Evidence revealed during the course of the Wrongful Death action

[cynic]

Ok -- this is driving me nuts! If anyone can help, I would be very grateful!

The other day, I listened to the fire dept section of the 911 call Adam made, where at the end you can clearly hear a woman with a shrill kind of voice asking "What did you DO?"

And now... I can't find it. Anyone got that link handy?

Hey Ausgirl,

I’m not sure which portion of the AS 911 call you’re referring to.
The only portion of the 911 call that has been publically released is a 4:46 segment which includes a transfer between Coronado and Heartland (fire) dispatch at 3:50.
That can be found:
http://www.cbs8.com/story/16150816/911-call-released-in-hanging-death-at-coronados-spreckels-mansion
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyGs0d2d-ck
There is a final portion of audio with AS continuing his 911 call exclusively with Heartland that has never been released to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Ausgirl]

cynic, I swear I'm not delusional. ropeller: I was browsing for the recording very late into the night, and was astounded to hear (and quite clearly, I might add) "what did you DO" - and I am pretty sure this was well and truly after the point where the recordings you linked were cut off. I am *positive* I heard a continuation of the recording, and when I went to look for it next I logged in here (as I was very tired, and didn't remember to bookmark it) I was surprised to find only the 'cut off' versions you linked, which I had already heard (and thus this other one was a bit of a surprise).

It'll take some considerable time, but I'll hunt through the entirety of my browser history for this past week (huge volume!) to see if I can relocate it. anic:

 

[LuckyLucy2]

:facepalm: I do not give much weight to Cynic's drawings. As you can see here, there are no such marks on Rebecca's back:





In fact, it is amazing she did not have MORE injuries.

 

[cynic]

cynic, I swear I'm not delusional. ropeller: I was browsing for the recording very late into the night, and was astounded to hear (and quite clearly, I might add) "what did you DO" - and I am pretty sure this was well and truly after the point where the recordings you linked were cut off. I am *positive* I heard a continuation of the recording, and when I went to look for it next I logged in here (as I was very tired, and didn't remember to bookmark it) I was surprised to find only the 'cut off' versions you linked, which I had already heard (and thus this other one was a bit of a surprise).

It'll take some considerable time, but I'll hunt through the entirety of my browser history for this past week (huge volume!) to see if I can relocate it. anic:

That must be frustrating.
As I indicated in my earlier post, I know there definitely exists a portion of audio with Heartland Fire that continues and I was thinking that maybe you had found that missing bit.
Hopefully you're able to retrace your steps.

 

[Ausgirl]

:facepalm: I do not give much weight to Cynic's drawings. As you can see here, there are no such marks on Rebecca's back:

View attachment 61275

View attachment 61276

In fact, it is amazing she did not have MORE injuries.

LL, perhaps if you took a just a moment to actually *read* the autopsy report, you'd find that descriptions of all those injuries are in there, and many more (and having a little read-up for yourself of the relevant texts will help you with accuracy, perhaps, as you've thrown a few non-facts at me now, and I don't have time to keep correcting you). I included the pictures not because of the illustrations, but because they showed the regions mentioned as well as the relevant passages of text. Some of the abrasions are *quite* visible to me in those pictures where we see a small portion of Rebecca's back. I don't think the ME was just making it all up, lol. Do you?

Also, did you see my questions to you, above, regarding the times and quote from Ann Rule? Cheers.

Cynic, all I can think is that I had youtube playing on playlist and heard the call recording, followed by someone's attempt to clarify some of the burbly bits and I've mistaken it for a full recording. I apologise for raising it, really, but wondered if I'd missed the full recording being released or something, which is why I asked if anyone had a link. Double-verify! -- note to self.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

AG, I've read the autopsy report many, many many times. Just so we can be clear, here is EXACTLY what the ME said:





Words like "superficial" and "punctate" "ill-defined", and the phrase "appeared consistent with impact with large plants under the balcony" tell the story. They are from the plants.

Hard for a jury to deny that fact from MEDICAL EXAMINER that actually examined her body.

Perhaps you should read the SDSO materials?

http://www.sdsheriff.net/coronado/

Here you can find out that the searches for *advertiser censored* were done the day BEFORE Adam arrived (so late Monday night, early Tuesday morning - when only REBECCA was there):

"There was activity on Rebecca’s computer the day before the incident. The forensic examination of the hard drive showed the file access at about 3:00 am the morning of the event was likely a “cookie” left behind by an automated update for a tool bar.

Cheers.

And you can find other FACTS, like all the DNA and fingerprints that were found that were only Rebeccas.

What are NOT FACTS?

- Rebecca's cloths were missing. Not true, they were folded and on the bed. Also in Ann Rule's book.

- There were no left foot prints. Not true. See SDSO site.

- Had evidence of manual strangulation. Not true. See SDSO site.

- The SDSO tried to hide there was a t-shirt in her mouth. Not true. See SDSO site.

- Someone says "What did you DO" on Adam Shacknai's 911 call. Not true.

And there are so many more NON-FACTS that I could fill a book. And maybe will one day.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

As for the 'duct tape'?



From a SDSO press release dated Sept. 6, 2011 and available at the SDSO site linked above.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

As to the "rush to judgement"?



That was written because by July 20th, people in comment sections and the media had been complaining about "how long it was taken."

That news release was from July 20, 2011.

 

[Ausgirl]

If you've read the reports so many times, I can only assume your profound wrongness about the location of the healing wounds was some kind of lapse.. quite understandable, there's a lot of information to remember.

-- I did mention impact with the plants. I also questioned how NO such impact is present on the anterior surfaces of her arms, or how said supposed impact with the plants could be on her lower back, where her arms would have covered a good portion of the skin. Which is a fair call, I think.

--I have indeed read this: There was activity on Rebecca’s computer the day before the incident. The forensic examination of the hard drive showed the file access at about 3:00 am the morning of the event was likely a “cookie” left behind by an automated update for a tool bar.

What I was saying is this: This comment *clearly* references "the event" and 'the incident" as the point at which Rebecca's body is found on the 13th. It mentions "3am on THE DAY of the event" -- so the "day before" could be ANY time prior to 12 midnight on the 12th. -- what I was asking here was "WHAT TIMES" the searches each occurred, as YOU claimed they were made at times "only Rebecca" was present in the house. I am asking you to show what times those actually were. Exactly. Because the LE statement you gave does not back up your statement at all.

-- Somebody (a male, I assume it's Adam Shacknai) indeed DOES say "What did you do" on the tape. Go have a listen. It's right there. My question was whether anyone had a link to the unreleased portion of the recording, to help verify something I *thought* I heard. I was making NO claims, and I was not posing it as fact. Just to set you straight there.

-- The link regarding the hold-back of information re the shirt was taken directly from MSM. And I provided a link. Please feel free to write to them, if you think they got that wrong. I did NOT say the police "were trying to hide" the evidence. Just to set you straight there.

-- The clothing: was not found on "THE" bed. Ie, it was NOT at the crime scene. It was in the master bedroom folded on the bed there. A long-sleeved black top, a white undershirt and a pair of jeans, all folded neatly. ONE set of clothes. Where's the other? Who actually neatly folds the dirty clothes they remove and place them on the bed, before taking a shower? Where's her underpants? If this was NOT a fresh set of unworn clothing (which is what logic would make them) then where's the test for skin cells on the inside of that clothing, which would show that these clothes Rebecca had actually worn that day? If I've missed the existence of that test, my bad.

-- Cyril Wecht, respected ME, stated there were wounds more consistent with manual strangulation than hanging. There IS a thin mark on her neck, consistent with some sort of ligature but not consistent with the much thicker rope marks.

Nothing non-factual about ANY of this. Unlike your erroneous claim that there were "healing" wounds at the site of the tape marks.

:cheers:

ps: while I appreciate the links... I haven't mentioned 'rush to judgement'. I don't understand why you're posting this at me.

 

[Ausgirl]

As for fingerprints..... I can only ask:

-- In what NORMAL household can there be found a black latex glove, just kinda .. lying around?

-- At what scene of a suspicious death where not one but THREE gloves are found, are those gloves NOT tested for DNA on the inside?

eta: I will note here.. "mixed" DNA is said to be found "on" the black pair of gloves. Not "in".. And as samples of DNA were not taken from three of the four people mentioned in the law suit at hand, and the test results from those gloves (where the DNA was found, on or inside, and whose DNA this was, exactly, is apparently not available) who's to say whose DNA it was?

And WHO shares their gloves? Really? Were these gloves community property? Normally, you'll find ONE person wears the one set of gloves. And that person's skin cells would be all over the inside of them. Whose cells were found on the inside of those?

I also doubt the whole household all shared the experience of wearing that one disposable latex glove. So who DID wear it, and why? Whose DNA was found on the INSIDE of that?

 

[*Lash*]

Respectfully snipped -

And you can find other FACTS, like all the DNA and fingerprints that were found that were only Rebeccas.

What are NOT FACTS?

- Rebecca's cloths were missing. Not true, they were folded and on the bed. Also in Ann Rule's book.

- There were no left foot prints. Not true. See SDSO site.

- Had evidence of manual strangulation. Not true. See SDSO site.

- The SDSO tried to hide there was a t-shirt in her mouth. Not true. See SDSO site.

- Someone says "What did you DO" on Adam Shacknai's 911 call. Not true.

And there are so many more NON-FACTS that I could fill a book. And maybe will one day.

Hi LuckyLucy2!

This SDSO fact, all the DNA and fingerprints that were found were only Rebecca's, was told to the public at the SDSO conference on 9/2 and simply not true. On 11/17, more than 2 months later, sheriff investigators confirmed the presence of unidentified, mixed DNA samples found at Coronado's Spreckels mansion.

The alleged fact given at the SDSO 9/2 press conference was indeed not the truth.

11/17/2011 - Sheriff's Crime Lab Director Michael Grubb did not dispute the presence of unidentifiable, mixed DNA at the Coronado scene.

"The majority of the DNA under Rebecca Zahau's fingernails was her own," said Grubb. "Various fingernails were tested as separate samples and one of them showed a DNA mixture but the level of DNA was so low that it was an un-interpretable mixture."

In addition to the fingernail sample, unidentified DNA also was recovered from the rope used in Zahau's alleged hanging; a large knife used to the cut the rope; the bed frame to which the rope was tied; a door knob on the balcony door; and a pair of black gloves found on a table in the mansion, Grubb said.

"DNA can come to be on all sorts of surfaces; door knobs, any public surface can gain DNA from a number of people and it will reside there and may be picked up by someone else," said Grubb. "When you have a low-level mixture and it's so low that it's un-interpretable, it means that even if we have other subjects to compare, it's not going to be fruitful."

Because the amount of mixed DNA recovered was so minuscule, San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore said it was unnecessary to collect DNA samples from Zahau's boyfriend, Arizona tycoon Jonah Shacknai, or Jonah's ex-wife, Dina Shacknai.

http://www.760kfmb.com/story/16068012/mixed-dna-all-over-zahau-death-scene-some-evidence-not-tested

 

[Ausgirl]

^ Lash, the part you quoted up there is exactly making my point. The human hand is one of the sweatiest, skin-sheddingest things in creation. How does "mixed" DNA in a "low-level mixture" appear INSIDE of gloves? There should be, says logic, ONE strong sample from the person who last wore them...who should be the ONLY person who wore them, unless the Shacknai household has a custom of sharing hand-wear. I can't understand how 'low level mixed' DNA got inside all three gloves. It makes ZERO sense to someone who's expecting the police to be doing their jobs.

 

[Mr Spock]

Why was the front doorbell and front door never dusted for Nina's fingerprints or handprints? On the night in question, eyewitnesses claimed to see Dina. The day Rebecca's body was found NINA told police it was SHE not Dina seen at the front door. In interviews NINA stated she rang the doorbell and used her hands to try and look through the front door. Her prints should have been all over the doorbell and front door. No where do I see these items were dusted and Nina's fingerprints confirmed. Confirmation would have verified her version of events and activities that Tuesday night Rebecca died.

 

[*Lash*]

^ Lash, the part you quoted up there is exactly making my point. The human hand is one of the sweatiest, skin-sheddingest things in creation. How does "mixed" DNA in a "low-level mixture" appear INSIDE of gloves? There should be, says logic, ONE strong sample from the person who last wore them...who should be the ONLY person who wore them, unless the Shacknai household has a custom of sharing hand-wear. I can't understand how 'low level mixed' DNA got inside all three gloves. It makes ZERO sense to someone who's expecting the police to be doing their jobs.

Hi Ausgirl!

The Lab Director Grubb stated 'various' fingernails were tested. Various? Does various mean they did not check all of the nail samples or take evidence from all of Rebecca's nails? Why use the word various?

 

[Ausgirl]

I'm hoping this ^ and many other questions will get addressed in court, now the judge has ruled there's enough evidence to go to trial.

I was watching a true crime show last night.. that 'Dead Again' one, which I quite enjoy. The case involved a woman being murdered in her home, absolute carnage, and the re-investigation team noted there was NOT ONE IOTA of incriminating DNA, no hairs, no fibres. Nothing. So her killer walked in, brutally murdered this woman and left NO trace evidence behind him at all.

That doesn't mean there's no murder! Lol. The woman is dead, and there's good enough proof she did not kill herself.

Point being - the 'no DNA' thing happens. More often than anyone decent would like it to. And like the judge in the present trial, I 100% believe there's enough evidence to show Rebecca Zahau did not kill herself, either. DNA evidence or not!

 

[EVLizzel]

I don't say this to disparage anyone's comments, but I don't think using quotes from Ann Rule's writing is all that compelling. I'm a fan of hers, but I've noted biases and sometimes inaccuracies in her writing in the past.

 

[Morag]

I don't say this to disparage anyone's comments, but I don't think using quotes from Ann Rule's writing is all that compelling. I'm a fan of hers, but I've noted biases and sometimes inaccuracies in her writing in the past.

Too true! I've enjoyed her books, but her fact- checking, as well as her grammar and spelling, has always been a bit sloppy.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Since Ann Rule worked exclusively with the Zahaus and Anne Bremner, I think what she wrote can be taken as fact, as long as one considers how one-sided the book is. One thing is for certain, she would not have written anything detrimental to a civil case about Rebecca's death unless it was true. I would imagine Anne Bremner make sure of that.

 

[Ausgirl]

Ann Rule may mean well, I believe she really does. But she's a fiesty old bird too, I've seen her fight like a wildcat to defend her work, and is also quite litigious when her fact-checking is publically brought into question in the media. I cannot *imagine* ANYone telling her what she can and cannot write, or that she's got a detail wrong, and not getting a serve of vitriol, or a summons to court. This is probably why people refrain from pointing out her errors more often in book reviews and other media.

She does, however, get things wrong. There was a case where she got a LOT of details wrong, and sued a newspaper for saying so. The judge threw the case out -- it was established that she had, actually, gotten many details wrong. I've seen an extensive list of the things she got wrong, and facts she manipulated or omitted parts of, in order to bolster her heavily negative *opinion* of the subject. This is now public record -- but a lot of astute readers knew all about this habit, long before the court case...

I choose not to take any important fact she puts forward as 100% fact, assuming she *must have* thoroughly proved it a fact, for those reasons - without seeking other verification.

Example ---- "Adam Shacknai said he took an ambien" has become "Adam Shacknai took an ambien".. How does that unverifiable claim suddenly become incontrovertible fact, just by virtue of Ann Rule tippy tapping it out on her typewriter? Answer is -- it doesn't.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

She had access to all the investigative files. More than we have had. So I tend to think the details are correct since she had exclusive access to the Zahaus and Anne Bremner.