Talk:Death of Rebecca Zahau

Clarifying Overview Section

Hi Wikipedians, long time reader, first time writer. In the Overview Section, it says "On July 11, 2011, Zahau and Max Shacknai were at the Spreckels Beach House along with Zahau's teenage sister Xena when Shacknai’s son Max fell over a second-floor banister." This sentence doesn't make sense, as it names Max twice. I think the first Max may have been a typo, and that Jonah's name should have been used instead. However, upon reviewing the source named immediately after, it says that Zahau was the only adult home, so the whole sentence may be incorrect. I know this case is controversial, and I know little about it, so rather than making any edits of my own I will leave it up to whoever is more experienced and comes across this.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:4380:40B0:C9C8:14D3:5599:E228 (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

{{GOCE}}

Quill and Pen (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Restoring Unexplained deletions

User:Lefthandedkitten removed a disturbing amount of sourced material from this article, and then made a number of unsourced and controversial additions and alterations to the wording (including some tampering of language from the sources) that presented a POV slant on Zahau. Much of the questionable material has been removed, but I have now restored the properly sourced material, as well. Grandpallama (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Pet dog relevance??

Not sure what the point of mentioning the pet dogs she's had has to do with anything. Removing. Wikifier (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Fatal fall and sources

It was written the child took a life-threatening fall. This is inaccurate as the fall was fatal not life-threatening. It would have been a life-threatening fall, if the child had survived. The child did not survive making his fall a fatal one. As to the other comments about NPOV, I will leave that for others to decide. When I edited this article as part of the Copy Editor's Guild copy editing drive, I aimed to tighten sentences and improve writing. That's my goal when I am doing CE. I did attempt to maintain, and to add neutral sources, when I did the CE. Quill and Pen (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Edited during a Copy Editor's drive

A little late but I did edit this article as part of the GOCE drive. Quill and Pen (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Suicide and or other claims

The article has consistently stated Suicide as the cause of death since its inception. Temporarily several editors and IP's have attempted to redefine the cause of death based upon the outcome of a civil case brought against Adam Shacknai. This is both fundamentally a misunderstanding of what civil cases are (and judgements), and also what the actual outcome of the trial stated. At no point was "murder" an outcome of the trial, and you will find no instance of any reliable source using those words - a civil case cannot make those changes or claims. The attempt to frame the death as unexplained or somehow cast doubt on the suicide aspect remains a conspiracy theory. To suggest that a Sheriff and Coroner are unable to define the cause of death, or lack the standing to do so, is not only false it is in direct opposition to the facts. The investigation, and coroners report, are issued by the only legal entities able to.make those decisions barring an external agency being brought in (such as the FBI). The attempt to place multiple sources into the infobox to support multiple conflicting claims, while claiming "nuance" is a red herring. There is no nuance on the cause of death. The death certificate is final until it is revised following reinvestigation. The use of multiple sources to muddy the waters and create a synthetic argument that none of the individual articles state is WP:SYNTH and verging on WP:OR if not right over the line. Koncorde (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

To tackle a specific issue, the edit effectively claimed that the original jury decision stands. This unfortunately is based upon the opinion of the litigating attorney. To quote Greer

“That puts to rest the civil case. The jury verdict that came out finding [Adam Shacknai] guilty of murdering Rebecca Zahau in civil court still stands,” Greer said

However this is contradicted by other sources who aren't Greer. The LA Times makes it quite clear:

"Shacknai planned to appeal that verdict. But with the judgment vacated and the case dismissed, legally it is as if they never occurred. It was unclear what appeal, if any, is possible. But that clearly did not sit well with Shacknai, who bitterly complained about Greer, the judge, the trial and the outcome."

This is echoed in the San Diego Tribune:

"In a surprise move, the $5.1 million judgment imposed as a result of a lawsuit that blamed Adam Shacknai for the death of Rebecca Zahau in a Coronado mansion eight years ago was wiped out and the entire case dismissed after the family of the deceased woman reached a settlement with Shacknai’s insurance company."

They add for clarification:

"...it’s unclear what appeal if any is possible.The case was dismissed with prejudice --- meaning it can never be refiled — leaving nothing from which to file an appeal."

The vacated judgement concept is well established as is the meaning of "With Prejudice". The sources state unequivocally that not only is there no case to appeal (as it renders it as if no judgements were made) but that the arguments made, and prior outcomes have been vacated entirely. There is no nuance to this legally. Koncorde (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Koncorde: It's fair and accurate to state that the death was ruled a suicide, but removing any suggestion that cause of death is disputed is an overt violation of WP:BLPBALANCE. I definitely disagree with your assessment that there is no nuance. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It's fair and accurate, and that is the end of without reliable sources to say otherwise. To quote "balance", "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all.". I am not aware of sources to support a significant viewpoint. And certainly not a legal one. The dispute can dealt with within the article, but should not be treated with the same or equal weight of the actual coroner or legal authorities. Koncorde (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The dispute itself garnered significantly more news coverage than the suicide of Zahau. That it was disputed is arguably the reason this article even exists. I agree that the legal opinion is very relevant, but so is dispute. I'm going to specifically note that court records are a primary source, and per WP:BLPPRIMARY Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. You need secondary sources that state that Zahau died by suicide, not simply that her death was ruled a suicide. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

1. I am not reliant upon the primary source, there are plenty of sources in the article dwscribing the death as suicide because that was the official finding. I refer to the coroner's report as clear shorthand for the vast array of sources all stating that her death was ruled a suicide by the coroner, and you have even stated above that it is fair and accurate statement. The family are specifically going to court to overturn the finding of suicide (though that has gone silent since the settlement). 2. Your argument makes no sense and misrepresents Primary source use, but for basics here are four dating back to 2011.[1][2][3][4] Koncorde (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You should review WP:SECONDARY, specifically what it means for a source to be secondary: A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. Two of those sources do not state that she committed suicide, only that her death was an "alleged suicide" or "ruled a suicide". Three of the sources mention the dispute, which lends credence to the fact that this article is unbalanced. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, at this point I am no longer taking you seriously. You are purposely trying to misrepresent Wikipedia policy and void as many articles that reference the outcome that you have accepted is "fair and accurate" and have yet to present a single source to support "disputed" from an actual RS that would overrule the coroner. I'll wait for a third opinion that I have requested from BLP noticeboard because your stance is a joke. Koncorde (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy with a 3PO. I understand your position, and I genuinely hope you read up on secondary sources. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That interpretation makes no sense. It both would rule basic facts as unknowable without an "opinion" being expressed as to the truth. For example: if the Queen died today, and the BBC reported "today, the Queen died" by your interpretation of "own thinking" we would never be able to verify what is a basic observable fact at the Primary Source, or in the RS of the BBC. That stance would call into question every single observable fact reported in this case (and pretty much all others) where they are taking information directly from primary sources, verifying, and repeating. Koncorde (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources: International Business Times, "Generally Unreliable"

Just going through some of the sources for some of the claims etc and have noticed a lot is attributed to the International Business Times. A couple of issues crop up here:

• 1. All of these links appear to be dead, it appears they have renamed their web pages. I will attempt to find and replace the URL for each article.
  2. The IBT is found "generally unreliable". I am not sure if there is anything sourced solely to the IBT, but where possible will try and ensure a second or third alternative source is also presented.

I have particular concerns over the "death" section which seems to be WP:SYNTH, blending a mix of claims by coroner, witness (Adam Shacknai), family, and speculation. It probably needs reorganising into a better logical progression segregating before her death, Adam Shacknai's testimony, then what was discovered post, and the outcome of the autopsy and investigation last. At present autopsy information and speculation is being included within all three parts creating an odd loop of information. Koncorde (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Death of Max Shacknai

Curious for feedback; it seems Dina Shacknai/Romano paid for her own independent investigators who concluded that Max had been "killed". She subsequently made pleas to reinvestigate. So while it seems that a lot of attention has been placed on Zahau, should we cover more of the Max Shacknai case also in this article? Is it worth making this a "Deaths of Rebecca Zahau and Max Shacknai" article? Some links to articles are provided, some are significantly less reliable than others but all seem to be covering largely the same topics, and quoting the same interviews and experts. Seems oddly omitted otherwise (given the large quantity of speculation already reported in what is a laundry list of conspiracy theories). [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Koncorde (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Page needs a major edit

The story jumps back and forth between calling Jonah Shacknai both “Shacknai” and “Jonah”. I think it happened with Adam Shacknai, also, and possibly the son, Max. When there’s this many people in a story with the same last name, it gets too confusing. I had to read it over a few times to figure out who it was talking about. If possible, it would help to consistently use the same name, preferably the first name. I don’t know how to edit, yet. I will to, as I have extensive information on many things. This is a good site and I love contributing knowledge. In the meantime, I hope I have placed my suggestion properly on the page and someone can make the edits I mentioned, until I learn how. It will help the reader better follow this unusual and complex mystery. KarmaCar (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully the changes I have made have fixed this for you, but if anything is unclear or if you need any help editing just let me know. Koncorde (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)