Wrongful death trial begins. Trial coverage and discussion

[Imp]

having affairs while married.... obsessive about looks (like restalyn?). almost sounds like her other half we're talking about

Concerns me a little because I'm guessing they'll either call Nalepa, or have a video deposition with him to play in court. I can't remember whether he actually ever sat for a depo or not?

 

[Imp]

Lezah: Let me add my thanks for your wonderful recap of Dr. Wecht's testimony! Wonderful read and I love to hear your impressions of things!

Oh, to be inside the heads of those jurors! I don't think the defense did themselves any favors badgering the highly accomplished and oh-by-the-way elderly doctor, or making everyone sit for hours and hours as they questioned him about 2 missing pages in his report.

And major kudos to Mr. Greer for getting that letter up on the screen and reading it himself!!

So glad we have someone in the courtroom, because honestly, most traditional media these days is just the absolute pits.

 

[Hraefn]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Greer does not have to provide a motive, correct? I know that’s true in a murder trial, but not sure about a civil trial.

Next question: Does Greer have to prove that AS was the only person involved in RZ’s murder to win this case? Can the jury (individually or collectively) believe that others may have been or likely were involved in promoting, planning and/or participating in her murder but still reach a verdict against AS?

I'm not licensed in CA, as Lilibet knows , but I can give insight into tort law in general for wrongful death as it applies in my state and the majority of states.

Wrongful death requires a showing that:
The death of a person is caused by the wrongful or negligent act of another
With a showing of negligence or actual intent
Can only be brought by heirs of the deceased
And damages must be shown (this can often just be the loss of affection)

Motive is not required (it is actually never a required element in the US, whether criminal or civil) but negligence or intent is required.

Now the next question is more complicated and my knowledge may not be perfect so take this as my opinion of interpreting the law in general. In civil suits for a defendant to point the finger at another party, they must bring the other party into the lawsuit in the form of a third party complaint. Even if the third party cannot be named, they would bring in a "John Doe". Some links on third party claims: https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/third-party-complaint/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_14

For example, if there was a slip and fall and the injured person sued a construction company, the construction company can't say "it was the architect's fault" unless they bring the architect into the lawsuit, even if they have no knowledge of who the architect is. When multiple parties are potentially being blamed, the jury ultimately decides the apportionment of fault and any monetary award is split accordingly (i.e. jury finds construction company 25% at fault and architect 75% at fault, those parties pay that percentage of the award. If the architect was never identified, the plaintiff would only recover 25% of the award given by the jury).

I haven't seen anything suggesting AS and his team are blaming anyone else; they seem to be only claiming it was suicide.

Still, a jury can in their own minds think even if this was murder, it was not AS or AS did not act alone. I don't think the jury will think that since it is not being argued, but they absolutely could in closed door deliberations bring that up. If the jurors truly believe it was not AS or AS didn't act alone, they may struggle to find the elements for wrongful death were met against AS and could find him not liable. They won't be able to apportion the reward since no other party was named, but they could themselves lower the award in their deliberations. For example, if the jury thinks it's a million dollar lawsuit but AS didn't act alone they could say he is liable for $500K without ever needing to provide a reason for their amount.

 

[Hraefn]

PS you can often get around a paywall by viewing the website in incognito mode (on Google Chrome at least).

 

[Lezah]

Several of us have been keeping the Media thread updated. Wouldn’t want any media to disappear :wink:.

WS Thread:
www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?148814-CA-Rebecca-Zahau-Nalepa-Suicide-or-Murder-Media-links-amp-Timelines-*NO-DISCUSSION*/page13

Day 7 - Civil Trial

• Pathologist testifies that Rebecca Zahau’s death was a homicide

March 12, 2018 By Sasha Foo

www.kusi.com/pathologist-testifies-that-rebecca-zahaus-death-was-a-homicide/



• Well-known pathologist testifies in trial that Zahau was strangled

March 12, 2018 by Lyndsay Winkley

www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/sd-me-zahau-pathologist-20180312-story.html



• Will the Rebecca Zahau Civil Case Jury Reach a Conclusion Different From the Investigators?

By Chris Kelly 2018/03/12

coronadotimes.com/news/2018/03/12/will-the-rebecca-zahau-civil-case-jury-reach-a-conclusion-different-from-the-investigators/



• Doctor That Performed Second Autopsy Testifies That Rebecca Zahau was Strangled

March 12, 2018

Video link-

Dr. Cyril Wecht testified in Rebecca Zahau`s wrongful death lawsuit that she was strangled to death and sustained four hemorrhages on her head.

www.dailymotion.com/video/x6g7bsm

Lash! This is great, I didn't know that thread existed, super helpful. I need to take more time to discover everything. Thank you.
( thanks all too, for your very nice words, I’m glad it helped give some of you a feel for the proceedings. I work too, but I had to get time off for Dr CW testimony. Like you guys, I want to understand and know the truth without all the ‘spin’ put out there. I will try and go again and post updates if I do ( I promise they won’t be as long!!!)

 

[Imp]

No surprise. We've heard (and countered) these arguments and excuses ad nauseum over the years here in this forum. I think, by now, most of us could refute them in our sleep. Overall, it's a pretty weak defense of the killer(s) and hopefully the jury will see through it. The defense never seems to comprehend that their ad hom attacks on RZ are perceived by normal people as heartless, vindictive and unnecessarily cruel. What normal person thinks a distraught person tending a severely injured on a 911 call is reckless and impulsive? Pretty much no one.

Agree. Let's see ... let's badger all the plaintiffs' witnesses and spend hours picking at minutiae and boring everyone to death, and then when it's our turn, let's re-victimize the victim by disparaging her character. Great plan.

I'm thinking there are many more things about RZ's character that were the opposite of "impulsive and reckless" that Mr. Greer can use to counter their attacks. Since when is being health conscious "impulsive and reckless"? Since when is being a medical assistant "impulsive and reckless"? Etc.

I do hope AS testifies. I can't imagine he'll be able to conceal his odd tendencies completely over many hours on the stand.

 

[Lezah]

Tortoise, you know, I asked myself that very question. Personally I think they had a strategy of attempting to undermine the witness, rather than the evidence, and it was a huge error.
However, if you track back you have to ask yourself why this strategy. I believe it is because the actual evidence is too difficult for them to refute. The DNA evidence is reintroduced and repeated over and over again because they want it top of mind for the jury, no DNA, no DNA....it’s like their mantra.

Call me an old cynic, ( no disrespect to the lovely WS cynic!) but also keeping the ‘cash strapped’ plaintiff’s most expensive expert witness on the stand as long as possible, and ‘dragging it out’ until the last possible moment could also be a planned defense tactic...I wouldn’t be surprised at all.

 

[*Lash*]

PS you can often get around a paywall but viewing the website in incognito mode (on Google Chrome at least).

Thank you. It has been my experience, too.

Incognito Mode and Private Mode for Apple products.

 

[Lezah]

Agree. Let's see ... let's badger all the plaintiffs' witnesses and spend hours picking at minutiae and boring everyone to death, and then when it's our turn, let's re-victimize the victim by disparaging her character. Great plan.

I'm thinking there are many more things about RZ's character that were the opposite of "impulsive and reckless" that Mr. Greer can use to counter their attacks. Since when is being health conscious "impulsive and reckless"? Since when is being a medical assistant "impulsive and reckless"? Etc.

I do hope AS testifies. I can't imagine he'll be able to conceal his odd tendencies completely over many hours on the stand.

Imp, I understand AS is due to testify on Wednesday...and the family’s case should rest on Thursday ( Thursday last day of testimony) At close of court I heard the judge mention she had 50 witnesses on the defenses witness list!

 

[*Lash*]

Lash! This is great, I didn't know that thread existed, super helpful. I need to take more time to discover everything. Thank you.
( thanks all too, for your very nice words, I’m glad it helped give some of you a feel for the proceedings. I work too, but I had to get time off for Dr CW testimony. Like you guys, I want to understand and know the truth without all the ‘spin’ put out there. I will try and go again and post updates if I do ( I promise they won’t be as long!!!)

You’re very welcome :daisy:

I usually go to the main forum here at WS titled Rebecca Zahau Nalepa. It brings up all the closed and active threads. Link:

www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?456-Rebecca-Zahau-Nalepa

 

[MzOpinion8d]

Hi K_Z

I was in court all day today. (Please help by correcting my spelling re the medical terminology as your so brilliant at it!) anyhoo, here’s my feedback for you...

I’ve looked at photos in the news link posted and the comments, and I have to say, in my laymen’s opinion, they give a poor representation of Cyril Wecht’s testimony.

I would summarize as follows - Mr Greer was very concise, in fact I was surprised how short his questioning was to be honest, around an hour and a half in total I recall. A considerable amount of time was spent on Dr. Wecht detailing his experience. I can see why. His experience was extraordinary, and impressive. His credentials were quite, well, astounding. Tens of thousands of autopsies in an incredible 60 plus year career. In summary he wrote the book on legal, forensic pathology. No, literally...he wrote it.

Dr. Wecht came across as super professional, with great integrity, and a man who appeared not to suffer fools gladly ( an understatement). He completed or assisted in over 500 autopsies last year alone. Although advanced in years, and sometimes perhaps ‘a little long winded’ in his replies, he was razor sharp on topic, and obviously knew his subject inside and out ( if you pardon the pun)

Mr Greer’s questioning was concise, and focused on a few key areas, primarily the 4 SG hemorrhages between the skull and scalp, ( injuries that Dr W stated were IHO due to blunt force trauma, RZ being struck about the head ), also the very deep bruising found in the ribs cartledge ( DR W suggested that this could have been caused by the pressure of an assailants knee) on the right lower side / back, and finally the throat injuries - primarily the croicoid fracture ( being the area below your Adam’s apple) the damage being caused IHO by manual strangulation before the hanging.

At the end of mr Greer’s questioning, I felt it was very powerful testimony. This gentleman’s experience was so impressive, he was so convincing, The final statement into testimony was from Dr W was that he was convinced by his experience, the autopsy, and his lengthy detailed research ...that RZ was manually strangled and there was a hanging to cover it up.

It was short, sharp, and shocking.

There was a ten minute break and I thought, wow, how on earth do you come back and follow that?

Well, the defense attorney began by focusing almost two hours of questioning on the fact that the copy of the autopsy report Dr W had sent to the defense in March 2017 had a typo on the date ( 2016 instead of 2017) The typo was by Mr Greer’s office, but next to the date the ‘received’ stamp from Dr W’ s office with the correct date. Ok, if you were bored senseless by that sentence...imagine sitting through an hour plus explaining it.

Everyone was sort of looking at each other, bewildered, thinking...why? So what?

Moving on ...then to the fact that the title pages of 1 and 2 were missing from the documents of the second autopsy Dr W supplied. The doctor explained that it had been six years since he wrote the report, he had moved offices and they had destroyed 20,000 plus documents after the move of his offices, so this may explain why they could not locate the first two pages, and they also could not locate the photographs taken of the second autopsy.

Dr W explained everything he had was handed over and the body of the report had all his findings - anyhow, there was nothing to hide or be gained from withholding the two additional pages, he can answer any and all questions as the actual autopsy was fulling covered in the remaining 13 pages. He also explained he was not required to keep the documents, let alone for years and years. The defence went on to question where he looked, if he asked this person, that person, his secretary, his assistant...and on and on about who he asked and where he looked...

The defense spent literally hours and going over, and over, and over....and over, the fact there were two pages missing. Dr Wecht did get frustrated by the same question over and over again, and even the judge was getting frustrated.

The photo with Dr W with his head in his hands seen on the photo gallery was during this time I recall , it was literally like pulling teeth. I can only imagine what the jury was thinking.

IMO, overall Dr W left the defense attorney looking totally inadequate, and no one really knew what it was all about until Dr W finally had a bit of an outburst and said that there was no withholding of documents, or anything like it and it was personally defamatory and insulting for there to be any such suggestion.

Trying to discredit Cyril Wecht, wow, don’t go there would be my advice. It’s like trying to prove Mother Theresa didn’t like the poor.

The defense then went on to ask Dr W if Mr Greer shared the DNA evidence with him. Dr W said no, as he was a forensic pathologist and his area of expertise was not DNA. However, the defense continued to spend what felt like another several hours showing every knot, and highlighting ( again) where RZ’s DNA was found...on every knot., on every photo. Same question....same reply...

Each time Dr W explained he is not a DNA expert and did not know about where the DNA was or was not found and Mr Greer did not share the information with him and he is not a DNA expert, he is a forensic pathologist.

Dr W was also asked if he felt he should have consulted the Sheriff’s dept to discuss why they thought it was a suicide case, wouldn’t that have been ‘a good idea?’ ...and the reply from Dr W was that it would be totally unethical to do such a thing unless ordered by the court or as directed by Mr Greer, and he what would best be described as ‘chastised’ the defense attorney for not understanding the proper process! “ I don’t poke my nose in the investigations of others. It is ridiculous to suggest I should do so. This is real life, sir, what you suggest you may see in a television show, but not in the real world....” was a typical response.

At one point, the Defence attorney said words to the effect of ‘Am I not correct in saying that if I were to walk into that courtroom door, I could well get a subgaleal scalp hemorrhage such as one Rebecca had?’

To which Dr Wecht said ‘Yes, and you would need to be stupid to walk into it once, but very stupid to walk into it another three, separate times...’

Everyone giggled except the defence. A moment of levity in otherwise a very tense ( and sad) evidence day.

The only other significant medical evidence introduced by the defence in cross examination was an apparent rope burn to the lower left neck/ upper shoulder area of of the deep furrow on a photo shown in RZs throat.

The defence suggested this was caused by the rope starting lower on the throat and then slipping up the neck, causing the lower ( croicoid ) throat injury. Dr Weight said the mark was clearly a vertical injury, IHO it could not possibly have been the cause of the lower throat injury as the rope would need to be horizontal. He was firm, and (very persuasively) dismissive of the suggestion.

To close proceedings, it appeared to me ( my interpretation only) that a letter Dr Wecht had written to Ann Bremner regarding his thoughts on the case ( in 2011) had been disallowed into evidence due to an apparent, previous objection by the defense. At the very end of the day, Mr Greer attempted to have that brought into evidence to counter the defenses cross examination that Dr W had changed his opinion from his initial findings of ‘undetermined’ to ‘homicide’. They objected strongly, but the judge said that as the defence had spent several hours discussing and referring to the document that accompanied the ‘missing-pages’, it was only fair Mr Greer could introduce it.

Then there were more objections as Mr Greer wanted Dr W to read it aloud for the jury. The judge sided with the defense. However, Mr Greer asked for it to go up on the big screen, got his pointer stick...and he read it out aloud himself! Saying is that your opinion Dr Wecht? At the end of each paragraph.

It stated very clearly ( in summary) that Dr W felt that in 2011 after the second autopsy, RZ had been manually strangled and the hanging was likely staged to cover this up, and the investigation should be reopened.

The hours and hours trying to discredit Dr W, and what I saw as an implication of his testimony being changed to garner publicity and for Dr Phil...went straight. down. the. pan.

There was a lot between, but that’s the thrust of the day to the best of my recollection. Mr Greer in my opinion had a very, very successful day.

...And Dr Wecht is a very exceptional doctor.

Sorry this is long, hope it gives an insight into my opinion the day for you all.

EDITED to add

Re your question, the defence suggested it was unusual to have a second autopsy. Dr W said there was nothing ‘unusual’ about it. It was less common, but not unusual. He countered what I saw as an insinuation he was ‘in it for the publicity’ by reminding the defence that the family had requested the second autopsy and it was done at THEIR request and with their permission. How they chose to go about funding the retrieval and transport of their family members body, in this case by enlisting the help of Dr Phil, was not for him to comment or Judge. He did not charge anything for the second autopsy as he believed it would help the family and they wanted his opinion - as it was THEY who expressly gave permission and wanted it done via their attorney at that time.

I feel like this was a mistake on the part of the defense. Essentially badgering a witness whose credentials flat out CANNOT be argued with makes them look so petty and desperate.

 

[Lezah]

Lezah, thank you for a wonderfully detailed description of your experience in court yesterday! Very much appreciated!

I lol'd at several of your comments! Yes, it would be pretty stupid to walk into a door 3 or four times with enough energy to cause SG hemorrhages.

Along that same line, I'd like to hear someone who can calculate the mechanics of how it could be possible for Rebecca's body to continue to swing with such force and energy as to cause 4 relatively equal hemorrhages, AFTER the direction and force was changed by impacting "something" on the balcony or cactus plant. It's my understanding that there wasn't enough rope for her head to have impacted the side wall of the mansion in that scenario.

Did Dr. W. discuss at all the torn neck muscles, and the kinds of force needed to do that? Did he opine about the scenario of going over from the top, versus being hoisted from below?

Did he opine as to whether or not her heart was beating when she was sent over the railing? (Going back to the autopsy evidence of the actively bleeding torn muscles.)

Perhaps the kinesiologist will discuss something about the rope and physics of the hanging scenario today. I hope so.

Also, if the hogtie scenario is accurate, how does that explain the toe marks in the dust on the balcony that were presumed to be Rebecca's bound ankles on tiptoe? Was this addressed by the knot expert at all? Or maybe that's coming later on closing.

Again, THANK YOU Lezah!! If you have the time and energy, please share more of your insights and experiences from court, if you attend.

:loveyou: :tyou:

Hello!

So, Dr W said the internal organs and brain was not available to him at the second autopsy, so no discussion of the heart.

He said Bleeding and hemorrhages / tissue damage was seen in the area of the cricoid fracture, and in the strap muscles. No damage whatsoever to the spine. No hemorrhage, no tears, no dislocation, no fracture, nothing - these would normally be observed in a ‘drop’, execution style hanging, at least some of them ( my best recollection)
PS thankyou for the nice feedback

PPS ...there was actually a protracted argument about the size of the SG hemorrhages, one was significant ( Dr W said) the defence said they were ‘small’. Dr W replied that everything was relative, if he met a seven foot tall basketball player, he may say he was large, the defence attorney may think a 6 foot tall player was large, it is irrelevant to say that are ‘ small’ or ‘large’ the sizes are clearly listed, and one is 2”x 3”... so, significant.

Dr W also noticed a disparity in the police autopsty diagram and the autopsy notes An eighth of an inch..this was missed by the defence.

Dr W disagreed with the sizes listed, his measurement was larger for the largest one, but said it was minor and changed nothing.

Dr W also corrected the defence attorney about the drop length...adding it was 9’2”, not 9’...to be accurate.

 

[*Lash*]

@ KZ-

Below are a few details given by Dr. Wecht in his testimony. At least what the SD Tribune captured. Even though there was a chair turned over, SDSO continuously hounded on “no evidence of a struggle”. Dr. Wecht testified about SEVERAL other injuries besides the blunt force trauma... including a bruise between Rebecca’s rib cage, pointing to a possible struggle.

Snip-

Wecht also said that a fractured band of cartilage in Zahau’s neck wouldn’t have been injured in a hanging death, but it could have been during strangulation. There were other injuries to the muscles and skin of Zahau’s neck that also suggested someone used their hands to strangle her, he said.

The pathologist also questioned how her neck remained unbroken, despite falling 9 feet from the balcony.

“If she had simply gone over the balcony railing with the body hurtling down, the force that would have been generated would have resulted in a… fracture,” Wecht said.

There were several other injuries, including a bruise between Zahau’s ribcage that was indicative of blunt force trauma and possibly of a struggle

www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/sd-me-zahau-pathologist-20180312-story.html

 

[Lezah]

You’re very welcome :daisy:

I usually go to the main forum here at WS titled Rebecca Zahau Nalepa. It brings up all the closed and active threads. Link:

www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?456-Rebecca-Zahau-Nalepa

Thankyou ( and I send back that flower image but in words as I dont know how to do it!)

 

[Pi2016]

I feel like this was a mistake on the part of the defense. Essentially badgering a witness whose credentials flat out CANNOT be argued with makes them look so petty and desperate.

I would love to know what the ME who did Rebecca's autopsy is thinking after yesterdays testimony.

 

[Inparadise]

I would love to know what the ME who did Rebecca's autopsy is thinking after yesterdays testimony.

He should be typing up his resignation!

 

[Tortoise]

Tortoise, you know, I asked myself that very question. Personally I think they had a strategy of attempting to undermine the witness, rather than the evidence, and it was a huge error.
However, if you track back you have to ask yourself why this strategy. I believe it is because the actual evidence is too difficult for them to refute. The DNA evidence is reintroduced and repeated over and over again because they want it top of mind for the jury, no DNA, no DNA....it’s like their mantra.

Call me an old cynic, ( no disrespect to the lovely WS cynic!) but also keeping the ‘cash strapped’ plaintiff’s most expensive expert witness on the stand as long as possible, and ‘dragging it out’ until the last possible moment could also be a planned defense tactic...I wouldn’t be surprised at all.

Yes, and I think it was in one of Tricia's podcasts with Greer where he said the defence may even be conceding it was murder but that it was not AS.

 

[MsFacetious]

Tortoise, you know, I asked myself that very question. Personally I think they had a strategy of attempting to undermine the witness, rather than the evidence, and it was a huge error.
However, if you track back you have to ask yourself why this strategy. I believe it is because the actual evidence is too difficult for them to refute. The DNA evidence is reintroduced and repeated over and over again because they want it top of mind for the jury, no DNA, no DNA....it’s like their mantra.

Call me an old cynic, ( no disrespect to the lovely WS cynic!) but also keeping the ‘cash strapped’ plaintiff’s most expensive expert witness on the stand as long as possible, and ‘dragging it out’ until the last possible moment could also be a planned defense tactic...I wouldn’t be surprised at all.

This focusing on the DNA might be the only thing they've done RIGHT so far. One of my lawyer bosses always says "The jury will spend as much time on an issue as we do." Supposedly the jury spends about the same % of time talking about each issue as we do at trial.

So if we harp and harp on the lack of DNA, the jury will spend as much time talking about it as we did. If we don't object to something and just let it go, the jury isn't going to focus as much on it.

So harping on the lack of DNA isn't a bad idea. Going about it the way they did with the witness they did, was not a wise move though. You always try to avoid offending/alienating the jury.

I've seen prosecutors do this in criminal cases. Literally keep an expert witness on the stand as long as possible when a defendant has private counsel. It's infuriating, however the jury sees it and it makes the prosecutor look awful. Like they are trying to exhaust the defendants resources because their case is weak.

I feel like this was a mistake on the part of the defense. Essentially badgering a witness whose credentials flat out CANNOT be argued with makes them look so petty and desperate.

Absolutely. If you are confident you go after the evidence, not the witnesses.
Especially not expert/professional witnesses who aren't personally involved.

Yes, and I think it was in one of Tricia's podcasts with Greer where he said the defence may even be conceding it was murder but that it was not AS.

That is probably their safest option.

 

[Imp]

Imp, I understand AS is due to testify on Wednesday...and the family’s case should rest on Thursday ( Thursday last day of testimony) At close of court I heard the judge mention she had 50 witnesses on the defenses witness list!

Great, 50 witnesses. I wonder how many are part of the "death investigation" team eager to stand by their conclusion of suicide.

 

[Emi]

Imp, I understand AS is due to testify on Wednesday...and the family’s case should rest on Thursday ( Thursday last day of testimony) At close of court I heard the judge mention she had 50 witnesses on the defenses witness list!

Lezah thanks for all the summaries and everything I thought Mr. Greer said that JS will be a witness for the family not AS. Could you please clarify that?