Home › News › Other News
Daughter arrested in Simi Valley woman's killing
RELATED STORIES 
STORY TOOLS 
Police have arrested a 41-year-old woman on suspicion of killing her mother in Simi Valley yesterday, authorities said this afternoon.
Police found the body of Rose Weiss, 69, at her home on the 5300 block of Diane Street in Simi Valley about 2:44 p.m. Tuesday when they responded to a call asking them to check the welfare of a local resident, said Sgt. Adam Darough of the Simi Valley Police Department.
Weiss had been stabbed multiple times, Darough said.
Police later arrested Weiss's daughter, Lauren Donahue, in Santa Clarita.
Donahue was booked into Ventura County Jail today on suspicion of homicide.
Donahue does not have any known address, and police are listing her as a transient.
Detectives this afternoon had not determined what motivated the killing.
Detectives are not saying how they identified Donahue as the suspect, how they found her in Santa Clarita or if anyone lived with Weiss in the house on Diane Street, Darough said.
Anyone with information about the crime can call the Simi Valley Police Department's tip line at 583-6984.
Posted by jbinford on February 6, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Noah_Bennet did more investigating then the Star and got more info about the suspect. You might want to send them your resume you did a better job finding out what's going on then they did! I'm sure if it was posted on the Sheriff's web site they would have caught it to.
Posted by ca4ever on February 6, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How did you obtain information on the Court Site with no birth date
Posted by speedracer_chance on February 6, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ca4ever all you do is a name search.
Posted by bmclean , Moderator, on February 6, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Donohue is the name we received on the Simi Valley Police Department press release. We're double checking. We try to get these things out to you guys ASAP, so it's not always perfect.
Bruce McLean
Site Manager
Posted by BeaHappi on February 6, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gosh, how sad!
Posted by ca4ever on February 6, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sounds like this one had a serious drug problem and with all of those cases being dismissed who knows if her mother would still be alive if she was actually convicted of all of them. SAD
Posted by Jocko on February 6, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow Bruce, no offense here.
Posted by djh329 on February 6, 2008 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Take a chill pill Bruce.
You are in the limelight.
I think you do a fine job.
Posted by bmclean , Moderator, on February 6, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No chill pill necessary and no offense taken. I just wanted to let you guys know what had happened and that we were looking into the discrepancy. If the big font made it seem as if I was peeved, I wasn't. That's just the way our system treats moderator comments.
Carry on.
Bruce
Posted by jennilsh on February 6, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bruce,
Why did you edit my commet on the original story when I mentioned that the daughter was the rumored suspect?
Posted by brinkhlm on February 6, 2008 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Speedracer... I believe you are wrong... you can NOt do a name search on the court website under the criminal section, they do ask for your birthdate
Posted by brinkhlm on February 6, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Noah Bennett, Can you give me the link to the sherriff website, when I go there, it's asking for a name and date of birth.. Do they have to be in custody to view that site?
Posted by bmclean , Moderator, on February 6, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jennilsh, it was a tough call. I'll tell you it was not done lightly and a discussion among editors took place. At the time, we didn't know who the suspect was. We took the view that if the daughter was not a suspect, we wouldn't want her to be implicated by a false rumor, especially one involving a homicide. And I think you or anyone else implicated in a murder by a rumor on a web site would want the same courtesy extended to you. Obviously the rumor turned out to be true, but at the time we didn't know that. I realize we'll take some flack for this, but there you go.
Bruce
Posted by brinkhlm on February 6, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jennilsh, I can't believe you would ask the editor why they edited it, what you said was only a rumor not the facts at that time of the article.
Posted by jennilsh on February 6, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bruce,
Thank you for the honest response. I know it is a tough call, but a suspect is a suspect--innocent until proven guilty. I made it very clear in my post that it was a rumored suspect (I didnt even mention a name). Obviously you have to be diplomatic and CYA, as this is a sensitive subject. Either way, this is a very sad situation and I hope the family finds the strength to endure.
Posted by BeaHappi on February 6, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bruce - I think it's cool that you take the time to respond to these questions and to set the record straight...even if it means you'll take some heat for it.
Thanks for doing the job that you do!
I love the people who complain about the STAR but then keep on reading and commenting.
Posted by eggsorpancakes on February 6, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bruce had to err on the side of caution jennilsh. He did the right thing. I'd hate to see myself as a "rumoured" suspect somewhere when I did nothing wrong. It's nice to see a media outlet be careful!
Posted by jennilsh on February 6, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
brinkhlm---
1)have you ever heard of the first amendment?
2)the rumor was about a suspect (and turns out the rumored suspect is THE ACTUAL suspect). Suspects are innocent until proven guilty. No where did I mention anyones name or implicate the guilt of the suspect. I knew for a fact that the police knew who they were looking for (because one of the many detectives I spoke with TOLD ME they knew). I asked Bruce why he edited my comment and then turned around and wrote an article saying the SAME THING I had said because I thought they just didnt want me spoiling their story in my previous post.
Posted by eggsorpancakes on February 6, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jennilsh...please...I don't understand why you are making a big deal out of this. Why does it matter to you so much? You were right and that's great, however there got to be something out there that is more interesting to discuss...
Posted by santabarbarasand on February 6, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jennilsh, grow up. They didn't censor you, they monitored what information was released VIA their newspaper site. That is good business because your commments would have been attached to their site and had you been wrong, they would have to explain it to a lot more people. You were sharing a rumor about a very serious issue and he was right to remove it. It is not a violation of your right to free speech, you could have put it on your myspace account or blogged it online somewhere and nobody could have touched it. However, they have rights over their website and what information is listed and if they edited you because they hadn't released the story yet, they didn't do anything wrong.
Think about how upset you would be if someone spread a rumor about you via a news website and if it was a false story, how you would be able to hold the newspaper liable for allowing that to be posted through them. Get over it.
Posted by jennilsh on February 6, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you read what I wrote--- I thanked Bruce for his honesty and understand the fact that he has to be diplomatic in these situations. I asked the moderator why he censored me and then posted the same information. I asked because I was wondering if they already knew and were trying to keep me from spoiling their story. THAT IS ALL.
This could go into a long first amendment debate, but I dont care that my comment was removed..I just wondered WHY and then was asked "why would you even ask" and wanted to justify a reason why someone might ask.
These events are very upsetting. I feel very bad for the family and everyone that was involved. I'll tell you that it was a very tramatic experience for everyone even remotely involved (and probably to everyone that is even reading this story as it hits so close to home). Imagine the scene as we were instructed to stay inside our houses while police took blood swabs off the walk way in front of our homes, all the while wondering if there was a murderer running around the neighborhood.
I am glad they have the suspect in custody and I mourn for their family. Domestic violence is all too prevalent in our society.
Posted by rnlulu1 on February 6, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And back to the story... this suspect is only one of two daughters and a son that Rose Weiss had if she is the rose Weiss I spoke of earlier. The other daughter is also named Rose and the son was Chuck who died working as a mercenary in Iraq. Rose's husband was murdered mafia style 29 years ago. Quite a tragic sotry all around
Posted by speedracer_chance on February 6, 2008 at 8:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
brinkhlm
actually i am NOT wrong... When i do a search under that database i was able to find it with out a date of birth...
But thanks for trying to prove me wrong.
Posted by brinkhlm on February 7, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Speedracer... are you trying to say that you could do a search on the county court website, without a date of birth? I already know on the Sheriff site you can do that if they are in custody, DUH! I did prove you wrong. On the court web site, you need a date of birth to look up any criminal cases
And for Jennilsh... I think you have had your turn on here a little too much. Yes we all know what the first amendment is.. and I really think you should let it go...
Posted by sophie91 on February 8, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh no the Venture County Media made another error, in getting facts streight, I am not surprized. All the facts and information gather in several articles that I have read were all incorrect,or inaccurate that jbinford, is correct start sending in your resumes.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.