Rebecca Zahau Wrongful death trial begins. Trial coverage and discussion #3

[MyBelle]

Interesting to read this again after so long - especially after not appearing in court this week to testify in regards to his own autopsy report. I guess this would have been his testimony?

I think Lucas' last comment apparently was an assumption rather than fact. If he had testified, I think he would be more emphatic in his disagreeing because Dr. Wecht testified he did NOT look at the "entire totality of the investigation."

Dr. Wecht's opinion is as a pathologist solely based on autopsy. Dr. Lucas and Dr. Davis both examined the LE component in conjunction with the AR as a ME is expected to do. Manner of death can't be determined without the LE investigative component.

 

[MyBelle]

I don't understand why AS would be trying to take her pulse at her wrist when he is removing the gag from her mouth, giving CPR, up by her face...why not check her pulse in her neck? That rope had been cut and should have been loose I would think.

Perhaps because the rope was cut but not the noose around her neck.

 

[stmarysmead]

I do remember hearing something about the gloves, but in my recollection it was not Caitlin rother on Tricia’s podcast. It was on under the gavel podcast. I think last Thursday’s episode. But I will say that the reporters on that podcast seem to have a very different view about various testimony than I have read from sleuthers and Caitlin rother who were in court.

Sorry. I just checked the podcast and apparently I am wrong. I don’t recall where I had heard this. I’ve looked at so many articles etc about this case that it all gets jumbled in my head sometimes. Sorry.

Thank you. It was on Tricia’s podcast because that’s the only one I had watched until today. But thank you for mentioning the Under the Gavel podcast. It’s definitely a must watch! Thanks so much!

 

[Red Cross Jan]

Under The Gavel link: https://player.fm/series/under-the-gavel/the-rebecca-zahau-case-episode-1-the-beginning

It seems unbiased from what I've heard so far, and that's important.

 

[Verboten]

So that's no then. :tyou:

Right! And, guess what...the jury actually did also hear where DNA *should* have been found, but wasn't. Absence of evidence... and all that.

 

[Verboten]

I recall he did in his deposition...it was read out in court.

Edited to add ( when questioned by Greer re the pulse aspect AS denied loosening the ropes. Greer then brought in his deposition and made a point of him stating he had loosened the ropes )

(To the best of my recollection - my notes say ‘AS depo admits loosening / testimony says no’ )

And, he also said in his polygraph he MOVED something, (wasn't sure if it was ropes or what...) out of the way to take pulse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppRDQ7yfymg&feature=youtu.be Also, watch his hands when he demonstrates in court (while refusing to say loosened) how hard he had to work his fingers UNDER the ropes. And, remember that the statements he makes in closest proximity to the event and before he has had coaching, are considered to be the more accurate statements by LE. I know I'm a broken record on this, but it's because others are a broken record about assuming that tampered with ropes represent some scientific indication of how the body was initially found.

 

[BBL]

Quote Originally Posted by K_Z View Post
Another couple observations I have that are hopefully not lost on the jury.

Rebecca was *actually* interviewed by a psych specialist at the time of Max's accident. That person testified in court that there were no concerns about Rebecca's words or demeanor, feelings, suicidal warning signs, etc. That individual is an expert in CRISIS psychology, and was called to ride along to the scene, IIRC

Respectfully snipped-



Yes! This reminded me of something in JS’s testimony. He testified that he and Rebecca had been seeing a counselor about how to make the family work. This surprised me because I imagined this counselor would have a good idea of how Rebecca and JS both were coping with the situation. Does anyone know if this counselor JS alleged they were seeing was ever questioned about Rebecca?

I think both of these points are very valid. IMO, the opinions from experts that had actually talked with Rebecca trumps any casual pontification. I hope Greer can really hit this point home. Thank you for bringing this forward again.

 

[Jessica2012]

Another couple observations I have that are hopefully not lost on the jury.

Rebecca was *actually* interviewed by a psych specialist at the time of Max's accident. That person testified in court that there were no concerns about Rebecca's words or demeanor, feelings, suicidal warning signs, etc. That individual is an expert in CRISIS psychology, and was called to ride along to the scene, IIRC.

The psych specialist who testified for the defense never met Rebecca, never spoke to her, or her family, or friends. And presumably also never spoke to the crisis psych specialist who *actually* spoke to Rebecca hours before her death. This defense psych expert offered "squishy psych" opinions about remote, heresay, and second hand information as if they were as factual as a lab result.

An actual medical examiner who conducted an actual autopsy of Rebecca testified for the plaintiffs, and discussed and defended his work and his opinions in this case.

A medical examiner from 1000+ miles away who never worked in California, or San Diego, who did not work with Dr. J. Lucas, who never conducted any autopsy or tissue exams of Rebecca, testified *about* the autopsy report done by J. Lucas, for the defense. He could not testify ABOUT the autopsy-- he testified about the REPORT prepared by J.Lucas. And J. Lucas did not testify at all.

Unless the jury was told J.Lucas wasn't available, and no one else from the SD ME's office was available, or that the ME who did the autopsy is dead or something, the jury should *wonder* about that. Why did the defense call this ME to talk about someone else's autopsy report?? Why didn't the author show up and discuss his work? (I think we all know the answers to that, but I hope the jury is inquisitive and thoughtful.)

The crisis counselor was with Rebecca for abou 1 1/2 hours immediately after Max’s accident. She was not there to be a crisis counselor, and was not “on the job” at the time. It was also immediately after the accident. IIRC, she rode to Sharp with Rebecca. Of course Rebecca would not have been suicidal at that time - she was most likely still in shock.

Part of the jury’s instructions are to not consider anything outside of what was seen and admittied into court. Even what the lawyers say cannot be considered - only the witnesses called on behalf of the Plaintiff and Defendant. If the jurors are “wondering’ about things outside of that parameter, it could result in a mistrial. I doubt either side wants that.

 

[Jessica2012]

There can be no spilt judgement. If 6 vote innocent, and 6 vote guilty, the verdict will be innocent. It will take 9 Guilty votes for the Plantiffs to win.

 

[Seattle1]

These are great points K_Z.. You bring up very relevant observations that are quite easy to overlook. Thankyou.

My friend who was in court told me there was no reference made at all to the jury as to why Dr Lucas did not attend court. ( she has attended every day of the trial)

Under California law, the Medical Examiner is both required and empowered to determine the cause and circumstance of certain deaths (California Government Code Section 27491). After reading up on the Code, and just the "Investigative Report" (preface to AR), it became more clear to me why Dr. Lucas, the author of the AR, did not give evidence. IMO, Mr. Greer would be able to impeach Dr. Lucas as a witness by merely crossing him on the first 3 pages of the Investigative Report which begin: Medical Examiner's jurisdiction invoked according to the California Code 27491: Death due to known or suspected homicide. The Narrative further confirms that both the Medical Examiner Investigator (Dana Gary) and Deputy Medical Examiner (Dr. Lucas) did not arrive at the scene until 7:15pm, and that RZ naked, bound, body was not bagged and transported to ME office until after 8pm! Oh, and did I mention that the 911 scenario in the report directly contradicts AS testimony...

I'm just speculating but I believe had Dr. Lucas testified, and impeached by Mr. Greer during cross examination, Lucas would not have been dismissed (he's credible and authored the report) but rather the Judge would have to instruct the Jurors to disregard his testimony. Just imagine the Defense being told that the court will not credit the Medical Examiner witnesses testimony. There really was no way they could allow Dr. Lucas to take the stand. (It's called the falsus in uno charge).

https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/me/families/theprocess.html

 

[Jessica2012]

Thank you, Lash! Unbelievable, mixed DNA found on several pieces of evidence including under one of Rebecca’s fingernails and all un-interpretable.....:banghead:

Adam Shacknai’s DNA was specifically excluded from being a possible donor. The DNA technician testified to that.

 

[justice be served]

The crisis counselor was with Rebecca for abou 1 1/2 hours immediately after Max’s accident. She was not there to be a crisis counselor, and was not “on the job” at the time. It was also immediately after the accident. IIRC, she rode to Sharp with Rebecca. Of course Rebecca would not have been suicidal at that time - she was most likely still in shock.

Part of the jury’s instructions are to not consider anything outside of what was seen and admittied into court. Even what the lawyers say cannot be considered - only the witnesses called on behalf of the Plaintiff and Defendant. If the jurors are “wondering’ about things outside of that parameter, it could result in a mistrial. I doubt either side wants that.

1st BBM: Stating that the Crisis Counselor was not there to be a Crisis Counselor - Can you explain that please as I don’t understand why she was called to the scene then. Is her job as a Crisis Counselor?

The Crisis Counselor was not “on the job”? What was she there for? Does that mean no one called her and she just happened to pass by? Who called her then? Who does she work for?

I wasn’t even aware of this BTW so I am really needing to understand. If you can point me somewhere or generalize it that is fine too.

2nd BBM: If you are referencing the fact that the jurors may wonder why the ME didn’t provide backup for his own report and it was some non-related out of state ME just interpreting the report, then the jurors certainly may well think that. The jurors take in everything they hear or don’t hear – it is what happens in peoples' thought processes. It is called critical thinking. And those elements are certainly a big part of the parameters of this case.

3rd BBM: Why are you talking about a mistrial? Is there a reason that you are bringing that up now? Perhaps the defendants are now talking an alternative strategy to save their case? Just curious.

 

[clearskies1]

Honest question here, why didn’t Greer call the medical examiner? Is there some legal reason that he could not?

If Greer had identified the ME as one of his witnesses before trial, he could have called him to testify during his case-in-chief. Apparently, he did not list the ME as his own witness -- the defense apparently did though, but then ultimately did not call him to testify (as is their right). I don't think Greer could have called the him as a rebuttal witness (after the defense case) because, as I previously stated in response to your other question on this issue (see post # 231), I don't think the ME would have rebutted any of the defense's points.

 

[justice be served]

Under California law, the Medical Examiner is both required and empowered to determine the cause and circumstance of certain deaths (California Government Code Section 27491). After reading up on the Code, and just the "Investigative Report" (preface to AR), it became more clear to me why Dr. Lucas, the author of the AR, did not give evidence. IMO, Mr. Greer would be able to impeach Dr. Lucas as a witness by merely crossing him on the first 3 pages of the Investigative Report which begin: Medical Examiner's jurisdiction invoked according to the California Code 27491: Death due to known or suspected homicide. The Narrative further confirms that both the Medical Examiner Investigator (Dana Gary) and Deputy Medical Examiner (Dr. Lucas) did not arrive at the scene until 7:15pm, and that RZ naked, bound, body was not bagged and transported to ME office until after 8pm! Oh, and did I mention that the 911 scenario in the report directly contradicts AS testimony...

I'm just speculating but I believe had Dr. Lucas testified, and impeached by Mr. Greer during cross examination, Lucas would not have been dismissed (he's credible and authored the report) but rather the Judge would have to instruct the Jurors to disregard his testimony. Just imagine the Defense being told that the court will not credit the Medical Examiner witnesses testimony. There really was no way they could allow Dr. Lucas to take the stand. (It's called the falsus en uno charge).

https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/me/families/theprocess.html

Oh my gosh, that is so enlightening. Thank you and that is a very impressive finding. I knew that old excuse of not getting to the scene on time because of a seminar was going to come back and bite them! Frankly I think someone should have been charged.

 

[minorone]

It’s on Tricia’s interview with Caitlin Rother. IIRC it was the fingerprint expert. I was very surprised. I think the link to the SoundCloud is posted on the document thread.

The problem with the DNA/fingerprint evidence is that Adam's fingerprints and DNA are not even where they should be. And no evidence of gloves being used.

What is missing from this puzzle???

 

[clearskies1]

Were the three black gloves found latex gloves? Did they find a source for the gloves (i.e., a box of latex gloves) on the premises?

 

[MyBelle]

The crisis counselor was with Rebecca for abou 1 1/2 hours immediately after Max’s accident. She was not there to be a crisis counselor, and was not “on the job” at the time. It was also immediately after the accident. IIRC, she rode to Sharp with Rebecca. Of course Rebecca would not have been suicidal at that time - she was most likely still in shock.

Part of the jury’s instructions are to not consider anything outside of what was seen and admittied into court. Even what the lawyers say cannot be considered - only the witnesses called on behalf of the Plaintiff and Defendant. If the jurors are “wondering’ about things outside of that parameter, it could result in a mistrial. I doubt either side wants that.

Even if she had been there as a counselor, at that point there was no way to know the severity of the injury nor did she know about RZ's psychological history.

Max's mother's deposition said initially she really thought he'd be going home the following week and she talked to Jonah about resuming parenting time. She said Jonah told her she should thank RZ for saving Max and Dina said she was grateful. Later, a doctor told them that if Max survived he likely would not walk or talk. Dina said Jonah became so angry, he wanted the doctor fired. That is the point where I believe JS phoned RZ and left the message.

 

[Mica]

Adam Shacknai’s DNA was specifically excluded from being a possible donor. The DNA technician testified to that.

Yes, it blows my mind that anybody’s dna was excluded especially since the case was suspected to be a homicide by those seasoned investigators who first arrived at the scene. And then they followed with “all” mixed DNA evidence found to be un-interpretable. IMO, for many reasons the investigation was intentionally flawed.

 

[Mica]

Were the three black gloves found latex gloves? Did they find a source for the gloves (i.e., a box of latex gloves) on the premises?

One of the gloves was latex from what I read in a previous link I posted.

 

[Jessica2012]

1st BBM: Stating that the Crisis Counselor was not there to be a Crisis Counselor - Can you explain that please as I don’t understand why she was called to the scene then. Is her job as a Crisis Counselor?

The Crisis Counselor was not “on the job”? What was she there for? Does that mean no one called her and she just happened to pass by? Who called her then? Who does she work for?

I wasn’t even aware of this BTW so I am really needing to understand. If you can point me somewhere or generalize it that is fine too.

2nd BBM: If you are referencing the fact that the jurors may wonder why the ME didn’t provide backup for his own report and it was some non-related out of state ME just interpreting the report, then the jurors certainly may well think that. The jurors take in everything they hear or don’t hear – it is what happens in peoples' thought processes. It is called critical thinking. And those elements are certainly a big part of the parameters of this case.

3rd BBM: Why are you talking about a mistrial? Is there a reason that you are bringing that up now? Perhaps the defendants are now talking an alternative strategy to save their case? Just curious.

1.

Also taking the stand Monday was a counselor who happened to be with a Coronado police officer on the day that Max fell, and they went to the home.

The counselor is a member of the county’s Psychiactric Emergency Reponse Team, and was on a ride-along that day. She was not working in that capacity when they went to the Spreckles mansion, she testified.

When they arrived, Max had already been rushed to a hospital. The counselor, Karen Hancock, spent an hour and a half to two hours talking with Zahau. They were together at the hospital where the 6-year-old had been rushed, then Hancock returned with her to Shacknai’s father’s home, she testified Monday.

Hancock said Zahau was not tearful, but she was visibly upset.

“She was shaking most of the time,” Hancock said.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/courts/sd-me-zahau-day3-20180305-story.html

2. The jurors may not consider anything that is not admitted by Judge Bacall. To do otherwise is against the rules of the court.

3. If jurors do not follow the rules, and it is brought to the court’s attention, it could result in a mistrial.

I am just a poster on a sleuthing site. I have no window into the defense’s stratagy, although I doubt it would involve asking the jurors to break the rules of the court. JMO.