Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California, #2

[MzOpinion8d]

I think it's Tapatalk. I'll try to repost them below my comments.

You will notice that even though someone slyly put Det. Tsuida's pic on the inset right next to the burly stocky large male detective, the woman I believe is Dina on the left-hand side of the pic *entering* the Spreckels mansion with her hand to her face is clearly *NOT* Det. Tsuida. How do I know?

Well, first of all, Det. Tsuida's clothes on the FIRST day of investigation on Wed morning when Rebecca was reported dead were *black*. If you go through old crime scene photos, you will see Det. Tsuida was wearing an entire *black* suit on Wednesday.

In this inset pic someone slyly placed, Det. Tsuida's clothes are grayish. And we know detectives don't suddenly change clothes in the middle of a major crime scene investigation, correct? A crime scene investigation is not hosting the grammy's or performing at a concert. No reason Det. Tsuida *suddenly* ups and changes her entire suit to an entirely different colored suit, correct? Hence the pic with Det. Tsuida's grayish suit is taken on a day *subsequent* to the Wed morning police were first called to the Spreckels to investigate the " violent, suspicious death" of Rebecca.

Second, the inset pic of Tsuida in gray has her standing *inside* the Spreckels mansion door. We know there are steps leading into the door and the floor inside is *higher* than the ground *outside* the Spreckels mansion door. How do we know? Because an insider who's physically walked through the Spreckels mansion said so.

Third, note how the pic I'm referring to as Dina *entering* Spreckels mansion door with large black bag also has Dina wearing a *gray vest* that is tied in the back with a bow. I clearly see the bow in the back. Just because Det. Tsuida on a day *after Wednesday* also happened to wear similar color to Dina who wore gray vest *on Wed* doesn't make the woman entering the Spreckels mansion Det Tsuida. I myself have many gray suits (and black, blue, etc.). Does that mean it's me that's entering the Spreckels mansion if I too wear a gray suit?

Fourth, note how Dina's posture at the Town Hall meeting is stooped over, hunch-back. Well, the woman entering the Spreckels mansion covering her face and wearing a gray vest *also* has same stooped over, hunch-back posture. The resemblance is remarkable. I am certain if the Zahau lawyer depose Det. Tsuida, she does *not* have stooped-over hunchback posture. How do I know? From all the pics I've seen of Det. Tsuida, she stands and walks with head held high and confident, and her posture is straight up -- NO HUNCHBACK!

So YES, I still believe the woman entering Spreckels mansion with stooped-over hunch-back posture the Wed morn when the police were first called about a "violent, suspicious death" is Dina. That is my informed opinion.

View attachment 65388

Thanks, I can see them now.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

I remember when these pictures were released. Everyone was getting out their microscopes - analyzing body shapes. It's obvious to me it's the detective, she's even got the bag hanging on her shoulder

Yes, no-doubt-about it - the woman is Detectie Tsuida. Even a blind bat can see that.

 

[bourne]

Thanks, I can see them now.

Would love to know your thoughts and assessments on this issue. Thanks for joining us in this lively discussion about Rebecca's murder.

 

[Zoot]

Would love to know your thoughts and assessments on this issue. Thanks for joining us in this lively discussion about Rebecca's murder.

It's Dina. Detective Tsuiba appears petite, she is Asian and look how tiny her waist is.
The woman in the doorway is definitely slouched statuesque figure at 160-180 lbs.

 

[MaybeNotToday]

It's Dina. Detective Tsuiba appears petite, she is Asian and look how tiny her waist is.
The woman in the doorway is definitely slouched statuesque figure at 160-180 lbs.

The detective is wearing an ill fitting blazer. It happens to the best of us.

 

[bourne]

It's Dina. Detective Tsuiba appears petite, she is Asian and look how tiny her waist is.
The woman in the doorway is definitely slouched statuesque figure at 160-180 lbs.

I believe unequivocally it is Dina as well. Here's PIC #1(below) of Det. Tsuida on Wed when Rebecca was reported dead.
Det. Tsuida is clearly wearing a *BLACK blazer* with a *LIGHT BLUE t-shirt* underneath. Det. Tsuida carries her *small bag on her LEFT shoulder*. Det. Tsuida also has her hair tied up in a bun in the back.

PIC #1



Compare & contrast that to PIC #2 (below) of woman *entering* Spreckels Mansion same Wed morning when Rebecca was reported dead.
The hunchback stooped over woman is clearly wearing a *LIGHT GRAY vest with a GRAY BOW tied in the back AND GRAY pants* and carrying a *large black purse on her RIGHT shoulder*. This woman has her hair DOWN.

PIC #2



Important note: the slyly placed inset on the right side of PIC #2 (below) of Det. Tsuida from a SUBSEQUENT day (NOT Wed 07/13/2013) of investigation wearing greenish/grayish suit is DECEPTIVE. Again, Det. Tsuida was wearing *BLACK blazer* with a *LIGHT BLUE t-shirt* on Wed when Rebecca was reported dead, and large hunchback woman entering Spreckels mansion cowering and with her hand shielding her face wearing *GRAY vest with bow tied in the back* was taken Wed morning).

Unless anyone's claiming that Det. Tsuida suddenly in the course of one morning while investigating a potential MURDER grows LARGER in size and height, gets an abrupt hunchback, AND decides to make a costume change, the large hunchback woman was DEFINITELY *NOT* Det. Tsuida.

I have absolutely *no doubt whatsover* that it is Dina entering the *crime scene* of Rebecca's "violent, suspicious death" the morning Rebecca was found murdered. The fact that the police allowed the WDS defendant Dina who was a possible *suspect* in a violent, suspicious murder cross the crime scene tape and contaminate and perhaps even plant evidence* is simply outrageous and a grave miscarriage of justice.

PLEASE Judge and Lawyers in Zahau case, if any of you are reading these posts, bring these pics to the attention of the court and hopefully the jury to follow. This is absolutely CRIMINAL.

 

[justice be served]

They say they like to see their handiwork and often return to the scene of the crime. But that's pretty <mod snip> if Dina actually went there.

 

[bourne]

They say they like to see their handiwork and often return to the scene of the crime. But that's pretty <mod snip> if Dina actually went there.

I agree. This is like textbook of a murderer's criminal profile. *RETURNING TO THE SCENE OF THE CRIME TO ADMIRE THEIR HANDIWORK*. Absolutely outrageous & DISGUSTING.

We've all seen how Dina's arrogance is. Look at her harassing the Zahaus during the court proceedings now with her 130 interrogatories. AND the fact that she went not only after Rebecca in death for "torpedoing" and "causing the homicide of her one and only son Max" but also Rebecca's teenage sister, XZ -- on *national television* no less. What kinds of BALLS and narcissistic hubris and amorality does that show about Dina's LACK of conscience and LOW MORAL character??

 

[bourne]

i believe unequivocally it is dina as well. Here's pic #1(below) of det. Tsuida on wed when rebecca was reported dead.
Det. Tsuida is clearly wearing a *black blazer* with a *light blue t-shirt* underneath. Det. Tsuida carries her *small bag on her left shoulder*. Det. Tsuida also has her hair tied up in a bun in the back.

Pic #1
View attachment 65478


compare & contrast that to pic #2 (below) of woman *entering* spreckels mansion same wed morning when rebecca was reported dead.
The hunchback stooped over woman is clearly wearing a *light gray vest with a gray bow tied in the back and gray pants* and carrying a *large black purse on her right shoulder*. This woman has her hair down.

Pic #2
View attachment 65479


important note: The slyly placed inset on the right side of pic #2 (below) of det. Tsuida from a subsequent day (not wed 07/13/2013) of investigation wearing greenish/grayish suit is deceptive. Again, det. Tsuida was wearing *black blazer* with a *light blue t-shirt* on wed when rebecca was reported dead, and large hunchback woman entering spreckels mansion cowering and with her hand shielding her face wearing *gray vest with bow tied in the back* was taken wed morning).

Unless anyone's claiming that det. Tsuida suddenly in the course of one morning while investigating a potential murder grows larger in size and height, gets an abrupt hunchback, and decides to make a costume change, the large hunchback woman was definitely *not* det. Tsuida.

I have absolutely *no doubt whatsover* that it is dina entering the *crime scene* of rebecca's "violent, suspicious death" the morning rebecca was found murdered. The fact that the police allowed the wds defendant dina who was a possible *suspect* in a violent, suspicious murder cross the crime scene tape and contaminate and perhaps even plant evidence* is simply outrageous and a grave miscarriage of justice.

Please judge and lawyers in zahau case, if any of you are reading these posts, bring these pics to the attention of the court and hopefully the jury to follow. This is absolutely criminal.

^bump

 

[screecher]

So, we have both (imo) PP and Dina at Rebecca's murder scene. We know why PP was there, to represent Adam...however Adam was already taken to the clinker to be questioned, video-taped and lie-detected. IIRC, PP had tried to contact him. To no avail lol.

So, the 10 million dollar ? is...what the hell was Dina doing there? Did she realize she had left something behind? Was she trying to get info from LE? Why wasn't she at Maxie's bedside?

Could the Zahaus depose the LE guy at the door?

 

[LuckyLucy2]

I believe unequivocally it is Dina as well. Here's PIC #1(below) of Det. Tsuida on Wed when Rebecca was reported dead.
Det. Tsuida is clearly wearing a *BLACK blazer* with a *LIGHT BLUE t-shirt* underneath. Det. Tsuida carries her *small bag on her LEFT shoulder*. Det. Tsuida also has her hair tied up in a bun in the back.

PIC #1
View attachment 65478


Compare & contrast that to PIC #2 (below) of woman *entering* Spreckels Mansion same Wed morning when Rebecca was reported dead.
The hunchback stooped over woman is clearly wearing a *LIGHT GRAY vest with a GRAY BOW tied in the back AND GRAY pants* and carrying a *large black purse on her RIGHT shoulder*. This woman has her hair DOWN.

PIC #2
View attachment 65479


Important note: the slyly placed inset on the right side of PIC #2 (below) of Det. Tsuida from a SUBSEQUENT day (NOT Wed 07/13/2013) of investigation wearing greenish/grayish suit is DECEPTIVE. Again, Det. Tsuida was wearing *BLACK blazer* with a *LIGHT BLUE t-shirt* on Wed when Rebecca was reported dead, and large hunchback woman entering Spreckels mansion cowering and with her hand shielding her face wearing *GRAY vest with bow tied in the back* was taken Wed morning).

Unless anyone's claiming that Det. Tsuida suddenly in the course of one morning while investigating a potential MURDER grows LARGER in size and height, gets an abrupt hunchback, AND decides to make a costume change, the large hunchback woman was DEFINITELY *NOT* Det. Tsuida.

I have absolutely *no doubt whatsover* that it is Dina entering the *crime scene* of Rebecca's "violent, suspicious death" the morning Rebecca was found murdered. The fact that the police allowed the WDS defendant Dina who was a possible *suspect* in a violent, suspicious murder cross the crime scene tape and contaminate and perhaps even plant evidence* is simply outrageous and a grave miscarriage of justice.

PLEASE Judge and Lawyers in Zahau case, if any of you are reading these posts, bring these pics to the attention of the court and hopefully the jury to follow. This is absolutely CRIMINAL.

The picture I supplied from Ann Rules book clearly states that it is Detectve Tusuida in the light grey or tan suit, and that it was Wednesday morning. It is stated right there. Date and who is was. So there is really no denying it. It is not Dina Shacknai and she was not there that morning.

To keep stating that it was not Detective Tsuida just proves that the misinformation that has floated about on this case can't be backed up with fact and is simply wrong.

BTW Bourne, the picture with the "slyly placed inset" as you called it, is not one I doctored. It is from one of the murder fans that was offered as proof it was Dina. It was Bonepile, I believe, who "slyly" put the inset there.

 

[bourne]

The picture I supplied from Ann Rules book clearly states that it is Detectve Tusuida in the light grey or tan suit, and that it was Wednesday morning. It is stated right there. Date and who is was. So there is really no denying it. It is not Dina Shacknai and she was not there that morning.

To keep stating that it was not Detective Tsuida just proves that the misinformation that has floated about on this case can't be backed up with fact and is simply wrong.

BTW Bourne, the picture with the "slyly placed inset" as you called it, is not one I doctored. It is from one of the murder fans that was offered as proof it was Dina. It was Bonepile, I believe, who "slyly" put the inset there.

WRONG. The news media showed *real-life videos* (yes, there are MULTIPLE videos from different tv stations) of WEDNESDAY's investigation into the "violent, suspicious death" of Rebecca, AND they *all show Det. Tsuida in a *BLACK suit with a light blue t-shirt AND her hair up in a bun*. Just so everyone knows, WEDNESDAY is the FIRST day police were called to the crime scene by Adam Shacknai in which he reported Rebecca as "Got a girl, hung herself".

This WEDNESDAY is the SAME DAY the *large, hunchback woman* *wearing gray vest with gray bow and has her hair DOWN, carrying a large black purse on right shoulder* is seen ENTERING the Spreckels mansion in the morning of Rebecca was first found dead by investigators. And large, hunchback woman's PIC was taken WEDNESDAY morning.


WRONG. Bonepile or whoever first posted the pics found that pic with the slyly placed inset on the web search, which was slyly placed on the internet by anti-Zahaus, as was the pic of Zahau's "arrest" for shoplifting.

 

[Gilgamesh]

I want to send a shout out to those that have read the voluminous pages of documents and have summarized them. I don't alway have the time nor inclination to slog through them. As a result, I very much appreciate the summarizations......KZ and several others come to mind. Keep up the good work. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels the same way....... Any way, this is a thank you.

 

[K_Z]

So, I guess instead of answering plaintiff's interrog just plainly, Dina challenged each allegation?? And that is a no no at this stage of proceedings. Am I getting that right?

Actually, I think that's not quite right-- but it is a bit confusing. (And IANAL, so my interpretation is as a layperson.)

The 135 special interrogatories were not from the Plaintiffs, and there aren't any Plaintiff interrogatories filed on the Register of Action (yet). The 135 we've been discussing were Dina's first attempt at discovery, directed to the Plaintiffs.

Dina's Answer to the First Amended Complaint is document #48 (9 pages) on the Register of Actions, and her Demand for Jury Trial is document #49 (4 pages)--both filed 11/21/14. Those "answer" and address the complaint against her.

The 135 special interrogatories were her first attempt at "discovery" questions. The Judge, as well as the Plaintiff's Attorney Greer outlined a number of reasons why the 135 special interrogatories were dismissed at this point. Lash's post above has the specifics of why the $2580 fine was granted to the Plaintiffs, with the wording in the Order.

The really puzzling thing is that Dina's attorneys (with the Schumann firm) appear to be quite elite and experienced, so one has to ask themselves, why would attorneys at this level of their experience and career file interrogatories in a manner that that they "should have" known were "illegal", or against the rules ("compound questions", etc)? That seems like a rookie mistake, IMO-- or intentional. Why not just start with 35 allowed discovery questions formulated to be in compliance with rules, and then go from there? It's not like that was their only shot at discovery. IMO, it appears harassing, because it was intended to BE harassing (to BOTH the plaintiffs and the court/ Judge). It doesn't appear at all that they were submitting discovery interrogatories in any kind of "good faith" effort at cooperation with the conduct of the case.

There was a little virtual hissing match between Schumann and Greer if you read the documents-- Schumann says he believes the statute says the party has to answer the interrogatories before moving for an Order of Protection not to answer them (which sounds ridiculous even to me as a layperson). Greer points out that once they make a motion for the Order of Protection, they don't have to answer anything until the Order of Protection is ruled on. Apparently, the Judge agreed with Attorney Greer. As I understand the documents and the Order, these 135 interrogatories were thrown out, and the Judge basically said "try again, and follow the rules."

ETA: And this was quite a costly mistake for Dina, IMO. If Attorney Greer says he spent 8 hours at $210/ hour preparing responses to the Defendant's insistence that the court compel them to be answered "right now", just imagine how many hours Dina's attorneys at Shumann/ Rosenberg spent preparing the 135 interrogatories, filing the opposition to the motion for the Order of Protection, and all of the maneuvering to get to the "right now" ex-parte hearing! Hours and hours of billable hours-- far more than 8 hours, IMO, plus the filing fees, down the tubes. (And I strongly suspect the Schumann firm bills clients more than $210/ hr.) So it's not *just* the $2580 fine, but the bills for all of that preparation by the Schumann firm. IMO, most attorneys will not take a case like this one on commission, so the billable hours just pile up, even if a motion that took many hours to prepare, is thrown out.

 

[K_Z]

I wanted to add to my ETA above, regarding the rapidly escalating costs of representation. DS appears to be much more assertive in her choices of representation, and in filing actions, than the other 2 defendants, and has chosen 2 separate firms to represent her-- the Schumann/ Rosenberg firm in California, and Attorney Daniel Benchoff from Arizona. We know this from the entries and documents on the dockets in both the State and Federal cases.

There are significant costs associated with physically bringing an attorney from one state to another to assist local counsel. (Travel costs, per diem, lodging and transportation, usually a higher hourly fee during travel, costs to apply to the out of state court to be allowed to assist in the case in a state they're not licensed in, etc-- all of these costs are typically billed to the client.) This includes fees to apply to the court to be affiliated with a local attorney that is licensed in the state-- the in state and out of state attys collaborate/ buddy up to represent the client.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_hac_vice

Presumably, Dina desires to physically bring Attorney Benchoff from AZ to CA to assist the California firm-- not a cheap option, IMO, but certainly within her rights, and subject to her financial means. There have been some hiccups in getting Mr. Benchoff approval to assist pro hac vice. The PACER docket for the Federal WDS includes 2 entries that have been updated, as to Mr. Benchoff's status in representing DS in CA. Both entries have been modified AFTER the minute entry which states the case did not settle, and that the case would be stayed while the State case moves forward.

Here are the entries from the PACER website related to Attorney Daniel Benchoff (case # 13-01624):

Docket #54

Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee received: $ 206 receipt number 0974-7618676.) (Application to be reviewed by Clerk.) (Benchoff, Daniel) (ag). Modified on 12/9/2014-Sent to Judge missing the applicants signature. QC mailer sent to atty to sign and file again. (vam). (Entered: 12/05/2014)

Docket #56

Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice, No payment Submitted. (Application to be reviewed by Clerk.) (Benchoff, Daniel) (vam). Modified on 12/12/2014-Local counsel is not admitted to our Court; Pro Hac atty to file another app with different local counsel (vam). (Entered: 12/11/2014)

It doesn't appear that Atty Benchoff received permission/ approval to assist in the Federal case in time for the ENE settlement conference that occurred Dec 9, 2014.

There are no entries related to Attorney Benchoff on the State docket ROA, so perhaps he is only to assist if the Federal case moves forward again.

One thing is for sure, there are a lot of attorneys making money off of these lawsuits! It's my opinion that if the case/s are eventually dismissed, and don't settle or go to trial, that the order will be *just* a dismissal. I strongly do not think that the judge would order the plaintiffs to pay all of the defendant's legal bills and court costs. If the cases die due to dismissal at some point, I think each side will take their ball and go home. I think all of the plaintiffs and defendants would be in the position of paying their own legal bills, as they accrued. JMO.

 

[Carioca]

Thanks SO much, K_Z, not only for making the files available, but for also helping us interpret all the legalese. You may have missed your calling as an attorney

I have a question: in the State case, there is an Ex Parte scheduled for Wednesday, 12/17/2014 at 08:45:00 AM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal (ROA entry date 12/10/14). The Ex Parte, at least Dina's regarding the excessive interrogatories, has already been ruled upon in favor of the Plaintiffs. Any ideas what this Ex Parte is all about??

TIA!

 

[inthedark14]

Thank you so much K_Z for getting these docs posted. I've never followed a case with a WDS before. It's very interesting and of course, confusing!

I don't know what to make of DS having another attorney from AZ in addition to the CA counsel. There must be some reason for it, but it seems like a really big expense when she already has counsel in CA. Just so I'm understanding correctly, the court has to approve this additional lawyer, since he's from out of state? Is he a specialist or something? I did a bit of digging around, but my time has been limited, I've been lucky to find the time to get through the docs that lovely K_Z posted. Does anyone know anything about this additional attorney?
TIA!

ALWAYS MOO

 

[K_Z]

Just to finish out my thoughts on Dina's desire to add AZ Attorney Benchoff to her California team, here are the 2 separate pro hac applications he filed.

The first is document 54, filed 12/05/14. It was sent back to him because he did not sign it in the middle.



Docket #54 (PACER)

Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee received: $ 206 receipt number 0974-7618676.) (Application to be reviewed by Clerk.) (Benchoff, Daniel) (ag). Modified on 12/9/2014-Sent to Judge missing the applicants signature. QC mailer sent to atty to sign and file again. (vam). (Entered: 12/05/2014)

The second is document 56, filed 12/11/14. Note that it is signed now, but he changed the 10th circuit court of appeals to his date in 2002 of being admitted to the AZ bar. Curiously, Attorneys Matthews and Braun from the Schumann firm were left off this second app, and only Kim Schumann signed it. Yet the docket entry says the local attorney (Schumann) is not admitted to that court. That's strange, as he has filed in this case all along, and his website says he's admitted to all state and federal courts in California. So I'm not sure what that means, but Mr. Benchoff is advised in the docket entry to find a new local attorney to file with. That is, unless I'm interpreting all this incorrectly-- and that's possible! None of us know what kind of special expertise Mr. Benchoff brings from AZ to this case, but DS seems determined to add him to her team. (Yet, he hasn't been mentioned in the State docket, FWIW.)



Docket #56 (PACER)

Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice, No payment Submitted. (Application to be reviewed by Clerk.) (Benchoff, Daniel) (vam). Modified on 12/12/2014-Local counsel is not admitted to our Court; Pro Hac atty to file another app with different local counsel (vam). (Entered: 12/11/2014)

 

[K_Z]

Thanks SO much, K_Z, not only for making the files available, but for also helping us interpret all the legalese. You may have missed your calling as an attorney

I have a question: in the State case, there is an Ex Parte scheduled for Wednesday, 12/17/2014 at 08:45:00 AM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal (ROA entry date 12/10/14). The Ex Parte, at least Dina's regarding the excessive interrogatories, has already been ruled upon in favor of the Plaintiffs. Any ideas what this Ex Parte is all about??

TIA!

BBM. I might have more on this later.

(And thank you for your kind words!)

 

[Carioca]

Am answering my own question. Today's Ex Parte was vacated yesterday 12/16/2014 as per the ROA website:

Ex Parte scheduled for 12/17/2014 at 08:45:00 AM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal was vacated.

Thanks SO much, K_Z, not only for making the files available, but for also helping us interpret all the legalese. You may have missed your calling as an attorney

I have a question: in the State case, there is an Ex Parte scheduled for Wednesday, 12/17/2014 at 08:45:00 AM at Central in C-69 Katherine Bacal (ROA entry date 12/10/14). The Ex Parte, at least Dina's regarding the excessive interrogatories, has already been ruled upon in favor of the Plaintiffs. Any ideas what this Ex Parte is all about??

TIA!