1023 users online (175 members and 848 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 27 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 394
  1. #1
    bourne's Avatar
    bourne is offline "The truth shall set you free." ~JUSTICE FOR REBECCA ZAHAU
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,221

    Curiosity Never Kills the Cat: Legal Questions for VERIFIED LAWYERS- ~No Discussion~

    I was asked by a poster to start this thread.

    My first Q: Is it legally considered "Slander" for Dina Shacknai to go on the public airwaves and make a commercial for the "Parental Disclosure Act" in which she brazenly accuses two innocent people, Rebecca Zahau (a deceased victim) and a child, XZ of murdering Max Shacknai, whose death was officially ruled an "accident" by law enforcement and the medical examiner?

    Second Q: Is Dina allowed to use actual murdered children (children whose deaths were indeed ruled homicides) as analogies to her child whose death was again ruled an accident in her commercial to advertise for her cause? Did she need the murdered children's parents' written legal consent first?

    Third Q: Can the Zahaus sue Dina for slander?

    Fourth Q: Can the Zahaus force Dina to pull her ad from all media?

    Fifth Q: Are POIs/suspects and defense lawyers of POIs allowed to be physically walking about at a crime scenes prior to LE completing their investigations?

    I have more Q's, but I'll let others ask theirs for now.
    Last edited by Harmony2; 05-14-2015 at 01:44 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    9,379
    Thank you for starting t his thread bourne. Can someone call in our WS expert legal beagles to see if they can help?

    I have a couple more questions...

    1. Can the Zahaus/attorney take any legal action concerning LE and/or the coroner in this case? I guess we might also include the DA in that.

    2. Does the AG have to 'answer' a request by the Zahaus/attorney about their concerns.

    3. If the AG is concerned about this case, what authority do they have over the SDSD/coroner... can they compel them to reopen the case?

    4. Why on earth can't the Zahau's sue to get back Rebecca's belongings (everyone seem to still think they have her phone at the least). What legal right do Sheriff's Departments/LE have in keeping property when they claim a crime has not been committed, e.g., suicide in this case.

    5. Lastly, when there is no crime committed, does LE have to hand over evidence from their investigation when it effects another investigation someone wants reopened, e.g., is Dina able to get evidence taken for Rebecca's death in support of her investigation into Max's and visa versa. An example of this would be could Dina get XZ's police interview concerning Rebecca's death and other info or anything to do with Adam.

    6. Are there any other avenues to appeal a manner of death determination when the family strongly disagrees?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,757
    Quote Originally Posted by bourne View Post
    I was asked by a poster to start this thread.

    My first Q: Is it legally considered "Slander" for Dina Shacknai to go on the public airwaves and make a commercial for the "Parental Disclosure Act" in which she brazenly accuses two innocent people, Rebecca Zahau (a deceased victim) and a child, XZ of murdering Max Shacknai, whose death was officially ruled an "accident" by law enforcement and the medical examiner?

    Second Q: Is Dina allowed to use actual murdered children (children whose deaths were indeed ruled homicides) as analogies to her child whose death was again ruled an accident in her commercial to advertise for her cause? Did she need the murdered children's parents' written legal consent first?

    Third Q: Can the Zahaus sue Dina for slander?

    Fourth Q: Can the Zahaus force Dina to pull her ad from all media?

    Fifth Q: Are POIs/suspects and defense lawyers of POIs allowed to be physically walking about at a crime scenes prior to LE completing their investigations?

    I have more Q's, but I'll let others ask theirs for now.
    General disclaimer: I have not attempted to figure out whether AZ or CAL law applies to any of these situations. To the extent CAL law applies, my answers are more likely to be wrong.

    Q1: I haven't seen the commercial. If she really accuses someone of murder, the primary question would be whether or not her accusation is true. If there were a defamation lawsuit and trial, the truth of the accusation would be judged by all the evidence. A jury or judge is not required to come to the same conclusion as a police officer or medical examiner.

    Q2: No, she doesn't need consent to refer to things that happened to other people.

    Q3: Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Refer to Q1 for the question "can they win"?

    Q4: Maybe if they file a lawsuit and either win or convince the judge that they are likely enough to win and the ad is doing enough harm to justify a temporary order.

    Q5: Sure, if LE doesn't have the sense to exclude them.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,757
    Quote Originally Posted by time View Post
    Thank you for starting t his thread bourne. Can someone call in our WS expert legal beagles to see if they can help?

    I have a couple more questions...

    1. Can the Zahaus/attorney take any legal action concerning LE and/or the coroner in this case? I guess we might also include the DA in that.

    2. Does the AG have to 'answer' a request by the Zahaus/attorney about their concerns.

    3. If the AG is concerned about this case, what authority do they have over the SDSD/coroner... can they compel them to reopen the case?

    4. Why on earth can't the Zahau's sue to get back Rebecca's belongings (everyone seem to still think they have her phone at the least). What legal right do Sheriff's Departments/LE have in keeping property when they claim a crime has not been committed, e.g., suicide in this case.

    5. Lastly, when there is no crime committed, does LE have to hand over evidence from their investigation when it effects another investigation someone wants reopened, e.g., is Dina able to get evidence taken for Rebecca's death in support of her investigation into Max's and visa versa. An example of this would be could Dina get XZ's police interview concerning Rebecca's death and other info or anything to do with Adam.

    6. Are there any other avenues to appeal a manner of death determination when the family strongly disagrees?
    Q1: I don't remember much about this case, so you'll have to remind me what they supposedly did wrong.

    Q2: No. Not unless CAL has some weird law that I'm unaware of.

    Q3: If the AG wants to pursue the case and thinks they have the evidence, they don't need LE or the ME to "reopen" it. But no, I don't think they could compel LE or the ME to do so.

    Q4: If there is really no crime under actual or potential investigation, they should not have to sue to get the property back. They should be able to apply with the police department. There should be a form of some kind available.

    Q5: She could probably get most things (not physical evidence, but interviews, etc.) through a public records request if there is no ongoing investigation. I'm not familiar with the details of CAL laws on public records, though.

    Q6: Probably not--mostly because such determinations are of very little effect. E.g., a finding of "suicide" doesn't mean a jury can't say it was murder instead.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    9,379
    Thank you so much AZLawyer for taking the time to answer our questions!

    My Q1 was worded poorly. I mostly wondered if the Zahaus/Attorney could go to court to get them to reopen a case or probably some other thoughts I can't remember right now!

    Nice to know the AG can reopen a case without compelling anyone!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Up North
    Posts
    5,330
    Thank you, AZlawyer, for stopping by to answer questions! You are such a great asset and resource for everyone here at WS! Much appreciated!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,757
    Quote Originally Posted by time View Post
    Thank you so much AZLawyer for taking the time to answer our questions!

    My Q1 was worded poorly. I mostly wondered if the Zahaus/Attorney could go to court to get them to reopen a case or probably some other thoughts I can't remember right now!

    Nice to know the AG can reopen a case without compelling anyone!
    Oh, OK. No, you can't go to court to make the police investigate something more.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  8. #8
    bourne's Avatar
    bourne is offline "The truth shall set you free." ~JUSTICE FOR REBECCA ZAHAU
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    General disclaimer: I have not attempted to figure out whether AZ or CAL law applies to any of these situations. To the extent CAL law applies, my answers are more likely to be wrong.

    Q1: I haven't seen the commercial. If she really accuses someone of murder, the primary question would be whether or not her accusation is true. If there were a defamation lawsuit and trial, the truth of the accusation would be judged by all the evidence. A jury or judge is not required to come to the same conclusion as a police officer or medical examiner.

    Q2: No, she doesn't need consent to refer to things that happened to other people.

    Q3: Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Refer to Q1 for the question "can they win"?

    Q4: Maybe if they file a lawsuit and either win or convince the judge that they are likely enough to win and the ad is doing enough harm to justify a temporary order.

    Q5: Sure, if LE doesn't have the sense to exclude them.
    Thank you so much for answering, AZlawyer!

    Here are some follow-up Q's:
    1a) Dina actually did an interview with KTAR where she makes the accusations of assault and homicide by Becky and her 13-y.o. sister, XZ. If you want to check it out, here it is:

    I would think only in cases whereby a death was ruled by authorities as "foul play" or "homicide" that a family member/parent can then make accusations that someone physically assaulted and killed their child. Conversely, if a child's death was ruled a self-induced "accident", I would think the most the parent can say is that there may have been negligence on part of the caregiver at the time of the accident. Correct?

    1b) Without concrete proof that only a specific person or persons were at the location where the injury occurred, can you accuse said specific person(s) of assault & homicide? That is, there's been doubt about who were physically present at the Spreckels mansion the time of Max's accident around 10am.

    In addition to Becky and her teen sis XZ, Max's two teen half-siblings (a 14-y.o. boy ES and 16-y.o. girl GS) and his dad (Jonah Shacknai) may have been present. Max's two teen half-siblings had been visiting and were not scheduled to take a flight home until late afternoon, and there appeared no reason for them to have rushed off early in the morning to the airport as it was later reported after Max's injury. Additionally, Jonah claimed he was "at the gym" during Max's accident, but there have been no check-ins or eyewitnesses at the gym to support that, and he showed no proof to that effect.

    In other words, can Dina pointedly accuse Becky and her younger sis XZ of assaulting and causing the homicide of Max if there may have been or in actuality, there were other people in the home at the time of his accident?

    2) I'm confused about not needing consent to refer to other crime victims. Dina makes a public service announcement to advocate her cause. She is seeking governmental endorsement and legislative approval of her "Parental Disclosure Act" and I would assume, monetary donations for her non-profit. Isn't that considered "commercial" purposes? And if so, don't you need some type of contractual agreement/permission from the parents of the deceased child victims prior to using them in your ads?

    In her ad, Dina does not simply mention the other victims in passing. She actually shows pictures of them with a brief description of the laws they're associated with (e.g., Megan's cute little face & Megan's Law regarding public disclosure by LE re: sex offenders) in an obvious attempt to broadbrush girlfriends/boyfriends of ex-spouses as criminals. Dina's "Parental Disclosure Act" seeks to make mandatory background checks on ex-spouses' new boyfriends/girlfriends! (IMO, her "Act" should be renamed "Stalker Act by bitter, obsessed, jealous ex-spouse"). Can she legally make such comparisons in her ad? Can't this be considered a sweeping insult and "slander" of all new partners of ex-spouses?

    3) Is it considered "police misconduct", "corruption" and/or "professional incompetence" if a defense lawyer (Paul Pfingst was the previous DA in the same city and good friends with LE) and POIs/suspects (Dina was seen by eyewitness talking to LE and entering the Spreckels the morning Becky's dead body was found; there may be an actual photo showing Dina doing so) are allowed to cross over crime scene tape and walk about crime scene? Can one argue "police misconduct" and unethical behavior by LE to get a closed case reopened?
    Last edited by OkieGranny; 02-23-2016 at 02:20 AM. Reason: broken link

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,608
    Thank you, AZlawyer! Much appreciated.

    In my opinion, at this time either party in these two cases could file a lawsuit for the following reasons.

    •The Zahau's a defamation, libel or slander suit against Dina.
    •The Zahau's a wrongful death suit.
    •Dina a wrongful death suit.

    I tend to believe both parties badly want to file suit. Both parties want answers and a court of law is where some would be compelled to answer lingering questions. However, compelled doesn't equate to being honest. Anyone can lie on the stand. I fear one side is very concerned this is exactly what would happen. The Zahua's have to consider if they want to subject XZ, a child, to the wrath of Dina. In my opinion, XZ on the stand is exactly what Dina wants to see. I believe Dina publicly accusing RZ and XZ of murdering Max was a conniving ploy to get a reaction from the Zahau's. I think Dina hoped the Zahau's would react and file suit.

    AZlawyer, here are the two recent videos we have been discussing. If you have time, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

    Interview where Dina accuses RZ and XZ of murder -
    http://ktar.com/59/1612172/Pats-Pers...Shacknai-VIDEO

    YouTube commercial presenting Maxie's Law -
    http://www.youtube.com/embed/og7LXLkMhpw

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,757
    Quote Originally Posted by bourne View Post
    Thank you so much for answering, AZlawyer!

    Here are some follow-up Q's:
    1a) Dina actually did an interview with KTAR where she makes the accusations of assault and homicide by Becky and her 13-y.o. sister, XZ. If you want to check it out, here it is: Pat's Personal Portraits with Dina Shacknai - YouTube

    I would think only in cases whereby a death was ruled by authorities as "foul play" or "homicide" that a family member/parent can then make accusations that someone physically assaulted and killed their child. Conversely, if a child's death was ruled a self-induced "accident", I would think the most the parent can say is that there may have been negligence on part of the caregiver at the time of the accident. Correct?

    1b) Without concrete proof that only a specific person or persons were at the location where the injury occurred, can you accuse said specific person(s) of assault & homicide? That is, there's been doubt about who were physically present at the Spreckels mansion the time of Max's accident around 10am.

    In addition to Becky and her teen sis XZ, Max's two teen half-siblings (a 14-y.o. boy ES and 16-y.o. girl GS) and his dad (Jonah Shacknai) may have been present. Max's two teen half-siblings had been visiting and were not scheduled to take a flight home until late afternoon, and there appeared no reason for them to have rushed off early in the morning to the airport as it was later reported after Max's injury. Additionally, Jonah claimed he was "at the gym" during Max's accident, but there have been no check-ins or eyewitnesses at the gym to support that, and he showed no proof to that effect.

    In other words, can Dina pointedly accuse Becky and her younger sis XZ of assaulting and causing the homicide of Max if there may have been or in actuality, there were other people in the home at the time of his accident?

    2) I'm confused about not needing consent to refer to other crime victims. Dina makes a public service announcement to advocate her cause. She is seeking governmental endorsement and legislative approval of her "Parental Disclosure Act" and I would assume, monetary donations for her non-profit. Isn't that considered "commercial" purposes? And if so, don't you need some type of contractual agreement/permission from the parents of the deceased child victims prior to using them in your ads?

    In her ad, Dina does not simply mention the other victims in passing. She actually shows pictures of them with a brief description of the laws they're associated with (e.g., Megan's cute little face & Megan's Law regarding public disclosure by LE re: sex offenders) in an obvious attempt to broadbrush girlfriends/boyfriends of ex-spouses as criminals. Dina's "Parental Disclosure Act" seeks to make mandatory background checks on ex-spouses' new boyfriends/girlfriends! (IMO, her "Act" should be renamed "Stalker Act by bitter, obsessed, jealous ex-spouse"). Can she legally make such comparisons in her ad? Can't this be considered a sweeping insult and "slander" of all new partners of ex-spouses?

    3) Is it considered "police misconduct", "corruption" and/or "professional incompetence" if a defense lawyer (Paul Pfingst was the previous DA in the same city and good friends with LE) and POIs/suspects (Dina was seen by eyewitness talking to LE and entering the Spreckels the morning Becky's dead body was found; there may be an actual photo showing Dina doing so) are allowed to cross over crime scene tape and walk about crime scene? Can one argue "police misconduct" and unethical behavior by LE to get a closed case reopened?
    1a) Dina did not accuse Rebecca or her sister of murder in that clip. She said (bear with me here and try to think like a lawyer) that Max was murdered and that she THOUGHT either Rebecca or her sister was responsible. If this were defamation, there would be a whole lot of WS'ers in trouble for their posts! Beyond the "I think" disclaimer, there are a couple of other problems: (1) she gave 2 alternative possibilities, and (2) as for Rebecca, she is deceased and cannot sue for defamation (and no one can sue on her behalf for defamation either).

    It is absolutely not true that the parent can only say things that are consistent with determinations of LE or the ME. That has no bearing on the issue of defamation, because the conclusions of LE or the ME would not be binding on a court or jury.

    1b) You can accuse anyone you want of homicide, as long as you're willing to take the risk that you might have to prove it later in a defamation case (by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt). In this case, though, I didn't hear any accusation in the video. I heard "I think."

    2) You don't need consent to make comparisons to other people and events, even for commercial purposes, which this isn't anyway. I just watched the ad, though, and I noticed that Dina used logos from other organizations. Hopefully she got permission to use the logos, or she might be asked to remove them.

    There is no legal problem with the message of the ad IMO. Even if her concern about new spouses/SOs of divorced parents is primarily based on paranoia, there is no defamation contained in it at all. No single person is accused of anything, and DS does not say that every person in that class of people is a danger. (I don't think anyone could sue her even if she did, BTW.)

    3) You can argue whatever you want to LE to try to get a closed case reopened, but you can't force them to do it, even if it appears that they screwed up the investigation for whatever reason (incompetence, corruption, etc.).

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,757
    Quote Originally Posted by *Lash* View Post
    Thank you, AZlawyer! Much appreciated.

    In my opinion, at this time either party in these two cases could file a lawsuit for the following reasons.

    •The Zahau's a defamation, libel or slander suit against Dina.
    •The Zahau's a wrongful death suit.
    •Dina a wrongful death suit.

    I tend to believe both parties badly want to file suit. Both parties want answers and a court of law is where some would be compelled to answer lingering questions. However, compelled doesn't equate to being honest. Anyone can lie on the stand. I fear one side is very concerned this is exactly what would happen. The Zahua's have to consider if they want to subject XZ, a child, to the wrath of Dina. In my opinion, XZ on the stand is exactly what Dina wants to see. I believe Dina publicly accusing RZ and XZ of murdering Max was a conniving ploy to get a reaction from the Zahau's. I think Dina hoped the Zahau's would react and file suit.

    AZlawyer, here are the two recent videos we have been discussing. If you have time, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

    Interview where Dina accuses RZ and XZ of murder -
    http://ktar.com/59/1612172/Pats-Pers...Shacknai-VIDEO

    YouTube commercial presenting Maxie's Law -
    http://www.youtube.com/embed/og7LXLkMhpw
    I haven't seen anything that would support a defamation suit against Dina. She has said she thinks either Rebecca or XZ killed Max (although she says she has proof he was killed). So: (1) her opinion only, like hundreds of WS posts every day about various cases (2) two alternative perps suggested, and (3) one of the alleged possible perps is deceased and so no one can sue for defamation against her.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  12. #12
    bourne's Avatar
    bourne is offline "The truth shall set you free." ~JUSTICE FOR REBECCA ZAHAU
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    1a) Dina did not accuse Rebecca or her sister of murder in that clip. She said (bear with me here and try to think like a lawyer) that Max was murdered and that she THOUGHT either Rebecca or her sister was responsible. If this were defamation, there would be a whole lot of WS'ers in trouble for their posts! Beyond the "I think" disclaimer, there are a couple of other problems: (1) she gave 2 alternative possibilities, and (2) as for Rebecca, she is deceased and cannot sue for defamation (and no one can sue on her behalf for defamation either).

    It is absolutely not true that the parent can only say things that are consistent with determinations of LE or the ME. That has no bearing on the issue of defamation, because the conclusions of LE or the ME would not be binding on a court or jury.

    1b) You can accuse anyone you want of homicide, as long as you're willing to take the risk that you might have to prove it later in a defamation case (by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt). In this case, though, I didn't hear any accusation in the video. I heard "I think."

    2) You don't need consent to make comparisons to other people and events, even for commercial purposes, which this isn't anyway. I just watched the ad, though, and I noticed that Dina used logos from other organizations. Hopefully she got permission to use the logos, or she might be asked to remove them.

    There is no legal problem with the message of the ad IMO. Even if her concern about new spouses/SOs of divorced parents is primarily based on paranoia, there is no defamation contained in it at all. No single person is accused of anything, and DS does not say that every person in that class of people is a danger. (I don't think anyone could sue her even if she did, BTW.)

    3) You can argue whatever you want to LE to try to get a closed case reopened, but you can't force them to do it, even if it appears that they screwed up the investigation for whatever reason (incompetence, corruption, etc.).
    Thanks, I did hear her use "I think" in the interview, but to me that's lawyerspeak = doubletalk because then she goes on to ASSERT that she has "irrefutable, incontrovertible scientific proof" that Max was brutally assaulted and his homicide was caused by one and/or both Zahaus when in fact, Dina does NOT have this concrete proof in her so-called "expert report".

    I understand that we at WS give our opinions and speculations, but this is a forum primarily for entertainment. We do not declared ourselves scientific or investigative experts nor do we dish out our opinions/speculations about whom we think murdered a victim by going on national tv by pointing fingers not only at a deceased adult who herself was a victim of murder, but also her younger teenage sister who is a CHILD. We also do not make national public tv appearances and make declarations that we have irrefutable, scientific proof of the murder.

    One would think someone who declares herself a "scientist" and "doctor of child psychology" would understand the damage of publicly giving her so-called in her own words, "expert opinion" on national tv and in effect, slandering a child XZ while hypocritically at the same breath claiming that she is protecting children. Sorry, any way I see it, Dina IS slandering and doing psychological harm upon XZ as XZ is a defenseless CHILD who does not have the same clout, influence or money that Dina has in obtaining a lawyer.

    Moreover, couching things as "opinions" but claiming expertise in science when she is only a PsyD with NO clinical experience or science background to me is a fraud, and announcing she has MANY experts who PROVED beyond a reasonable doubt that Max was murdered when in the "expert report" there was no such conclusion drawn by either experts is an outright LIE on Dina's part.

    One, a Dr. Melnick said Max COULD possibly have been assaulted, but she does not go so far as to CONCLUDE that he was actually assaulted and murdered nor does she state that is was Rebecca or XZ in the report who caused Max's death. The other expert, Dr. Bove, is in physical mechanics and he does not even state anything close to the extent that Dr. Melnick does. What he said in the report is that the mechanical analysis given by LE did not explain certain factors in Max's accident. In fact, he stated his findings were "inconclusive" about what exactly happened to Max. So I don't see Dina's "expert report" as providing incontrovertible scientific proof that Max was assaulted and murdered by Becky or XZ.

    To me, Dina is perpetrating a fraud upon the public in making declarations about having irrefutable, incontrovertible scientific proof that Max was murdered. And number two, she is slandering a young impressionable child with her so-called "expert opinions" that she "thinks" it's either Rebecca, or XZ or both sisters together.

    If there is no legal boundary to protect YOUTHS from "opinions" in which a youth is publicly accused on national opinion of assault and homicide and that this so-called "scientific expert" has "irrefutable proof" while the opinionated "expert" is simultaneously claiming to "protect all children" with her Parental Disclosure Act, then our laws need to be changed.

  13. #13
    bourne's Avatar
    bourne is offline "The truth shall set you free." ~JUSTICE FOR REBECCA ZAHAU
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,221
    Just logged in again and read what I wrote. Yikes! My iPhone auto-corrected and rearranged some of my words. So pardon that some sentences are out of sequence and make little sense. lol

    I'll try to rephrase tomorrow when I'm fully alert. Thanks for reading anyway

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,757
    Quote Originally Posted by bourne View Post
    Thanks, I did hear her use "I think" in the interview, but to me that's lawyerspeak = doubletalk because then she goes on to ASSERT that she has "irrefutable, incontrovertible scientific proof" that Max was brutally assaulted and his homicide was caused by one and/or both Zahaus when in fact, Dina does NOT have this concrete proof in her so-called "expert report".

    [COLOR="rgb(65, 105, 225)"]She said she had proof of the homicide. She did NOT say she had proof of who did it. If she had said BOTH of those things--and if she had only pointed her finger at XZ (because RZ is dead), then XZ would likely have a defamation claim. (Assuming the accusation is false, obviously, which I do.)[/COLOR]

    I understand that we at WS give our opinions and speculations, but this is a forum primarily for entertainment. We do not declared ourselves scientific or investigative experts nor do we dish out our opinions/speculations about whom we think murdered a victim by going on national tv by pointing fingers not only at a deceased adult who herself was a victim of murder, but also her younger teenage sister who is a CHILD. We also do not make national public tv appearances and make declarations that we have irrefutable, scientific proof of the murder.

    [COLOR="rgb(65, 105, 225)"]WS'ers can be sued for defamation just the same. Opinions and speculations are fine for us, and are also fine for Dina. False statements of fact damaging to the reputations of others are not OK for us and not OK for Dina. It has nothing to do (legally) with whether the person making the statement has declared themselves an expert or whether the defamed person is a child.[/COLOR]

    One would think someone who declares herself a "scientist" and "doctor of child psychology" would understand the damage of publicly giving her so-called in her own words, "expert opinion" on national tv and in effect, slandering a child XZ while hypocritically at the same breath claiming that she is protecting children. Sorry, any way I see it, Dina IS slandering and doing psychological harm upon XZ as XZ is a defenseless CHILD who does not have the same clout, influence or money that Dina has in obtaining a lawyer.

    [COLOR="rgb(65, 105, 225)"]I agree that it is a despicable act to tag a child as one of two people you "think" might have murdered someone, especially if you purport to care so deeply about children, unless you have damn good proof.[/COLOR]

    Moreover, couching things as "opinions" but claiming expertise in science when she is only a PsyD with NO clinical experience or science background to me is a fraud, and announcing she has MANY experts who PROVED beyond a reasonable doubt that Max was murdered when in the "expert report" there was no such conclusion drawn by either experts is an outright LIE on Dina's part.

    One, a Dr. Melnick said Max COULD possibly have been assaulted, but she does not go so far as to CONCLUDE that he was actually assaulted and murdered nor does she state that is was Rebecca or XZ in the report who caused Max's death. The other expert, Dr. Bove, is in physical mechanics and he does not even state anything close to the extent that Dr. Melnick does. What he said in the report is that the mechanical analysis given by LE did not explain certain factors in Max's accident. In fact, he stated his findings were "inconclusive" about what exactly happened to Max. So I don't see Dina's "expert report" as providing incontrovertible scientific proof that Max was assaulted and murdered by Becky or XZ.

    [COLOR="rgb(65, 105, 225)"]From your description, it sounds like she was wrong to describe the report as containing definite proof of murder. No one could sue for defamation for that claim, though, as she never said it contained proof of the identity of the killer.[/COLOR]

    To me, Dina is perpetrating a fraud upon the public in making declarations about having irrefutable, incontrovertible scientific proof that Max was murdered. And number two, she is slandering a young impressionable child with her so-called "expert opinions" that she "thinks" it's either Rebecca, or XZ or both sisters together.

    If there is no legal boundary to protect YOUTHS from "opinions" in which a youth is publicly accused on national opinion of assault and homicide and that this so-called "scientific expert" has "irrefutable proof" while the opinionated "expert" is simultaneously claiming to "protect all children" with her Parental Disclosure Act, then our laws need to be changed.
    Responses in BLUE by me.

    BTW, I don't subscribe to notifications for WS, so feel free to PM me if I seem to be ignoring any Q's on this thread.

    ETA: Annoying. The blue didn't work because of the quote box. I'll bold my parts.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Up North
    Posts
    5,330
    I have rather a simple set of questions for AZlawyer, regarding nonprofits, and disclosure to the public of their financial data (as reported to IRS).

    1. Will the 501c (3) nonprofit "Maxie's House" (based in AZ) be required by law to disclose their financial data, as reported on their tax documents?

    http://www.maxieshouse.org/

    2. If yes, must they disclose this to anyone who asks?

    -If I understand the law correctly, this information is available to anyone who asks. If the nonprofit refuses to release the information, the information can be requested from IRS directly.

    http://www.njnonprofits.org/irs_disclosure_regs.html

    3. If yes, how is the request properly (legally) made to the nonprofit so that they are motivated to comply? Is it necessary for that request to come from, for example, an attorney?

    4. What is the timeframe from submission (April 15, unless an extension filed?) when the data can be officially requested from the nonprofit or IRS? (3 months, 6 months, a year, etc.)

    5. What is the penalty if the nonprofit refuses to release their reported tax information?

    Thank you in advance!
    Last edited by K_Z; 03-24-2013 at 01:55 AM. Reason: added links

Page 1 of 27 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 255
    Last Post: 10-31-2016, 04:33 PM
  2. Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4
    By Kimster in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 1792
    Last Post: 12-12-2013, 11:50 PM
  3. Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3
    By beach in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 1282
    Last Post: 06-20-2011, 07:34 PM
  4. Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2
    By BondJamesBond in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 1610
    Last Post: 05-09-2011, 09:28 PM
  5. Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1
    By The World According in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 1697
    Last Post: 01-14-2011, 02:17 AM

Tags for this Thread