The case for murder

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am of the belief that Max's accident was simply that, an accident. I do not however believe that it occured the way LE is claiming, but I do believe that it was an accident. Anyone reading or watching the news could have heard of Max's accident and would know that Jonah would be preoccupied with his son being in the hospital. That would leave the house unattended, or at least one would think that since Jonah and Rebecca were so close. It would be a perfect time to go in and rob the house or upon entering the home once realizing that it is not empty killing Rebecca either out of rage or because she interupted the intruder. It is not as far fetched as some may think IMO.

MOO
 
If a burglar broke in to rob the house, I frankly very much doubt he would then take time to stage an elaborate suicide scene complete with a riddle on a door. Somebody braking in for the purpose of a robbery would try to get out quickly rather than spending that much time on staging.
 
jjenny said:
Not only it is closed, it is "iron clad." So it makes no sense for them to be examining her cell phone. What difference does it make what's on her cell phone if she killed herself?
Click to expand...

Well, ya know.... she could have texted people with her tongue after she tied up her hands and feet, remember she put a gag in her mouth too, so she couldn't talk.... creating knots like that, there is no doubt in my mind that Rebecca can tongue text.. AND I bet the reason she chose to tongue text is because she did not want to leave her fingerprints on her phone ....:floorlaugh:
 
jjenny said:
if a burglar broke in to rob the house, i frankly very much doubt he would then take time to stage an elaborate suicide scene complete with a riddle on a door. Somebody braking in for the purpose of a robbery would try to get out quickly rather than spending that much time on staging.
Click to expand...

Ditto!
 
Wendy101 said:
Well, ya know.... she could have texted people with her tongue after she tied up her hands and feet, remember she put a gag in her mouth too, so she couldn't talk.... creating knots like that, there is no doubt in my mind that Rebecca can tongue text.. AND I bet the reason she chose to tongue text is because she did not want to leave her fingerprints on her phone ....:floorlaugh:
Click to expand...


 
Wendy101 said:
Well, ya know.... she could have texted people with her tongue after she tied up her hands and feet, remember she put a gag in her mouth too, so she couldn't talk.... creating knots like that, there is no doubt in my mind that Rebecca can tongue text.. AND I bet the reason she chose to tongue text is because she did not want to leave her fingerprints on her phone ....:floorlaugh:
Click to expand...

You solved the mystery!
:floorlaugh:
 
jjenny said:
Not only it is closed, it is "iron clad." So it makes no sense for them to be examining her cell phone. What difference does it make what's on her cell phone if she killed herself?
Click to expand...

Because they have always said that if anything new came forward they would investigate it. Now that they are able to recover more information from Rebecca's phone.

If that produces some type of evidence that goes against the original conclusion it was suicide then they will reopen the case.

Just receiving new information is not enough to reopen a case. The information learned must be in contrast with Rebecca committing suicide.

I think they will thoroughly check it out but the case will not be reopened based on it. I think it will be consistent with what LE has already been told.

IMO
 
oceanblueeyes said:
Because they have always said that if anything new came forward they would investigate it. Now that they are able to recover more information from Rebecca's phone.

If that produces some type of evidence that goes against the original conclusion it was suicide then they will reopen the case.

Just receiving new information is not enough to reopen a case. The information learned must be in contrast with Rebecca committing suicide.

I think they will thoroughly check it out but the case will not be reopened based on it. I think it will be consistent with what LE has already been told.

IMO
Click to expand...

LE had the cell phone in their possession all this time. Yet they didn't turn it on for a month, and did not use software to examine it. Then they closed the case and declared it an "iron clad" suicide. Therefore, I fail to see how this can be considered "new" information. We were told 15 detectives were working on this case. I am really curious as to what all 15 of them were doing, since her cell phone wasn't even turned on for a month, and only now, after the case is closed, they decided to use software to examine it.
 
jjenny said:
LE had the cell phone in their possession all this time. Yet they didn't turn it on for a month, and did not use software to examine it. Then they closed the case and declared it an "iron clad" suicide. Therefore, I fail to see how this can be considered "new" information. We were told 15 detectives were working on this case. I am really curious as to what all 15 of them were doing, since her cell phone wasn't even turned on for a month, and only now, after the case is closed, they decided to use software to examine it.
Click to expand...

According to ATT at https://www.vm.att.com/dchelp/EN/att_vm_user_guide.pdf even if a user deletes his/her voicemails, they are still kept temporarily in the wastebasket on the phone for 48 hours. The phone automatically empties wastebasket (and deletes the voicemails permanently) after 48 hours. User can also manually empty wastebasket before the 48 hour expiration and the voicemails will be permanently deleted.

So unless RZ had deleted her 12:51 am voicemail AND emptied the wastebasket on the Samsung phone, the voicemail would still be retrievable from wastebasket. If LE had possession of phone within the 48 hour window, they could have retrieved the voicemail - but did they put any effort into retrieving it within that time frame?

I'm contacting AT&T to determine how long their servers keep voicemails.
 
Zale said:
According to ATT at https://www.vm.att.com/dchelp/EN/att_vm_user_guide.pdf even if a user deletes his/her voicemails, they are still kept temporarily in the wastebasket on the phone for 48 hours. The phone automatically empties wastebasket (and deletes the voicemails permanently) after 48 hours. User can also manually empty wastebasket before the 48 hour expiration and the voicemails will be permanently deleted.

So unless RZ had deleted her 12:51 am voicemail AND emptied the wastebasket on the Samsung phone, the voicemail would still be retrievable from wastebasket. If LE had possession of phone within the 48 hour window, they could have retrieved the voicemail - but did they put any effort into retrieving it within that time frame?

I'm contacting AT&T to determine how long their servers keep voicemails.
Click to expand...
No, LE didn't put any effort into retrieving the voice mail. They didn't turn on her phone for a month. By that time it was not possible to retrieve it. I believe the AT&T server keeps voice mails for a week. Again, since LE did not turn on her phone for a month, it was not possible to retrieve it from the server.
 
jjenny said:
No, LE didn't put any effort into retrieving the voice mail. They didn't turn on her phone for a month. By that time it was not possible to retrieve it. I believe the AT&T server keeps voice mails for a week. Again, since LE did not turn on her phone for a month, it was not possible to retrieve it from the server.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that was my understanding too. :maddening:

Any word on their recently discovered technology to retrieve the 2-month plus voicemail?
 
Zale said:
Thanks, that was my understanding too. :maddening:

Any word on their recently discovered technology to retrieve the 2-month plus voicemail?
Click to expand...

I don't think they ever claimed they are trying to recover that voice mail with a new software. I think that voice mail is lost forever. They are just examining the phone with a software which they never did before closing the case.
 
jjenny said:
Not only it is closed, it is "iron clad." So it makes no sense for them to be examining her cell phone. What difference does it make what's on her cell phone if she killed herself?
Click to expand...

I agree, Jenny. If the SDCSD has faith in their "ironclad investigation", then I see no reason to refuse to relinquish RZ's property to her family members. The fact that the SDCSD has not released her property (cell phone, computer, etc.) tells me that maybe they DO NOT have faith in their investigation, or they're perhaps unwilling to allow anyone else access to evidence that may challenge or disprove their findings.

oceanblueeyes said:
Because they have always said that if anything new came forward they would investigate it. Now that they are able to recover more information from Rebecca's phone.

If that produces some type of evidence that goes against the original conclusion it was suicide then they will reopen the case.

Just receiving new information is not enough to reopen a case. The information learned must be in contrast with Rebecca committing suicide.

I think they will thoroughly check it out but the case will not be reopened based on it. I think it will be consistent with what LE has already been told.

IMO
Click to expand...

bbm

Without independent oversight, I'm very concerned that any information found on RZ's phone WILL BE "consistent with what LE has already been told" - or with what the SDCSD has already concluded in their official findings.

At this point in time, I'm not at all comfortable with the SDCSD conducting a forensic examination of RZ's cell phone unless an independent agency oversees the examination (and most importantly - a representative of RZ's family who is knowledgeable in the IT forensics field is also present).

I also find it extremely curious that right around the time that RZ's family was requesting the return of her property, the SDCSD suddenly reported to the media that they had become "aware" of new software with which to examine her phone - when the SDCSD had very recently stated they were unable to examine her phone because "it was a new phone" and the "technology didn't exist".
 
For all they knew, there could have been a message or a text saying, "I'll be right over", signed 'your stalker ex-boyfriend'. Surely having a look at a victim's cellphone immediately is Murder Investigation 101 and would be one of the very first things that should be done. But it wasn't.
 
sorrell skye said:
I agree, Jenny. If the SDCSD has faith in their "ironclad investigation", then I see no reason to refuse to relinquish RZ's property to her family members. The fact that the SDCSD has not released her property (cell phone, computer, etc.) tells me that maybe they DO NOT have faith in their investigation, or they're perhaps unwilling to allow anyone else access to evidence that may challenge or disprove their findings.



bbm

Without independent oversight, I'm very concerned that any information found on RZ's phone WILL BE "consistent with what LE has already been told" - or with what the SDCSD has already concluded in their official findings.

At this point in time, I'm not at all comfortable with the SDCSD conducting a forensic examination of RZ's cell phone unless an independent agency oversees the examination (and most importantly - a representative of RZ's family who is knowledgeable in the IT forensics field is also present).

I also find it extremely curious that right around the time that RZ's family was requesting the return of her property, the SDCSD suddenly reported to the media that they had become "aware" of new software with which to examine her phone - when the SDCSD had very recently stated they were unable to examine her phone because "it was a new phone" and the "technology didn't exist".
Click to expand...

LE seized the property in a search warrant and in my city, an inventory/receipt is given and items returned to the person listed on the search warrant. I doubt it is any different in Coronado. I think it makes sense that LE wouldn't return any property seized from JS to RZ's family. Especially when it is determined no crime was committed.

JMO
 
Morag said:
For all they knew, there could have been a message or a text saying, "I'll be right over", signed 'your stalker ex-boyfriend'. Surely having a look at a victim's cellphone immediately is Murder Investigation 101 and would be one of the very first things that should be done. But it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Evidently the evidence found on her phone moved investigators into the suicide theory and they felt no more investigation was needed. They've had plenty of time to review it with the new technology and yet yesterday's Today Show comments from LE indicate it is still considered a suicide.

It seems local LE has no intention of re-opening the case and RZ's family never requested the AG order a new investigation. I guess that means it is over as far as Cali LE is concerned.

JMO
 
MyBelle said:
LE seized the property in a search warrant and in my city, an inventory/receipt is given and items returned to the person listed on the search warrant. I doubt it is any different in Coronado. I think it makes sense that LE wouldn't return any property seized from JS to RZ's family. Especially when it is determined no crime was committed.

JMO
Click to expand...

You are entirely incorrect. In the eyes of the law, if the property belongs to RZ, LE has a duty to return the items to her next-of-kin. Conversely, RZ's family has the right to the receipt of RZ's property. Just because RZ's possessions were found by LE on JS' property does not mean JS owns her possessions.

Listen to the renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht's interview where he addresses property and possessions of the deceased on http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleuths/2011/09/19/websleuths-radio.
 
Zale said:
You are entirely incorrect. In the eyes of the law, if the property belongs to RZ, LE has a duty to return the items to her next-of-kin. Conversely, RZ's family has the right to the receipt of RZ's property. Just because RZ's possessions were found by LE on JS' property does not mean JS owns her possessions.

Listen to the renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht's interview where he addresses property and possessions of the deceased on http://www.blogtalkradio.com/websleuths/2011/09/19/websleuths-radio.
Click to expand...


It isn't a matter of property and possessions of the deceased, it is the matter of SEIZED property under Court order Search Warrants.

I'm not incorrect as to seized property/search warrants in my own city and unless you can provide me with a link to how the Courts in Cali handle it, I stand by my belief that it is similar.


JMO
 
MyBelle said:
It isn't a matter of property and possessions of the deceased, it is the matter of SEIZED property under Court order Search Warrants.

I'm not incorrect as to seized property/search warrants in my own city and unless you can provide me with a link to how the Courts in Cali handle it, I stand by my belief that it is similar.


JMO
Click to expand...

I posted information from Sacramento CA on one thread concerning property release. Case closed, property can be released by request of the owner or next of kin. Hope that helps.
 
SunnieRN said:
I posted information from Sacramento CA on one thread concerning property release. Case closed, property can be released by request of the owner or next of kin. Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

This is common sense. Property should be returned to either the owner or the owner's next of kin. Otherwise, if someone dies in the home of his/her friend/neighbor/colleague, his/her next kin will not have the right to retrieve the item but the friend/neighbor/colleague has? Girlfriend and boyfriend relationship has no legal standing at all in the court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 80 more.
Total: 4,465 (members: 81, guests: 4,384)

Online statistics

Members online
81
Guests online
4,384
Total visitors
4,465
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,397
Messages
17,968,335
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top