Hopefully he's wondering where he can go to get his credibility back.
Wrongful death trial begins. Trial coverage and discussion
- Thread starter cynic
- Start date
- Status
Hopefully he's wondering where he can go to get his credibility back.
I'm not so sure. If the jury believes the probability that RZ could have committed suicide in such a manner is extremely low (or zero), yet there's no DNA present at all (other than RZ's), were I a juror, I'd be inclined to conclude all surfaces were wiped down (perhaps with those dryer sheets that were found) and/or he wore gloves.
Hoping someone can help me to understand - what is the best case scenario in all of this for Rebecca's family? For example, in wrongful death, can Adam Shacknai go to jail on a murder charge? Can the case be reopened/examined? Or does wrongful death only mean they can receive compensation for her dying, and Adam gets a slap on the wrist? Thank you 
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Messages
- 28,809
- Reaction score
- 43,623
Dr. Wecht did a great job on the stand yesterday,
I have to keep reminding myself that we haven't heard the defense yet and you can be damn sure they will spare no expense to
get expert witnesses, that come across looking great on the stand, to tell their version of the story.
Here is an interview I did with Caitlin Rother. She will be joining us weekly for updates. This interview was done on Saturday.
The interview was originally supposed to be the first story in a podcast with 2 stories but for now, the interview will stand alone.
https://soundcloud.com/tricia-arrington-griffith/rother-first-report-31118
I have to keep reminding myself that we haven't heard the defense yet and you can be damn sure they will spare no expense to
get expert witnesses, that come across looking great on the stand, to tell their version of the story.
Here is an interview I did with Caitlin Rother. She will be joining us weekly for updates. This interview was done on Saturday.
The interview was originally supposed to be the first story in a podcast with 2 stories but for now, the interview will stand alone.
https://soundcloud.com/tricia-arrington-griffith/rother-first-report-31118
coastal
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,203
- Reaction score
- 4,714
Hoping someone can help me to understand - what is the best case scenario in all of this for Rebecca's family? For example, in wrongful death, can Adam Shacknai go to jail on a murder charge? Can the case be reopened/examined? Or does wrongful death only mean they can receive compensation for her dying, and Adam gets a slap on the wrist? Thank you
Hi asgaror. I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that a criminal case can begin (or resume) at any time, if new evidence comes to light. SDSO has stated their willingness to consider such evidence, if it is discovered, but they stand by their conclusion of suicide in Rebecca's case.
If Adam is found guilty of causing Rebecca's wrongful death, he will be ordered to compensate (pay) her estate for her absence.
Rebecca's family places a high value on finding the true facts about her death, and this lawsuit also serves that end.
In other words, in any case, IMO, Adam gets a slap on the wrist.
Anything else will be up to the SDSO, and who knows what they might do?
I would (and do) absolutely conclude that lack of DNA means gloves were worn/surfaces wiped or some combination of the two. I have found it to be absolutely bizarre from day one for SDSO, and now defense, to behave as if there are no such thing as gloves.
It is stunning for LE to state that lack of DNA is conclusive proof of suicide when everyone knows these are possibilities, not to mention they found and collected gloves at the scene (as well as items that could be used for a wipe down). And, this is the *only* justification that they use for why it is suicide except lack of evidence of a struggle (though there was plenty of evidence of a potential struggle, which was summarily dismissed--the overturned chair, the possibility RZ was incapacitated, even if only briefly by a blow to the head). And, items which might have shone some light on any possible struggle (overturned chair, doggie bone) are all left uncollected.
On the face of it, it was pretty preposterous, but once you get a fuller sense of the totality of the evidence (and incompetence of the investigation) it's pretty hard to think suicide is anything other than a pre-desired conclusion the SO was going to reach no matter what. These jurors should be smart enough to pick that up (if just using common sense, & not manipulated in some manner by defendant's clan).
I've found this "lack of DNA" argument to be absolutely maddening throughout. I can't even imagine the outrage the Zahaus must have been feeling from day one. As Mary indicates, it seems like they never wanted to investigate or find out what really happened to Rebecca.
Mica
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2013
- Messages
- 5,027
- Reaction score
- 12,111
BBM
No kidding. As if no criminal, ever, wore gloves or cleaned up a crime scene. Don't they realize the people in the jury probably have watched a couple of crime shows on TV at some time? :facepalm:
stmarysmead
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 5,271
- Reaction score
- 16,482
I’m following along with the gloves. But I need a little help with how you wipe down a crime scene and remove your own DNA but leave other DNA? You can’t see DNA...so how are you explaining to the jury that this process works? I have two dogs who shed. How would I just remove ALL the dander from one dog on the floor and yet leave the dander from the other?
I think the glove theory might be more solid.
I think the glove theory might be more solid.
Lilibet
Southern Oregon
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2013
- Messages
- 19,411
- Reaction score
- 80,233
Thanks SB! Good to see you. This makes perfect sense. Since RZs family isnt doing this for money, if the amount rewarded is reduced by the jury because they dont think AS was the only one involved, it wont matter to the Zahaus. What would matter is if the jury doesnt think hes involved or that its suicide. I hope you stick around and that the trial is long over before baby girl Hack arrives. :baby:Congrats!!
This makes perfect sense. Since RZs family isnt doing this for money, if the amount rewarded is reduced by the jury because they dont think AS was the only one involved, it wont matter to the Zahaus. What would matter is if the jury doesnt think hes involved or that its suicide. I hope you stick around and that the trial is long over before baby girl Hack arrives. :baby:Congrats!!I'm not licensed in CA, as Lilibet knows
Wrongful death requires a showing that:
The death of a person is caused by the wrongful or negligent act of another
With a showing of negligence or actual intent
Can only be brought by heirs of the deceased
And damages must be shown (this can often just be the loss of affection)
Motive is not required (it is actually never a required element in the US, whether criminal or civil) but negligence or intent is required.
Now the next question is more complicated and my knowledge may not be perfect so take this as my opinion of interpreting the law in general. In civil suits for a defendant to point the finger at another party, they must bring the other party into the lawsuit in the form of a third party complaint. Even if the third party cannot be named, they would bring in a "John Doe". Some links on third party claims: https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/third-party-complaint/ https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_14
For example, if there was a slip and fall and the injured person sued a construction company, the construction company can't say "it was the architect's fault" unless they bring the architect into the lawsuit, even if they have no knowledge of who the architect is. When multiple parties are potentially being blamed, the jury ultimately decides the apportionment of fault and any monetary award is split accordingly (i.e. jury finds construction company 25% at fault and architect 75% at fault, those parties pay that percentage of the award. If the architect was never identified, the plaintiff would only recover 25% of the award given by the jury).
I haven't seen anything suggesting AS and his team are blaming anyone else; they seem to be only claiming it was suicide.
Still, a jury can in their own minds think even if this was murder, it was not AS or AS did not act alone. I don't think the jury will think that since it is not being argued, but they absolutely could in closed door deliberations bring that up. If the jurors truly believe it was not AS or AS didn't act alone, they may struggle to find the elements for wrongful death were met against AS and could find him not liable. They won't be able to apportion the reward since no other party was named, but they could themselves lower the award in their deliberations. For example, if the jury thinks it's a million dollar lawsuit but AS didn't act alone they could say he is liable for $500K without ever needing to provide a reason for their amount.
I'm having trouble getting my responses to post. Now that I'm tired of trying, it looks like this reply is actually posting...
I will just say, in short, it is my opinion that gloves were worn, and wipe down of certain surfaces occurred. In addition, there may have been other steps to minimize or clean up other DNA (cap for hair, etc.), the person/clothing may shed less than others, AND the investigation left much to be desired -- many items not collected, items collected not tested, items tested not thoroughly analyzed, etc. Many areas (trash and surfaces in remainder of house, vacuum bags, etc.) were ignored where evidence of a cleanup might have been found. Conspicuous lack of fingerprints and other DNA where it SHOULD have been should have raised a multitude of questions for investigators.
In my earlier attempted response, I provided detailed examples of all of the above from the actual Zahau investigation, but I'll just leave it at this because I don't want to re-type the entirety of it... that's the main gist.
=============
Edit: re-reading your Q, I'll add -- I think evidence of wipe down occurred in certain areas. Most particularly, where Rebecca's DNA should have been, but wasn't (door handle to balcony, body of paint bottle, etc). It is very notable that a drier sheet was found at the scene (why? was there any other evidence of laundry being done in the area?) That could have been one accidentally left behind. Drier sheets are well known to be useful for cleaning fingerprints on appliances, cleaning pet hair, etc. Areas that were touched only with gloves, or otherwise minimally impacted, may not have been wiped down (like, maybe the rope?), so then you would find evidence of Rebecca, but not assailant.
Also, I question everything in terms of what was and wasn't tested, and what the results really mean. SDSO says they found Rebecca's fingerprints on a knife, but it turns out to be on the blade, not the handle. So, then finding her DNA on the rope, might mean in an area where she was trying to undo or loosen bindings etc. We've also already heard that only certain areas of the rope tested, so the investigation -- what they found & didn't find & what conclusions they drew because of it -- was very selective, IMO.
Hopefully, the jurors will think about the fact that RZ's own fingerprints weren't found on the knob of the door leading to the balcony. She wasn't wearing gloves when she was found. Greer will be bringing all this up when he closes and I hope the jurors realize the crime scene was wiped clean.
To address Stmarymead's question, it wouldn't be necessary for Adam to remove his DNA and leave RZ's. RZ had been staying at the mansion a while. Her DNA would be in a lot of places. It would even be on the kitchen knives, because she probably used them when preparing meals. What's of interest are the places and items where no one's DNA or fingerprints appear - like the balcony door knob. IIRC, there were no fingerprints on the handle of the butcher knife, either, only RZ's prints on the blade of the knife. I could be wrong about that, but its what I remember. If accurate, it means someone cleaned off the handle of the knife, but forgot to clean the blade.
BBM. Absolutely. It's important not to assume a thorough unbiased death investigation was conducted when questioning the evidence in this case.
I'm hoping Mr. Greer has a field day with the SDSO'ers who show up to testify for the defense. It will be very important to prove to the jury just how poorly executed the death investigation was.
stmarysmead
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 5,271
- Reaction score
- 16,482
In the wipedown areas, there is no dna from either party then?
I was closely involved with the Duke Lacrosse case in 2006. There was no dna found from any of the Lacrosse players externally or internally on the Accuser. Later it was found that there WAS dna from other men. The DA Nifong tried to argue that the Lacrosse players had wiped down the accuser and removed their dna...leaving that of the other men. Nifong was met with universal howls of ridicule due to this “Magic towel” theory. He was, of course, disbarred and spent one night in jail for his unethical handling of this case.
It’s been over a decade since Duke Lacrosse...but I’m sure the defendants attorneys will press on this dna issue. If the attorney for RZ Family can make a solid case, okay. But if there’s no dna at all, that will be a hurdle in my opinion.
The crime and staging are so extensive...I’ll be interested to see how this is handled.
But I appreciate your insight into how it may be explained.
I was closely involved with the Duke Lacrosse case in 2006. There was no dna found from any of the Lacrosse players externally or internally on the Accuser. Later it was found that there WAS dna from other men. The DA Nifong tried to argue that the Lacrosse players had wiped down the accuser and removed their dna...leaving that of the other men. Nifong was met with universal howls of ridicule due to this “Magic towel” theory. He was, of course, disbarred and spent one night in jail for his unethical handling of this case.
It’s been over a decade since Duke Lacrosse...but I’m sure the defendants attorneys will press on this dna issue. If the attorney for RZ Family can make a solid case, okay. But if there’s no dna at all, that will be a hurdle in my opinion.
The crime and staging are so extensive...I’ll be interested to see how this is handled.
But I appreciate your insight into how it may be explained.
Thanks SB! Good to see you.
Agree! Good analysis. On the flip side of that, JS is probably quite as concerned about Adam losing the civil suit, especially if the amount of the monetary award is reduced. JS and AS would be most concerned if any of the new evidence revealed is sufficient to re-open the investigation. Oh, boy, I really hope that happens.
I hope so, too. It was so grossly incompetent and unprofessional as to be laughable, if it wasn't so serious. In its totality, you cannot help but see that -- from leaving body/scene uncovered & ME arriving half a day later, to ME concluding abrasions to be inconsequential, to letting attorney for POI in, to not conducting another polygraph on Adam, to not taking items into evidence, or testing what they did have, to taking the word of POI/homeowner as complete explanation for potential evidence (panties in trash--really?), and on and on. I hope Greer has a field day, too, & I fully expect he will. It is nothing short of embarrassing to call this an investigation...
Imo, you're asking questions only a thorough, unbiased death investigation could answer. No such investigation was conducted. For example, if only RZ's DNA was found on the ropes, what areas and how much of the rope was tested? If the SDSO tested every inch of each piece of rope (which they didn't), then the killer wore gloves.
I think it will be fairly easy for Mr. Greer to counter the "no AS DNA" by simply pointing to the gloves found at the scene, the dryer sheets found at the scene, and the *peculiar* approach SDSO took in their collection and testing of evidence.
It's also important to always keep in mind the improbability that anyone could or would commit suicide in the manner they claim Rebecca did. Possibly impossible; definitely improbable.
sdmike1974
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 236
- Reaction score
- 259
Which raises a possibility in jury deliberations I had not thought of. (I know I'm getting ahead of myself.)
What if four or more jurors think it was murder -- but are not convinced it was AS who killed her.
OR
What if a scenario like the following occurs. Two jurors believe it was suicide and two jurors think it was murder but not AS.
In both instances the jury would fail to meet the 9 juror minimum for a favorable verdict for the family.
Perish the thought. I know.
bourne
"The truth shall set you free." ~JUSTICE FOR REBEC
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Messages
- 2,406
- Reaction score
- 13
Killer(s) used gloves and or wiped things down. Then planted Rebecca's prints on certain items.
You have to think SEQUENCE and TIMING of glove use, wiping down DNA/prints, and then purposefully using Rebecca hands to imprint DNA/prints on items.
<modsnip>
- Status