Rebecca Zahau Wrongful Death/ADAM SHACKNAI FOUND RESPONSIBLE #6

A jury found AS responsible for Rebecca's murder. Their verdict still stands. It doesn't matter how many times he protests otherwise to the media.

His insurers settled the case after the judge made a tentative ruling that there had been no jury misconduct, that there was enough evidence to support the jury's findings, and that he should not have a new trial.

A jury decided the SDSD and the ME concluded wrong. There is no reason to think that a jury would not decide the same in a criminal trial where the DA is pressing charges and not defending an inadequate investigation.

Contrary to what some may think, the SDSD investigation and farcical non-independent re-investigation overseen by the exact same guy, does not mean a thing in terms of guilt or not, and never will. The only deciders of that are a jury in a criminal trial.

Anyone who doesn't want to see that is not on the side of transparent justice, and would in effect agree that citizens should not have any rights to demand independent enquiry of LE's work. That paves the way for a corrupt system.

BBM, great comments! The judge reviewed the case and decided there had been no misconduct and the jury did a proper job.

The citizens of San Diego County should be disappointed in the work done on the investigation by elected officials and their ongoing efforts to block independent review of their work. There's much to question in their results and review should be allowed. Unfortunately, while not common, it's also not an unusual situation in law enforcement.
 
You're kidding, right?

The judgement awarded by the jury at $5.1 million was against AS, and not brother JS.

A judgement is only worth the paper it's written on -- collecting it is another story.

AS is not a wealthy man. He's working class, and by all accounts would never be able to pay a fraction of this award. In fact, he could have quit his job, and claimed destitute, and never pay anything.

It's a fact, the ZAHAU FAMILY NEVER SUED FOR FINANCIAL GAIN.
So they settled so that they could receive some amount of money instead of zero dollars.

That's enlightening.
 
So they settled so that they could receive some amount of money instead of zero dollars.

That's enlightening.

JMO, the Zahaus settled because continuing on with years and years of JS funded appeals in Adam's attempt to exonerate himself was pointless and expensive for them. Instead, they're likely taking any settlement funds and using them to pursue the investigation with the ME's office.

The civil suit allowed them to finally have access to all the evidence, experts and discovery related to RZ's death. They're moving on to the next stage with what they've uncovered.
 
Now that the Zahaus have settled with insurance companies twice now -once with Max’s aunt whom they knew did nothing - “Justice for Rebecca” seems further and further away from the reality of why they have pursued this all along.

Adam says in his interview that the Judge was part of an internet troll group - some of whom had committed illegal acts - that had worked together. Perhaps now that he has more time, his lawyers can pursue action against whomever they may be. Asking Judge Bacall, (who has one of the worst ratings of SD Civil Court judges) to review the trial was like asking the Fox to watch the henhouse. Shacknai knew he would not have a chance with her, but would in Appeals court. The Zahaus knew a new and competent Judge would likely reverse the ruling. Especially since there is a juror who is willing to sign an affidavit that there was juror misconduct and bullying and who wanted to change his vote.

Their claim that they are going to have the ME change the cause of death from suicide is a farce. They know that is never going to happen. No ME is going to change a proper cause of death just so the Zahaus can save face in church.

IMO, the Zahaus and Greer have manipulated their supporters from the beginning and are now laughing all the way to the bank.

"The Robing Room: CA State Judges
 
I don’t agree with you, Tortoise. A verdict cannot remain when the case is dismissed. When a case is dismissed, it is if it never happened.

I also don’t agree abou the SDSO investigation and I do happen to be on the side of transparent justice. With all of the talk of how corrupt the SDSO is here in these threads, I simple do not believe that, and there has not been one iota of evidence to support that. I don’t bash the hard working people who have trained for years so that they can serve their community and fight crime. There simply was no crime in this matter.

The rush to judgement came from those that believed it was murder from the very beginning, and because of confirmation bias, refused to believe the concrete evidence that the SDSO laid out.

I happen to respect law enforcement, and their expertise in these matters. I am thankful the SDSO has been so professional and think it is horrible that ordinary citizens think they know better than these extraordinary public servents.
You misunderstand.

The settlement agreement was made voluntarily by the parties, OUTSIDE OF THE VERDICT.

The Parties (AS) forfeited the right to seek vacatur when voluntarily entering into the settlement agreement.

The VERDICT STANDS.

Case dismissed means AS can never appeal it again -- it's dead to him, the case no longer exists!

The End.

ETA: With the settlement, the Judge [K Bacal] dismissed the case but noted that the verdict against Shacknai would remain. bbm

Rebecca Zahau case: Settlement reached, civil case dismissed
 
Last edited:
To quote AS, it's a pittance they received.
I wonder why they settled for a pittance? The insurance company which payed them could afford to pay a very large sum to end the appeal.
 
Pittance is relative.
My brother doesn't have JS money.
 
Pittance is relative.
My brother doesn't have JS money.
It means a very small amount which makes me wonder why they would agree to take a very small amount of money from an insurance company when they won the case.

Something is missing here because it doesn't add up for me.
 
I wonder why they settled for a pittance? The insurance company which payed them could afford to pay a very large sum to end the appeal.
1) Dollar amount was not relevant to Zahau's. They've known from the beginning that a judgement is only paper.

2) Since AS could continue his fight to appeal his verdict in as many Superior courts as would have him, the Zahaus could be left bleeding their own time and money in legal costs for years.

3) The settlement was confidential, and therefore no idea how much was paid. Suffice to say it was very nominal amount. A pittance.

4) Insurer for AS had incentive to stop AS from continued appeals --his legal team charges for do-overs.

5) Insurer was obligated to defend their presumed innocent policy holder-- which they did, once. However, Insurer typically has no obligation to pay a GUILTY policy holder's penalty or damages.

MOO
 
Last edited:
JMO, the Zahaus settled because continuing on with years and years of JS funded appeals in Adam's attempt to exonerate himself was pointless and expensive for them. Instead, they're likely taking any settlement funds and using them to pursue the investigation with the ME's office.

The civil suit allowed them to finally have access to all the evidence, experts and discovery related to RZ's death. They're moving on to the next stage with what they've uncovered.
Brilliant explanation, @BettyP. Thank you.
 
1) Dollar amount was not relevant to Zahau's. They've known from the beginning that a judgement is only paper.

2) Since AS could continue his fight to appeal his verdict in as many Superior courts as would have him, the Zahaus could be left bleeding their own time and money in legal costs for years.

3) The settlement was confidential, and therefore no idea how much was paid. Suffice to say it was very nominal amount. A pittance.

4) Insurer for AS had incentive to stop AS from continued appeals --his legal team charges for do-overs.

5) Insurer was obligated to defend their presumed innocent policy holder-- which they did, once. However, Insurer typically has no obligation to pay a GUILTY policy holder's penalty or damages.

MOO
I still want to know why the amount of money is irrelevant. They could have used that money to further their goals.

For some reason that has been set aside. I still wonder why not pressure the insurance company for a large sum of money that the verdict entitled them to. Maybe not the full 5.1 million but at least a substantial amount.

I'm sorry but the explanations given by members here still leave me wondering.
 
Now that the Zahaus have settled with insurance companies twice now -once with Max’s aunt whom they knew did nothing - “Justice for Rebecca” seems further and further away from the reality of why they have pursued this all along.

Adam says in his interview that the Judge was part of an internet troll group - some of whom had committed illegal acts - that had worked together. Perhaps now that he has more time, his lawyers can pursue action against whomever they may be...

<<< snipped for focus

If Adam Shacknai actually said this, actually
k060.gif
believes it, he's lost more than a lawsuit, IMO, and he should seek medical attention for his paranoid delusions, soonest. IMO. Before he sues the Judge for (owhatistheword)
k020.gif
conspiring with (ooh criminal)
n040.gif
internet trolls so as to f with himself.





 
You misunderstand.

The settlement agreement was made voluntarily by the parties, OUTSIDE OF THE VERDICT.

The Parties (AS) forfeited the right to seek vacatur when voluntarily entering into the settlement agreement.

The VERDICT STANDS.

Case dismissed means AS can never appeal it again -- it's dead to him, the case no longer exists!

The End.

ETA: With the settlement, the Judge [K Bacal] dismissed the case but noted that the verdict against Shacknai would remain. bbm

Rebecca Zahau case: Settlement reached, civil case dismissed
It's plain the verdict remains. Insurance companies don't pay out if there's no liability. :D

And we only need to see Adam's fury to know this payment did not wipe the verdict, he would be walking on air if that was the case because that was what he wanted by going back to court! Is the claim being made that he would rather have paid more lawyers fees and continued the appeal to get to exactly the same place he is now? He would be waving a big piece of paper saying look the Zahau's agreed I was not responsible if that's what it was, but it was not. I heard Greer telling the radio presenter he asked Mary before the case went to court when they had already been offered $1 million to settle, 'what if they offered you $10 million to settle?' and she said no, it's not about money this is to get the evidence out and prove it in court. Which they did.

The unhappiness with this outcome tells the true story.
 
Can the locals tell me if this is style of interview is common for AM 760 Mark Larson?
Haaaa. I don't know ML or AM760 but from what I heard, there was a vast difference between how he conducted his interview with AS compared to KG.

Agenda? Yes.

After constantly interrupting KG, it was classic for KG to suggest that ML have one of the jurors on his show. Imagine that, why not hear it from the triers of fact!

I'm not holding my breath.

MOO
 
Haaaa. I don't know ML or AM760 but from what I heard, there was a vast difference between how he conducted his interview with AS compared to KG.

Agenda? Yes.

After constantly interrupting KG, it was classic for KG to suggest that ML have one of the jurors on his show. Imagine that, why not hear it from the triers of fact!

I'm not holding my breath.

MOO

Thanks for the confirmation. Not impressed with ML. Obnoxious.
Always impressed with Greer.
Loved how Greer ended the interview telling ML he will make sure he gets an interview with one of the jurors.
 
Thanks for the confirmation. Not impressed with ML. Obnoxious.
Always impressed with Greer.
Loved how Greer ended the interview telling ML he will make sure he gets an interview with one of the jurors.

Listening now and agree. Greer handles the interview very well.

Disc jockey is not very smart. No matter how much Greer explains the concept of civil vs criminal trials, he still doesn't understand.

Interesting comment from Greer, paraphrasing: We don't have evidence to show someone else was involved in RZ's murder. He says they will be bringing in new evidence. Sounds very interesting.

ETA: Also great they've been able to do a re-enactment of the hanging, how it was done.
 
Last edited:

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
174
Guests online
2,340
Total visitors
2,514

Forum statistics

Threads
589,975
Messages
17,928,593
Members
228,029
Latest member
MichaelKeell
Back
Top