was made up long ago.

As for Adam's culpability, I agree the forensic evidence is shaky, but it's shaky as a direct result of the "suicide-directed" investigation by SDSO. I don't know how that will translate with the jury or what their instructions will be.

 

[Lezah]

Lezah--I definitely think your general theory is on the right track. The guesthouse may have played a much bigger role. I can't really figure out exactly what might have happened to get her there (lots of options as to how it started, etc.), but we've got the guesthouse that Adam is well familiar with. There's the unmade bed in the second bedroom, women's clothes, makeup wipes, underwear in the trash can, an admission to masterbation (you'll find my sperm here), and the failure to view it as a crime scene, etc. Add to that the "Freudian slip?" in the 911 call, the existence of the storage room as you've described, and the apparent "hog tie," it does make sense. Repots of the loud music were said to be coming "from the compound" not necessarily the main house.

In listening to his testimony regarding the guesthouse, I didn't really pick up on it being this big hesitation or stumble before he wrapped it up, then again it can take me awhile sometimes. I'm sure it was different being in the courtroom. But, his utter inability to describe seeing her hanging definitely would suggest she may never have been hanging from the balcony. I'm really happy the judge mentioned the 911 "hanging in the guesthouse..." That's amazing!



Wait, *bloody* table? How'd I miss that it was bloody???

And what about motive...?

I believe your observation re the findings in the guest house are very significant, as is your theory on mentioning the masturbation. It all fits...I think you have shown another piece of the puzzle...

I also feel that we should take another look at motive...and I think we should look at the relationship between AS - and his father.

The emotionless presentation on the stand was only fractured momentarily, and that IMO was when AS spoke of the call he received from his father ( on direct from MrGreer) about Maxie’s accident.

The testimony became much more ‘real’ for me at this point - his description of his fathers heartbreak, devastation.....but he ‘self corrected’ himself half way through, as if realizing it didn’t fit with the ‘he was going to be ok’ narrative. He said words to the effect of “...but, but he said there is hope, there was hope.... he would be ok..”

Hum, that devastation, that honest account of his fathers distress at the beginning of the testimony, it just did it work for me with the caveat of him ‘having hope’.

AS also testified ( in summary and in the main) that he never married because his GF (and those he had previously) were Christian, and it was of great importance to his parents that he married into his faith.

This was expressed IMO with love and consideration of his parents wishes. I believe he has cared very deeply about his parents and he probably lived his life in a way that he wants to please them, however he can. After all, he admitted sacrificing marriage with someone he says he loves, for them...I think he was telling the truth.

I believe he has probably lived in the shadow of his brothers success all his life.

He testified he rang RZ immediately after letting the conversation with his father ‘sink in’... he didn’t ring his brother. Why would you ring RZ and not your brother, when he had testified they each ‘always have each other’s back’ and ‘we’re very close, looking out for each other always’

IMO, AS father would be understandably devastated about his young grandchild, and he probably told AS he was seriously injured enough for him to be brain damaged for life, if not going to die. “...I have never never heard...my father has never spoken like that, been so devastated...he was...it was, I never in my life heard him like that.....”

It’s also highly likely he told him the circumstances, and that he was in Rebecca’s care at the time.

I believe his father probably/likely blamed RZ for not watching Max properly, maybe he was upset at JS, maybe he was angry with JS as JS was defending RZ to his dad maybe JS said “she saved him Dad, she did CPR...”

If JS didnt support RZ perhaps he thought he would have to admit to his father he should also share the responsibility of Maxies accident?

Adam Stasi he didn’t ring his brother, he rang RZ. He said RZ told him he had “follow his heart”, he repeated this several times In his testimony.

He said “RZ encouraged me to come, but said I had to follow my heart” some things not fitting for me here...I would ask someone to follow their heart if they were not taking my advice...not if they were...

What came across to me after the testimony was that AS is the son who is not the billionaire. He is the son who never married, and never produced grandchildren for his parents to love. AS is the son who never met a girl who he felt would meet his parents expectations. Maybe this time, he would show his devastated father he would be the son to find out what happened - and hold them responsible.


Maybe the message on the door was related to his father in some way ...and his brother?


( edited to add... just my opinion and speculation....I’ve paraphrazed statements from my recollection)

 

[Jessica2012]

Imp, I think it is a good think no one that posts here is on the jury, as everyone seems to have an opinion one way or the other, and all the evidence has not been presented yet!

There is no evidence that Adam has done anything in all the little towns up and down the Mississippi, as a poster speculated, and he has risen in the ranks of his company to the highest position. He also completed a degree in
American Literature and completed two higher exams that would allow him to pilot on open water. It doesn’t sound like he has had much time for shenanigans, and the jury may be likely to think that as well.

The jury will only be able to consider what is said in court not including what the Attorneys say, but only the witnesses.

 

[Imp]

Imp, I think it is a good think no one that posts here is on the jury, as everyone seems to have an opinion one way or the other, and all the evidence has not been presented yet!

There is no evidence that Adam has done anything in all the little towns up and down the Mississippi, as a poster speculated, and he has risen in the ranks of his company to the highest position. He also completed a degree in
American Literature and completed two higher exams that would allow him to pilot on open water. It doesn’t sound like he has had much time for shenanigans, and the jury may be likely to think that as well.

The jury will only be able to consider what is said in court not including what the Attorneys say, but only the witnesses.

I basically agreed with you about AS (not all his sterling qualities as you describe them, but simply that the corrupt investigation has left Greer little to work with, forensically, to pin on AS). I do wonder, however, with all AS's advanced experience why he says he can't tie basic nautical knots ... can't even name them. Odd, to say the least.

But what about Rebecca's manner of death? If you're aware of all the most recent evidence, then you know she was hogtied because a) her knees were fixed in a bent position on the ground, which wouldn't happen if was hanging straight down by a noose, and b) there were loose pieces of rope attached to the bindings on her wrists and ankles that when put back in their original position end-to-end, depict a hogtie.

And you're also aware of the knife handle she was sexually assaulted with, right? The one with blood up to the hilt on all 4 sides? And then there's also the deep bruise on her back, that no one can explain except that it looks like someone had a knee in her back at some point.

No way this was suicide. The probability is infinitesimal.

 

[Seattle1]

In one of Greer’s recent Websleuth interviews, he said the Asian *advertiser censored* had been viewed on Monday evening on one of Rebecca’s computers, but he said something like, “she may have exaggerated, and it really wasn’t important.” What? What does that mean? How could it not be important?

If I were on the Jury, from what I have seen to date, I would have to vote Not Guilty. They have not proved Adam had anything to do with her death, and there is no reason he would all of a sudden at his age, have to rape his brother’s girlfriend. It sounded like he and Jonah were close despite their age difference. Their is no indication in his past. No violence it seems, whatsoever. Why would he sexually assault or rape Rebecca? It just makes no sense to me.

I have leaned towards it being suicide since learning about the physical evidence, and am even more confident that is correct from seeing the testimony so far. Unless something major - which includes physical evidence which shows Adam was in the balcony room - I image I won’t change my mind.

Just my opinion.

Jessica2012 -- I'd like to respectfully clarify your quoted reference above. I believe Mr. Greer was referring specifically to Attorney Ann Bremner here. Ms. Bremner was initially hired by RZ family to urge SDSO to reopen RZ death investigation --which many believe was ruled suicide after minimal investigation considering the horrific death scene. Bremner unsworn statements, perhaps exaggerated, were to bring attention to SDSO and RZ death investigation.

 

[Tricia]

If the judge lets the jury split the verdict do you think the jury will vote Rebecca was murdered but vote that there isn't enough evidence to say Adam was the killer?

If the answer is yes, the jury will vote Rebecca was murder and Adam didn't do it, then what do you think will happen if the judge does not allow a split verdict?


This is very interesting IMO because if the jury is not allowed to split the verdict and the jurors do feel Rebecca was murdered but feel there is not enough evidence to say Adam did it what will they do?

Since it is not a criminal case the weight is not as severe as it would be if they were sending Adam to prison.

BUT, the jury could very well vote all the way and say Rebecca was murdered and Adam was the killer.

These thoughts literally keep me awake at night. Really. I can't figure out what conclusion the jury will come to.

I would love to have your opinions.

Thank you,
Tricia

 

[Seattle1]

If the judge lets the jury split the verdict do you think the jury will vote Rebecca was murdered but vote that there isn't enough evidence to say Adam was the killer?

If the answer is yes, the jury will vote Rebecca was murder and Adam didn't do it, then what do you think will happen if the judge does not allow a split verdict?


This is very interesting IMO because if the jury is not allowed to split the verdict and the jurors do feel Rebecca was murdered but feel there is not enough evidence to say Adam did it what will they do?

Since it is not a criminal case the weight is not as severe as it would be if they were sending Adam to prison.

BUT, the jury could very well vote all the way and say Rebecca was murdered and Adam was the killer.

These thoughts literally keep me awake at night. Really. I can't figure out what conclusion the jury will come to.

I would love to have your opinions.

Thank you,
Tricia

Tricia,
Based on my all hours posting last 24 hours, you're not the only one kept awake at night pondering this split verdict possibility!

My self-relief today came with believing the jurors will see/lean at least 50-1/2% that AS did the wrong that caused RZ death. It actually helped me to "type" out the definition of prerponderance of the evidence definition!

Preponderance of the Evidence

Civil courts require a plaintiff to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence. This means the person who is suing (i.e. Plaintiff) must prove that there is a greater than 50% chance, based on all the reasonable evidence, that the defendant did the wrong that caused the damage. The plaintiff can use testimonial and physical evidence to prove her case.

The defendant does not have to do anything to defend their case if the plaintiff fails to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. And as a result, the defendant wins.

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-libr...he-evidence-vs-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt.html

 

[Betty P]

I must say I agree. I am so sad because I believe she was murdered but I don’t see the evidence to convict AS. I would have to let him off. I don’t think the family is going to get the relief they want.

There's a great deal that points to Adam. The match of writing for the painting, the knots, conflicts in his testimony, the fact he was the only one on the property, motive, etc. It's all there. More than enough evidence to find him guilty.

 

[Tortoise]

I wonder if anyone can explain why setting up the mannequin in the courtroom to hang at the height she would have been, dictated by the rope lengths, would have been prejudicial?

 

[Betty P]

Lezah-- Please know I find your theory a spot on possibility, and offer the following for your consideration:

1) Guest house was never considered a crime scene, and any evidence never collected.

2) RZ likely strangled in guest house.

3) More likely witnessed screams audible to/from the guest house struggle.

4) If ever hanging, RZ was raised from the ground and not over balcony.

5) The (broken) table more likely required to raise RZ than to cut her down.

6) AS could reach RZ from balcony, and didn't need table

7) AS cutting doesn't fit in recorded 911 call.

8) Just like the utterance about girl hung at guest house, AS slips again in polygraph with the order he called 911!

Again-- that bloody table is a real thorn in my side. A distraction?

Dr. Wecht has already testified that the damage to Rebecca's neck was severe enough to indicate she had been hanged. She just wasn't dropped the full 9 feet as if she had jumped. It would not have been difficult for Adam to lower her from the balcony with enough force to damage her neck.

JMO, some things may have happened in the guest house, an altercation or something, but Keith Greer pointed out that spots of Rebecca's menstrual blood were found on the carpeting in the balcony room, enough to indicate she had been lying there nude on the floor for a while. There were also spots of her blood in the hallway going to the room from the master bedroom. Greer has speculated she came out of the shower in a towel into the master bedroom. Something caused her to go to the door, where there was an altercation, her towel was dropped and she was led down the hall to the murder room. The spots of her menstrual blood and the towel show how she was forced through the house and onto the floor of the murder room.

For Adam to do that, then bind her up and haul her out to the guest house seems unnecessary and rather risky. Carrying her nude and bound in ropes out through the courtyard, a neighbor may have seen them. It seems like a lot of work and unnecessary moving of her..

But it's possible he asked her to come to the guest house after arriving home (or she went there to see if he needed anything). He may have come on to her. She may have been insulted, resisted his advances, then returned to the house. He may have felt angry and rejected, so went into the mansion and accosted her after she came out of the shower.

 

[Mica]

There's a great deal that points to Adam. The match of writing for the painting, the knots, conflicts in his testimony, the fact he was the only one on the property, motive, etc. It's all there. More than enough evidence to find him guilty.

And Mr Greer’s very important comments from his last radio show with Tricia..

>> snip

Tricia: Do you feel as confident now that you'll get those 9 out of 12 jurors, or is it maybe looking like it is murder but maybe they won't find Adam guilty if they're able to make that decision?

Mr. Greer: You know, I feel the same, because the critical factor here, which we stated in our open, which we've stated in all our pleadings, and all the interviews I've had, is that whoever killed Rebecca left a message. Whether it was suicide or murder, the person left a message: She saved him can you save her. And even Detective Tsuida, who's the lead detective for the sheriff's department said on the stand, they were tossing around meanings of that saying and they ... the one they thought was most likely, uh, the proper interpretation was 'she saved him' was Rebecca saved Max, because everyone in the family felt at that time that Rebecca being there and giving Max CPR saved his life. Max was still in a tough spot, but at least he had a chance, because Rebecca was there and saved his life.

So if you use that as a characteristic of the culprit, that they were aware - whoever did this was aware that Rebecca had saved Max, that narrows the universe of people that could've done this down to a very small group because this wasn't in the press yet. It didn't get in to the press until Rebecca's hanging.

And so it really was close family members, first responders, and health care providers at the hospital where Max was. And we don't have any evidence that the first responders, you know, the fire department, the ambulance drivers, that they had anything to do with Rebecca's hanging. We don't have any evidence that the health care providers at the hospital had anything to do with it.

And then we narrow it down to looking at the family and we know that Jonah and Dina, the mother and father of the little boy, were at the hospital - we have them on videotape, so they were at the hospital. The other family and friends had left town that were there supporting the family, they'd flown out earlier that day, and so that really leaves Adam, and Rebecca as the two with that knowledge, so that makes it now either suicide or murder - suicide by Rebecca or murder by Adam - and I think the evidence is very powerful that Rebecca didn't commit suicide. So, my feelings haven't changed.

Tricia: So if they decide it's murder, they have no other choice but Adam Shacknai.

Mr. Greer: Well, there's no evidence of anybody. [My note: This sounded a little odd to me at first, but I get what he's saying here - there's no evidence, period, due to a couple of factors, but AS was the only other one there with knowledge of the message.]


From Imp’s post #310 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/s...begins-Trial-coverage-and-discussion-2/page21

 

[Tortoise]

I have been really impressed by the standard of Mr Greer's case and I think they've shown enough to win this. The judge must agree there is enough for her not to have dismissed the claim too.

 

[Lezah]

I wonder if anyone can explain why setting up the mannequin in the courtroom to hang at the height she would have been, dictated by the rope lengths, would have been prejudicial?

I recall during the deliberations ( without the jury present) the judge said she had to weigh up the benefit of the demonstrative ( of a hanging lifelike menequin in the courtroom) vs the potential prejudicial impact on the jury.

She said that she would reserve judgement until the lunch break of the day, and if mr Greer had laid down the foundation with the witness with his questioning to make showing of the manequin being an appropriate requirement, she would decide then. At the break they revisited ( out of the jury presence again) and the judge said no mannequin - as MrGreer had not laid foundation with the questioning of AS.

Mr G explained he thought she meant to tell him at break if he was to lay foundation, he misunderstood.

The judge then gave him another opportunity. She said that if he could lay foundation with the remaining direct questioning after lunch, she would likely allow the mannequin.*** edited, reconsider the manequin, not likely allow - checked my notes***

After lunch Mr Greer tried to get AS to explain about how he high he found RZ hanging, but he kept saying he had no recollection - so he could not lay the foundation in the evidence to get the manequin introduced. I wrote ‘ obvious coaching’ in my notes!

That’s why Mr Greer said, ‘you were well prepared for that question weren’t you?’ And similar things to AS, ( which were objected to and sustained by the judge) AS seemed to have been guided by his defence to keep the responses so vague so as to prevent Mr Greer getting the manequin in. He succeeded in keeping it out.

The same ‘ weighing up’ was done on the question of the masturbation, as the defense said it was highly prejudicial. Mr Greer argued the sexual nature of the alleged crime ( all the aspects) made it relevant and prejudicial to leave it out... and the Judge said that weighing up case vs the prejudicial aspect fell on the side of the plaintiff. The masturbation was in, the manequin remained out.

(That’s to the best of my recollection)

 

[Lezah]

I have been really impressed by the standard of Mr Greer's case and I think they've shown enough to win this. The judge must agree there is enough for her not to have dismissed the claim too.

I read what must have been hundreds of pages of motions full of objections by the defence before this ever got near a courtroom. Mr Greer has been fighting like hell to get this to court in motions in filings with the court ...for years. I am SO impressed with this Judge and her knowledge of the law and her objectivity. You could not have got a better Judge in my opinion. She is great for BOTH sides and that is exactly what everyone wants, a fair and equitable voice.

Mr Greer has been amazing. To do this on his own, against these heavy hitters ...wow. He is a truly a fantastic attorney.

 

[Imp]

If the judge lets the jury split the verdict do you think the jury will vote Rebecca was murdered but vote that there isn't enough evidence to say Adam was the killer?

If the answer is yes, the jury will vote Rebecca was murder and Adam didn't do it, then what do you think will happen if the judge does not allow a split verdict?


This is very interesting IMO because if the jury is not allowed to split the verdict and the jurors do feel Rebecca was murdered but feel there is not enough evidence to say Adam did it what will they do?

Since it is not a criminal case the weight is not as severe as it would be if they were sending Adam to prison.

BUT, the jury could very well vote all the way and say Rebecca was murdered and Adam was the killer.

These thoughts literally keep me awake at night. Really. I can't figure out what conclusion the jury will come to.

I would love to have your opinions.

Thank you,
Tricia

I'm kind of hoping by the time Mr. Greer is finished cross-examining the parade of SDSO witnesses, it will be clear to the jury that a terrible and deliberate injustice was done, and the lack of forensics pointing to AS is just one more feature of that injustice, and as such, they'll vote yes to both murder and AS's guilt.

I have no sympathy for Shacknai, Inc., because imo, if SDSO had been encouraged to do a thorough, competent death investigation vs. a 'suicide-directed' investigation, criminal charges would've been filed back in 2011.

 

[Tortoise]

I recall during the deliberations ( without the jury present) the judge said she had to weigh up the benefit of the demonstrative ( of a hanging lifelike menequin in the courtroom) vs the potential prejudicial impact on the jury.

She said that she would reserve judgement until the lunch break of the day, and if mr Greer had laid down the foundation with the witness with his questioning to make showing of the manequin being an appropriate requirement, she would decide then. At the break they revisited ( out of the jury presence again) and the judge said no mannequin - as MrGreer had not laid foundation with the questioning of AS.

Mr G explained he thought she meant to tell him at break if he was to lay foundation, he misunderstood.

The judge then gave him another opportunity. She said that if he could lay foundation with the remaining direct questioning after lunch, she would likely allow the mannequin.*** edited, reconsider the manequin, not likely allow - checked my notes***

After lunch Mr Greer tried to get AS to explain about how he high he found RZ hanging, but he kept saying he had no recollection - so he could not lay the foundation in the evidence to get the manequin introduced. I wrote ‘ obvious coaching’ in my notes!

That’s why Mr Greer said, ‘you were well prepared for that question weren’t you?’ And similar things to AS, ( which were objected to and sustained by the judge) AS seemed to have been guided by his defence to keep the responses so vague so as to prevent Mr Greer getting the manequin in. He succeeded in keeping it out.

The same ‘ weighing up’ was done on the question of the masturbation, as the defense said it was highly prejudicial. Mr Greer argued the sexual nature of the alleged crime ( all the aspects) made it relevant and prejudicial to leave it out... and the Judge said that weighing up case vs the prejudicial aspect fell on the side of the plaintiff. The masturbation was in, the manequin remained out.

(That’s to the best of my recollection)

Thanks Lezah. I guess I'm not really understanding why it would have a prejudicial impact. It might show he didn't need to get a table but if that's the truth of the matter I don't see why he should not be shown to have been tampering with the evidence or staging the scene. To me it seems prejudicial against the plaintiff not to show it.

 

[Lezah]

I'm kind of hoping by the time Mr. Greer is finished cross-examining the parade of SDSO witnesses, it will be clear to the jury that a terrible and deliberate injustice was done, and the lack of forensics pointing to AS is just one more feature of that injustice, and as such, they'll vote yes to both murder and AS's guilt.

I have no sympathy for Shacknai, Inc., because imo, if SDSO had been encouraged to do a thorough, competent death investigation vs. a 'suicide-directed' investigation, criminal charges would've been filed back in 2011.

I overheard courtroom observers chatter last week...in one of the breaks...it was about 2011 being an ‘election year’ for Mr Gore and this being relevant...not sure what relevance that would have...?