Who Had Motive, Method & Opportunity?!

[iSleuth]

With all due respect, I do not think Nina would have been asked for fingerprints and hair samples and a lie detector test just because she was related to someone who had lived in the house 2-3 years earlier. That defies logic.

I have no idea what this has to do with Nina's rights. And, I really don't remember anyone saying that only Rebecca had motive, method, and opportunity in claiming this was a suicide. In fact, even Jonah said she didn't have motive. Dina had the most motive and, by association, Nina could have had motive. And, I don't know how you could claim Rebecca had the 'method' and no one else did??? :waitasec: Opportunity? Obviously Nina, Adam, and Dina had opportunity.

In AR's book, it states clearly that at the beginning of the investigation ( before it was shut down prematurely by G and lawyer P) that there were 6 persons of interest AKA suspects to follow up on. ( JS, AS, DS, NR, R's Ex, and-----? was it Js's friend " h" ) NR was definitely on that list.

 

[bourne]

I did not say Nina was not allowed to speak publicly. I was very appreciative of her willingness to speak at length, publicly, in such great detail. I found her interview very illuminating, particulary in relation to potential motive, means and opportunity in Rebecca Zahau's suspicious death case.

All of the above is just my opinion.

I agree. Had Nina not given her public interview, I would not have known about her and Dina's hate and unrelenting blame of Becky for Max's accident. Therein lies a very strong motive for Becky's murder. Thank you Nina.

 

[bourne]

IIRC, Nina made it painfully clear that she had to surrender her brand new yoga pants to "help" with the investigation into Rebecca's death. These were pants she claimed to have worn as she was not touching the gate and only looking through it at Spreckels that evening.

Police only ask POIs to give up their personal belongings and submit to printing and polygraphs. Police cannot confiscate private property from a private citizen without having probable cause aka reasonable suspicions. It is clear that Nina was a POI aka suspect.

 

[time]

In AR's book, it states clearly that at the beginning of the investigation ( before it was shut down prematurely by G and lawyer P) that there were 6 persons of interest AKA suspects to follow up on. ( JS, AS, DS, NR, R's Ex, and-----? was it Js's friend " h" ) NR was definitely on that list.

Yes, I agree Nina was clearly on that list as was Adam.

bourne - I do not think XZ was a POI. I'm suspecting her fingerprints were taken because they would need to be ruled out, XZ was the one in physically close contact with Rebecca and probably would have held her phone and such. So, that still leaves a 6th suspect. Not sure it would be HL though iSleuth? Maybe. So far, it doesn't look like he had any opportunity.

Did LE ever say they had an unknown fingerprint on Rebecca's phone? Or on her computer?

 

[bourne]

Yes, I agree Nina was clearly on that list as was Adam.

bourne - I do not think XZ was a POI. I'm suspecting her fingerprints were taken because they would need to be ruled out, XZ was the one in physically close contact with Rebecca and probably would have held her phone and such. So, that still leaves a 6th suspect. Not sure it would be HL though iSleuth? Maybe. So far, it doesn't look like he had any opportunity.

Did LE ever say they had an unknown fingerprint on Rebecca's phone? Or on her computer?

I think the term POI is ambiguous. Does it include suspects and material witnesses? I would think XZ would be considered a material witness.

 

[time]

I think the term POI is ambiguous. Does it include suspects and material witnesses? I would think XZ would be considered a material witness.

Yes, POI to me doesn't really mean a material witness. I usually take a POI to be someone they are seriously looking at as a suspect. Suspect definitely, no.

 

[iSleuth]

Yes, I agree Nina was clearly on that list as was Adam.

bourne - I do not think XZ was a POI. I'm suspecting her fingerprints were taken because they would need to be ruled out, XZ was the one in physically close contact with Rebecca and probably would have held her phone and such. So, that still leaves a 6th suspect. Not sure it would be HL though iSleuth? Maybe. So far, it doesn't look like he had any opportunity.

Did LE ever say they had an unknown fingerprint on Rebecca's phone? Or on her computer?

I will go back to the book and look...my apologies started typing and forgot mid sentence. :waitasec:

 

[bourne]

Yes, POI to me doesn't really mean a material witness. I usually take a POI to be someone they are seriously looking at as a suspect. Suspect definitely, no.

Just found this definition of POI on http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/person-of-interest/ :

"Unlike "suspect" and "material witness," "person of interest" has no legal definition, but generally refers to someone law enforcement authorities would like to speak with or investigate further in connection with a crime. It may be used, rather than calling the person a suspect, when they don't want their prime suspect to know they're watching him closely. Critics complain that the term has become a method for law enforcement officers to draw attention to individuals without formally accusing them.

There is concern among critics that innocent people will be tainted by being labelled a person of interest."

*shrugs* I still think XZ was considered a POI for both Max's and Becky's deaths because she was a material witness and the police took her prints and interviewed her several times.

Personally I don't think LE seriously suspected XZ of a crime. They, as you said, only wanted to exclude her from the list of suspects.

 

[bourne]

<snipped>
Did LE ever say they had an unknown fingerprint on Rebecca's phone? Or on her computer?

MSM articles never reported whether LE found fingerprints on Becky's phone or computer. Ann Rule's book also does not make mention of prints on these two objects either.

 

[time]

MSM articles never reported whether LE found fingerprints on Becky's phone or computer. Ann Rule's book also does not make mention of prints on these two objects either.

Thank you. I'm really starting to wonder about fingerprints. Sometimes they do not collect them unless they have an unidentified prints or prints (probably in a crucial area/spot). But they might do it as a matter of course for two other reasons or more (I'm being a little redundant):

1. There's another person (like XZ) that they know will have fingerprints around and they need to identify just like they identify the ones that are the victims.

2. They seriously suspect someone (or seriously POI them ) and so they go ahead and ask for fingerprints, DNA, and such along with interviewing them and other investigation into their whereabouts (connections, interviewing others about them, however far they take it)

bourne - I agree with what you've said above about POIs and suspect too. POI is vague. I know sometimes they will say someone is a POI then counter with they are not necessarily a suspect but may have information that would help solve a crime. Obviously, they are looking for that person and haven't found them. Or they name a POI or two and it really means 'suspect' they just don't have enough to stick their neck out and call them a suspect. Ann says six suspects though? That tells me she's implying they had 6 serious POI's that they thought could have been directly involved in a murder. But, we don't know if she is just sticking XZ in there.

 

[time]

MSM articles never reported whether LE found fingerprints on Becky's phone or computer. Ann Rule's book also does not make mention of prints on these two objects either.

Hmm, well, certainly they looked for prints on these. I'd have to go back and look at the SDSO wording on where they claim they found Rebecca's prints now - or maybe someone will post that if they beat me to it. I'm wondering if it's the same as some other things they've said - carefully worded where one assumes they told us about all (forensics), but NO! they didn't when you reread the phrasing.

Anyway, maybe it is my wishful thinking that there are more forensics than we know and info (like phone records).

 

[iSleuth]

Yes, POI to me doesn't really mean a material witness. I usually take a POI to be someone they are seriously looking at as a suspect. Suspect definitely, no.

in AR's book -In the chapter and interview with RZ's ex- ES, " The investigators told "S" straight out that he was on the " suspect board " of six people.>>

But I also think there is the list someplace in the book. and there is a discrepancy accounts AS and JS did H join them for dinner or not?

 

[time]

in AR's book -In the chapter and interview with RZ's ex- ES, " The investigators told "S" straight out that he was on the " suspect board " of six people.>>

But I also think there is the list someplace in the book. and there is a discrepancy accounts AS and JS did H join them for dinner or not?

I don't think anyone has figured out if H did join them or not. Although I'm trying to figure out if one of these folks just has too much dufus factor to know if he just portrays sloppy thinking/responses or if he could be considered factual. It just confuses any evaluation of him for me.

 

[Jessica2012]

Hi, XZ was not there when Rebecca died...I think they questioned her extensively because she was present when Max fell, and I think they just wanted to find out what exactly happened, especially after CPS got involved and stuff. I believe they took her prints just to rule out those prints in the search of the house because her prints would definitely be there. They were probably looking for foreign prints, not ones that would normally be there. I think the 6th P.O.I. in the book is H.L.

 

[Carioca]

Hi, XZ was not there when Rebecca died...I think they questioned her extensively because she was present when Max fell, and I think they just wanted to find out what exactly happened, especially after CPS got involved and stuff. I believe they took her prints just to rule out those prints in the search of the house because her prints would definitely be there. They were probably looking for foreign prints, not ones that would normally be there. I think the 6th P.O.I. in the book is H.L.

BBM Jessica2012, I totally agree on both counts! Although XZ was present at the mansion that morning, she didn't witness MS' fall and we don't know how soon after the fall she actually arrived on the scene.

Playing devil's advocate, there could have been a time lapse between the fall, which probably would not have made much noise in itself, and the crashing of the chandelier, which would have made a huge crash. Thus XZ wouldn't really have had a clue as to what happened.

 

[bourne]

I don't think anyone has figured out if H did join them or not. Although I'm trying to figure out if one of these folks just has too much dufus factor to know if he just portrays sloppy thinking/responses or if he could be considered factual. It just confuses any evaluation of him for me.

I'm puzzled by Adam too. If only I know him in real life, then I can use my psychology training to analyze him. lol As is, I can't tell if he's just clumsy in his words and actions or that in his Ambien-induced state, he was subconsciously revealing info about his involvement in Becky's death.

 

[K_Z]

I do not think Nina would have been asked for fingerprints and hair samples and a lie detector test just because she was related to someone who had lived in the house 2-3 years earlier. That defies logic.

Snipped, and BBM.

Exactly. Asking someone to provide fingerprints for exclusion is vastly different that being asked by LE to provide the clothing you claimed to be wearing when you stated you had been at the scene of a murder investigation a few hours before the victim's death. It is also vastly different than being asked to take a polygraph to determine the truthfulness of your version of events. If you're being asked to take a polygraph, even voluntarily, someone thinks you could be (ok, they think you ARE) lying about something very, very important. That's why they're colloquially called "lie detector tests". Suspects almost always lie about their participation in crimes, especially murder. Sometimes innocent people collaterally involved lie, too, but not as often. Particularly in murder cases, where the consequences are severe. That usually motivates truth telling. Of course, polygraphs are inadmissible in court. But they are still a very, very effective tool for LE to use when evaluating suspects. And suspect's responses to being ASKED to take one, I think, ARE admissible as evidence, as well as being very helpful to investigators.

And if Nina hadn't been INSIDE the mansion for a couple years, why would they need her hair samples? Is that another reason she told the, IMO, very odd version of Rebecca hugging her? To explain any hairs found on Rebecca? But then Rebecca was nude when she died, and may have just had a shower. Or was it because LE was gathering hair evidence at the scene? That seems most likely to me.

I've always found it interesting that Nina added in the unnecessary detail of her yoga pants being NEW. There would be no way to determine if the pants she surrendered were the same as the ones she claimed to be wearing when she was at the mansion, particularly because the web designer eyewitness saw a woman dressed differently that didn't meet Nina's description. And NEW clothes would not have evidence of normal wear. The "new yoga pants" detail has always struck me as too much detail for the circumstances and the question. It's not just a self- centered comment-- it strikes me as untrue, the way liars typically add extraneous info to make something sound "more true." Same with that "pink Coach wristlet." It sounds like a well rehearsed part of the story she told. She wasn't just wearing clothes and carrying a handbag. KWIM?

I'm also glad Nina chose to give that in-depth interview. She didn't have to do that. A lawyer probably would have advised her not to give it, because it only adds to the impression that she had motive and opportunity. And that she was considered a suspect by LE (though officially unnamed to MSM).

If LE is collecting your DNA, your hair, your fingerprints, your clothing, and asking you to get scheduled for a polygraph, you ARE a suspect, whether named or not. And a prudent innocent person would get a lawyer right away, IMO. A guilty person should have one at that point, too, IMO.

 

[time]

I'm puzzled by Adam too. If only I know him in real life, then I can use my psychology training to analyze him. lol As is, I can't tell if he's just clumsy in his words and actions or that in his Ambien-induced state, he was subconsciously revealing info about his involvement in Becky's death.

You explained it better than I did! I'd still like to know what questions he was asked on the LD and which one or ones he showed deception on or were inconclusive.

 

[Zinn]

Snipped, and BBM.

Exactly. Asking someone to provide fingerprints for exclusion is vastly different that being asked by LE to provide the clothing you claimed to be wearing when you stated you had been at the scene of a murder investigation a few hours before the victim's death. It is also vastly different than being asked to take a polygraph to determine the truthfulness of your version of events. If you're being asked to take a polygraph, even voluntarily, someone thinks you could be (ok, they think you ARE) lying about something very, very important. That's why they're colloquially called "lie detector tests". Suspects almost always lie about their participation in crimes, especially murder. Sometimes innocent people collaterally involved lie, too, but not as often. Particularly in murder cases, where the consequences are severe. That usually motivates truth telling. Of course, polygraphs are inadmissible in court. But they are still a very, very effective tool for LE to use when evaluating suspects. And suspect's responses to being ASKED to take one, I think, ARE admissible as evidence, as well as being very helpful to investigators.

And if Nina hadn't been INSIDE the mansion for a couple years, why would they need her hair samples? Is that another reason she told the, IMO, very odd version of Rebecca hugging her? To explain any hairs found on Rebecca? But then Rebecca was nude when she died, and may have just had a shower. Or was it because LE was gathering hair evidence at the scene? That seems most likely to me.

I've always found it intersecting that Nina added in the unnecessary detail of her yoga pants being NEW. There would be no way to determine if the pants she surrendered were the same as the ones she claimed to be wearing when she was at the mansion, particularly because the web designer eyewitness saw a woman dressed differently that didn't meet Nina's description. And NEW clothes would not have evidence of normal wear. The "new yoga pants" detail has always struck me as too much detail for the circumstances and the question. It's not just a self- centered comment-- it strikes me as untrue, the way liars typically add extraneous info to make something sound "more true." Same with that "pink Coach wristlet." It sounds like a well rehearsed part of the story she told. She wasn't just wearing clothes and carrying a handbag. KWIM?

I'm also glad Nina chose to give that in-depth interview. She didn't have to do that. A lawyer probably would have advised her not to give it, because it only adds to the impression that she had motive and opportunity. And that she was considered a suspect by LE (though officially unnamed to MSM).

If LE is collecting your DNA, your hair, your fingerprints, your clothing, and asking you to get scheduled for a polygraph, you ARE a suspect, whether named or not. And a prudent innocent person would get a lawyer right away, IMO. A guilty person should have one at that point, too, IMO.

BBM

I had the same impression upon hearing the "brand new yoga pants" part of the interview, as well as the part about the "bear hug" in her "neck area" and the handling of Rebecca's mobile phone. Incidentally, I had that same feeling when NR mentioned Rebecca dropping off luggage at DS's house. In the context of the interview, it seemed like an unprompted, unnecessary detail. It made me wonder if there's any evidence of this actually happening or if there's any evidence NR was staying at DS's house at all, rather than the Ronald McDonald House, for instance. Or could this have been another way to explain otherwise unexplainable comingling DNA? I don't know.

As for the Coach wristlet, I wasn't really bothered by that comment because, IIRC, they were discussing a witness account of a woman with a large black bag. I thought she was just refuting that account. I do seem to recall getting the feeling she was fishing to find out who the witness was. IIRC, this was something that had been made public just prior to her interview, perhaps just hours earlier.

All of the above is just my opinion.

 

[time]

<respectfully snipped>
And if Nina hadn't been INSIDE the mansion for a couple years, why would they need her hair samples? Is that another reason she told the, IMO, very odd version of Rebecca hugging her? To explain any hairs found on Rebecca? But then Rebecca was nude when she died, and may have just had a shower. Or was it because LE was gathering hair evidence at the scene? That seems most likely to me.

K_Z... I agree with everything you said. Good post once again.

I have been wondering about the hair sample. I could be wrong, but I don't think that is typically what they would gather to test for DNA although hair could possibly yield DNA. It appears to me that they found hair that was not Rebecca's at the scene of the crime.

It is odd that Nina went out of her way in the interview to say the yoga pants were new. I wonder if she was caught on camera leaving the hospital and is this what she was wearing? It may not matter what she was wearing if the witnesses didn't see her anyway as far as who was at the front door - it would matter if she surrendered clothing to LE and it was not what she had on that night. I'm wondering if the TMI part of her interview, 'new' pants, could indicate she went out and bought the clothing.