Wrongful death trial begins. Trial coverage and discussion #2

[Betty P]

Please reread my post. I did not say being a Christian is “all about” organized religion. I said “all about organized religion to some extent”

Church seems to be a large part of Rebecca’s parents faith. Is did not in Rebecca’s. When she and Jonah had a serious talk about what they believed during their first date, she seems to have made it clear she was not a practicing Christian and did not seem to profess she believed in Christ at all. That does not make her a bad person, it just doesn’t make her the person her family thought her to be.

I mean no offense, but you weren't there to hear what RZ might have said about her faith. The story we're hearing from Jonah may not be accurate, either. Since he has a significant vested interest (financial and otherwise) in making it seem as though Rebecca believed in suicide, its fair and prudent to dismiss his version of the conversation.

Considering the evidence now revealed shows she was murdered, Jonah's allegations aren't even relevant.

 

[Lezah]

That’s not how that works.

(Re stmarysmead and the ‘wiping’ on the balcony door question)

Hello! Sorry if I didn’t explain it very well...

The testimony was that the balcony door was tested for fingerprints and the fingerprint dust had ‘nothing to adhere to’...so the detective explained that the door was totally clean in the handle area and above and below, BEFORE the technician applied the black fingerprint dust.

So, for clarity - the door area on and around the handle was very clean, so clean infact, the fingerprint dust had absolutely nothing to stick to.

 

[arielilane]

Please reread my post. I did not say being a Christian is “all about” organized religion. I said “all about organized religion to some extent”

Church seems to be a large part of Rebecca’s parents faith. Is did not in Rebecca’s. When she and Jonah had a serious talk about what they believed during their first date, she seems to have made it clear she was not a practicing Christian and did not seem to profess she believed in Christ at all. That does not make her a bad person, it just doesn’t make her the person her family thought her to be.

Please do not post a statement(s) unless you have a link to support it. Do you have a link? Thank you

 

[bourne]

Jonah on Max’s condition:

Snip-

Webb asked if Jonah stayed at the hospital late into the evening on July 12 and he said he did and that Dina was there as well.

Jonah then testified that he and Dina spoke with a Dr. Peterson that night and that he was the co-head of the pediatric intensive care unit at Rady Children's.

The lawyer asked Jonah to describe that conversation and Jonah said that the doctor had been "unusually" and "inappropriately" direct with them. He said the doctor told him that he had been doing his job for 30 years and that Max's injuries were similar to what he would see in a drowning. He said in the best-case scenario, if Max survived, that he would not walk or talk again.

Webb asked if Jonah and Dina were very upset by this news and Jonah described Dina as "hysterical." He said she "sort of yelled" at Dr. Peterson saying he was wrong and it wasn't true.

http://www.cbs8.com/story/37785775/mansion-death-lawsuit-jonah-shacknai-takes-the-stand

Nina on Max’s condition:

Snip from CBS8 interview:

NINA:

Um - it was just shocking for me to see him like that - and
I, you know, I spoke to the nurses that day. This was Tuesday - and
they said - well, this is what we think is going to happen. We think
that he'll probably be in the ICU for about a week. And then we think
he'll go to the - I guess they call it a step down unit? - um and he'll
probably be there a couple of weeks and then he'll have to do a lot of
rehab. So he'll probably miss the soccer season - he might not make it
to first grade right away - but this is what they were saying. Because
we were under the impression that he had CPR within two minutes,
because that's what she said. She said that he had his fall and she
gave him CPR within two minutes of his fall.

---6:50 mark

http://www.cbs8.com/story/15982091/exclusive-max-shacknais-aunt-talks-about-coronado-mansion-deaths

So let's see...Either Jonah's lying or Nina's lying. Both versions cannot be true at the same time. Either the doctor had told Jonah and Dina that Max was not going to survive and if he did, he'd essentially be mentally and physically disabled, or the doctor said Max will be fine and be placed in step-down unit and fully recover rand be playing soccer soon. Which is it?

Jonah vs. Nina's stories of Max's condition are mutually exclusive.

 

[Verboten]

It’s been mentioned that Adam’s home owners insurance might cover some of his defense costs.

He was not a home owner at the time of Rebecca’s death, even though he was almost 50 years old.

He bought a house fairly soon after the death. Could there be some connection?

Absolutely. What changed in his financial picture or lifestyle after RZ died? Nothing, but he suddenly became a homeowner. I wonder how and why.

 

[Verboten]

Do I understand you to mean Mr. Greer accepted money he shouldn't have?

We are aware that Nina puts herself right at the scene within a half hour of the scream -- worked up (understandably) & wanting a reenactment of the accident so badly, she didn't leave after nobody came to the front door, but rather went around back. Greer knowing he intended to drop the case against Dina (if he did know by then), by no means meant the case agains Nina would have had to been dropped. Now, when he talks about a witness seeing Dina "mistakenly" he doesn't even mention the *mistake* is that they actually saw Nina instead. That was insurance money weeeeeell spent.

 

[Imp]

The question of who knew what, when, with regard to Max's condition on the night of RZ's death is so confusing and so important to this case, I think. Grrr.

JS represents one end of the spectrum, pretty much knowing immediately how serious the child's injuries were, but then he describes Dr. Peterson's explanation of Max's condition as "inappropriately blunt" or similar, and he describes DS becoming hysterical at the news, and this presumably occurred before he says he left the VM for RZ.

Then you've got NR representing the other end of the spectrum. In her version, Max is essentially making a full recovery after therapy, missing only a soccer season and the start of first grade.

And then there's the DS version, which lands somewhere in the middle with her claim that on the night of RZ's death, they were still waiting for more test results on Max due the following day that would give them a better idea of his prognosis.

And then there's the door message, which Mr. Greer has built his case around, claiming that "She saved him" refers to RZ saving Max, because at the time the note was written, they all thought she had saved his life. If JS thought she had saved his life when he presumably left the VM for her, why would he say anything to her that would supposedly trigger her suicide? If JS said something horrible to her, or simply delivered terrible news about Max, was he the only one of the group who knew the real deal?

:banghead:

 

[Imp]

We are aware that Nina puts herself right at the scene within a half hour of the scream -- worked up (understandably) & wanting a reenactment of the accident so badly, she didn't leave after nobody came to the front door, but rather went around back. Greer knowing he intended to drop the case against Dina (if he did know by then), by no means meant the case agains Nina would have had to been dropped. Now, when he talks about a witness seeing Dina "mistakenly" he doesn't even mention the *mistake* is that they actually saw Nina instead. That was insurance money weeeeeell spent.

Okay, that makes sense!

 

[justice be served]

From what I understand, there was a settlement agreement drafted dropping Dina and Nina from the lawsuit. Dina’s insurance company then paid Greer/Zahau family. Dina has been outspoken that she believes that Rebecca was murdered. She has stated she believes Adam is innocent. Does anyone have a link to the definitive details of the settlement agreement, if available?

I believe that all applicable parties agree to the positions in the executed agreement. Is it possible that the settlement agreement stipulated that Dina maintain that she believes it was a murder? Further, would the settlement agreement agree to allow Dina to voice that she doesn’t believe it is Adam and that was her stipulation to be included in it?

Since Dina believes there is a murderer but that it is not Adam, per her statements, who would you guess she thinks it is?

1. AS?
2. AS but the settlement agreement allowed her to state it isn’t him?
3. JS?
4. JS as the mastermind but AS as the implementer (thus she states it’s not AS)?
5. Hired killer?
6. If hired killer, who hired he/she?
7. An unknown person?

There is definitely more to this subject matter IMO. Hopefully I am okay posting this since I am using initials.

 

[stmarysmead]

BBM #1: If by "favoring the Zahau perspective" you mean believing Rebecca was murdered and did not kill herself, then yes, I agree the majority of posters on these threads believe she was murdered and do not believe the SDSO suicide ruling.

BBM #2: "TWO mysterious" deaths is your opinion, of course. I noted from your previous response to me that you apparently don't believe in probabilities, however, I'll simply restate that imo, there's a high probability Max's death was the result of a tragic accident, and Rebecca's death was the result of a brutal murder.

And speaking of probabilities, I'm guessing I could fairly easily find statistics on how many boys under, say, age 10 are seriously/fatally injured in accidents each year, but I doubt I could find much of anything on the annual number of mentally competent, health-conscious, menstruating women of childbearing age who take off all their clothes, tie up their ankles and wrists using highly complex nautical knots, put a gag in their mouths and a noose around their necks, hogtie themselves, and dive off their rich boyfriend's balcony.

Thank you for your opinions.

 

[Lilibet]

We are aware that Nina puts herself right at the scene within a half hour of the scream -- worked up (understandably) & wanting a reenactment of the accident so badly, she didn't leave after nobody came to the front door, but rather went around back. Greer knowing he intended to drop the case against Dina (if he did know by then), by no means meant the case agains Nina would have had to been dropped. Now, when he talks about a witness seeing Dina "mistakenly" he doesn't even mention the *mistake* is that they actually saw Nina instead. That was insurance money weeeeeell spent.

Maybe someone can help me out here. I wasn’t reading here regularly when Greer dropped Dina and Nina from the suit and apologized. I just went back to where it’s covered in the threads to see the explanation why Nina was dropped, but I don’t see anything definitive. I have looked in articles from the time and they don’t explain what evidence is said to have proved that Nina was not inside the house that night. All I see is that her insurance company negotiated her release from the suit. But on what basis? I’m not accusing Nina of anything, but there are missing pieces for me. Thanks for any help understanding this.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...keith-greer-plaintiffs-counsel-300443002.html

ETA: I see that the insurance payment was being discussed while I was away reading and posting. But I’m still confused about the evidence that was said to show that Nina was not inside the house. Is that just legal/insurance speak?

 

[Seattle1]

Settlement/release decisions are made for "good business" all the time. Be reminded this suit ongoing since 2013. Also, dismissed with prejudice is permanent (cannot ever be reopened).

 

[Lilibet]

Settlement/release decisions are made for "good business" all the time. Be reminded this suit ongoing since 2013. Also, dismissed with prejudice is permanent (cannot ever be reopened).

I’m not sure if you’re replying to my particular question. But if you are, do you mean that Nina wasn’t dismissed from the suit because evidence exonerating her had been discovered (as it apparently was with Dina on video), but rather because her insurance company wanted it over? The articles I saw stated that there was evidence showing Nina was not inside the mansion that night, but it’s never stated what the evidence is. Is the statement about evidence just legalese for “we want this over”?

 

[Seattle1]

snip

LILIBET
ETA: I see that the insurance payment was being discussed while I was away reading and posting. But I’m still confused about the evidence that was said to show that Nina was not inside the house. Is that just legal/insurance speak?

Lilibet: IMO, as long as there was no evidence that proved DS was at hospital at time of RZ death, it was reasonable to believe NR an accessory to the alleged murder because she'd already placed herself at the Mansion that evening, and consistent with a "Murder Team" theory . Also, I believe NR phone pings were being used as evidence, (but could easily have been challenged based on proximity of NR residence). In other words, if no DS, then no NR.

It's never been clear to me why there was such a delay to obtain hospital video. I recall that SDSO also claimed not to have hospital video to clear DS but claimed to use her cell phone pings.

 

[justice be served]

Lilibet: IMO, as long as there was no evidence that proved DS was at hospital at time of RZ death, it was reasonable to believe NR an accessory to the alleged murder because she'd already placed herself at the Mansion that evening, and consistent with a "Murder Team" theory . Also, I believe NR phone pings were being used as evidence, (but could easily have been challenged based on proximity of NR residence). In other words, if no DS, then no NR.

It's never been clear to me why there was such a delay to obtain hospital video. I recall that SDSO also claimed not to have hospital video to clear DS but claimed to use her cell phone pings.

BBM. Oh boy, ain't that the truth. Whatever took sooooooooooooo long for the video to come out. Years? Really? Something's just not right here at all.

Sorry, quoting Lilibet is messed up and I can't fix it! Must be that glass of wine hahaha.

 

[Lezah]

I believe that the medical examiner is testifying on Monday... What questions do you guys feel should be top of Mr Greer’s list?

 

[Lezah]

Lezah - Brilliant post, mate! Glad you're feeling better.

Thanks so much Seattle1, feeling chipper again 💕

 

[justice be served]

I believe that the medical examiner is testifying on Monday... What questions do you guys feel should be top of Mr Greer’s list?

Because first responders were called in the early morning (6:45 a.m. or so) but the medical examiners did not show up until half a day later, was there concern that Rebecca's body would degrade the evidence of either murder or suicide by being left uncovered from the elements for that half of a day?

Why was it apparent that a medical examiner couldn't be found to come earlier in the day?

Why was Rebecca's body left for helicopter viewing and neighbors on balconies?

Was it not thought that this was disrespectful to anyone - let alone a young, nude woman?

Why didn't JS suggest that they shield Rebecca?

Doesn't SDSO feel this was just wrong?

Sorry, this is a sore point for me.

 

[Verboten]

Caitlin Rother posted two hours ago that she "just did a looooong podcast for WebSleuths.com" about the trial. Should be posted any time now, I'd think.

 

[Seattle1]

Caitlyn Rother posted this on her Facebook page tonight:

The defense team in Rebecca Zahau trial poked holes in the plaintiff's case today. Two witnesses, both former employees of the sheriff's crime lab, testifed today about fingerprint and DNA processing and analysis of the scene. It was very technical at times, but they were both very clear and concise. The fingerprint examiner said she didn't think areas were wiped down, as the plaintiff has suggested, because Rebecca's fingerprints were still found on them. She said prints are fragile, and it's not unusual for people to touch things and leave no trace, especially if they've just washed and dried their hands. (Note: Adam Shacknai said he had just taken a shower just before he cut her down.) The DNA analyst said that testing items for vaginal blood or oral swabs for DNA should show the presence of far more epithelial cells than if someone just touched the items. The count on Rebecca's oral swab was 600 nanograms. The swab of the knife handle which the plaintiff claims Shacknai used to sexually assault Rebecca, who was menstruating, before killing her? Only 35 nanograms. That means it is more likely transfer blood from a cut, and therefore not sexual in nature--unless it was degraded somehow by print processing powder, or something that comes out on cross tomorrow. Not a great day for the plaintiff.

IS THERE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT WITH KNIFE HANDLE?

Attention all Sleuthers who graciously continue to educate us on forensics, DNA, etc., I'm seeking your comments on the testimony of Sheriff's crime lab expert that testified how the knife handle believed used in sexual assault of RZ had epithelial cells that were not consistent with vaginal blood. I believe the data was only reported by crime reporter/author Caitlyn Rother and it's posted above.

Now, in Mary ZL Post below, she rejects this finding. Given the later discovered evidence suggesting the crime began with a sexual assault, I'd like to know if there is in-fact evidence the knife handle inserted in vagina. TIA.

MZL snip//

The San Diego Sheriff Department DNA technician was one heck of a liar. She tried to say that the DNA on the knife handle did not have enough DNA for it to be vaginally inserted. Attorney Greer had her clarify to the jury that the DNA swab was taken after it was swabbed once to test for blood, then treated with superglue fume to lift prints, then reswabbed from unknown area of the knife for the DNA that she claimed is not a vaginal source. Greer also pointed out that she did not bother divulging in her report that one of their sample was contaminated, and one of the inconclusive DNA from one of the door knob was a male contributor. She did not have clear answer to why there was no DNA on the paint brushes, the paint tube, or on the other door knobs. The ropes were not swabbed for DNA at crime scene but instead days later after it was coiled and bagged. The DNA found on the rope that was tied to the bed was minimal and is most likely transfer DNA.