'Boy Interrupted' Article

[stmarysmead]

All I can say is there should be one basic and consistent explanation for all this. Where Dina was, what she was doing, when she first became aware the phone was ringing and Max was hurt, and why it took her so long to go to the hospital.

So, what is going on here since there are at least two drastically different versions. Why does Nina start answering such a question with, well, the house has three levels? Is she just trying to reiterate some strange explanation Dina gave her? Did they talk about changing the story? Is Dina unaware of Nina's account given months ago or does she just think no one will look back? I'd like to know what LE were told.

My daughter was in Manhattan on Sept 11, 2001. For several hours, as events unfolded, we did not know where she was because she was to start a new job that day. It's surprising how different all our recollections of who did and said WHAT...on that awful morning are.

Fear, shock, disbelief....do not make one an historical recorder of every precise detail. Her child was gravely injured...all this other stuff is so minor. I would not want to dissect everything the RZ family said and did for absolute accuracy on the day of their loss.

 

[stmarysmead]

BBM

I saw that on the internet also. When I saw it I thought this is ridiculous. Dina goes on and on about Rebecca's shoplifting episode. Rebecca paid the fine and took the diversion class. Her shoplifting was for 1,000 dollars of merchandise when Dina stiffed some poor schmuck out of 32,500 dollars.

Also Dina blasted Rebecca for using her maiden name rather than her married name. Another case of utterly ridiculous. Dina went by her maiden name of Romano rather than her married name of Flores also. So why did she make it a big deal? I don't know. The whole thing sounds a little crazy to me, imo.

This is a rental dispute, not a crime. There is a difference. DS may have reneged on a rental because she did not feel the property was in good repair. Or, she may have canceled and the dispute might be over the timing of the matter. It's a civil matter, not a crime.

And when it is exaggerated to try to make some moral equivalency...then the discussion of RZ's crime is going to resurface. Taking $1000 worth of jewelry...not food...items of adornment ...is an indicator of poor impulse control at the least. That is a genuine source of worry for any Mother vetting a care giver...no matter how nice she is otherwise.

And when religion is given as a reason to rule out suicide, this theft of jewelry gives one doubts about that as well.

And frankly, Max's death, if a homicide, also looks like impulse, loss of control.

So RZ's crime can be used to offer possible insight...but I don't see how a rental dispute sheds any light. Either the "poor schmuck" got his money and therefore the matter was settled or he did not...and it was judged that DS was in the right. Filing a civil complaint in and of itself does not say who is right or wrong. But being caught with stolen goods is hard to spin.

As you say, facts are not bashing.

 

[freespeech]

So far as I know the Zahau family has not been caught lying. They seem to me to be the victims of lies though. In case you don't recall what they were here is a sampling:

They were told Adam passed the LDT when it was inconclusive.

They were told Jonah would sell the house but he did not.

They were told that the police would return her phone and computer over a year ago and they still have not recieved them.

They were told Rebecca committed suicide when she did not.

They were told that there were no signs of a struggle but they were there. The police never told the Zahau's about the injuries to Rebecca's head.

They were told that Rebecca was alone that night except for Adam but a witness saw Dina on the property before the woman's scream for help was heard

 

[stmarysmead]

It seems most of those lies came from the police....and in fairness, some are matters of opinion, not necessarily "lies."

The ruling of suicide, the question of a struggle, the veracity or accuracy of a witness...matters of opinion.

The return of the computer...could be just the usual bureaucracy lag time.

But I do admire the strength and tenacity of RZ's family and their devotion to their loved one. I wish for them the same peace that I wish for DS. I don't think empathy for one family precludes empathy for the other. There is pain on both sides of this case. Blessings to them!

 

[freespeech]

It seems most of those lies came from the police....and in fairness, some are matters of opinion, not necessarily "lies."

The ruling of suicide, the question of a struggle, the veracity or accuracy of a witness...matters of opinion.

The return of the computer...could be just the usual bureaucracy lag time.

But I do admire the strength and tenacity of RZ's family and their devotion to their loved one. I wish for them the same peace that I wish for DS. I don't think empathy for one family precludes empathy for the other. There is pain on both sides of this case. Blessings to them!

What you say is what this is about. Lies, fairness, matters of opinion, veracity and accuracy, bureaurcracy and lag time. All are very nice memes if you don't really look too closely, no?

For example Adam's inconclusive lie dectector test was spun into he passed. Veracity was based on Gore's interpetation. Was his power to communicate the results of his spin on the matter fair. Well I guess you will just have to interpret that based on your own preception.

A witness stated they saw Dina at the mansion and not Nina. The police said ba hogwash and tossed them aside but said yes Nina must be telling the truth so we'll believe her. Did the police bother to verify the veracity of their opinion with a lie dectector test. No they did not. In all fairness it was their opinion that it wasn't needed. Nope, no need to prove the veracity of Nina's claim.

Like you say lies, fairness, veracity, and accuracy are all matters of opinion. There is no need for science when the opinion of certain people has the power to make a lie into a mockery of truth.

So it comes down to which truth you believe. One that has been legitamately verified or the mockery. I still prefer to see logical back up and verification before I decide to believe one story over another. So far I put more stock in the Zahau's concerns than the SDSOs shoddy conclusions.

 

[stmarysmead]

What you say is what this is about. Lies, fairness, matters of opinion, veracity and accuracy, bureaurcracy and lag time. All are very nice memes if you don't really look too closely, no?

For example Adam's inconclusive lie dectector test was spun into he passed. Veracity was based on Gore's interpetation. Was his power to communicate the results of his spin on the matter fair. Well I guess you will just have to interpret that based on your own preception.

A witness stated they saw Dina at the mansion and not Nina. The police said ba hogwash and tossed them aside but said yes Nina must be telling the truth so we'll believe her. Did the police bother to verify the veracity of their opinion with a lie dectector test. No they did not. In all fairness it was their opinion that it wasn't needed. Nope, no need to prove the veracity of Nina's claim.

Like you say lies, fairness, veracity, and accuracy are all matters of opinion. There is no need for science when the opinion of certain people has the power to make a lie into a mockery of truth.

So it comes down to which truth you believe. One that has been legitamately verified or the mockery. I still prefer to see logical back up and verification before I decide to believe one story over another. So far I put more stock in the Zahau's concerns than the SDSOs shoddy conclusions.

This is a sad case from all angles because there are so many differences of opinion. I can't call them lies....because that implies that any of us has the "truth." at this moment.

We don't.

But i can join you in agreeing that both cases should be reopened because both the RZ 's family and DS deserve better answers and better investigations than those that exist.

 

[bourne]

What you say is what this is about. Lies, fairness, matters of opinion, veracity and accuracy, bureaurcracy and lag time. All are very nice memes if you don't really look too closely, no?

For example Adam's inconclusive lie dectector test was spun into he passed. Veracity was based on Gore's interpetation. Was his power to communicate the results of his spin on the matter fair. Well I guess you will just have to interpret that based on your own preception.

A witness stated they saw Dina at the mansion and not Nina. The police said ba hogwash and tossed them aside but said yes Nina must be telling the truth so we'll believe her. Did the police bother to verify the veracity of their opinion with a lie dectector test. No they did not. In all fairness it was their opinion that it wasn't needed. Nope, no need to prove the veracity of Nina's claim.

Like you say lies, fairness, veracity, and accuracy are all matters of opinion. There is no need for science when the opinion of certain people has the power to make a lie into a mockery of truth.

So it comes down to which truth you believe. One that has been legitamately verified or the mockery. I still prefer to see logical back up and verification before I decide to believe one story over another. So far I put more stock in the Zahau's concerns than the SDSOs shoddy conclusions.

I strenuously disagree that "lies, fairness, veracity, and accuracy are all matters of opinion". I believe there are clear lines of right and wrong regarding most things.

Here are some clear examples of the delineation between truth and lies:

Either Dina was at the hospital the night Rebecca died or she wasn't. There's no gray line here.

Either Nina was at the Spreckels mansion the night Rebecca died, or she wasn't. Also no gray line here.

Either Jonah left a voicemail at 12:50am to Rebecca or he did not. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Either Adam had found Rebecca hanging from a noose or he did not. No waffling possible.

"Opinions" by definition are our judgments about things. Opinions can be right or wrong. Opinions can also be well-reasoned, grounded by evidence and facts, and therefore, more likely to be true. Or opinions can be wild stabs in the dark, meaning without basis, irrational. Or Opinions can be half-truths, partial truths, etc. Gradations in the validity of opinions are possible.

However, "facts" are not opinions. There are no gradations in validity. Facts by definition must be true. Facts are based on evidence, grounded in science -- proven, repeatable, verifiable, time-tested.

 

[stmarysmead]

I strenuously disagree that "lies, fairness, veracity, and accuracy are all matters of opinion". I believe there are clear lines of right and wrong regarding most things.

Here are some clear examples of the delineation between truth and lies:

Either Dina was at the hospital the night Rebecca died or she wasn't. There's no gray line here.

Either Nina was at the Spreckels mansion the night Rebecca died, or she wasn't. Also no gray line here.

Either Jonah left a voicemail at 12:50am to Rebecca or he did not. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Either Adam had found Rebecca hanging from a noose or he did not. No waffling possible.

"Opinions" by definition are our judgments about things. Opinions can be right or wrong. Opinions can also be well-reasoned, grounded by evidence and facts, and therefore, more likely to be true, or opinions can be wild stabs in the dark, meaning without basis, irrational. Or Opinions can be half-truths, partial truths, etc. Gradations in the validity of opinions are possible.

However, "facts" are not opinions. There are no gradations in validity. Facts by definition must be true. Facts are based on evidence, grounded in science -- proven, repeatable, verifiable, time-tested.

I agree. But these were not the issues in the post I responded to. Most of those issues, described as "lies" were differences of opinion.

The issues you have outlined are not "facts"....they are questions that are unanswered." We have no "factual answers" to them because they have not been vetted. We can gave opinions here too...but no one cam claim to know "truth from lies."

There is no FACT that Nina was or was not at the mansion. for example. There is only an unanswered questions. We await the "facts."

But if your point is that these questions should be answered, I agree. But no one has the FACTS of these answers yet. No one can claim to have the "truth." Only an opinion about the truth.

That's a big part of the problem with these two case IMO.

 

[stmarysmead]

In the article, DS mentions RZ holding someone close to the family in a judo hold until they had to "tap out." ..."not in a playful way." I wonder if this is one of the older children who were so disrespectful to RZ that she was considering taking a "time out."

I wonder if this is the way she disciplined. I wish we could hear the accounts of that last week in that house...with all three of JS's children in residence. Someday, perhaps the older children will speak publicly.

But this article makes me think they have spoken to DS. I also note the anecdote that the older son would have his mother bring him snacks to circumvent RZ's dietary wishes. Someone from that FIRST family of JS's has been talking to DS.

 

[bourne]

I agree. But these were not the issues in the post I responded to. Most of those issues, described as "lies" were differences of opinion.

The issues you have outlined are not "facts"....they are questions that are unanswered." We have no "factual answers" to them because they have not been vetted. We can gave opinions here too...but no one cam claim to know "truth from lies."

There is no FACT that Nina was or was not at the mansion. for example. There is only an unanswered questions. We await the "facts."

But if your point is that these questions should be answered, I agree. But no one has the FACTS of these answers yet. No one can claim to have the "truth." Only an opinion about the truth.

That's a big part of the problem with these two case IMO.

My post was specific. It was in response to freespeech's post. I was very clear when I stated I disagreed only with her statement "Like you say lies, fairness, veracity, and accuracy are all matters of opinion."

I did not read your post so I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[stmarysmead]

Well, that clears that mystery up. LOL However, I do believe that we cannot state as facts or truth...things that remain unanswered questions.

 

[Tink56]

I strenuously disagree that "lies, fairness, veracity, and accuracy are all matters of opinion". I believe there are clear lines of right and wrong regarding most things.

Here are some clear examples of the delineation between truth and lies:

Either Dina was at the hospital the night Rebecca died or she wasn't. There's no gray line here.

Either Nina was at the Spreckels mansion the night Rebecca died, or she wasn't. Also no gray line here.

Either Jonah left a voicemail at 12:50am to Rebecca or he did not. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Either Adam had found Rebecca hanging from a noose or he did not. No waffling possible.

"Opinions" by definition are our judgments about things. Opinions can be right or wrong. Opinions can also be well-reasoned, grounded by evidence and facts, and therefore, more likely to be true. Or opinions can be wild stabs in the dark, meaning without basis, irrational. Or Opinions can be half-truths, partial truths, etc. Gradations in the validity of opinions are possible.

However, "facts" are not opinions. There are no gradations in validity. Facts by definition must be true. Facts are based on evidence, grounded in science -- proven, repeatable, verifiable, time-tested.

LOL...Actually facts can be true or false. Case(s) in point...the need for "fact checkers" on political issues...then there are the fact-checkers on the fact-checkers.

This is the reason there are so many "dueling experts" available and used in trials in this country. Same information can yield different "truths."

What is the old adage..."Truth is in the eye of the beholder."

 

[bourne]

LOL...Actually facts can be true or false. Case(s) in point...the need for "fact checkers" on political issues...then there are the fact-checkers on the fact-checkers.

This is the reason there are so many "dueling experts" available and used in trials in this country. Same information can yield different "truths."

What is the old adage..."Truth is in the eye of the beholder."

Interesting concept! Here's a conventional definition given at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fact:

"fact (fkt)
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.
2.a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.
b. A real occurrence; an event.
c. Something believed to be true or real.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime.
4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence."

In your example of political "fact-checkers", I think that means the politician is stating something as a "fact" when in fact the thing the politician calls a "fact" may not be true. Hence, the need for fact-checkers.

It's a good thing you pointed this out as it should be stated that just because someone calls something a "fact" does not automatically mean that the claimed "fact" is indeed true, or a fact.

But I agree, "truth", an altogether separate and different entity than "fact", depends to one's perceptions of what is reality, and "is in the eye of the beholder".

 

[freespeech]

I agree. But these were not the issues in the post I responded to. Most of those issues, described as "lies" were differences of opinion.

The issues you have outlined are not "facts"....they are questions that are unanswered." We have no "factual answers" to them because they have not been vetted. We can gave opinions here too...but no one cam claim to know "truth from lies."

There is no FACT that Nina was or was not at the mansion. for example. There is only an unanswered questions. We await the "facts."

But if your point is that these questions should be answered, I agree. But no one has the FACTS of these answers yet. No one can claim to have the "truth." Only an opinion about the truth.

That's a big part of the problem with these two case IMO.

And this is why Dina, Nina, Adam and Jonah need to take lie detector tests or in some other way have their statements verified before L.E. takes their statements as "facts" while they dismiss other legitimate eye and ear witnesses whose testimonies conflict with their version of events. That is what this board is about. Questioning and discussing that.

 

[freespeech]

In the article, DS mentions RZ holding someone close to the family in a judo hold until they had to "tap out." ..."not in a playful way." I wonder if this is one of the older children who were so disrespectful to RZ that she was considering taking a "time out."

I wonder if this is the way she disciplined. I wish we could hear the accounts of that last week in that house...with all three of JS's children in residence. Someday, perhaps the older children will speak publicly.

But this article makes me think they have spoken to DS. I also note the anecdote that the older son would have his mother bring him snacks to circumvent RZ's dietary wishes. Someone from that FIRST family of JS's has been talking to DS.

Imo, The article was inconsistent. Dina failed to prove Rebecca even knew martial arts, let allow attempted it on a child. More slander and smearing in my
humble opinion only.

 

[time]

Imo, The article was inconsistent. Dina failed to prove Rebecca even knew martial arts, let allow attempted it on a child. More slander and smearing in my
humble opinion only.

I am concerned that Dina cited an anonymous family friend as the source of the juijitsu expertise, experience with Rebecca, and with something about not tapping out. To me, that is not fair play nor is it a validated fact. Let's talk to the source if there is one.

Dina tries to add strength to this with another accusation that cannot be validated and seems unreasonable/twisted. That Rebecca lied about her surname and, further, she adds some sinister twist to that by stating it as "not known in this country by that name" or never known in this country by that name.

Mary cleared this up in the recent Dr. Phil show. She said Rebecca came to this country as a Zahau and Rebecca had every right to go back to her maiden name. There is nothing nefarious about reclaiming your maiden name when you are going through a divorce. Rebecca's name may not have been legally changed yet, but we do not know and will never know the form of Dina's questioning. Again, a dead woman cannot reveal her side of the story unless she told someone about the encounter or wrote it in a diary. It is just as likely that Dina asked for Rebecca's last name and was given Zahau and that Rebecca had no idea that Dina wanted her name in order to investigate her.

So, Dina has strung together at least three weak accusations in an attempt to discredit Rebecca and justify her initial investigation of her resulting in limitations on her involvement with Max. Three extremely weak links do not make chain no matter how you look at it.

On top of that, in vague wording Dina indicated there is something wrong with Rebecca's family or when she is around her family/a family member (?) when she stated that was included as one of the limitations when Rebecca was with Max, but she has not seen fit to explain herself.

And, I forgot there is some accusation about the kids being forced to eat healthy food or whatever that was about.

So Dina has basically claimed IMHO that Rebecca is criminal, impulsive and dangerous, secretive, lies, has some dark side, and hurts children by not letting them eat what they want. None of this is supported except the one misdemeanor charge of shoplifting. It would be fine with me that Rebecca is not an angel, who is? But it is grossly unfair to try to throw a lot of unsubstantiated claims in about a person, with some twisting, and claim they all add up to someone who would hurt a child.

In my mind, domestic abuse hurts children and Dina has yet to own her own history and involvement in that. I have to wonder if Kimberly knew THAT was going on or the extent of it. But maybe she felt the kids were old enough to not be affected or else that the Shacknai's wouldn't carry on that way when her kids were at their house.

 

[FrayedKnot]

I am concerned that Dina cited an anonymous family friend as the source of the juijitsu expertise, experience with Rebecca, and with something about not tapping out. To me, that is not fair play nor is it a validated fact. Let's talk to the source if there is one.

Dina tries to add strength to this with another accusation that cannot be validated and seems unreasonable/twisted. That Rebecca lied about her surname and, further, she adds some sinister twist to that by stating it as "not known in this country by that name" or never known in this country by that name.

Mary cleared this up in the recent Dr. Phil show. She said Rebecca came to this country as a Zahau and Rebecca had every right to go back to her maiden name. There is nothing nefarious about reclaiming your maiden name when you are going through a divorce. Rebecca's name may not have been legally changed yet, but we do not know and will never know the form of Dina's questioning. Again, a dead woman cannot reveal her side of the story unless she told someone about the encounter or wrote it in a diary. It is just as likely that Dina asked for Rebecca's last name and was given Zahau and that Rebecca had no idea that Dina wanted her name in order to investigate her.

So, Dina has strung together at least three weak accusations in an attempt to discredit Rebecca and justify her initial investigation of her resulting in limitations on her involvement with Max. Three extremely weak links do not make chain no matter how you look at it.

On top of that, in vague wording Dina indicated there is something wrong with Rebecca's family or when she is around her family/a family member (?) when she stated that was included as one of the limitations when Rebecca was with Max, but she has not seen fit to explain herself.

And, I forgot there is some accusation about the kids being forced to eat healthy food or whatever that was about.

So Dina has basically claimed IMHO that Rebecca is criminal, impulsive and dangerous, secretive, lies, has some dark side, and hurts children by not letting them eat what they want. None of this is supported except the one misdemeanor charge of shoplifting. It would be fine with me that Rebecca is not an angel, who is? But it is grossly unfair to try to throw a lot of unsubstantiated claims in about a person, with some twisting, and claim they all add up to someone who would hurt a child.

In my mind, domestic abuse hurts children and Dina has yet to own her own history and involvement in that. I have to wonder if Kimberly knew THAT was going on or the extent of it. But maybe she felt the kids were old enough to not be affected or else that the Shacknai's wouldn't carry on that way when her kids were at their house.

*clap clap clap*

Very well said!

 

[time]

From the article" As Dina was leaving the hospital, a Coronado police detective paid her a visit. “Are you aware what happened?” he asked.

“Yes, it’s awful,” Dina answered. Later, at her home, two more detectives asked Dina what she thought about Rebecca’s death. She was in a hurry to return to the hospital to view the results of Max’s MRI. “They said something like ‘Is this related to what happened to Max?’” she recalls. “And my first thought was: ‘What are you suggesting? That somebody hurt Max on purpose? That somebody harmed Rebecca?’… They were intimating [foul play].”

I don't see that the police were suggesting that Max was the victim of foul play here. To me it seems more like they were feeling Dina out to see what she would say and her reaction to their question?

Actually, to me it sounds like they tried to investigate. I suspect they were stymied by some unnamed force and their efforts became impotent. I'm just giving my impression/opinion.

PURPLE - I had to read that a couple of times to make sure I understood it, geesh!

So, the sequence is:

* two detectives asked Dina what she thought about Rebecca’s death
* the detectives said ‘Is this related to what happened to Max?’”

I agree with your analysis, they were questioning her. What was Dina's answer to what she thought about Rebecca's death though - it's missing from her account. I don't think they would ask a leading question first, e.g., 'Is this related to what happened to Max'. Referring to Rebecca's death as 'this' seems as if someone is looking at the crime scene.

I want to come back to this because I think she mentioned the same events on the Dr. Phil show or in some other interview/media thing?

 

[Betty P]

PURPLE - I had to read that a couple of times to make sure I understood it, geesh!

So, the sequence is:

* two detectives asked Dina what she thought about Rebecca’s death
* the detectives said ‘Is this related to what happened to Max?’”

I agree with your analysis, they were questioning her. What was Dina's answer to what she thought about Rebecca's death though - it's missing from her account. I don't think they would ask a leading question first, e.g., 'Is this related to what happened to Max'. Referring to Rebecca's death as 'this' seems as if someone is looking at the crime scene.

I want to come back to this because I think she mentioned the same events on the Dr. Phil show or in some other interview/media thing?

Again in the article, Dina brings the conversation back to "who hurt Max?" and away from "could someone have hurt Rebecca?" That's a pretty consistent pattern with her in interviews.

 

[bourne]

Again in the article, Dina brings the conversation back to "who hurt Max?" and away from "could someone have hurt Rebecca?" That's a pretty consistent pattern with her in interviews.

Sounds like DS was using a manipulative technique called deflection.