The case for murder

[elfie]

I don't really think one needs professional credentials to know that looking at a SMALL PHOTO is NOT the SAME as being ON THE BALCONY like the SDSO were, IMO.

But the ridges from the unknown print DO show up in the SDSO photos when enlarged.

Need to fix the photos, back soon.





Okay, hopefully better view now.

 

[Inparadise]

I don't really think one needs professional credentials to know that looking at a SMALL PHOTO is NOT the SAME as being ON THE BALCONY like the SDSO were, IMO.

Well, I happen to believe that one who "dismisses" a highly trained and qualified expert in the field of Criminal Investigations, Forensic Science and Medicine, should have some similar creds in order to back up their statements and opinions.

 

[justice be served]

SDSO’s theory of Rebecca committing suicide because she held herself responsible for Max’s death after Jonah’s phone call is abductive conjecture which is not scientifically testable. “Deduction is truth-preserving and induction is probability-enhancing, abduction is ignorance-preserving” according to D. M. Gabbay and J. Woods in their many scholarly books on abductive reasoning.

“Abduction as reconstruction of what happened is less a private investigation, the hunch of a particularly skillful detective, than a public confrontation of hypotheses. It can certainly happen that the more ingenious and brilliant hypothesis is the one resolving a case, but any hypothesis should be publicly evaluated according to some shared criteria and principles. The trial is the means of a public reconstruction of the disputed events. It is not decided by the genial hunch of a detective, nor by the absolutely private investigation of an authority.” This is quoted from Legal Abductions, Giovanni Tuzet, University of Paris XII, Paris France. [email protected]

Until Rebecca’s case is reopened, I maintain this is the reason the public will never accept SDSO’s ruling. This isn’t the wild west 1900’s and Gore isn’t Judge Roy Bean – saloonkeeper, judge, jury and executioner. The only thing wild about this case is Gore’s indefensible theory of Rebecca’s suicide and his cherry-picked evidence to support his ruling. Our judicial system has failed and a reopening of the case will bring truth to light –whatever that truth may be.

 

[CuriousGeorgia]

But the ridges from the unknown print DO show up in the SDSO photos when enlarged.

When a photo is enlarged too much, it becomes "pixelated" and you are not seeing what was really there. Again, I don't think a photo is in anyway comparable to being at the scene and on that balcony.

 

[Inparadise]

When a photo is enlarged too much, it becomes "pixelated" and you are not seeing what was really there. Again, I don't think a photo is in anyway comparable to being at the scene and on that balcony.

Unless you yourself were at the crime scene, AND have a background in LE and forensic science, IMO, your comments about the footprints and Dr. Godwin are insignficant.

 

[elfie]

When a photo is enlarged too much, it becomes "pixelated" and you are not seeing what was really there. Again, I don't think a photo is in anyway comparable to being at the scene and on that balcony.

The images are composed of pixels. The images I linked have been copied and re-copied by the time I posted them, each time losing a scant amount of data and detail. Yet, the prints are still visible and located in the same places that Dr. Godwin pointed out.

 

[K_Z]

The SDSO did NOT believe this was a shoe print, and THEY were on the ACTUAL scene.

For MR. Godwin to say that he can see that in a PHOTO is PREPOSTEROUS. He is absolutely WRONG and should have kept out of it.

Judy Melinek was never at the scene, either. Nor was Dr. Bove. They both evaluated photographs to compile their reports. (Scene and autopsy, and other photos by Dina, such as the ICU pics.)

Evaluating official LE photographs by experts is preposterous?? Really?

I don't think the courts agree. Experts evaluate official photographs all the time for both prosecution and defense. They render educated, experienced opinions. That's what contracted experts do.

I totally get that you disagree with Dr. Godwin's opinion as an expert. And that's okay.

 

[K_Z]

And by the way, Maurice Godwin has a PhD in Psychology, and has every right legally and according to licensing statutes to present himself as DR. Godwin. It is extremely disrespectful to disregard his legal and professional title, and downgrade it to "Mr." in posts, imo.

His dissertation:

Dissertation: Inner Themes-Outer Behaviors: A Multivariate Model of U.S. Serial Killers' Crime Scene Actions

http://www.drmauricegodwin.com/resume/default.html

 

[Inparadise]

And by the way, Maurice Godwin has a PhD in Psychology, and has every right legally and according to licensing statutes to present himself as DR. Godwin. It is extremely disrespectful to disregard his legal and professional title, and downgrade it to "Mr." in posts, imo.

His dissertation:

Dissertation: Inner Themes-Outer Behaviors: A Multivariate Model of U.S. Serial Killers' Crime Scene Actions

http://www.drmauricegodwin.com/resume/default.html

Yes, Dr. Godwin has a PhD in Psychology, and has earned the title of Dr., unlike Dina Shacknai, whom we are uncertain if she ever finished her doctoral dissertation and successfully sat for her boards.......according to the Melmed site, prior to the end of her employment, they listed her as a doctoral candidate......big difference between being a candidate and having completed all of the requirements.

 

[freespeech]

From Rebecca Zahau's Autopsy Report, pg. 4, signed by Jonathan R Lucas, M.D. Deputy Medical Examiner


Page 2,

"The floor of the balcony was very dirty, and two bare footprints consistent with the decedent's dirty bare feet were visible in the dirt just outside the doorframe, with the heels together and the toes out in the shape of a "V". Toe prints, apparently from the right foot, were close to the balcony railing and in line with an area of dirt clearing on the top of the balcony railing and with the point at which the rope was hung over the balcony. Other than a clearly visible matched police officer's fresh boot print, no other foot or shoe prints were seen on the balcony, and there were no other footprints (other than the officer's) or evidence of a struggle."

There is a strong possibility that the sdso/me reports were incorrect. The officers contaminated the scene by not wearing crime scene booties. Apparently that is a huge "crime scene 101" no-no.

Dr. Godwin's brilliant analysis showed how the officer actually placed his boot print over another foot print. His report is scientifically and soundly reasoned which makes it quite convincing. You should read it.

Unfortunately, Sdso, badly botched the investigation and contaminated the crime scene which led to their non-scientific and incorrect but convenient conclusion.

 

[freespeech]

When a photo is enlarged too much, it becomes "pixelated" and you are not seeing what was really there. Again, I don't think a photo is in anyway comparable to being at the scene and on that balcony.

The officer at the investigation scene stepped out onto the balcony and placed his foot print over the print of the person who was on the balcony with Rebecca. That was highly unusual behavior for a crime scene investigation. I wonder what other standard crime scene protocol was breached during the investigation?

 

[freespeech]

I don't really think one needs professional credentials to know that looking at a SMALL PHOTO is NOT the SAME as being ON THE BALCONY like the SDSO were, IMO.

BBM

Your point that Sdso was on the balcony reinforces the concept that they were incompetent. Why would they be "ON" the balcony. "Crime scene 101" would mandate that they stay off the balcony so as not to disturb the scene, no? So why did the officer place his boot print over the prints found by Dr. Godwin?

Was the officer's action simply incompetence or something more sinister?

 

[K_Z]

Yes, Dr. Godwin has a PhD in Psychology, and has earned the title of Dr., unlike Dina Shacknai, whom we are uncertain if she ever finished her doctoral dissertation and successfully sat for her boards.......according to the Melmed site, prior to the end of her employment, they listed her as a doctoral candidate......big difference between being a candidate and having completed all of the requirements.

Actually, the last I read from the minutes of the licensure approval committee in AZ, Dina was graduated (a "Graduate Psychologist"), and had received her approval to sit for licensure July 2011. She had been declined to sit for boards in Dec 2010, due to incorrect submission documentation of her supervised clinical experiences; the same experiences submitted as both pre- graduation and post graduation supervised clinical. That is not allowed.

She must have successfully addressed the RAID letter from the board, and corrected that. However, Arizona licensure boards still do not have her listed as licensed. So she is a "did graduate, not licensed" status.

And she did not complete a dissertation because she was not in a PhD program. Her program is a PsyD, which is a clinical doctorate (as opposed to a research doctorate) that requires a clin doc project, which is outlined on the Argosy website. PhD students complete dissertations.

 

[justice be served]

The officer at the investigation scene stepped out onto the balcony and placed his foot print over the print of the person who was on the balcony with Rebecca. That was highly unusual behavior for a crime scene investigation. I wonder what other standard crime scene protocol was breached during the investigation?

I say this hesitantly but the officer that stepped out on the balcony could have done so purposely to contaminate the crime scene. Doubtful but everything is worth mentioning in this fouled up investigation. When it begins with an ME that takes over 13 hours to get to the scene it warrants questioning everything.

 

[CuriousGeorgia]

The scene wasn't contaminated and the officer's footprint was documented. Only that footprint, Rebecca's footprint in a V, and her toe print were there.

 

[inthedark14]

I say this hesitantly but the officer that stepped out on the balcony could have done so purposely to contaminate the crime scene. Doubtful but everything is worth mentioning in this fouled up investigation. When it begins with an ME that takes over 13 hours to get to the scene it warrants questioning everything.

ITA justice.

The fact that while Rebecca was laying in the back yard, while MSM and neighborhood kids took pics from roofs, there would be plenty of time for evidence to be arranged and messed with. In this case I cant give any credence to an agency that took 13 hours to respond and wasn't able to be forthcoming with data later shown. Head injuries and multiple planes of injury that a suicide would have no reason to have. In a very recent court case a man was found guilty after a second autopsy showed the magnitude of injuries the woman he was found guilty of murdering had.

Always MOO

 

[K_Z]

The scene wasn't contaminated and the officer's footprint was documented. Only that footprint, Rebecca's footprint in a V, and her toe print were there.

BBM.

IIRC, wasn't there a boot print in the dust on the balcony that was later thought to belong to a LEO who was on the scene before official photographs were taken? I'm sorry-- I don't have a link handy, but maybe someone else does.

If I'm remembering that correctly, then that is documented proof that there was contamination of the scene. Contamination is not necessarily a bad thing-- officers and other officials doing their jobs often have to enter and interact with a crime scene for safety, to investigate, retrieve evidence, retrieve bodies, etc. The more important thing is to conclusively determine what is contamination, and what isn't. That is why official photographs are taken to document and preserve the scene at the earliest opportunity. Contamination can also occur from natural occurences, weather, etc. If it had rained after Rebecca's feet were in contact with the balcony, for instance, the dust on the balcony would have been further disturbed and contaminated.

It sounds to me as though there is not agreement among experts as to the nature of the footprints in the dust. There is a conclusion by LE that may or may not be accurate. If the case ever is reinvestigated, or goes to trial, many experts will be consulted for their opinions.

I don't think it's accurate to declare that "the scene wasn't contaminated", as though that is definitive. It may be a valid personal opinion, though.

 

[bourne]

BBM.

IIRC, wasn't there a boot print in the dust on the balcony that was later thought to belong to a LEO who was on the scene before official photographs were taken? I'm sorry-- I don't have a link handy, but maybe someone else does.

If I'm remembering that correctly, then that is documented proof that there was contamination of the scene. Contamination is not necessarily a bad thing-- officers and other officials doing their jobs often have to enter and interact with a crime scene for safety, to investigate, retrieve evidence, retrieve bodies, etc. The more important thing is to conclusively determine what is contamination, and what isn't. That is why official photographs are taken to document and preserve the scene at the earliest opportunity. Contamination can also occur from natural occurences, weather, etc. If it had rained after Rebecca's feet were in contact with the balcony, for instance, the dust on the balcony would have been further disturbed and contaminated.

It sounds to me as though there is not agreement among experts as to the nature of the footprints in the dust. There is a conclusion by LE that may or may not be accurate. If the case ever is reinvestigated, or goes to trial, many experts will be consulted for their opinions.

I don't think it's accurate to declare that "the scene wasn't contaminated", as though that is definitive. It may be a valid personal opinion, though.

Either the crime scene was contaminated or it wasn't. You can't have it both ways. Any contamination is a bad thing, scientifically. It can destroy and taint actual real evidence.

Personal opinion that states that there is no contamination of the crime scene of Rebecca's murder is unequivocally and wholly invalid in light of the evidence that even by SDSO's own admission one of their officers stepped onto the crime scene balcony and covered the purported Rebecca footprint with his own bootprint.

 

[freespeech]

According to Rebecca's autopsy report, a t-shirt was wrapped around her neck three times and I think double-knotted, and a sleeve was stuck in her mouth.

Her murderers wanted to make sure Rebecca would get strangled and suffocated by both the t-shirt and the noose, as well as make it impossible for Rebecca to breathe. Without oxygen or respiration, Rebecca was suffocated -- to simulate what her murderers thought Max had gone through, as alleged in Max's medical reports by Dr. Peterson.

No way no how Rebecca could have made it across the bedroom with her wrists and ankles bound and the t-shirt wound 3x tight around her neck and throat, a sleeve stuffed in her mouth, and a hanging noose around her neck, to leap off a three feet high balcony without making significant dust patterns with her feet and body on the balcony. A physical impossibility.

Bourne, your analysis is correct in it's conclusion. Thank you for clearly explaining the actual physiological dynamic that occurred due to the tee shirt ligature by using scientific reasoning.

I agree that if the autopsy report correctly stated that the tee shirt sleeves were wrapped around Rebecca's neck three times and knotted twice then that ligature would have choked and suffocated her before she would have been able to get to the balcony to jump. Based on the tee shirt ligature alone and without considering all the other anomalous factors such as the lack of balcony dust disturbance, unidentified footprints on the balcony, unusual rope bindings and et al, that would be enough to rule a rush to judgement in LE's unscientifically reasoned suicide determination.

A new and independent investigation and with fresh eyes could answer the Zahau family's and general public's questions here. Hopefully, the next group of investigators will back up their statements and conclusions with scientific data that can be rationally explained, proven and duplicated with an actual demonstration/re-enactment of either suicide or murder, which ever is shown by rational and provable methods. That would be compelling and convincing evidence, imo.

However, as it stands sdso has not given rational or provable explanations thus far so all the evidence seems to point to murder. This is not only my opinion but is also questioned by trained and renown pathologists and doctors such as Maurice Godwin, Cyril Wecht and others as well.

 

[MyBelle]

Either the crime scene was contaminated or it wasn't. You can't have it both ways. Any contamination is a bad thing, scientifically. It can destroy and taint actual real evidence.

Personal opinion that states that there is no contamination of the crime scene of Rebecca's murder is unequivocally and wholly invalid in light of the evidence that even by SDSO's own admission one of their officers stepped onto the crime scene balcony and covered the purported Rebecca footprint with his own bootprint.

It is impossible for officers to navigate a crime scene without actually using their feet. What I was taught in training is that contamination should be kept at a minimum. The officer who left the footprint also used his eyes in examining the "real" evidence. His footprint didn't erase what he observed with his eyes.

JMO