The family hasn't made any official request as far as I know. I doubt LE or any court will just hand a piece of property over without a legal document requesting it.
The case for murder
- Thread starter cynic
- Start date
- Status
The family hasn't made any official request as far as I know. I doubt LE or any court will just hand a piece of property over without a legal document requesting it.
The family has an attorney. There are legal procedures, which is why a family hires an attorney. I guess I don't understand why that attorney hasn't asked the Court for the phone. If you want to assign blame, blame the attorney.
JMO
sorrell skye
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2009
- Messages
- 6,684
- Reaction score
- 7,007
Hopefully, that will be the next action taken. As far as I'm concerned, that should have been done weeks ago, before the SDCSD latched onto the "new software" claim.
Here's the thing: It's curiously convenient that the SDCSD is now claiming to be conducting an examination of the phone with *new technology* that was *unavailable* a few weeks ago when the case was closed & deemed to be a suicide. It's even more curious that the SDCSD announced this sudden knowledge of new software right about the time that RZ's family was wanting the phone to be released to them.
Even if the family's attorney makes a legal request for the phone, the SDCSD can now stall, with the excuse that they're "examining" it. Very convenient, IMO.
According to this website, property that was seized by police as evidence can be returned to the owner, or if the owner is deceased, the next of kin can claim the seized items:
http://www.sacpd.org/faq/property/
sorrell skye
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2009
- Messages
- 6,684
- Reaction score
- 7,007
From SophieRose's link:
The San Diego Sheriff's Department tells Fox 5 it has decided not to re-examine Rebecca Zahau's cell phone, and called recent claims of 'earwitnesses' hearing her cry for help the night she died irrelevant.
Another snippet from the same article:
Lt. Nesbit said the only way Zahau's phone could be examined would be to dismantle it, and the department deemed that was unnecessary, adding there's "nothing on the phone central to the evidence. We don't have any unanswered questions."
http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/ks...ds-to-zahau-attorney-20111001,0,4865783.story
The San Diego Sheriff's Department tells Fox 5 it has decided not to re-examine Rebecca Zahau's cell phone, and called recent claims of 'earwitnesses' hearing her cry for help the night she died irrelevant.
Another snippet from the same article:
Lt. Nesbit said the only way Zahau's phone could be examined would be to dismantle it, and the department deemed that was unnecessary, adding there's "nothing on the phone central to the evidence. We don't have any unanswered questions."
http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/ks...ds-to-zahau-attorney-20111001,0,4865783.story
Then the next of kin should claim the items in this case. Is there a link that says they have made such a claim? I have yet to see it. Thanks.
Wow. I guess that's that unless the family asks for a new investigation and they have yet to even bother with that. I do wonder why they even hired the attorney.
JMO
my point is, the Zahau family are the ones who are entitled to Rebecca's belongings, including her phone. And I was responding to some of your claims that it is JS who is entitled to her phone and belongings because the items were taken by the LE from his home, which is incorrect. And didn't Bremner already claim that she has requested for the items to be returned back to the family? the only problem is that the LE seems to have delayed handing them back even after they've closed the case.
Bremner can claim whatever she wants but I have yet to see any links to actual legal requests she's made. And my point is that if the family feels they are entitled to belongings seized by a Judge's order, they should make a request with the courts. I'm not into bashing LE without cause.
Feel free to disagree with my opinion but if you believe my opinion is incorrect, please cite a link to refute it. Thanks.
JMO
they have an obligation to the victim's family to inform them of any new piece of evidence or information that comes up, as well as to provide them the results of any recent search or investigation of the phone. Why would the LE care about hurt feelings? If they are professional in their jobs, they would know and realize and even understand what the family is going through, and would not play tit for tat just because they feel they are being blamed or accused of misconduct by the victim's family. It's not like the family has taken them to court or verbally/physically abused them. If the LE stopped responding, communicating and providing updates or results of any new search or investigation to Rebecca's family just because they do not agree with the (LE) findings, that will only show how truly unprofessional the LE really are.
According to you:
From what I've found about property booked as evidence in California:
http://www.sacpd.org/faq/property/
since I've already provided the link, can you please provide your own link to support your claim that the property owner, and not the next of kin, is entitled to the personal belongings of the victim seized as evidence by the police in California? TIA
As far as I know, the family in this case has yet to do anything in court even though they retained an attorney. I'm not a member of law enforcement. If the family feels that there was an unfullfilled legal obligation then they should pursue it in court.
I've also made it clear that I don't engage in generalized bashing of law enforcement.
JMO
yet you're not averse to bashing the victim's family? :waitasec:
how do we know that the family haven't already tried to go to court to get her things back?
Rosemary, property booked into evidence is not the same as seized property. LE doesn't know if property they seize is evidence until they examine it. With all due respect, this case was ruled a suicide.
JMO
If the family has tried to go to court to get her things back, cite a link. It would be public record.
JMO
how is it not the same? isn't booked evidence considered as items that were seized by police investigating a possible homicide? and even if it's not, where is the evidence that it is Jonah, and not Rebecca's family, who are entitled to her personal belongings. According to this:
http://www.sacpd.org/faq/property/
it is made clear that most personal items seized by the LE are usually given back to the owner after the case is closed, or if the owner is dead, to the next of kin. You have yet to provide the link that I requested where it mentions that the property owner has the legal right to the personal belongings of the deceased and not the next of kin in California. And please also provide a link where it states that booked evidence is not the same thing as seized items in a search warrant. TIA
stilettos
Former Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,832
- Reaction score
- 8
In my personal experience...it happens all the time. You go in and ask for the item...present your identifying documents, a death certificate and sign the property out. Been there, done that.
stilettos
Former Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,832
- Reaction score
- 8
Irrelevant?????? OMG...verbage used is interesting and :banghead::maddening:.
oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,688
From what I remember from the OJ case his lawyer had to petition the court Judge to have items returned and it took months even though he was found NG.
I would expect Bremner would have to do the same.
Although as long as Bremner is saying this wasnt a suicide I don't think anything will be released.
Has she filed her papers with the Attorney General's office?
IMO
- Status