Wrongful death trial begins. Trial coverage and discussion #2

Status
Not open for further replies.

cynic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,688
Reaction score
435
The Court’s website says the case age is 1565 days.
It’s been a long journey, but the wait is over.

From the Court’s Register of Actions:
Case Information:
Case Number: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL
Date Filed: 11/13/2013
Case Title: Estate of Rebecca Zahau vs. Shacknai
Case Status: Pending
Case Category: Civil - Unlimited
Location: Central
Judicial Officer: Katherine Bacal
Case Age: 1565 days
Department: C-69

Attorneys for the Plaintiff: Gaston, Frederick W; Greer, Curtis K

Attorneys for the Defendant: Adkins, Robb C.; Black, Allen; Elsberg, David; Enns, Krista M.; Fick, Ryan R; Robertson, Drew; Vranjes, Mark; Webb, Dan K; Weisburst, Seth

Thread #1
 
Requests from the last two weeks relating to trial coverage:

Media Request to Photograph, Record, or Broadcast (by ABC News 20/20)
Media Request to Photograph, Record, or Broadcast (by Dateline NBC)
Media Request to Photograph, Record, or Broadcast (by DocShop Productions, LLC)
Media Request to Photograph, Record, or Broadcast (by Caitlin Rother - Author)
Media Request to Photograph, Record, or Broadcast (by Kelly Wheeler of City News Service)
 
Today in court...

Ok, it was the lead detective today and I just had to go...too many unanswered questions for me not to...Here’s my take on the day and I’m sorry in advance it’s long...

Heads up, it was very much a win by Mr Greer today, IMO.

The lady detective was questioned first by the defense, she was their witness as it was out of sync as AS couldn’t testify as yet. He will be on Monday.

She has been a police officer for 27 years. Estimated 100 death investigations in that time ( no specificity on type of death, ie not just murder)

The defense initially went through, in great detail, the running of the events, time reported, time of notification, time of arrival, what and who was on the scene etc. ...then they went through all the roles, who cleared the house, what it meant ( explaining everything to the jury in more detail of standard procedures) who was the photographer, what they photographed, how many photographs...how they collect DNA, how they collect fingerprints, what is a fingerprint card... canvassing the neighborhood process etc etc...

I feel this extra emphasis on process was a defense strategy designed to give the jury the impression everything was followed by the book, when the detective was just really explaining standardized rules from the textbook, and interjecting this into the process.

The lady sitting next to me nodded off...really...tells you a lot about that strategy I suppose(!) Nothing of any significance for our analysis in the first hours.

Then there were lists put up of who ( investigators) were involved. 11 detectives at the first briefing, then 30 by the third. Yes I said 30. The defense read them off. One. By. One.

They included ‘special agents’ from the Cal Dept of Justice. It was obviously designed to give the impression that they gave huge resources and expertise to the case.

However, it came out that several of the agents were there because they were assigned to SDPD on a several year assignment ( I got the impression it was a support program?) So not just for RZs case. Also several of the other attendees were identified as not working on the case.

Personally, I was left with the impression that the increased numbers probably indicated that everyone came along to the briefing who could - simply as it was a bizarre case and they were inquisitive - but it was likely designed to make the jury think it was a huge resource.

The statements that stuck out for me were the detectives words to the effect of “ ...we thought this was a homicide initially...they were very odd circumstances...it was a suspicious death’ and...’ I’d never seen anything like this...it was unfamiliar to me....”

The second point which drew attention for me was the defense tried very hard to get the ‘content’ of the voicemail supposedly left on RZs phone in as evidence, but couldn’t.

Mr G kept objecting as they tried to get the detective to state what was allegedly in the message ( when she never heard it) ...lacks foundation, calls for speculation. At one point the detective stated that JS told her that his message consisted of an apology for not calling earlier, that max was brain dead, and they would have to decide on donating his organs the next morning.

Then Mr G asked for a motion to strike the comment from the record, the judge agreed (as it was hearsay) and the jury were told to disregard it - this is what was in the press article, but it was actually disallowed by the Judge..

They went on to emphasize that this was ‘a priority case’, worked on for about 4 to 6 weeks. This all took up virtually the morning. Then Mr Greer started the cross examination which lasted the remainder of the day.

During the course of Mr Greer’s cross there were a lot of objections from the defense. He overcame many by re-wording his questions, he did well.

Without doing a line by line analysis of everything, I’m going to round up my feelings on the interaction...and give you the KEY points for me that came out of the testimony ( lest you all be bored to death)

Although a defensive position was expected, the detective was, in my opinion, overly sensitive and defensive. There was what I would consider blame shifting at every opportunity, everyone decided, never her alone it seemed. If there was a problem with one piece of evidence, it didn’t count as evidence had to be considered ‘ together’

One example would be this.

Mr G - re the lack of DNA or fingerprints on the paint tube. Was this unusual or unexpected to you?

Detective - no, that had no impact on the investigation.

Mr G - So this tube that was squeezed many times to paint that door message, handled a lot, squeezed and manipulated, you don’t find it unusual I DNA, no fingerprints?

Det. No, everyone is different if they deposit DNA or fingerprints, and you would need to speak to the DNA collection tech about that.

Mr G- but your the lead detective, weighing up the evidence...you’re the one determining suicide or murder and what is suspicious...as an example - if I pick up an item one time, and then pick up an item 100 times, you feel that there is no more likelihood of me leaving DNA or fingerprints on the item I handled 100 times?

Det. No, probably not..

MR G - So when you weigh up the possibilities this would make no difference? One time vs 100. Are you really saying that?

Det. We take everything into consideration as a whole, not just one piece of evidence....

At one point when obviously running out of excuses on this, she said the person who painted could have not squeezed the tube at all, and put the brush down the top of the tube ( the hole is the size of a toothpaste tube...) it was really quite ridiculous to suggest this. Everyone sort of looked at each other....what? It was indicative of the testy, defensive exchange throughout.

( I’m paraphrasing above , but you get the general idea. She appeared quite obstructive to me on what were really, quite common sense answers....defensive, and it really showed in my opinion)

She also repeatedly referred to the blood found as ‘red stains’ which I have to be honest, I found particularly irritating..and would only admit to blood when really pressed, and pressed hard on some occasions. Particularly regarding the vaginal blood on the handle of the small knife.

She admitted she was never made aware of or considered the small knife being used for a sexual assault, and never considered the red stain on all four sides as indicating it had been inserted into RZ.

She really appeared to dance ALL around this in questioning...after she had admitted it.

Mr G was masterful with it I thought. She attempted to say the ‘red stain’ was only DNA. When proved by Mr G with evidence it was blood, she attempted to say it didn’t necessarily come from RZ vagina. When it was proved there was no other blood source other than the vagina, (through showing the evidence) she said it could have come from the transfer the spots on the floor...or the spots towel!

It was quite ridiculous.

Mr G had her shuffling about trying to get out of it...but she ultimately had to admit she did not consider that a knife coated with vaginal blood up the handle without RZs fingerprints on it was never considered as an item of assault.

She ended up ( passing the buck it appeared) by saying she felt she was justified in not considering this as ‘the medical examiner said there was no evidence of a sexual assault’ and ‘we take all evidence into consideration as a whole.....’

The mantra. Every time mr G highlighted a mistake or anomaly, it ‘couldn’t be considered on its own’, it had to be ‘taken as all the evidence together....’

She even said ‘I know I sound like a stuck record’ herself! Every time something was discredited she said it couldn’t be taken on its own...

Trouble was, EVERYTHING was beginning to appear a mistake...and that’s really how it came across to me.

Here’s what else came out ( best I can recall)

She said in her view -

* there was “no evidence of wiping down” at the scene

* the ‘red stain’ on the shower floor in the master was not tested as ...”it was not in the main room where the ropes were found” and it was ‘quite far away’ from the bedroom where the ropes were tied

* The ‘red stain’ in the shower was decided as ‘unrelated to events’

* the large clump of hair found on the shower wall in the master was a ’handful’, of long dark hair and it was never collected OR tested - or thought significant (as there was a hairbrush in the shower)

* The hair clump was decided as ‘unrelated’ to events

* The fact that there was no other DNA found at the scene was significant in deciding it was a suicide.

* ‘everyone’ involved in the investigation, decided it was a suicide, not her alone, and no one thought otherwise in the whole investigation ( Mr G asked did they have a vote ( sarcastically) ...she said no everyone ‘just agreed’

* They focused the primary search and investigation on the bedroom where the ropes were found tied to the bed

* No expert analysis of balcony foot prints was thought necessary or was completed

* No expert analysis of the door painting was investigated or requested

* A Video was made of model tying ropes in same fashion as RZ - detective admitted the model had to practice over six or seven times to try and get them to match

* No expert analysis sought or investigated into the knots as ‘one of the detectives seemed able to copy them’ so this was enough to decide ‘no expertise was needed’

* The ropes were loose on her wrists which was clearly ‘indicative of her tying herself up’

* RZ significant weight loss was indicative of depression and stress and contributed to the suicide decision - however her sisters report of this was actually 7 month earlier, and Mr Greer’s evidence showed she was 100 lbs at death and 105 lbs at the time of the report...no weight loss.

* The autopsy also said she was well nourished, but not considered.

* The detective did not ascertain RZ prior weight loss or investigate further, took it only at face value. Admitted there was no apparent weight loss

* Admitted RZ molestation as a child was contributory factor in suicide ruling, but failed to investigate any circumstances or if it was true. Ignored deposition of other sister where it was stated it had no effect on RZ and only happened once

* Failed to seek copy of voice message that was deleted around time of RZ death until it was too late ( approx 30 days after collection of the phone) had no explanation, only it was ‘too late’ by the time it was requested

* Failed to fingerprint the phone ( as the print powder would make it dirty and she wanted to look at it manually (there was a gasp from the gallery when she said that)

* When Mr G said how does she know it was RZ who deleted and listened to the last voice message, and not someone who had incapacitated her?

* she said because ...

* ...It was RZs phone

* ...She was in the house alone

* Mr G said - How did she know she was alone?

* Because ADAM TOLD HER

* As her voicemail was accessed ‘they know she was still alive at 12.50’

* A rape kit was used and tested on RZ and no semen was found

* She was unaware of the position of the prints on the knife blades indicating the holding position behind back

* Did not seek out or test any tape that could have put residue on RZs legs. Assumed it was sports tape.

* Could not explain why the balcony door, when tested with fingerprint powder, had a huge, dry clean patch/area at the handle, surrounding the handle and door jamb)

* (OMG the photo was quite unbelievable...IMO you could see where someone had actually wiped down the door)

* Admitted to ‘updating JS on ongoing investigation around seven or eight times. When challenged - modified to say ‘ only to question him if I needed some info’

Appeared very sensitive when asked about protocols and why was she updating a family member with case Info, denied this was the case.

* AS was a person of interest initially

* AS gave sample DNA and fingerprints etc when asked, no objection

All this is just my opinion and interpretation of the day, I hope it is interesting for you guys....I’m paraphrasing somewhat to try and give a general idea and I can’t do shorthand, but this is the best of my recollection. I’m sure I missed quite a bit, if I recall I will post it...

Best to all

EDIT
Reason / meaning behind message on the door thought to be this -

She saved him = RZ saved Max with CPR
Can you save her = Can God save RZ soul after suicide
 
Here is the latest interview with Caitlin Rother. http://www.kusi.com/caitlin-rother-on-the-rebecca-zahau-trial/


I'll be interviewing Caitlin and will post the interview later today.

Here is the link to the interviews with Keith Greer. You'll have to scroll past other interviews to get to the first Keith Greer interview.

https://soundcloud.com/tricia-arrington-griffith

If you would like any posts from the first thread brought over please alert on the post and request it be moved to thread 2.

Thank you!
 
Lezah ~ Let me add my HUGE thanks to everyone else's for your most excellent first-person reports!:loveyou:
 
These are rhetorical questions, but does anyone think Adam may get nervous enough with the incriminating testimony heard so far that he decides to head out of the country before SDSO decides to save face and reopen the case?

Secondly, I wonder if SDSO remains smug, as they always have, in expecting the wrongful death trial to not lead anywhere? I would love to find out the undercurrents of this trial within the department.
 
These are rhetorical questions, but does anyone think Adam may get nervous enough with the incriminating testimony heard so far that he decides to head out of the country before SDSO decides to save face and reopen the case?

Secondly, I wonder if SDSO remains smug, as they always have, in expecting the wrongful death trial to not lead anywhere? I would love to find out the undercurrents of this trial within the department.
I would say that in response to your first question, an "accident" on the Mississippi would be more likely..............
 
I sit here wondering if it was actually JS's friend Dr. Lubner (think that is spelling) that gave JS the hard facts that night about Max not surviving? And that is what prompted the call to Rebecca.
 
I sit here wondering if it was actually JS's friend Dr. Lubner (think that is spelling) that gave JS the hard facts that night about Max not surviving? And that is what prompted the call to Rebecca.

Luber, while he is a physician, his specialty is dermatology.
 
Is it true that AS is a witness for the plaintiff? That is what Caitlin Rother said. Isn't he more likely to be witness for the defense? Am I going mad?
 
These are rhetorical questions, but does anyone think Adam may get nervous enough with the incriminating testimony heard so far that he decides to head out of the country before SDSO decides to save face and reopen the case?

Secondly, I wonder if SDSO remains smug, as they always have, in expecting the wrongful death trial to not lead anywhere? I would love to find out the undercurrents of this trial within the department.

Your first question prompted me to remember a thought that occurred to me when I read that Adam couldn't take the stand till Monday, necessitating that the defense start their case yesterday with SDSO's very own female version of Colonel Klink (I'm dating myself. For those who don't get the reference, he was a character on the ancient TV show Hogan's Heroes and was famous for saying, in a heavy German accent, "I see NOTHING! I know NOTHING!")

Back to my point ... I wonder if the information that has come out so far at trial is so damning the defense attorneys need an extra few days to prep Mr. "Got a girl, hung herself" for questioning by Mr. Greer??
 
Is it true that AS is a witness for the plaintiff? That is what Caitlin Rother said. Isn't he more likely to be witness for the defense? Am I going mad?

Yes, for the plaintiff. I thought that was weird as well, but it may not be in a civil trial.
 
Yes, for the plaintiff. I thought that was weird as well, but it may not be in a civil trial.

Didn’t the defense start their case yesterday with the lead detective that Greer cross-examined? So wouldn’t AS be a witness for the defense on Monday?
 
I sit here wondering if it was actually JS's friend Dr. Lubner (think that is spelling) that gave JS the hard facts that night about Max not surviving? And that is what prompted the call to Rebecca.

It needs to be asked, somehow, by someone, why Maxie's parents didn't have the same information at the same time regarding his condition.

Thinking aloud here ... perhaps by the time Jonah was giving SDSO their instructions on how to conduct their investigation into RZ's death, he and Dina had been told about Max's condition, so when he spun his story about the voicemail to RZ, he added the brain dead and organ donation details even though he didn't actually have those details the night before when he claims he left her a voicemail???
 
Didn’t the defense start their case yesterday with the lead detective that Greer cross-examined? So wouldn’t AS be a witness for the defense on Monday?

As I understand it, AS was supposed to be the last witness for the plaintiff, but he couldn't take the stand till Monday, so in order not to waste a day of court time, the defense began their case Thursday.

I could be wrong, but that's my current understanding.
 
As I understand it, AS was supposed to be the last witness for the plaintiff, but he couldn't take the stand till Monday, so in order not to waste a day of court time, the defense began their case Thursday.

I could be wrong, but that's my current understanding.

Thanks. That makes sense, although I still don’t know why AS would be a plaintiff witness. Interesting. I guess we’ll find out soon enough. :)
 
Perhaps he is a witness for the plaintiff because he will remove any doubt :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
93
Guests online
1,355
Total visitors
1,448

Forum statistics

Threads
589,167
Messages
17,915,092
Members
227,745
Latest member
branditau.wareham72@gmail
Back
Top