I would love to know what the ME who did Rebecca's autopsy is thinking after yesterdays testimony.
Hopefully he's wondering where he can go to get his credibility back.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I would love to know what the ME who did Rebecca's autopsy is thinking after yesterdays testimony.
<snipped to address>
This focusing on the DNA might be the only thing they've done RIGHT so far.
I'm not so sure. If the jury believes the probability that RZ could have committed suicide in such a manner is extremely low (or zero), yet there's no DNA present at all (other than RZ's), were I a juror, I'd be inclined to conclude all surfaces were wiped down (perhaps with those dryer sheets that were found) and/or he wore gloves.
Hoping someone can help me to understand - what is the best case scenario in all of this for Rebecca's family? For example, in wrongful death, can Adam Shacknai go to jail on a murder charge? Can the case be reopened/examined? Or does wrongful death only mean they can receive compensation for her dying, and Adam gets a slap on the wrist? Thank you![]()
I'm not so sure. If the jury believes the probability that RZ could have committed suicide in such a manner is extremely low (or zero), yet there's no DNA present at all (other than RZ's), were I a juror, I'd be inclined to conclude all surfaces were wiped down (perhaps with those dryer sheets that were found) and/or he wore gloves.
I would (and do) absolutely conclude that lack of DNA means gloves were worn/surfaces wiped or some combination of the two. I have found it to be absolutely bizarre from day one for SDSO, and now defense, to behave as if there are no such thing as gloves.
It is stunning for LE to state that lack of DNA is conclusive proof of suicide when everyone knows these are possibilities, not to mention they found and collected gloves at the scene (as well as items that could be used for a wipe down). And, this is the *only* justification that they use for why it is suicide except lack of evidence of a struggle (though there was plenty of evidence of a potential struggle, which was summarily dismissed--the overturned chair, the possibility RZ was incapacitated, even if only briefly by a blow to the head). And, items which might have shone some light on any possible struggle (overturned chair, doggie bone) are all left uncollected.
On the face of it, it was pretty preposterous, but once you get a fuller sense of the totality of the evidence (and incompetence of the investigation) it's pretty hard to think suicide is anything other than a pre-desired conclusion the SO was going to reach no matter what. These jurors should be smart enough to pick that up (if just using common sense, & not manipulated in some manner by defendant's clan).
I've found this "lack of DNA" argument to be absolutely maddening throughout. I can't even imagine the outrage the Zahaus must have been feeling from day one. As Mary indicates, it seems like they never wanted to investigate or find out what really happened to Rebecca.
I would (and do) absolutely conclude that lack of DNA means gloves were worn/surfaces wiped or some combination of the two. I have found it to be absolutely bizarre from day one for SDSO, and now defense, to behave as if there are no such thing as gloves.
It is stunning for LE to state that lack of DNA is conclusive proof of suicide when everyone knows these are possibilities, not to mention they found and collected gloves at the scene (as well as items that could be used for a wipe down). And, this is the *only* justification that they use for why it is suicide except lack of evidence of a struggle (though there was plenty of evidence of a potential struggle, which was summarily dismissed--the overturned chair, the possibility RZ was incapacitated, even if only briefly by a blow to the head). And, items which might have shone some light on any possible struggle (overturned chair, doggie bone) are all left uncollected.
On the face of it, it was pretty preposterous, but once you get a fuller sense of the totality of the evidence (and incompetence of the investigation) it's pretty hard to think suicide is anything other than a pre-desired conclusion the SO was going to reach no matter what. These jurors should be smart enough to pick that up (if just using common sense, & not manipulated in some manner by defendant's clan).
I've found this "lack of DNA" argument to be absolutely maddening throughout. I can't even imagine the outrage the Zahaus must have been feeling from day one. As Mary indicates, it seems like they never wanted to investigate or find out what really happened to Rebecca.
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.
I’m following along with the gloves. But I need a little help with how you wipe down a crime scene and remove your own DNA but leave other DNA? You can’t see DNA...so how are you explaining to the jury that this process works? I have two dogs who shed. How would I just remove ALL the dander from one dog on the floor and yet leave the dander from the other?
I think the glove theory might be more solid.
I'm having trouble getting my responses to post. Now that I'm tired of trying, it looks like this reply is actually posting...
I will just say, in short, it is my opinion that gloves were worn, and wipe down of certain surfaces occurred. In addition, there may have been other steps to minimize or clean up other DNA (cap for hair, etc.), the person/clothing may shed less than others, AND the investigation left much to be desired -- many items not collected, items collected not tested, items tested not thoroughly analyzed, etc. Many areas (trash and surfaces in remainder of house, vacuum bags, etc.) were ignored where evidence of a cleanup might have been found. Conspicuous lack of fingerprints and other DNA where it SHOULD have been should have raised a multitude of questions for investigators.
In my earlier attempted response, I provided detailed examples of all of the above from the actual Zahau investigation, but I'll just leave it at this because I don't want to re-type the entirety of it... that's the main gist.
I'm having trouble getting my responses to post. Now that I'm tired of trying, it looks like this reply is actually posting...
I will just say, in short, it is my opinion that gloves were worn, and wipe down of certain surfaces occurred. In addition, there may have been other steps to minimize or clean up other DNA (cap for hair, etc.), the person/clothing may shed less than others, AND the investigation left much to be desired -- many items not collected, items collected not tested, items tested not thoroughly analyzed, etc. Many areas (trash and surfaces in remainder of house, vacuum bags, etc.) were ignored where evidence of a cleanup might have been found. Conspicuous lack of fingerprints and other DNA where it SHOULD have been should have raised a multitude of questions for investigators.
In my earlier attempted response, I provided detailed examples of all of the above from the actual Zahau investigation, but I'll just leave it at this because I don't want to re-type the entirety of it... that's the main gist.
Thanks SB! Good to see you.This makes perfect sense. Since RZ’s family isn’t doing this for money, if the amount rewarded is reduced by the jury because they don’t think AS was the only one involved, it won’t matter to the Zahaus. What would matter is if the jury doesn’t think he’s involved or that it’s suicide. I hope you stick around and that the trial is long over before baby girl Hack arrives. :baby:Congrats!!
I'm hoping Mr. Greer has a field day with the SDSO'ers who show up to testify for the defense. It will be very important to prove to the jury just how poorly executed the death investigation was.
In the wipedown areas, there is no dna from either party then?
I was closely involved with the Duke Lacrosse case in 2006. There was no dna found from any of the Lacrosse players externally or internally on the Accuser. Later it was found that there WAS dna from other men. The DA Nifong tried to argue that the Lacrosse players had wiped down the accuser and removed their dna...leaving that of the other men. Nifong was met with universal howls of ridicule due to this “Magic towel” theory. He was, of course, disbarred and spent one night in jail for his unethical handling of this case.
It’s been over a decade since Duke Lacrosse...but I’m sure the defendants attorneys will press on this dna issue. If the attorney for RZ Family can make a solid case, okay. But if there’s no dna at all, that will be a hurdle in my opinion.
The crime and staging are so extensive...I’ll be interested to see how this is handled.
But I appreciate your insight into how it may be explained.
Which raises a possibility in jury deliberations I had not thought of. (I know I'm getting ahead of myself.)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.
I’m following along with the gloves. But I need a little help with how you wipe down a crime scene and remove your own DNA but leave other DNA? You can’t see DNA...so how are you explaining to the jury that this process works? I have two dogs who shed. How would I just remove ALL the dander from one dog on the floor and yet leave the dander from the other?
I think the glove theory might be more solid.