The case for murder

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...

MyBelle said:

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

Click to expand...

sorrell skye said:

An inventory list is often provided to a homeowner and/or property owner when a search warrant is executed - if the investigating officer does make a request to the Judge for the search warrants to be sealed.

However, the investigator applying for search warrant 41227 (specifically, Brian E. Patterson, a deputy with the SDCSD) requested that the SW be sealed, therefore NO INVENTORY LIST would have been provided to the homeowner - IOW, JS would NOT have been given an inventory list, since search warrant 41227 was sealed.

The search warrants were not released until after the SDCSD closed the case, and they were only released afterward when media made a request for them to be released.

Click to expand...

KarenM said:

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.

Click to expand...

sorrell skye said:

An inventory list is often provided to a homeowner and/or property owner when a search warrant is executed - if the investigating officer does make a request to the Judge for the search warrants to be sealed.

However, the investigator applying for search warrant 41227 (specifically, Brian E. Patterson, a deputy with the SDCSD) requested that the SW be sealed, therefore NO INVENTORY LIST would have been provided to the homeowner - IOW, JS would NOT have been given an inventory list, since search warrant 41227 was sealed.

The search warrants were not released until after the SDCSD closed the case, and they were only released afterward when media made a request for them to be released.

Click to expand...

MyBelle said:

Your second paragraph contradicts the first not that it matters because I think you are incorrect in your assumption that an inventory list has anything at all to do with a sw being sealed. In my experience, it does not.

My point was that the property seized was from JS' residence therefore it would be returned to JS.

JMO

Click to expand...

MyBelle said:

(SNIP)
My point was that the property seized was from JS' residence therefore it would be returned to JS.

JMO

Click to expand...

sorrell skye said:

I made a typo in my post & inadvertently omitted the word "not" from my sentence.

The bolded portion of my above quoted post should have read:

An inventory list is often provided to a homeowner and/or property owner when a search warrant is executed - if the investigating officer does not make a request to the Judge for the search warrants to be sealed.

In terms of the 2nd BBM (from your post):

A sealed search warrant (endorsed by the Judge who issues the search warrant)) prohibits anyone but the investigating officers & the Court (including the DA, in the case of a potential criminal proceeding) from gaining access to information regarding what is sought & what is seized during the execution of the sealed search warrant.

If a search warrant is sealed by a Judge, the home owner and/or the property owner(s) are not made privy to whatever evidence that may be sought and/or seized in the sealed search warrant(s), in order to protect the investigation & in order to prevent potential evidence from being destroyed, removed, tampered with, or otherwise altered.

I have seen this in several investigations, including the recent execution of search warrants regarding the Susan Powell investigation.

Click to expand...

Morag said:

Oh, well, if that happens, I'm sure that JS will gladly turn it over to the owners (the Zahau family).

Click to expand...

Carpe Pacem said:

I, too, am wondering why it's taking so long for the Sheriff's Office to use the new retrieval method to review the phone messages/texts.

How long can this sort of thing reasonably take?

Click to expand...

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.

..agree.


..they know that there are other experts waiting in the wings that WILL examine the cell phone/computer-----so now they're backtracking..and wanting to see for themselves after all...and deal with what they find.

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".

..right around the time that RZ's family went vocal----a number of things began to happen.


..JS got HIS letter over to the AG 1st.( for the "review" )..of course it turned out the AG doesn't do "reviews" of the job other elected officials have done-----surely JS's PR Co.---long experienced in these things (and writer of the letter) was well aware of that.


..SDSO decided to actually get moving on S/W's on the phones..( never know, the AG might actually check up on their "investigatory techniques" per JS's letter..)....turned out, they didn't.


..voila'! --we have new software-----and are now going to see what we can get from the phone....( i would want a minimum of 5 RZ family members watching them do that! )

Click to expand...

MyBelle said:

I'm pretty sure the person being served with the search warrant will know what property was seized.

Doesn't matter when the homeowner is in receipt of an inventory, the items seized would still be returned to the person who owned the property where items were seized.


JMO

Click to expand...

sorrell skye said:

When a search warrant is sealed by a Judge, no one except the investigating officers & the Judge (and sometimes the DA) knows what items are sought & seized in the warrant - that's the entire point of sealing a search warrant - to keep anyone but the investigators from knowing what they're looking for, so that potential evidence won't be destroyed.

Click to expand...

lauriej said:

..i have ZERO doubt, that if SDSO has retrieved that V/M and it actually says what they said it did-----they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.

Click to expand...

MyBelle said:

I think you are missing the point. Whether an inventory is sealed or not really is irrelevant because the items seized in a search warrant are returned to the person who was served the search warrant. Whether it be clothing, phones, soccer ball, doesn't really matter.

JMO

Click to expand...

sorrell skye said:

I think I'm quite cognizant of the point.

To wit: the search warrants were sealed for obvious reasons.

Personal property that belongs to RZ has not been returned to her next of kin, although the case has been officially closed by the SDCSD since September 2, 2011.

JS has no legal right (that I'm aware of) to RZ's personal property, nor does the SDCSD, since they have officially closed the case.

Click to expand...

MyBelle said:

If RZ's family feels they should receive property that was seized, they should make a request to the court that ordered the seizure.

They haven't done so as far as I know.

JMO

Click to expand...

sorrell skye said:

I agree - RZ's family should make a formal, legal request via their attorney for the return of her property - including her cell phone.

Click to expand...

MyBelle said:

If they can prove they own it, I'm sure he will.

JMO

Click to expand...

What happens to the decedent’s personal effects?
At the scene of the death, the Medical Examiner Investigator may take custody of personal property belonging to the decedent. The property is logged, secured, and available for release to next-of-kin during normal business hours. If authorized by the next-of-kin, property may be released to the mortuary for its further delivery to the family.

Click to expand...

Personal Property of the Deceased
When the deputy coroner responds to initiate a death investigation, they determine whether the circumstances indicate whether property may be released at the scene to a legitimate next of kin or if the property will be sealed. The investigator will place seals over the obvious points of entry to the residence. Personal effects such as jewelry, currency, or other items of value will be removed and taken for safekeeping. These items are noted in the investigator’s report. The property is secured at the Sheriff’s Department. To assist the next of kin with retrieving the property, the Department's Evidence Section requests that an appointment be made

Click to expand...