Wrongful death trial begins. Trial coverage and discussion #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lilibet said:
Thanks. That makes sense, although I still don’t know why AS would be a plaintiff witness. Interesting. I guess we’ll find out soon enough. :)
Click to expand...

Probably so that Greer can "harpoon" him on the stand........should be a very interesting and lively day! I myself am looking forward to it!
 
If the SDSD does not reopen an investigation on this case, then they should be investigated. I would like to know about the money JS supposedly gave them. I have never seen such callousness and uncaringness as seen with "Gore".
 
Lilibet said:
Thanks. That makes sense, although I still don’t know why AS would be a plaintiff witness. Interesting. I guess we’ll find out soon enough. :)
Click to expand...

Yes, Adam was supposed to be the last witness called for plaintiff, but defense first witness took the stand on Thursday so that Adam could wait until Monday to testify. All I heard in reports is Adam "couldn't" testify on Thursday, so I'm not really sure what that's about, but defense may very well have wanted more time to prep in light of what's happened in court so far.

It's not at all unusual for the plaintiff to call him as a witness. It doesn't mean he's on their side, it means they think their case will be aided by the line of questioning they have for him. Seeing how awful he was in the police interviews & how much he's contradicted himself already, I've no doubt they'll bring some great stuff out in court. The defense could call him as a witness, too, if they wish. But, if the plaintiff left Adam off their list, the defense could chose not to call him & he'd never take the stand. Or, if defense called him, the line of questioning for Greer would be more limited in cross examination based on whatever is the direct line of questioning the defense used. Cross examination is damage control, limiting the impact of the direct line of questioning. Direct examination is you showing the jury the pertinent information to prove your case. So, yeah, this makes ultimate sense.

I'm really glad the first defense witness went out of order on Thursday, especially since it went as well as it did on cross examination. Now the jurors will have three days to sit with how inept the SDSO investigation was. Then, they get to come back and hear the plaintiffs close out their case with a BANG. Seems like a real gift, actually, in my mind, that it turned out this way. I am filled with hope & anticipation for justice. :)
 
Lezah said:
Today in court...

Ok, it was the lead detective today and I just had to go...too many unanswered questions for me not to...Here’s my take on the day and I’m sorry in advance it’s long...

Heads up, it was very much a win by Mr Greer today, IMO.

The lady detective was questioned first by the defense, she was their witness as it was out of sync as AS couldn’t testify as yet. He will be on Monday.

She has been a police officer for 27 years. Estimated 100 death investigations in that time ( no specificity on type of death, ie not just murder)

The defense initially went through, in great detail, the running of the events, time reported, time of notification, time of arrival, what and who was on the scene etc. ...then they went through all the roles, who cleared the house, what it meant ( explaining everything to the jury in more detail of standard procedures) who was the photographer, what they photographed, how many photographs...how they collect DNA, how they collect fingerprints, what is a fingerprint card... canvassing the neighborhood process etc etc...

I feel this extra emphasis on process was a defense strategy designed to give the jury the impression everything was followed by the book, when the detective was just really explaining standardized rules from the textbook, and interjecting this into the process.

The lady sitting next to me nodded off...really...tells you a lot about that strategy I suppose(!) Nothing of any significance for our analysis in the first hours.

Then there were lists put up of who ( investigators) were involved. 11 detectives at the first briefing, then 30 by the third. Yes I said 30. The defense read them off. One. By. One.

They included ‘special agents’ from the Cal Dept of Justice. It was obviously designed to give the impression that they gave huge resources and expertise to the case.

However, it came out that several of the agents were there because they were assigned to SDPD on a several year assignment ( I got the impression it was a support program?) So not just for RZs case. Also several of the other attendees were identified as not working on the case.

Personally, I was left with the impression that the increased numbers probably indicated that everyone came along to the briefing who could - simply as it was a bizarre case and they were inquisitive - but it was likely designed to make the jury think it was a huge resource.

The statements that stuck out for me were the detectives words to the effect of “ ...we thought this was a homicide initially...they were very odd circumstances...it was a suspicious death’ and...’ I’d never seen anything like this...it was unfamiliar to me....”

The second point which drew attention for me was the defense tried very hard to get the ‘content’ of the voicemail supposedly left on RZs phone in as evidence, but couldn’t.

Mr G kept objecting as they tried to get the detective to state what was allegedly in the message ( when she never heard it) ...lacks foundation, calls for speculation. At one point the detective stated that JS told her that his message consisted of an apology for not calling earlier, that max was brain dead, and they would have to decide on donating his organs the next morning.

Then Mr G asked for a motion to strike the comment from the record, the judge agreed (as it was hearsay) and the jury were told to disregard it - this is what was in the press article, but it was actually disallowed by the Judge..

They went on to emphasize that this was ‘a priority case’, worked on for about 4 to 6 weeks. This all took up virtually the morning. Then Mr Greer started the cross examination which lasted the remainder of the day.

During the course of Mr Greer’s cross there were a lot of objections from the defense. He overcame many by re-wording his questions, he did well.

Without doing a line by line analysis of everything, I’m going to round up my feelings on the interaction...and give you the KEY points for me that came out of the testimony ( lest you all be bored to death)

Although a defensive position was expected, the detective was, in my opinion, overly sensitive and defensive. There was what I would consider blame shifting at every opportunity, everyone decided, never her alone it seemed. If there was a problem with one piece of evidence, it didn’t count as evidence had to be considered ‘ together’

One example would be this.

Mr G - re the lack of DNA or fingerprints on the paint tube. Was this unusual or unexpected to you?

Detective - no, that had no impact on the investigation.

Mr G - So this tube that was squeezed many times to paint that door message, handled a lot, squeezed and manipulated, you don’t find it unusual I DNA, no fingerprints?

Det. No, everyone is different if they deposit DNA or fingerprints, and you would need to speak to the DNA collection tech about that.

Mr G- but your the lead detective, weighing up the evidence...you’re the one determining suicide or murder and what is suspicious...as an example - if I pick up an item one time, and then pick up an item 100 times, you feel that there is no more likelihood of me leaving DNA or fingerprints on the item I handled 100 times?

Det. No, probably not..

MR G - So when you weigh up the possibilities this would make no difference? One time vs 100. Are you really saying that?

Det. We take everything into consideration as a whole, not just one piece of evidence....

At one point when obviously running out of excuses on this, she said the person who painted could have not squeezed the tube at all, and put the brush down the top of the tube ( the hole is the size of a toothpaste tube...) it was really quite ridiculous to suggest this. Everyone sort of looked at each other....what? It was indicative of the testy, defensive exchange throughout.

( I’m paraphrasing above , but you get the general idea. She appeared quite obstructive to me on what were really, quite common sense answers....defensive, and it really showed in my opinion)

She also repeatedly referred to the blood found as ‘red stains’ which I have to be honest, I found particularly irritating..and would only admit to blood when really pressed, and pressed hard on some occasions. Particularly regarding the vaginal blood on the handle of the small knife.

She admitted she was never made aware of or considered the small knife being used for a sexual assault, and never considered the red stain on all four sides as indicating it had been inserted into RZ.

She really appeared to dance ALL around this in questioning...after she had admitted it.

Mr G was masterful with it I thought. She attempted to say the ‘red stain’ was only DNA. When proved by Mr G with evidence it was blood, she attempted to say it didn’t necessarily come from RZ vagina. When it was proved there was no other blood source other than the vagina, (through showing the evidence) she said it could have come from the transfer the spots on the floor...or the spots towel!

It was quite ridiculous.

Mr G had her shuffling about trying to get out of it...but she ultimately had to admit she did not consider that a knife coated with vaginal blood up the handle without RZs fingerprints on it was never considered as an item of assault.

She ended up ( passing the buck it appeared) by saying she felt she was justified in not considering this as ‘the medical examiner said there was no evidence of a sexual assault’ and ‘we take all evidence into consideration as a whole.....’

The mantra. Every time mr G highlighted a mistake or anomaly, it ‘couldn’t be considered on its own’, it had to be ‘taken as all the evidence together....’

She even said ‘I know I sound like a stuck record’ herself! Every time something was discredited she said it couldn’t be taken on its own...

Trouble was, EVERYTHING was beginning to appear a mistake...and that’s really how it came across to me.

Here’s what else came out ( best I can recall)

She said in her view -

* there was “no evidence of wiping down” at the scene

* the ‘red stain’ on the shower floor in the master was not tested as ...”it was not in the main room where the ropes were found” and it was ‘quite far away’ from the bedroom where the ropes were tied

* The ‘red stain’ in the shower was decided as ‘unrelated to events’

* the large clump of hair found on the shower wall in the master was a ’handful’, of long dark hair and it was never collected OR tested - or thought significant (as there was a hairbrush in the shower)

* The hair clump was decided as ‘unrelated’ to events

* The fact that there was no other DNA found at the scene was significant in deciding it was a suicide.

* ‘everyone’ involved in the investigation, decided it was a suicide, not her alone, and no one thought otherwise in the whole investigation ( Mr G asked did they have a vote ( sarcastically) ...she said no everyone ‘just agreed’

* They focused the primary search and investigation on the bedroom where the ropes were found tied to the bed

* No expert analysis of balcony foot prints was thought necessary or was completed

* No expert analysis of the door painting was investigated or requested

* A Video was made of model tying ropes in same fashion as RZ - detective admitted the model had to practice over six or seven times to try and get them to match

* No expert analysis sought or investigated into the knots as ‘one of the detectives seemed able to copy them’ so this was enough to decide ‘no expertise was needed’

* The ropes were loose on her wrists which was clearly ‘indicative of her tying herself up’

* RZ significant weight loss was indicative of depression and stress and contributed to the suicide decision - however her sisters report of this was actually 7 month earlier, and Mr Greer’s evidence showed she was 100 lbs at death and 105 lbs at the time of the report...no weight loss.

* The autopsy also said she was well nourished, but not considered.

* The detective did not ascertain RZ prior weight loss or investigate further, took it only at face value. Admitted there was no apparent weight loss

* Admitted RZ molestation as a child was contributory factor in suicide ruling, but failed to investigate any circumstances or if it was true. Ignored deposition of other sister where it was stated it had no effect on RZ and only happened once

* Failed to seek copy of voice message that was deleted around time of RZ death until it was too late ( approx 30 days after collection of the phone) had no explanation, only it was ‘too late’ by the time it was requested

* Failed to fingerprint the phone ( as the print powder would make it dirty and she wanted to look at it manually (there was a gasp from the gallery when she said that)

* When Mr G said how does she know it was RZ who deleted and listened to the last voice message, and not someone who had incapacitated her?

* she said because ...

* ...It was RZs phone

* ...She was in the house alone

* Mr G said - How did she know she was alone?

* Because ADAM TOLD HER

* As her voicemail was accessed ‘they know she was still alive at 12.50’

* A rape kit was used and tested on RZ and no semen was found

* She was unaware of the position of the prints on the knife blades indicating the holding position behind back

* Did not seek out or test any tape that could have put residue on RZs legs. Assumed it was sports tape.

* Could not explain why the balcony door, when tested with fingerprint powder, had a huge, dry clean patch/area at the handle, surrounding the handle and door jamb)

* (OMG the photo was quite unbelievable...IMO you could see where someone had actually wiped down the door)

* Admitted to ‘updating JS on ongoing investigation around seven or eight times. When challenged - modified to say ‘ only to question him if I needed some info’

Appeared very sensitive when asked about protocols and why was she updating a family member with case Info, denied this was the case.

* AS was a person of interest initially

* AS gave sample DNA and fingerprints etc when asked, no objection

All this is just my opinion and interpretation of the day, I hope it is interesting for you guys....I’m paraphrasing somewhat to try and give a general idea and I can’t do shorthand, but this is the best of my recollection. I’m sure I missed quite a bit, if I recall I will post it...

Best to all

EDIT
Reason / meaning behind message on the door thought to be this -

She saved him = RZ saved Max with CPR
Can you save her = Can God save RZ soul after suicide
Click to expand...

Thank you so much for your reporting! You're doing a fantastic job! :takeabow:

There's so much to unpack here, but this must have come across to the jury as very unfavorable for the defense. Sounds like Greer did a thorough job of helping the jury realize this investigation was poorly done, incomplete and narrowly focused.

To repeat myself on finding out all these details we sought over the years, the amount of evidence that was ignored, downplayed or not revealed was extensive. :banghead:

The insistence on calling blood evidence "red stains" is appalling. Same with stubborn denial about evidence of someone cleaning up the crime scene. Never investigated all the footprint evidence on the balcony? :tantrum: Ignoring the tape on Rebecca's legs?

I'm glad the judge treated the voice mail message as hearsay. That's all it was. JS's story. Yet they swallowed everything he and AS said hook, line and sinker.

It's also very interesting that the explanations, rationalizations, etc. for much of the evidence sound exactly the same as that posted by some visitors here at WS. The detective's script is very familiar to all of us. :thinking:
 
BBL said:
I sit here wondering if it was actually JS's friend Dr. Lubner (think that is spelling) that gave JS the hard facts that night about Max not surviving? And that is what prompted the call to Rebecca.
Click to expand...
Hi BBL, IMO definitely a possibility. I have always thought JS called in Dr. L for his expertise in other matters relating to the murder scene IMO IYKWIM. I would love to know what his appointment schedule looked like on July 12th. Being a dermatologist, did his assistant have to cancel a full day of client consultations for his spur of the moment flight from AZ to CA?

A shout out and group hug to all who are posting here, and especially Lezah. A simple thank you for being our eyes and ears in court hardly expresses my gratitude!! And to Mr. Greer, our knight in shining armour so masterfully slaying the King Hydra, you are brilliant. You renew my faith in humanity.
:tyou:
 
kay74 said:
If the SDSD does not reopen an investigation on this case, then they should be investigated. I would like to know about the money JS supposedly gave them. I have never seen such callousness and uncaringness as seen with "Gore".
Click to expand...

My thoughts on the influence-peddling is that JS may have donated to the sheriff's department prior to Rebecca's death. Way back when on the other forums, someone indicated that he was a donator and friend of Gore. JS shows up as donating to major Democratic candidates for Governors, Senate, etc, but I cannot find where he may have donated to Gore.

If he actually gave money to Gore or others at SDSO for influence, that would be really horrific but I guess anything's possible.
 
justice be served said:
My thoughts on the influence-peddling is that JS may have donated to the sheriff's department prior to Rebecca's death. Way back when on the other forums, someone indicated that he was a donator and friend of Gore. JS shows up as donating to major Democratic candidates for Governors, Senate, etc, but I cannot find where he may have donated to Gore.

If he actually gave money to Gore or others at SDSO for influence, that would be really horrific but I guess anything's possible.
Click to expand...

An insider had stated Jonah used to invite Gore over to his Spreckels home for parties. S/He had pics of the both of them together at the parties.
 
justice be served said:
My thoughts on the influence-peddling is that JS may have donated to the sheriff's department prior to Rebecca's death. Way back when on the other forums, someone indicated that he was a donator and friend of Gore. JS shows up as donating to major Democratic candidates for Governors, Senate, etc, but I cannot find where he may have donated to Gore.

If he actually gave money to Gore or others at SDSO for influence, that would be really horrific but I guess anything's possible.
Click to expand...


This shows campaign contributions from JS to Gore, from a Google search.

https://littlesis.org/person/83464-Jonah_Shacknai/political
 
justice be served said:
My thoughts on the influence-peddling is that JS may have donated to the sheriff's department prior to Rebecca's death. Way back when on the other forums, someone indicated that he was a donator and friend of Gore. JS shows up as donating to major Democratic candidates for Governors, Senate, etc, but I cannot find where he may have donated to Gore.

If he actually gave money to Gore or others at SDSO for influence, that would be really horrific but I guess anything's possible.
Click to expand...

A donation to the Kamala Harris campaign could be considered a donation to Gore, maybe?
 
I don’t know, is it time to dust off and rename “the Juanettes” from the (Jodi Arias prosecutor) Juan Martinez fan club and rename them for Keith Greer?
:juanettes::juanettes::juanettes: :juanettes: :juanettes:

“Keithettes” or “Greerettes” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it, but he certainly deserves his own cheering section!
 
I would still like to know what Paul Pfingst was doing at the crime scene that morning???????? Did he just happen to be in the neighborhood?
 
Inparadise said:
I would still like to know what Paul Pfingst was doing at the crime scene that morning???????? Did he just happen to be in the neighborhood?
Click to expand...

Sure, just driving by and saw all the activity, right? As you know, he was a “go to” attorney for high profile cases that year. So who called him? JS?

In 2011 he was named to the list of San Diego Metro Movers to Watch:

[FONT=&amp]Paul Pfingst, a partner at Higgs Fletcher & Mack, is recognized as one of San Diego’s top trial lawyers. Pfingst currently represents clients in complex litigation, white collar crime and professional licensing matters. In 2011 he will remain as the “go-to” attorney for high-profile, white collar and criminal cases.

[/FONT]http://www.sandiegometro.com/2011/01/introducing-2011’s-sd-metro-movers-to-watch/

He seems to get called immediately when there is a crime. He met with Julie Harper on the same day she murdered her husband in August 2012, called by Julie’s father. Pfingst is the one who called LE to do a welfare check at the home, where they found her dead husband. Although he was later cleared by a judge of misconduct, he was accused of secreting evidence in this case. Thank goodness he lost the case, but not before trashing the dead husband.

https://www.sandiegoreader.com/webl...aul-pfingst-is-accused-of-secreting-evidence/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 179 more.
Total: 2,280 (members: 180, guests: 2,100)

Online statistics

Members online
180
Guests online
2,100
Total visitors
2,280
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,107
Messages
18,103,758
Members
230,989
Latest member
Helangel
Back
Top