Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California, #3

[justice be served]

Hi Justice be served :wave:

Did you mean Nina? It was Nina who was asked to take a poly. It was scheduled and Nina canceled the day it was to be given. It was never rescheduled. I believe Nina said in her interview she canceled because Max had just passed away.

http://www.cbs8.com/story/15941030/max-shacknais-aunt-at-mansion-hours-before-zahaus-death

LOL. Okay, I know I have a habit of saying Nina when I mean Dina and vice versa, but in this case I thought I remembered that Dina was to give a poly but you are right - my bad. Thank you.

I have never understood why parents name their kids with rhyming or same first letter names. My kids are all completely different and I still mix them up. I must have some sort of deficit on names!!

 

[justice be served]

Given Gore's statement though, they did have to look for her on the tapes. When pressured he had to resort to cell phone triangulation. He very reluctantly admitted she was not to be seen on surveillance tapes. If there were witnesses, that would have been the obvious time to say so. And, he didn't. Is he stupid? I don't think so. I think he is sly and untrustworthy, but I don't think he is stupid.

Also Dina, during one of her many public appearances, could have easily brought someone forward as a witness and nip speculation in the bud. Again, she didn't. They are not going to magically appear. I don't believe they've been under a rock all this time. I just do not believe witnesses exist that can place Dine in Max's room "all night long".

Just have to say 'Excellent post'.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Back in the day, in the beginning, many thought JS was the killer, remember? UNTIL......proof was provided he wasn't there.

Not only was there no proof DD was with her Maxie, there was/is proof she was at the mansion!

And just because AR wrote something, in a 'novella', doesn't make it fact lol.

The Zahaus obviously stand by what Ann Rule wrote, as they have her book listed at #2 in thei list of media on the case on their Indiegogo Fund Raising site - the campaign that raised only 1% of its goal due to lack of support. If the Zahaus did not like what Ann Rule had written (with input from Mary Zahau and Anne Bremner), they certainly would not have listed it on their site.

I remember the cruel, vicious, and hurtful things said about Jonah Shacknai when many of the posters thought he killed Rebecca. Horrible things. Then when the news came out the he was at the hospital and Ronald McDonald house, the venom turned to Dina. AFAIK, no one ever apologized for saying the appalling things they said about Jonah - a man who had just lost his son and girlfriend under tragic circumstances.

When the case is over, and Dina is vindicated, I also expect no one to apologize about all the unbelievibly vicious and mean things they have written about a mother who lost her child while under the care of a woman who committed suicide 40 hours later.

There is absolutely no evidence to put Dina in the courtyard that morning - none whatsoever, because as Ann Rule wrote, Dina was at Rady's with Max.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

BBM: Why would the Zahaus provide their evidence to the media?

The Zahau most certainly would have used to media to show Dina leaving Rady's if they had such evidence. Why would they go to the media? Because that's what the Zahau's do.

Here is their latest attempt at extorting money from the Victims of Rebecca's actions by constantly using the media. And note, it is about "new evidence":

"Keith Greer, the Zahau family attorney, told NBC 7 there is now a piece of evidence he thinks could be the key to this mysterious case: an audio recording of investigators interviewing a woman who was near the Spreckels Mansion before Zahau's body was discovered."

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Attorneys-New-Evidence-Rebecca-Zahau-Spreckels-Mansion-2011-Death-303178091.html#"

 

[BBL]

IMO, Jonah still played a major role. I think he suspected Dina might be up to something and I think he helped (and is still helping) Adam.

So that morning we have Adam texting (TEXTING!) Jonah too tell him Rebecca is dead. AFAIK, Jonah did not call or text Adam back. Which is downright crazy. But, even more bizarre is that Jonah turns around and calls Dina! I agree with those who believe it was to confront Dina and to find out where she was. Raises a couple questions...
1. Do we know if he spoke live to Dina? If so, where was she?
- if he texted her, what did it say?
2. How did Dina get back to the hospital? Did she return in Jonah's car? How did he get his car back?
3. When did Dina hook back up with her alibi (aka her cell phone)?
4. What does Dina's phone record look like from early that morning on?
5. Maybe even more important since I don't believe Dina had her phone with her, what does Nina's phone record look like?

Discovery with Dina would be fascinating.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Jonah had nothing to do with Rebecc's suicide, and neither did Adam, Dina, or Nina. The Zahaus certainly don't believe Jonah played a role in Rebecca's suicide, since he is not charged in their slanderous civil suit. And isn't that what this thread is about?

I really hope that not sticking to the subject will get the thread closed again. We have too much to discuss about Dina's amazingly brilliant Demurrer!

 

[Morag]

... We have too much to discuss about Dina's amazingly brilliant Demurrer!

Go right ahead- someone will join in.

 

[K_Z]

Quite important to remember that the subpoena for the Rady surveillance covers more than 48 hours-- from one hour before Maxie was admitted June 11, 2011, to 8:00 pm June 13, 2011.

So the investigators (and anyone who reviews the surveillance from the Plaintiffs or Defendants) are able to identify precisely each and every time any of the defendants entered, exited, or were in common areas within the Rady property. It's not rocket science-- there is a major discrepancy in Dina's pattern of entries and exits that affects the time in question of Rebecca's death. She was not seen anywhere expected within Rady during a time period that she should have been seen, and that caused investigators to have to resort to using cell triangulation to attempt to pinpoint her whereabouts.

Certainly investigators would have interviewed relevant staff, checked Dina's credit card history, checked parking garage/ lot entrance and exits, etc, before resorting to cell phone triangulation. I think there are no staff witnesses that can corroborate her at the bedside for the time in question, or surely we would have heard their names by now.

I also think Max's records do not corroborate Dina at the bedside during the time in question, and almost certainly will be subpoenaed for that time period for that purpose.

Sheriff Gore in the press conference made clear, albeit reluctantly, that there was a major discrepancy in Dina's location, and she was not seen on Rady surveillance. They had to resort to cell phone triangulation, which put her phone "in the vicinity" of Rady hospital.

There is much more about that cell triangulation process, IMO, that has not been released to the public. There are records of which towers it pinged, as well as when the phone was stationary, and when it moved, when it send and received data, etc. both BEFORE Rebecca's death, and after. And which towers it "should have" pinged if the phone was where Dina said it was during the time in question (such as in the PICU at Rady).

The fact remains that until some convincing objective evidence (beyond rumor, shouting, and opinion) is produced by someone in authority that Dina was in Rady at Max's bedside, the evidence we have is that she was not.

There is a witness who places Dina at the mansion, outside. And yes, the plaintiffs now have to connect the dots and show that she is responsible for Rebecca's wrongful death. And it's important to remember that this isn't a criminal prosecution, but a civil case. Proof is a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. And in this state case, IIRC, it only takes 6 of 8 jurors to find for the plaintiffs. It does not take a unanimous jury for a plaintiff's verdict. (But IIRC, I think the jury has to be unanimous in a federal case-- so maybe that's another reason Dina wanted that case to not be stayed, but to progress.)

And THAT is why, IMO, Dina will do everything she can, and spend every last penny of the remaining money she won from Jonah in the divorce, to AVOID going to trial. Because the odds are not in her favor with a jury that only has to vote 6/8 for the plaintiffs. She looks very guilty and deeply vindictive, IMO, because she is. The trial will be about Rebecca's death, not Max's. Dina's one area of sympathy-- being the grieving mother of Max who died in that tragic accident, will not be enough to convince the jury she is innocent, IMO. All the vicious hatefulness, stalking, and vindictive behavior she has demonstrated toward Rebecca before and after her death, will be on display in the courtroom. All of it. And we're getting closer to setting a trial date. The plaintiffs have stated they are ready to go. It's the defendants, specifically Dina, who are trying with all their might to push off setting a trial date, according to the case management statements.

And that's also why Dina is continuing to pretend that she and her attorneys don't have access to the Rady surveillance. It drags things out better to fabricate a dispute that the plaintiffs won't share their findings, rather than speedily going down to the evidence facility and reviewing the surveillance. Reviewing the surveillance might take hours to a few days. Filing back and forth motions harassing the plaintiffs over the surveillance video takes weeks to months to conclude.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Some of my favorite points from Dina's incredible Demurrer:


pg. 4 Memorandum of Points and Authorities

1. Introduction "Defendants were careful to remove any evidence of their involvement." It may be a parapraxis, but its an admission nonetheless: Plaintiffs admit they have no evidence that defendants were involved in any alleged murder.

II Summary of Argument The Court should sustain this demurrer because every claim against Ms. Shacknai is premised exclusively on charging allegations that are made "on-information-and-belief,' all of which are either not supported by any information at all, or upon information which in no way connects Ms. Shacknai, or the other defendants, as having done the things alleged, or upon other allegations that are themselves also insufficiently made" on-information-and-belief." Plantiiffs' allegations are therefore insufficient as a matter of law.

Additionally Ms. Shacknai demurrers specially to the second cause of actions for Battery on the grounds that it is legally uncertain because it alleges in the disjunctive that Ms. Shacknai may not have committed a battery on decedent.

IV Plandtiffs' first cause of action is for Wrongful Death. But Plaintiffs specifically allege that "Adam chocked Rebecca to death." So the only way the Plaintiffs can state a viable claim against Ms. Shacknai for Wrongful Death is if Plaintiffs' allegations establish that she is potentially vicariously liable based on Plaintiffs' conspiracy allegations.

pg. 6. line 21

Thus the first question is whether Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the basis for their belief that Adam killed decedent. Without sufficiently alleging a basis for that belief, Plaintiffs' claim for Wrongful Death against Ms. Shacknai necessarily fails because Ms. Shacknai cannot be liable as a co-conspirator if the basis of the allegation that the person alleged to be directly liable of the underlying tort is legally insufficient.

Here, Plaintiffs allege that the basis of their believe that Adam killed decedent is "the injuries sustained by Rebecca on the amount of strength needed to create such injury. But that information does not in any way logical or rationally connect Adam to decedent's death. This information does not tell us why Adam, as opposed to anyone else, killed decedent. It excludes literaly anyone in the world who has the same or greater strength than Adam as someone who could have killed the decedent. The alleged basis for the belief is a non-sequitur relative to the allegation.

Of course, the reason the purported information does not have any rational relation to the charging allegation is because Plaintiffs admit that in fact, theyt have no facts to allege in support of the assertion that Adam killed decedent. The qualifying allegation that defendants removed all of the evidence has no basis at all and therefore it cannot be accepted as true. Which leaves us with the simple and unavoidable conclusion that Plaintiffs have no evidence - no facts - to base this or another charging allegation or claim against Ms. Shacknai or any other defendant. The law requires that this conclusion be reached because it is a judicial admission of a fact that is conclusively deemed true against the pleader.

pg 8 line 4. The problem with this is that the very allegations that Dina and Nina were involved at all, or were even in the house at all on the morning of decedent's death, amoung other things are themselves allegation-made-on-information-and-belief without a sufficient, rational basis; it's the allegation-made-on-information-and-belief equivalent of double and triple and quadruple hearsay...

V. Conclusion

Ms. Shacknai takes very seriously Plaintiffs' admission that they have no evidence in support of the involvement of any defendant in any alleged murder of decedent. It is a quintessential parapraxis. And it's the reason Plaintiffs have pled their complaint the way they have. Its literally impossible that Plaintiffs have any information to support the allegations they are making. Plaintiffs of course, have the entire investigatory files from the investigating agencies and they therefore are able to pilfer any and all facts from the investigations that they believe implicates Ms. Shacknai and the other defendants. Yet the only charging allegation concerning Ms. Shacknai that is not based on information and belief is that of a witness who thinks he saw her outside the house on the evening before the morning that decedent was found dead. That alone cannot save Plaintifs' complaint. The demurrer should be sustained.


Despite the mean, horrible things that posters say about this sweet Mother who lost her only child due to Rebecca Zahau, this case will never make it to a jury, IMO.

The Zahaus case will be thrown out of court, because they have no evidence...their allegations only exist as true in the minds of their small group of followers. I really think the Zahaus know Rebecca committed suicide...and have known all along.

 

[justice be served]

Here is my favorite part about Dina’s Demurrer (BBM):

A demurrer is a type of answer used in systems of Code Pleading, established by statute to replace the earlier common-law Forms of Action. While a demurrer admits the truth of the plaintiff's set of facts, it contends that those facts are insufficient to grant the complaint in favor of the plaintiff. A demurrer may further contend that the complaint does not set forth enough facts to justify legal relief or it may introduce additional facts that defeat the legal effectiveness of the plaintiff's complaint. A demurrer asserts that, even if the plaintiff's facts are correct, the defendant should not have to answer them or proceed with the case.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/demurrer

Wow.

 

[screecher]

yeah, and who is so arrogant to think she doesn't need to answer pertinent questions?

the same one who lies, lies and lies some more.

it's ludicrous she says she has no access to those cds. it's ludicrous to try to subpoena someone from arizona, who was never in cali, during that time period.

imo, she is the most transparent defendant in this WDS and the judge ain't blind.

keep on, keeping on, dina.

think i'm gonna move to san diego county lol.

 

[screecher]

oh and remember in zahaus complaint, one of the reasons rebecca needed to be murdered, was the shacknai and romano family didn't want info to come from rebecca that would be embarrassing? someone in here (sorry i can't recall) brought up a custody battle. well, we all know who would have won sole custody. certainly not the pill popping, wine guzzling parent, imo.

so, imo, besides the jealousy, vile raging, the stalking, we now have the possibility of a custodial war.

all the justification dina ever needed. in. killing. rebecca. imo.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

yeah, and who is so arrogant to think she doesn't need to answer pertinent questions?

the same one who lies, lies and lies some more

That would be Mary Zahau-Loehner.

Dina had to file a complaint with the court to make Mary Zahau-Loehner answer the interrogatory questions.

The Judge has yet to rule on that. We will see just who the Judge thinks is arrogant and doesn't have to answer pertinent questions very, very soon.

 

[K_Z]

New entries on the San Diego ROA, #187, 188.

#187 is another calendar appointment in Feb 2016 for a summary judgement conference, but not a motion for summary judgement.

#188 is a 26 page affidavit by Dina Shacknai.

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/face...88_06-23-15_Affidavit_Other_1435252281390.pdf

 

[MyBelle]

SDSO never publicly stated Dina was a suspect or POI. However Det. Angela Tsuida did request a search warrant for Dina's phone while STILL investigating whether Rebecca's death was a homicide or suicide. In the SW the detective states the purpose of the warrant was to verify the truthfulness of the statements and locations given by Dina and Jonah during the investigation. The detective had a clear reason to check Dina's phone records. In my opinion, because Dina was a POI.

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kfmb/misc/warrant_11-164.pdf

There has never been any doubt Dina was a POI just as there was no doubt Jonah was a POI in the homicide investigation and both were cleared as suspects by LE. There seems to be some real confusion as to the purpose of a hospital's security camera system which isn't to track the whereabouts of everybody at all times. Patients and their families are entitled to their privacy and comfort without having to leave the hospital, which is why the Sheriff got verification via cell phone triangulation. It was a thorough investigation.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

That would be Mary Zahau-Loehner.

Dina had to file a complaint with the court to make Mary Zahau-Loehner answer the interrogatory questions.

The Judge has yet to rule on that. We will see just who the Judge thinks is arrogant and doesn't have to answer pertinent questions very, very soon.

I wasn't aware of this. Can you elaborate? Thanks.

 

[screecher]

Moving forward, moving forward. :heartbeat:

 

[IQuestion]

There has never been any doubt Dina was a POI just as there was no doubt Jonah was a POI in the homicide investigation and both were cleared as suspects by LE. There seems to be some real confusion as to the purpose of a hospital's security camera system which isn't to track the whereabouts of everybody at all times. Patients and their families are entitled to their privacy and comfort without having to leave the hospital, which is why the Sheriff got verification via cell phone triangulation. It was a thorough investigation.

JMO

BBM .
I am so glad I reread your post and you included IMO at the end. Because I sure would hate to go head-to-head with you on the statements you made. BTW, I HAVE NO CONFUSION in regards to hospital security cameras. I'll address each area of disagreement in order.
1) I agree all suspicious deaths should be viewed through the lens of homicide, however I feel the investigation was redirected. Afterall, who sends a high powered defense attorney to a suicide?

2) Hospital security systems ARE MEANT TO TRACK THE WHEREABOUTS OF EVERYBODY Perhaps I don't need to see the inside of the actual room of a patient hooked to life support, but I would sure be entitled, as an investigator, to see who walks in and out of that room. Wouldn't a hospital want to know if a patient with a head injury or dimentia walked out of their facility???? Wouldn't a hospital that received a patient who was the victim of an attack, want to ensure their safety?

3) I don't think ANYONE IS ENTITLED to privacy in the corridors, hallways, stairwells, parking lots, cafeteria/dining and even pharmacy areas of any medical facility.
People have pretty much gotten used to the idea that there are cameras in every building that serves the public. And, that hospital serves/provides access to the public, even if it is for a short evaluation in the emergency room. There IS NO ENTITLEMENT or EXPECTATION of PRIVACY. Whether it be ATM machines, traffic cameras, toll roads, store security....there are cameras everywhere....So I can't believe a Sheriff of one of the largest departments in California would "resort" to "triangulation of a cell phone"....instead of just asking to see the hospital security footage. THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! What if somebody had stolen drugs from the pharmay, or assaulted a hospital employee....Uh, no need to bother with "actual footage"....We'll just triangulate EVERYBODY'S cell phone!!!????
Hopefully my example can help you (and others) see the ridiculousness of such a statement. But you don't have to agree with me...I am a WS poster....but Arthur Caplan, PHD has some interesting things to say about hospital security. ***enjoy*** the video.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/821706

 

[MyBelle]

BBM .
I am so glad I reread your post and you included IMO at the end. Because I sure would hate to go head-to-head with you on the statements you made. BTW, I HAVE NO CONFUSION in regards to hospital security cameras. I'll address each area of disagreement in order.
1) I agree all suspicious deaths should be viewed through the lens of homicide, however I feel the investigation was redirected. Afterall, who sends a high powered defense attorney to a suicide?

2) Hospital security systems ARE MEANT TO TRACK THE WHEREABOUTS OF EVERYBODY Perhaps I don't need to see the inside of the actual room of a patient hooked to life support, but I would sure be entitled, as an investigator, to see who walks in and out of that room. Wouldn't a hospital want to know if a patient with a head injury or dimentia walked out of their facility???? Wouldn't a hospital that received a patient who was the victim of an attack, want to ensure their safety?

3) I don't think ANYONE IS ENTITLED to privacy in the corridors, hallways, stairwells, parking lots, cafeteria/dining and even pharmacy areas of any medical facility.
People have pretty much gotten used to the idea that there are cameras in every building that serves the public. And, that hospital serves/provides access to the public, even if it is for a short evaluation in the emergency room. There IS NO ENTITLEMENT or EXPECTATION of PRIVACY. Whether it be ATM machines, traffic cameras, toll roads, store security....there are cameras everywhere....So I can't believe a Sheriff of one of the largest departments in California would "resort" to "triangulation of a cell phone"....instead of just asking to see the hospital security footage. THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! What if somebody had stolen drugs from the pharmay, or assaulted a hospital employee....Uh, no need to bother with "actual footage"....We'll just triangulate EVERYBODY'S cell phone!!!????
Hopefully my example can help you (and others) see the ridiculousness of such a statement. But you don't have to agree with me...I am a WS poster....but Arthur Caplan, PHD has some interesting things to say about hospital security. ***enjoy*** the video.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/821706

I can assure you that there are no cameras tracking who goes in and out of every hospital room. A hospital is not a public building. It is a private institution. Access is restricted to some areas such as ICU, NICU, Newborn Nursery, etc. Hospital personnel are responsible for ensuring patient privacy and safety, not cameras. These areas usually require sign-in or to be buzzed in. The only cameras will be at entrances and exits of the hospital itself and and possibly waiting rooms if there have been problems but it is not unusual for parents, mothers especially, not to leave the ICU while the child is in critical condition.


JMO

 

[IQuestion]

I can assure you that there are no cameras tracking who goes in and out of every hospital room. A hospital is not a public building. It is a private institution. Access is restricted to some areas such as ICU, NICU, Newborn Nursery, etc. Hospital personnel are responsible for ensuring patient privacy and safety, not cameras. These areas usually require sign-in or to be buzzed in. The only cameras will be at entrances and exits of the hospital itself and and possibly waiting rooms if there have been problems but it is not unusual for parents, mothers especially, not to leave the ICU while the child is in critical condition.


JMO

BBM
Well Mybelle The following information is from the SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVITS:
He returned to the hospital on July 12, 2011, around 0530-0600. His ex-wife, Dina Shacknai, was at the hospital when he arrived. Dina left and went to her residence in Coronado to gets some sleep."
"Dina returned to the hospital on July 12, 2011, at about 1800 hours.
http://www.760kfmb.com/story/15505829/some-shacknai-search-warrants-to-be-unsealed?clienttype=mobile

I have lots of opinions, but it is so much better to provide links to facts.

I too, would have assumed your last sentence (opinion) was correct, but alas, the facts, as provided in the affidavits, prove otherwise. And, if your assertion is "hospital personnel are responsible for ensuring patient privacy and safety, not cameras"..... Are you stating LE, ie SDSO is "not responsible for ensuring patient privacy"?? If so, then there should have been no problem in asking to see the security camera videos....after all, they are not the ones endowed with the power of patient/parent privacy, now are they??