Discussion in 'Rebecca Zahau Nalepa' started by arielilane, Sep 11, 2011.
1 When did SDSD first enter the residence?
2 When did the officer leave the bootprint and what was he doing at the time?
3 Does the message on the door still exist? Did they give a picture of it to the Zahou family, leading to their statement that it was not painted by Rebecca?
4 Did they allow anyone to enter the home, prior to the investigation starting/evidence gathering?
5 Is the evidence 'proving' suicide, still available?
6 Do all the investigators in the case agree that this was a suicide, or that Max's accident was fully explained?
For a start. ;-)
I thought I recall somewhere in the reports that there was still water on the floor of the bathroom where she supposedly took a shower. No mention though of at what time the wetness was noted. If she showered around 1:AM (when she missed the call) - or even 3:AM right before death - that's still a long time it seems to be for the shower water not to dry, even if it was noted early on around 7-8:AM. Of course,, if the bathroom shower was used later than that.......or also if a lot of water sprayed from the shower onto the floor - more than just the customary drippings from a person as they towel off - that might account for remaining wetness at such a later hour.
So when was the water noted by LE I wonder.
Your questions are good ones. I believe Neil Nalepa said he "witnessed" the message, meaning he saw a picture I guess. The other details of when various elements of the investigation happened are a bit cloudy.
A lot of water, as in 'did someone accost her while she was in the shower?'
and/or someone "cleaning up" afterwards.
I don't know if anyone else has posted this, but I found this little tidbit to be quite interesting:
Sunnie, I was just re-reading the LE powerpoint tonight and can answer a couple of your questions.
The ppt says that the Sheriff's Department arrived at 9:20 a.m..
In the same ppt It also refers to the bootprint belonging to a Police Officer. Members of the Sheriff's Department are called Sheriff's Deputy's or Deputy's. So I imagine that it was a Coronado PD that stepped out onto the balcony when LE first arrived on the scene.
Yeah, washing acrylic paint off of them. IMO
In the AR the ME stated he could not enter the bedroom to examine it, as the scene had not been processed. This was at 8 pm.
Now we know the pictures of the scene were taken at night, and the LE foot print was already there and the doors open. When did the footprint get left and what other evidence was disturbed before the scene was processed?
I hope I've put this link on the correct thread. It was posted by Fred Williams, Former Member, San Diego Crime Commission.
It states, in summary, that forensic science badly needs an overhaul. IMO this argues against San Diego LE's claim of their "ironclad" case ruling for Rebecca's suicide which relied on forensic science.
"Photo two – showing both doors closed – we believe the door on the left was blown closed by a breeze; the door on the right was secured with a bolt-type lock into the floor," [Lt.]Nesbit continued.
If I was a CSI, I'd be embarrassed & ashamed to offer the "breeze" as an excuse as to why the crime scene photographs did not depict the original, unaltered position of an item of evidence that was photographed (the balcony doors), especially after another officer (who was at the crime scene) had previously relayed information during a nationally televised SDSO press conference regarding the official findings of the investigation 12 days prior to the "breeze" excuse to the media.
Sgt. Nemeth stated on Sept. 2 during the SDSO PC (when the official results of the investigation were reported to the public) that "these doors were open at the time of the incident."
ETA: It begs the question of why are Lt. Nesbit's and Sgt. Nemeth's reports of the crime scene so divergent, in terms of the position of the balcony doors?
When iron corrodes, it forms rust.
Thank you for bringing this topic over here. Its very helpful to watch the PC again. I catch tidbits of info that I completely missed when I watched it the first time. I was paying less attention to the details, while waiting for the conclusion.
I mentioned in another post that there were pieces of evidence or photos not revealed. For instance, from the guest room scene, we were not shown a photo of Rebecca's cell phone, the red stain, or the towel in the hall.
We were also not shown a photo of the knife that AS used to cut Rebecca down. I wonder if there were red fibers in that photo?
So, if we can get a picture that proves closed vs open balcony doors, we know that the doors were touched. This means the entire crime scene was in essence compromised, as we do not know under what circumstances things were handled.
This would in fact potentially change the entire investigation and outcome of that investigation.
Since this is the case, I would think that Rebecca's death would have to be re-investigated, as that would prove that someone tampered with the evidence. Someone, (I am guessing LE here), entered the premesis prior to a search warrant being obtained and touvh/moved key pieces of evidence.
We have media footage from a News 8 helicopter that shows the balcony doors were closed @ 4:45 p.m. on July 13 (despite LE claims to the contrary).
We have numerous conflicting statements by LE officers regarding the balcony doors.
There is a boot-print on the balcony tiles that the SDSO says belongs to an officer (probably CPD).
The boot print on the balcony proves that the crime scene was contaminated.
The officer who wore the boots had to have walked across the crime scene bedroom in order to step out onto the balcony - therefore it's entirely possible that the entire crime scene bedroom may have also been contaminated in the process.
In the rope photo I can clearly see a boot print as well (next to the red rope on the carpet).
I agree with everything you are saying. But, and this is a big one... If we can get an independent picture, from one of the kids. From that day. A picture that shows the balcony. One that shows the rope/lack of rope. One that shows the doors. LE can not claim something that is not there. Phones time stamp a picture. It is another source. An independent source. It would lend credence to the videos (which LE dismisses due to the lack of clarity) and disprove what they have said.
It would prove contamination of the crime scene by LE.
jjenny - which particular photo? Help me out & save me some time!
I totally agree Sunnie!
This is something that Anne Bremner can pursue. I hope she's looking into it, for RZ's sake. What do you think? Do you think she might already know about the neighborhood kids taking pics, or should one of us contact her to give her a tip?
Separate names with a comma.