Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California

[bourne]

^ she posted he'd be fine after Rebecca was murdered, yes? And after her original post of Maxie being brain-dead had been deleted, IIRC.

Good point! I hope they will ask Dina's then boyfriend and his daughter to testify regarding the content and timing of Dina's knowledge of Max's dire condition. Certainly the sudden 360 reversal in content wherein the bf's daughter suddenly deleted her post stating that Max was braindead, and then her newer post that he should be fine around Christmas would bring into question what Dina actually knew and when she came into knowledge of it and what she disclosed to her then bf/his daughter.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

AZ Lawyer wrote that the Judge cannot ask for charges to be brought should he find enough reasons for the case to move forward after depositions. I did read it. The Zahaus COULD HAVE asked the DA to reopen the case IF they had any evidence, which they don't. They did ask the California Attorney General to review it. The California Attorney General's office looked over the case TWICE and found no reason to reopen. So that will come into evidence as well.

The Zahaus don't have a chance. Doesn't matter when Dina knew when Max was not going to make it. Doesn't matter one bit. The Shacknais and Romanos have DNA, fingerrprints, the findings of the SDSO, which was aided by the DOJ and the FBI, and all the professionals that worked on the case. Saw the ACTUAL scene. Lifted the ACTUAL fingerprints and DNA. I do not think the case will move forward afterr depositions, but if it should, the Zahaus only have rumor and speculation, which will never stand up against FORENSIC evidence, and two reviews by the California District Attorney's office.

 

[Mr Spock]

AZ Lawyer wrote that the Judge cannot ask for charges to be brought should he find enough reasons for the case to move forward after depositions. I did read it. The Zahaus COULD HAVE asked the DA to reopen the case IF they had any evidence, which they don't. They did ask the California Attorney General to review it. The California Attorney General's office looked over the case TWICE and found no reason to reopen. So that will come into evidence as well.

The Zahaus don't have a chance. Doesn't matter when Dina knew when Max was not going to make it. Doesn't matter one bit. The Shacknais and Romanos have DNA, fingerrprints, the findings of the SDSO, which was aided by the DOJ and the FBI, and all the professionals that worked on the case. Saw the ACTUAL scene. Lifted the ACTUAL fingerprints and DNA. I do not think the case will move forward afterr depositions, but if it should, the Zahaus only have rumor and speculation, which will never stand up against FORENSIC evidence, and two reviews by the California District Attorney's office.

I'm sorry I disagree with you here from a place of polite debate on my part.

It does matter what a Dina and Nina knew and when. Both gave lengthily interviews stating detailed accounts of how they thought Max was going to be fine. If it is proven otherwise, it lies in direct conflict as to what their initial statements were to reporters. That's called "changing stories". Your entitled to your opinion. We are entitled to ours. MOO

<mod snip>

 

[screecher]

It absolutely matters when Dina Romano knew. Not only will it prove she lied about the time-frame, it will also go to the theory and belief the Zahau family are putting forth.

changing her story....covering her a$$...with her lies. And Nina allowed herself to be sucked down that eddy.

Yeah, it does matter.

 

[*Lash*]

In my opinion what will matter to the jury is the lack of evidence supporting the suicide theory. Why possible evidence was either not obtained or not followed through. Evidence that could have proven Rebecca was murdered.

Why the DOJ did not follow up with the polygraph Nina canceled?
Why Adam was not given a second polygraph after his first poly was inconclusive?
Why Adam's fingerprints/DNA were not found on items he used to cut RZ down?
Why Adam's fingerprints/DNA were not found on items he removed from Rebecca's body?
Why Nina's phone records were never obtained?
Why Adam's phone records were never obtained?
Why Dina doesn't appear on any video surveillance?
Why Paul Pfingst was allowed on the property of a crime scene?
Why witnesses at Dina's were not questioned?

ETC, ETC, ETC...

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Even if Dina knew Max was going to die the minue she arrived at the hosptal, it does not mean she murdered Rebecca Zahau. Even if she lied over and over, it does not mean she killed Rebecca Zahau.

To prove someone murdered someone else, you must have PROOF. I have yet to see any proof that anyone murdered Rebecca Zahau, but lots of PROOF that she killed herself.

And I agree with a previous poster - there does seem to be escalating rage and anger everytime someone posts asking for ANY REAL EVIDENCE.

 

[screecher]

Just why would Dina and Nina lie??? Why???

Oh, and BTW, you're the one SHOUTING.

 

[*Lash*]

I agree, PROOF of murder or suicide would be essential while investigating a violent death!

It would be difficult to prove murder if you don't investigate ALL the evidence. I'm not a detective but common sense dictates it would be beneficial to obtain ALL the evidence in a violent death before you conclude the manner of death!

 

[screecher]

And why wasn't all collected evidence tested?

 

[K_Z]

Sooo.... to get back to the civil case, I've been thinking about depositions and discovery.

Some think that depositions (oral depositions) might be occurring. If so, I'm feeling good about that process. Especially since all parties to a lawsuit, and their counsel, can be present during depositions.

I'd like to think that it's a very good and necessary part of the process to have the Zahau plaintiffs finally able to be present during on-the-record questioning of the deponents/ defendants. I hope very much that they are able to travel to each and every deposition, to be a presence in the room for Rebecca.

Of course, the depositions can also be audio or videotaped, as well as transcribed by the court reporter, with proper arrangements ahead of time. That gives me some confidence, as well, in the discovery process. And of course, all of the depositions and discovery will be available under FOIA at some point-- which also gives me some confidence in the civil process.

Some more information about Rule 30 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_30

(d) Duration; Sanction; Motion to Terminate or Limit.

(1) Duration. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a deposition is limited to 1 day of 7 hours. The court must allow additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination.

(2) Sanction. The court may impose an appropriate sanction—including the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred by any party—on a person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of the deponent.

(3) Motion to Terminate or Limit.

(A) Grounds. At any time during a deposition, the deponent or a party may move to terminate or limit it on the ground that it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party. The motion may be filed in the court where the action is pending or the deposition is being taken. If the objecting deponent or party so demands, the deposition must be suspended for the time necessary to obtain an order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposition_(law)

Generally the deposition is attended by the person who is to be deposed, their attorney, court reporter, and other parties in the case who can appear personally or be represented by their counsels. Any party to the action and their attorneys have the right to be present and to ask questions.

As with oral examination at trial, depositions can become heated at times, with some attorneys asking harassing questions to provoke witnesses into losing their tempers, some witnesses giving evasive answers, and everyone using profane language. In extreme situations, one side or the other may ask the reporter to mark the record, then may suspend the deposition, demand a rush transcript, and file an emergency motion to compel a response, for a protective order, or for sanctions. Some courts have magistrates or discovery commissioners who are on call for such contingencies, and the parties are supposed to use them to referee such disputes over the phone before resorting to filing motions. In extreme circumstances where the relationship between the lawyers, parties, or witnesses has totally broken down, the court may require the use of a discovery referee who will have authority to sit in on depositions and rule immediately on objections as they are presented, or may order that all further depositions take place in court in the presence of a judge.

BBM.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

In my opinion what will matter to the jury is the lack of evidence supporting the suicide theory. Why possible evidence was either not obtained or not followed through. Evidence that could have proven Rebecca was murdered.

Why the DOJ did not follow up with the polygraph Nina canceled?
Why Adam was not given a second polygraph after his first poly was inconclusive?
Why Adam's fingerprints/DNA were not found on items he used to cut RZ down?
Why Adam's fingerprints/DNA were not found on items he removed from Rebecca's body?
Why Nina's phone records were never obtained?
Why Adam's phone records were never obtained?
Why Dina doesn't appear on any video surveillance?
Why Paul Pfingst was allowed on the property of a crime scene?
Why witnesses at Dina's were not questioned?

ETC, ETC, ETC...

There is overwhelming physical evidence that proves Rebecca Zahau killed herself. And unless you've seen the entire investigative files, you really don't know what was done and what was not. And why did the Zahaus not release the entire file? Because of the information that they don't want anyone to see. But that wil come out if this goes to trial.

Because it became clear fairly quickly that Rebecca hung herself. Polygraphs are not allowed as evidence, anyway.
See above.
Why on earth would they test for Adam's fingerprints on the things he touched to cut RZ down?
Why would they test for Adam's fingerprints/DNA on the things he removed from Rebecca's body?
[modsnip]
It is not a crime. See the "Ask a Lawyer" thread, page one or two.
[modsnip]

 

[K_Z]

Of course, not all the depositions need to take place in California. I think it's common for all kinds of defendants to claim undue hardship to travel when they live out of state-- especially since they would have to pay out of pocket to travel. Now, some defendants are wealthy enough, and in a position to easily absorb these expenses. Some defendants in some cases are frequent travelers, so may want to just quickly produce themselves to get their side of the story on the record, right?

It will be interesting to see who is deposed, in what order, and where the depositions take place in this case. I would think that often times defendants (not these defendants, of course) are inclined to make the deposition "come to them" as a mechanism to force the other side to spend money to travel, and maybe slow down or frustrate the process. Hmm-- well, Nina lives in California, Dina in Arizona, and AS in Tennessee, right? I wonder if each of them will be at the depositions of the others?

It would be interesting to know if they are hanging together, or hanging separately? They each have a lot at stake.

 

[inthedark14]

AFAIK, no one here has seen the entire case file, not even our VI. We can only go on the information that we've received.

I would imagine however that they would want to test items that AS said that he touched to PROVE that he actually did cut her down. I mean, that seems likes police work 101 to me, right? A man calls in a hanging death of a naked woman, then tells LE he had taken Ambien and had been doing his thing to that very morning just before finding her (I know gross, sorry guys)...well, they'd need to back that up right? AS stated to them that he did those things, so they should have proven that he actually did. They should have tested his blood for the Ambian he said he took, they should have checked his phone to see whatever images of videos he'd viewed to...you know. They should have tested the knife he said that he used to cut her down, they should have tested the bindings he loosened and the tee shirt gag he took out of her mouth for touch DNA.

IMVHO if they HAD proven/tested those things, well they would have stated that very loudly and clearly on their big holiday weekend press conference. I'm sure there was room on the powerpoint to include that information if they had it.

ALWAYS MOO

 

[LuckyLucy2]

AFAIK, no one here has seen the entire case file, not even our VI. We can only go on the information that we've received.

I would imagine however that they would want to test items that AS said that he touched to PROVE that he actually did cut her down. I mean, that seems likes police work 101 to me, right? A man calls in a hanging death of a naked woman, then tells LE he had taken Ambien and had been doing his thing to that very morning just before finding her (I know gross, sorry guys)...well, they'd need to back that up right? AS stated to them that he did those things, so they should have proven that he actually did. They should have tested his blood for the Ambian he said he took, they should have checked his phone to see whatever images of videos he'd viewed to...you know. They should have tested the knife he said that he used to cut her down, they should have tested the bindings he loosened and the tee shirt gag he took out of her mouth for touch DNA.

IMVHO if they HAD proven/tested those things, well they would have stated that very loudly and clearly on their big holiday weekend press conference. I'm sure there was room on the powerpoint to include that information if they had it.

ALWAYS MOO

None of those things would have been done in this or any other hanging investigation, as none of that would shown who was the person that was resonsible for the hanging.

 

[K_Z]

As with oral examination at trial, depositions can become heated at times, with some attorneys asking harassing questions to provoke witnesses into losing their tempers, some witnesses giving evasive answers, and everyone using profane language. In extreme situations, one side or the other may ask the reporter to mark the record, then may suspend the deposition, demand a rush transcript, and file an emergency motion to compel a response, for a protective order, or for sanctions. Some courts have magistrates or discovery commissioners who are on call for such contingencies, and the parties are supposed to use them to referee such disputes over the phone before resorting to filing motions. In extreme circumstances where the relationship between the lawyers, parties, or witnesses has totally broken down, the court may require the use of a discovery referee who will have authority to sit in on depositions and rule immediately on objections as they are presented, or may order that all further depositions take place in court in the presence of a judge.[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposition_(law)

BBM

About that "deposition referee", I wonder if a plaintiff can pro-actively request a deposition referee in attendance? Things have been so adversarial between these plaintiffs and 2 of the 3 defendants, that I'd think it would be wise to ask for that referee in advance! Might save a LOT of time and money in the long run.

I would wish that all 3 of these defendants will easily comply with the deposition process, and tell the truth. But wishes are often the things of fairytales, right? I do have my doubts, based on how this has gone by the defendants over the past couple years. I can envision all sorts of "delay tactics" and other tactics to frustrate the process, to reschedule time and again, cancel at the last minute, sudden illnesses, etc etc. Anything to avoid facing the plaintiffs, the difficult and probing questions, explaining their publicly given conflicting stories, etc.

And IMO, AS doesn't "interview well", so he might need a LOT of preparation time.

 

[inthedark14]

None of those things would have been done in this or any other hanging investigation, as none of that would shown who was the person that was resonsible for the hanging.

Well at the time, it wasn't a "hanging investigation". It was a suspicious and violent death investigation.

Police call the death "suspicious" and "violent," but have not released information on a possible suspect. They have not ruled out suicide. They will not say where Shacknai was at the time.

Read more: http://www.azfamily.com/news/Violent-death-at-Scottsdale-CEOs-home-125540698.html#ixzz3Isp0fese

While they were careful to state that they were not ruling out suicide, they were investigating a violent and suspicious death. Hanging or not, it was violent and suspicious. Therefore, the investigation should have reflected that. Sadly, it did not.

ALWAYS MOO

 

[K_Z]

I'm thinking more about Adam, and how he might perform under the stresses of deposition.

Remember how AS has a tendency to abruptly &#8220;blurt&#8221; out very sensitive and private information in interviews? His odd use of phrases in the context of the 911 call and the poly? The odd comment about his &#8220;bedside manner?&#8221;

His interactions that we have available from interviews and the 911 call, are very odd and unusual, IMO. I have often wondered if AS has some personal issue/ diagnosis to render him uniquely vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation by others. IMO, of the 3 defendants, he is the most likely to have been recruited abruptly and unwillingly to be part of the murder scenario outlined in the WDS. And if he DID take an ambien, he could have been even MORE vulnerable to manipulation, IMO.

I&#8217;m quite interested in what he will have to say at deposition and trial. He may be compelled to shield himself as best he can, and may offer up information to minimize his responsibility in the murder/ wrongful death, IMO. If I were Dina and/ or Nina, I&#8217;d be very worried about what Adam will say under oath. He&#8217;s a wild card, IMO.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Well at the time, it wasn't a "hanging investigation". It was a suspicious and violent death investigation.



Read more: http://www.azfamily.com/news/Violent-death-at-Scottsdale-CEOs-home-125540698.html#ixzz3Isp0fese

While they were careful to state that they were not ruling out suicide, they were investigating a violent and suspicious death. Hanging or not, it was violent and suspicious. Therefore, the investigation should have reflected that. Sadly, it did not.

ALWAYS MOO

Once the Medical Examiner determined that Rebecca died by hanging, and that she was alive when she went over the balcony-which happened in the first few days- it was indeed an investigaion about who hung her. And it was correctly ruled a suicide, due to all that forensic evidence Rebecca left behind.

 

[Frigga]

Once the Medical Examiner determined that Rebecca died by hanging, and that she was alive when she went over the balcony, it was indeed an investigaion about who hung her. And it was correctly ruled a suicide, due to all that forensic evidence Rebecca left behind.

Links please.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

I'm thinking more about Adam, and how he might perform under the stresses of deposition.

Remember how AS has a tendency to abruptly &#8220;blurt&#8221; out very sensitive and private information in interviews? His odd use of phrases in the context of the 911 call and the poly? The odd comment about his &#8220;bedside manner?&#8221;

His interactions that we have available from interviews and the 911 call, are very odd and unusual, IMO. I have often wondered if AS has some personal issue/ diagnosis to render him uniquely vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation by others. IMO, of the 3 defendants, he is the most likely to have been recruited abruptly and unwillingly to be part of the murder scenario outlined in the WDS. And if he DID take an ambien, he could have been even MORE vulnerable to manipulation, IMO.

I&#8217;m quite interested in what he will have to say at deposition and trial. He may be compelled to shield himself as best he can, and may offer up information to minimize his responsibility in the murder/ wrongful death, IMO. If I were Dina and/ or Nina, I&#8217;d be very worried about what Adam will say under oath. He&#8217;s a wild card, IMO.

Adam Shacknai is the Captain of a tugboat that runs the Missisippi river. It is ludacris to think he has a "personal issue/diagnosis to render him uniquely vunerable to maniputation and exploitation by others".

I would imagine a Tugboat Captain on the nation's largest river would need to be very responsible....and in control. Not the type of person to go kill someone because his ex-sister-in-law tells him to.