Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Featured Case Discussion > Hot Cases > Rebecca Zahau Nalepa

Notices

Rebecca Zahau Nalepa Was Rebecca's death a homicide or a suicide?


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #626  
Old 10-02-2011, 01:41 AM
Morag Morag is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyBelle View Post
(SNIP)
My point was that the property seized was from JS' residence therefore it would be returned to JS.

JMO
Oh, well, if that happens, I'm sure that JS will gladly turn it over to the owners (the Zahau family).
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Morag For This Useful Post:
  #627  
Old 10-02-2011, 01:55 AM
MyBelle MyBelle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by sorrell skye View Post
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.
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
  #628  
Old 10-02-2011, 01:56 AM
MyBelle MyBelle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morag View Post
Oh, well, if that happens, I'm sure that JS will gladly turn it over to the owners (the Zahau family).
If they can prove they own it, I'm sure he will.

JMO
  #629  
Old 10-02-2011, 01:56 AM
Carpe Pacem Carpe Pacem is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 204
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?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Carpe Pacem For This Useful Post:
  #630  
Old 10-02-2011, 02:00 AM
MyBelle MyBelle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carpe Pacem View Post
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?
I doubt it takes more than a couple of hours but I also doubt we would be told the results if all it does is confirm their already announced conclusion of suicide.

JMO
  #631  
Old 10-02-2011, 02:11 AM
lauriej lauriej is offline
'wild rose country...'
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by sorrell skye View Post
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! )

..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.
__________________
my opinion...........and i happen to agree with it.....
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to lauriej For This Useful Post:
  #632  
Old 10-02-2011, 02:11 AM
sorrell skye's Avatar
sorrell skye sorrell skye is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyBelle View Post
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
bbm

When a search warrant is sealed by a Judge, no one except the investigating officers & the Judge, & possibly the DA (when enough evidence has already been submitted & criminal charges are pending), knows what items are sought & eventually seized in a search 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.
__________________
To understand the soul of a horse is the closest we humans can come to knowing perfection.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to sorrell skye For This Useful Post:
  #633  
Old 10-02-2011, 02:18 AM
MyBelle MyBelle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by sorrell skye View Post
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.
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
  #634  
Old 10-02-2011, 02:20 AM
MyBelle MyBelle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by lauriej View Post
..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.
I also have zero doubt.
  #635  
Old 10-02-2011, 02:29 AM
SophieRose SophieRose is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 939
New technology did not work. Only way now would be to dismantle phone. Also it was the two witnesses who did not know where the scream came from and that there were teenagers at the beach.

http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/ksw...,4865783.story
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SophieRose For This Useful Post:
  #636  
Old 10-02-2011, 02:37 AM
sorrell skye's Avatar
sorrell skye sorrell skye is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyBelle View Post
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
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.
__________________
To understand the soul of a horse is the closest we humans can come to knowing perfection.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to sorrell skye For This Useful Post:
  #637  
Old 10-02-2011, 02:44 AM
MyBelle MyBelle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by sorrell skye View Post
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.
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
  #638  
Old 10-02-2011, 02:49 AM
sorrell skye's Avatar
sorrell skye sorrell skye is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyBelle View Post
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
I agree - RZ's family should make a formal, legal request via their attorney for the return of her property - including her cell phone.
__________________
To understand the soul of a horse is the closest we humans can come to knowing perfection.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to sorrell skye For This Useful Post:
  #639  
Old 10-02-2011, 02:51 AM
MyBelle MyBelle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by sorrell skye View Post
I agree - RZ's family should make a formal, legal request via their attorney for the return of her property - including her cell phone.
Their attorney has also repeatedly stated she would make a formal request for a new investigation and hasn't done so.

LE can't be blamed for the family's failure to initiate these legally required requests.

JMO
  #640  
Old 10-02-2011, 02:53 AM
rosemary rosemary is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyBelle View Post
If they can prove they own it, I'm sure he will.

JMO
if they can prove they own it? Rebecca was the Zahau family's NEXT OF KIN. how much further proof would they need to prove that they are entitled to her personal belongings because they are her next of kin?

San Diego/California:


Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to rosemary For This Useful Post:
  #641  
Old 10-02-2011, 02:56 AM
TorisMom003's Avatar
TorisMom003 TorisMom003 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SC
Posts: 3,110
Rosemary, There is an opinion that the phone belongs to Jonah and that he was kind enough to allow Rebecca to use it. That is why there are thoughts going around that the phone will not be returned to Rebecca's family.
The Following User Says Thank You to TorisMom003 For This Useful Post:
  #642  
Old 10-02-2011, 02:59 AM
MyBelle MyBelle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosemary View Post
if they can prove they own it? Rebecca was the Zahau family's NEXT OF KIN. how much further proof would they need to prove that they are entitled to her personal belongings because they are her next of kin?

San Diego/California:
Next of kin is meaningless in ownership of personal property when a person dies. Did she bequeth the phone to them in her Will?

If so, go to court and get it.

JMO
  #643  
Old 10-02-2011, 03:01 AM
MyBelle MyBelle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorisMom003 View Post
Rosemary, There is an opinion that the phone belongs to Jonah and that he was kind enough to allow Rebecca to use it. That is why there are thoughts going around that the phone will not be returned to Rebecca's family.
Maybe Rebecca had a Will and left it to her family. If they want it, they should pursue it.


JMO
  #644  
Old 10-02-2011, 03:01 AM
TorisMom003's Avatar
TorisMom003 TorisMom003 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SC
Posts: 3,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyBelle View Post
Next of kin is meaningless in ownership of personal property when a person dies. Did she bequeth the phone to them in her Will?

If so, go to court and get it.

JMO
So then all of Rebecca's personal belongings that were left at the mansion are not being given to her family? They are staying with Jonah since he owns the mansion and Rebecca did not bequeth those things to her family? That doesn't sound correct to me.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TorisMom003 For This Useful Post:
  #645  
Old 10-02-2011, 03:01 AM
rosemary rosemary is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyBelle View Post
I doubt it takes more than a couple of hours but I also doubt we would be told the results if all it does is confirm their already announced conclusion of suicide.

JMO
did they bother to tell the Zahaus the results though?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rosemary For This Useful Post:
  #646  
Old 10-02-2011, 03:03 AM
TorisMom003's Avatar
TorisMom003 TorisMom003 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SC
Posts: 3,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosemary View Post
did they bother to tell the Zahaus the results though?
Why would they since they didn't bother to tell them the actual results of the autopsy? I mean the family had to wait until the AR was released before they found out some things.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TorisMom003 For This Useful Post:
  #647  
Old 10-02-2011, 03:04 AM
MyBelle MyBelle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorisMom003 View Post
So then all of Rebecca's personal belongings that were left at the mansion are not being given to her family? They are staying with Jonah since he owns the mansion and Rebecca did not bequeth those things to her family? That doesn't sound correct to me.
Were all of Rebecca's personal belongings seized with a search warrant? Has her family asked for items not seized and been denied?
  #648  
Old 10-02-2011, 03:07 AM
MyBelle MyBelle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosemary View Post
did they bother to tell the Zahaus the results though?
I have no idea. The Zahaus have accused them of corruption, cover-ups, unprofessionalism, being slackers so it would not surprise me if LE no longer communicates with their accusers.

JMO
  #649  
Old 10-02-2011, 03:07 AM
TorisMom003's Avatar
TorisMom003 TorisMom003 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SC
Posts: 3,110
So next of kin is meaningless when it comes to property seized by a search warrent but when things are left in a place that does not belong to the deceased the next of kin is allowed to receive those items? Again, this just does not make any sense to me at all.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TorisMom003 For This Useful Post:
  #650  
Old 10-02-2011, 03:08 AM
sorrell skye's Avatar
sorrell skye sorrell skye is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyBelle View Post
Next of kin is meaningless in ownership of personal property when a person dies. Did she bequeth the phone to them in her Will?

If so, go to court and get it.

JMO
For crying out loud - it's a Samsung cell phone, not the friggin' Hope Diamond!

Who cares about a freakin' will? It's not as if it was valuable property- or is it? Hmmmmm...

Secrets can be considered to be VERY valuable by those who wish to keep them secret.

Gosh - I'm beginning to get curious about what may be on that phone.
__________________
To understand the soul of a horse is the closest we humans can come to knowing perfection.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to sorrell skye For This Useful Post:
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CANADA Canada - Murder case of European family in Alberta? 1980-2000? outofthedark Cold Cases 0 02-11-2008 11:50 PM
Bizarre TN murder case mysteriew Crimes in the News 7 08-24-2005 11:27 PM


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:46 AM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!