Wrongful death trial begins. Trial coverage and discussion #2

[stmarysmead]

Asking about the kidnapping testimony sure brought a lot of tense responses...which is strange. The good thing is that everyone can listen to that podcast and decide for themselves on a wide variety of issues.

The majority of posters here do an excellent job of presenting the plaintiffs version of the case. It’s also valuable to balance that with perspectives from other viewpoints. The podcast is one excellent source.

 

[stmarysmead]

Justice be Served:


- Defense testimony from those who tried to impugn her character. Rebecca, and only Rebecca, can give her true life story. Very prejudicial to not have a dead woman give her own story about ex-relationships, etc. Don’t buy any of it and that goes for the religious aspect as well.”

How can a dead woman give her story? She can’t. All the jury can ever hear is how her actions etc impacted those testifying. The people in her life have a right to tell their “stories.” Particularly in a setting like this, where a man is accused of her murder. Some make her sound artificially saintlike...others make her sound unstable. A person can be all those things to different people.

Claims are made that her husband was “violent.” But yet living with a serial adulterer is emotionally devastating. Claims are made that she wouldn’t kill herself because she was “religious.”But she did not live a life with strict adherence to the very tenets of her religion.

Does any of this mean she was not murdered? Of course not. But the jury should hear everything...and that means EVERYTHING. RZ has fine representation. The majority point of view here is being heard.

But justice requires the jury to hear AS point of view too. Anything negative to the plaintiffs position is not a smear. It’s a vital part of obtaining justice.

And certainly on a discussion board, discussion of all aspects of testimony and evidence should be able to be discussed. Odd that the kidnapping question struck such a nerve.

 

[Verboten]

I listened to Tricia’s/Rother interview and my response if I were a juror:

- Rebecca’s clothes she was last seen in were not missing. Sounds more like the Zahau family was trying to get them released by SDSO. Okay got it – a detail Plaintiff had wrong perhaps. And SDSO were VERY uncooperative with the family but admitted speaking with JS 9 times. Why is that?
.
- Expert witness paid $10,000 to say one cannot compare a painted message on a door to a hand-written paper example. This expert supposedly “wrote the book” on this science but has the science never been improved upon since the book he wrote? Not convincing.

- Expert witness said knife blood came from Rebecca’s finger injury and not from vaginal insertion. Don’t buy that one at all based on the finger injury description.

- Defense testimony from those who tried to impugn her character. Rebecca, and only Rebecca, can give her true life story. Very prejudicial to not have a dead woman give her own story about ex-relationships, etc. Don’t buy any of it and that goes for the religious aspect as well.

What remains compelling evidence of murder if I were a juror and including the judge’s response to the Motion for Non-Suit:

- How would Rebecca have hog-tied herself? And how would she have gone over the railing by herself? I can’t get past this fact.

- Why was Rebecca’s body rigor not evidencing a hanging with legs straight instead of bent? This is the major fact I believe it was murder not to mention the throat injuries Dr. Wecht testified to.

- Adam said “I got a girl – hung herself in the guest house”. The guest house? The same guest house that was not secured until 3 hours later? The same guest house with unprocessed evidence? Didn’t SDSO listen to Adam’s 911 call and then collect evidence in accordance with his 911 call?

- Eyewitness testimony connects Adam to the scene. Period.

- Adam’s nephew was fatally (it turns out) injured under Rebecca’s watch. Motive.

- Adam’s absence of DNA/fingerprints is the “science doesn’t lie” proof per SDSO of his innocence. Adam also had no DNA/fingerprints on Rebecca or the accoutrements that he used to cut her down and give her supposed CPR. SDSO: You can’t have it both ways.

- Adam loosened Rebecca’s knots to check for pulse. If the knots were that tight then the SDSO re-enactment showing that loose knots were tied in front of her and then moved her arms to her back to insert her arm can’t be true. SDSO: You can’t have it both ways. And when has SDSO ever done a re-enactment of this magnitude?

- Confirmation bias is absolutely proven in the SDSO investigation. I think Greer should make this a specific element to be focused upon.

- From the outset of this terrible day that Rebecca was found, it appears that anyone involved with the investigation thought Rebecca should be shamed and disrespected by not being tented or attended to in a timely manner by the ME. Evidence was degraded which goes back to the confirmation bias of all the officials involved in the investigation. I will never get past this awful fact and it sets up the injustices that were to follow and continue to this day.

And these are just off the top of my head.

Again, great post JBS! The bent knees is MAJOR. Also major is the HUGE discrepancy in the 911 call vs the interview prior to the poly. Apparently, this has not been let in as it is associated with the poly, but it is MAJOR evidence Adam is implicated in this crime. And, one has to ask the question -- why does LE not have similar statements/questioning available via video from that morning (outside the poly), so we could get these inconsistencies from Adam in a format that would be allowed in court? Since I haven't been able to see most of the trial, I could be wrong; but I've seen no evidence anyone is talking about this. Still, Adam did NOT KNOW if he made the 911 call and then cut down the body, or if he cut down the body and THEN made the 911 call. This seriously implicates him in the crime and coverup.

Also, I haven't spoken much about M.E., but in addition to many wonderful questions asked here -- how does RZ's back get all scratched up from bushes, but not her arms (which are tied behind her back & thus more exposed for those injuries)?

 

[justice be served]

Justice be Served:


- Defense testimony from those who tried to impugn her character. Rebecca, and only Rebecca, can give her true life story. Very prejudicial to not have a dead woman give her own story about ex-relationships, etc. Don’t buy any of it and that goes for the religious aspect as well.”

How can a dead woman give her story? She can’t. All the jury can ever hear is how her actions etc impacted those testifying. The people in her life have a right to tell their “stories.” Particularly in a setting like this, where a man is accused of her murder. Some make her sound artificially saintlike...others make her sound unstable. A person can be all those things to different people.

Claims are made that her husband was “violent.” But yet living with a serial adulterer is emotionally devastating. Claims are made that she wouldn’t kill herself because she was “religious.”But she did not live a life with strict adherence to the very tenets of her religion.

Does any of this mean she was not murdered? Of course not. But the jury should hear everything...and that means EVERYTHING. RZ has fine representation. The majority point of view here is being heard.

But justice requires the jury to hear AS point of view too. Anything negative to the plaintiffs position is not a smear. It’s a vital part of obtaining justice.

And certainly on a discussion board, discussion of all aspects of testimony and evidence should be able to be discussed. Odd that the kidnapping question struck such a nerve.

The kidnapping question did not strike a nerve with me. I consider it pretty irrelevant frankly. I am simply saying that the ONE PERSON WITH NO VOICE - and thus the TRUTH ABOUT HER LIFE - is Rebecca. That is my point quite simply. Everything else stated is hearsay. She is, as you well know, dead and cannot defend herself. Everyone else is living.

I, too, believe that discussion is healthy and the debate in court profoundly important. But I would not say that the Zahau family, with one pro bono attorney has healthy representation. Contrast that with 9 high-powered attorneys including some with criminal experience from who know's how many large firms to support them is a fair fight. Not even close.

And Greer can only present evidence collected at the crime scene and then only at a portion of the mansion. The Zahaus are fighting a big machine of government and money. That is what so many of us have difficulty with.

 

[Betty P]

Justice be Served:


- Defense testimony from those who tried to impugn her character. Rebecca, and only Rebecca, can give her true life story. Very prejudicial to not have a dead woman give her own story about ex-relationships, etc. Don’t buy any of it and that goes for the religious aspect as well.”

How can a dead woman give her story? She can’t. All the jury can ever hear is how her actions etc impacted those testifying. The people in her life have a right to tell their “stories.” Particularly in a setting like this, where a man is accused of her murder. Some make her sound artificially saintlike...others make her sound unstable. A person can be all those things to different people.

Claims are made that her husband was “violent.” But yet living with a serial adulterer is emotionally devastating. Claims are made that she wouldn’t kill herself because she was “religious.”But she did not live a life with strict adherence to the very tenets of her religion.

Does any of this mean she was not murdered? Of course not. But the jury should hear everything...and that means EVERYTHING. RZ has fine representation. The majority point of view here is being heard.

But justice requires the jury to hear AS point of view too. Anything negative to the plaintiffs position is not a smear. It’s a vital part of obtaining justice.

And certainly on a discussion board, discussion of all aspects of testimony and evidence should be able to be discussed. Odd that the kidnapping question struck such a nerve.

There's nothing to discuss. Her ex husband was cleared. He wasn't around. He had nothing to do with her death. End of story.

The problem with needlessly impugning the reputation of a murder victim is that it distracts and confuses the jury. It may make some of them think it's ok to find the accused killer not guilty. Most jurors don't think that way, but some might. That's why disreputable defense attorneys try to use the tactic and why most judges don't allow it.

As for discussing ad hom attacks against murder victims here on WS, we usually don't engage in that kind of thing unless it's relevant. What you're trying to discuss isn't relevant. Those of us who have been following this case for years on WS know these tactics and have dealt with them numerous times.

 

[justice be served]

Again, great post JBS! The bent knees is MAJOR. Also major is the HUGE discrepancy in the 911 call vs the interview prior to the poly. Apparently, this has not been let in as it is associated with the poly, but it is MAJOR evidence Adam is implicated in this crime. And, one has to ask the question -- why does LE not have similar statements/questioning available via video from that morning (outside the poly), so we could get these inconsistencies from Adam in a format that would be allowed in court? Since I haven't been able to see most of the trial, I could be wrong; but I've seen no evidence anyone is talking about this. Still, Adam did NOT KNOW if he made the 911 call and then cut down the body, or if he cut down the body and THEN made the 911 call. This seriously implicates him in the crime and coverup.

Also, I haven't spoken much about M.E., but in addition to many wonderful questions asked here -- how does RZ's back get all scratched up from bushes, but not her arms (which are tied behind her back & thus more exposed for those injuries)?

BBM. Maybe someone can explain why this evidence has not been able to be included? I really am not understanding this at all.

Excellent point on the scratches to her back that should have been shielded by her arms. I just have to shake my head at all of this.

I hope the jury has some inkling of the David and Goliath situation that exists on this case. It really bears on the case IMO.

 

[justice be served]

There's nothing to discuss. Her ex husband was cleared. He wasn't around. He had nothing to do with her death. End of story.

The problem with needlessly impugning the reputation of a murder victim is that it distracts and confuses the jury. It may make some of them think it's ok to find the accused killer not guilty. Most jurors don't think that way, but some might. That's why disreputable defense attorneys try to use the tactic and why most judges don't allow it.

As for discussing ad hom attacks against murder victims here on WS, we usually don't engage in that kind of thing unless it's relevant. What you're trying to discuss isn't relevant. Those of us who have been following this case for years on WS know these tactics and have dealt with them numerous times.

Very good post. Thank you!

 

[stmarysmead]

There's nothing to discuss. Her ex husband was cleared. He wasn't around. He had nothing to do with her death. End of story.

The problem with needlessly impugning the reputation of a murder victim is that it distracts and confuses the jury. It may make some of them think it's ok to find the accused killer not guilty. Most jurors don't think that way, but some might. That's why disreputable defense attorneys try to use the tactic and why most judges don't allow it.

As for discussing ad hom attacks against murder victims here on WS, we usually don't engage in that kind of thing unless it's relevant. What you're trying to discuss isn't relevant. Those of us who have been following this case for years on WS know these tactics and have dealt with them numerous times.

I understand your point of view.

What is “relevant” in the trial testimony however is an individual call. I will continue to post about things that seem relevant to me as long as WS finds a different point of view from the majority to be permitted on Tricia’s Website.

I was not even debating. I only asked what the kidnapping testimony was about.

Discussing court testimony is hardly an “ad hom”attack. It’s part of the court transcript.

 

[justice be served]

I understand your point of view.

What is “relevant” in the trial testimony however is an individual call. I will continue to post about things that seem relevant to me as long as WS finds a different point of view from the majority to be permitted on Tricia’s Website.

I was not even debating. I only asked what the kidnapping testimony was about.

Discussing court testimony is hardly an “ad hom”attack. It’s part of the court transcript.

stmarysmead: That is fair.

If I may ask, what is your thinking about the fact that Rebecca's body was left exposed to the elements and TV viewing for over 13 hours until a medical examiner came to the scene? Perhaps you have weighed in on this previously and I apologize if I am regurgitating the subject with you. Thanks.

 

[stmarysmead]

stmarysmead: That is fair.

If I may ask, what is your thinking about the fact that Rebecca's body was left exposed to the elements and TV viewing for over 13 hours until a medical examiner came to the scene? Perhaps you have weighed in on this previously and I apologize if I am regurgitating the subject with you. Thanks.

I find that appalling and inexcusable.

 

[justice be served]

I find that appalling and inexcusable.

This fact is a linchpin in many of the WS posters on this forum that has lit our fury for justice. Glad to hear you also are upset by it.

 

[Verboten]

BBM. Maybe someone can explain why this evidence has not been able to be included? I really am not understanding this at all.

Excellent point on the scratches to her back that should have been shielded by her arms. I just have to shake my head at all of this.

I hope the jury has some inkling of the David and Goliath situation that exists on this case. It really bears on the case IMO.

My guess is that, since polygraph is not typically admissible in court, the questions/interview prior to the polygraph is considered part & parcel of the polygraph, so none of it is allowed. I'd love confirmation, but seems to be the case. Typically, though, outside of the poly, we'd have videos with investigators interviews. Those interviews would ask similar open-ended questions and would elicit similar inconsistent responses (I think it's fair to say based on how he was speaking that morning). Those would be allowed in court. If they don't exist, I'd really like to know why. His words that morning are absolute indication of his involvement.

I do hope the David and Goliath situation here is evident to the jury. It's truly a travesty that we even have to be here now, instead of LE just appropriately doing their jobs in the first place.

 

[stmarysmead]

This fact is a linchpin in many of the WS posters on this forum that has lit our fury for justice. Glad to hear you also are upset by it.

There are other ways I agree with the majority here but frankly, I feel forced into a defensive position anytime I ask a question here or disagree.

I do understand though that emotion runs high. I have spent the last few years discussing a case on WS and felt so strongly for THAT family and that victim...so yes, I do understand.

 

[clearskies1]

The 911 call was odd for many reasons -- "I got a girl who hung herself in the guest house"... well, we know the guest house reference is very strange. The "girl" part is also odd since Rebecca was an adult woman, not a child. Also, he never mentions who "the girl" is...wouldn't you automatically say that it's your brother's girlfriend? It's almost as if he's calling in about a stranger.

 

[stmarysmead]

My guess is that, since polygraph is not typically admissible in court, the questions/interview prior to the polygraph is considered part & parcel of the polygraph, so none of it is allowed. I'd love confirmation, but seems to be the case. Typically, though, outside of the poly, we'd have videos with investigators interviews. Those interviews would ask similar open-ended questions and would elicit similar inconsistent responses (I think it's fair to say based on how he was speaking that morning). Those would be allowed in court. If they don't exist, I'd really like to know why. His words that morning are absolute indication of his involvement.

I do hope the David and Goliath situation here is evident to the jury. It's truly a travesty that we even have to be here now, instead of LE just appropriately doing their jobs in the first place.

The David and Goliath situation may unfortunately be negated to the jury by the high profile TV campaign. I understand the family felt is necessary but it makes it seem like they had big media guns in their corner.

 

[minorone]

Justice be Served:


- Defense testimony from those who tried to impugn her character. Rebecca, and only Rebecca, can give her true life story. Very prejudicial to not have a dead woman give her own story about ex-relationships, etc. Don’t buy any of it and that goes for the religious aspect as well.”

How can a dead woman give her story? She can’t. All the jury can ever hear is how her actions etc impacted those testifying. The people in her life have a right to tell their “stories.” Particularly in a setting like this, where a man is accused of her murder. Some make her sound artificially saintlike...others make her sound unstable. A person can be all those things to different people.

Claims are made that her husband was “violent.” But yet living with a serial adulterer is emotionally devastating. Claims are made that she wouldn’t kill herself because she was “religious.”But she did not live a life with strict adherence to the very tenets of her religion.

Does any of this mean she was not murdered? Of course not. But the jury should hear everything...and that means EVERYTHING. RZ has fine representation. The majority point of view here is being heard.

But justice requires the jury to hear AS point of view too. Anything negative to the plaintiffs position is not a smear. It’s a vital part of obtaining justice.

And certainly on a discussion board, discussion of all aspects of testimony and evidence should be able to be discussed. Odd that the kidnapping question struck such a nerve.

That is called victim blaming and shaming. Rebecca made mistakes in her life & is not perfect. If we are going to discuss religious hypocrisy – without question the biggest hypocrites are a lot of the organized sects of religion and the people who associate themselves with them. Nothing in the Christian Bible expressly prohibits suicide. In fact, the Bible does not condemn it and there are people in the bible who committed suicide. There is nothing about Rebecca’s behaviour that would indicate she was suicidal and, if she was, nothing in this case suggests to me that this was suicide.

The kidnapping incident has nothing to do with this case. Often abuse is psychological and not physical. Having witnessed many relationships where the controlling behaviour is evident. I have had friends over for an evening, and someone’s husband will be calling continually. Domestic violence is a leading factor in psychological problems and disorders.

Re the shop lifting charge. I was at Home Depot one day and walked out of the store holding an item that I had not paid for in my hand. I got to my car and realized that I had walked out of the store & not paid for it. I went back in the store and told the clerk what I had done & how embarrassed I was. She advised me that they realize that people make mistakes & management has given them authority to give discounts to people who come back in and pay for the item. The only excuse I have for forgetting to pay for it, was I really busy and thinking about the other things I had to get done that day.

 

[Harmony 2]

Looks like you're the only one who heard the kidnapping thing in the latest Tricia-Rother interview. You might want to re-listen and bring the actual quoted words back here, or at a minimum give us the time within the 57 minute interview you heard it discussed. Otherwise, it doesn't seem it even happened.

time stamp 41:10
https://soundcloud.com/tricia-arrington-griffith/caitlin-rother-32318

The details are discussed in this interview....

Rebecca Zahau Wrongful Death Trial with Websleuths and Caitlin Rother- 6 days ago
Timestamp 31:48
https://soundcloud.com/tricia-arrington-griffith/caitlin-rother-32318/recommended

 

[Verboten]

The 911 call was odd for many reasons -- "I got a girl who hung herself in the guest house"... well, we know the guest house reference is very strange. The "girl" part is also odd since Rebecca was an adult woman, not a child. Also, he never mentions who "the girl" is...wouldn't you automatically say that it's your brother's girlfriend? It's almost as if he's calling in about a stranger.

Yes, the call is strange in MANY aspects. Yes, you would at minimum say, my brother's gf" or something. In fact, Adam calls RZ what is practically a term of endearment, Becca, now during the trial -- seven years after her death. But during the call, when his connection to her would have been fresher and more immediate, he calls her a "girl" and NEVER ONCE says her name at all, even when he yells, "Are you alive?" It wasn't, "Rebecca? Are you alive?" etc. And, good point that he says "girl" when she is a grown woman. There is another part while he's doing a bunch of stuff in the background where he says, "*advertiser censored*ing KID." At first I didn't get it, but apparently he was referring to Rebecca. He shows no respect for the victim and distances himself from her.

 

[clearskies1]

BBM.

Yes, the call is strange in MANY aspects. Yes, you would at minimum say, my brother's gf" or something. In fact, Adam calls RZ what is practically a term of endearment, Becca, now during the trial -- seven years after her death. But during the call, when his connection to her would have been fresher and more immediate, he calls her a "girl" and NEVER ONCE says her name at all, even when he yells, "Are you alive?" It wasn't, "Rebecca? Are you alive?" etc. And, good point that he says "girl" when she is a grown woman. There is another part while he's doing a bunch of stuff in the background where he says, "*advertiser censored*ing KID." At first I didn't get it, but apparently he was referring to Rebecca. He shows no respect for the victim and distances himself from her.

Yes, agree with all of what you say. I view the entire call as a distancing effort -- she is some girl, not my brother's girlfriend-- it seems like an attempt to say he had no connection at all to her and therefore no motive. JMO.

 

[stmarysmead]

That is called victim blaming and shaming. Rebecca made mistakes in her life & is not perfect. If we are going to discuss religious hypocrisy – without question the biggest hypocrites are a lot of the organized sects of religion and the people who associate themselves with them. Nothing in the Christian Bible expressly prohibits suicide. In fact, the Bible does not condemn it and there are people in the bible who committed suicide. There is nothing about Rebecca’s behaviour that would indicate she was suicidal and, if she was, nothing in this case suggests to me that this was suicide.

The kidnapping incident has nothing to do with this case. Often abuse is psychological and not physical. Having witnessed many relationships where the controlling behaviour is evident. I have had friends over for an evening, and someone’s husband will be calling continually. Domestic violence is a leading factor in psychological problems and disorders.

Re the shop lifting charge. I was at Home Depot one day and walked out of the store holding an item that I had not paid for in my hand. I got to my car and realized that I had walked out of the store & not paid for it. I went back in the store and told the clerk what I had done & how embarrassed I was. She advised me that they realize that people make mistakes & management has given them authority to give discounts to people who come back in and pay for the item. The only excuse I have for forgetting to pay for it, was I really busy and thinking about the other things I had to get done that day.

The problem with this case is that there is a debate as to who is “the victim.” If RZ committed suicide that is a tragedy but she is not Adam’s “victim.” There are no “suicide victims.” Part of deciding what happened here...because the authorities ruled this a suicide...is a necessary examination of her life and her state of mind. That’s why that testimony is being allowed. That’s why the “mistakes” in her life are being entered into evidence, and yes, allowed to be discussed here.

Whether suicide or murder, her death is a tragedy and her family deserve their day in court. But so does the Shacknai family. The Zahau family has made numerous TV appearances telling their side of the story, and their side of the story has blamed and shamed various members of the Shacknai family. They were doing what they felt they needed to do.

Adam’s lawyers have the same right to defend him by examining every aspect and flaw in Rebecca’s character.