Max's Death - Dina's Independent Experts Summary Reports

[Jessica2012]

What medical information is that? You are stating it as if it is a fact.

@time- Respectfully, I was referring to what Dr. Peterson hypothesized. You don't think that's a lot? In my opinion, I think that a medical conclusion of an accident vs. one of homicide is A LOT of medical discrepency, and would need a lot of information to prove. But later in court, not now. I have written my statement is all my opinion.

 

[Jessica2012]

Reposting htis here from Trisha's Radio show with Rudoy as a guest

Meaning that the center of gravity did not match the conclusion in Rebecca's case? Or in Max's or both?

 

[Jessica2012]

I agree that the marks on his back look like they came from the scooter. But I disagree that a falling boy could 'drag' a scooter over the balcony rail with him. Scooters are very bottom heavy.

Imo, it was thrown or dropped over the railing after the boy fall. Maybe as a staging ploy. Or perhaps in anger.

Katy, in my opinion, if it was thrown over the railing after Maxie fell, it would not land in a perfect way on his back to make a symbol similar to the number 7 . Maybe the scooter was not involved at all in the fall, and the marks on it were made at an earlier point? Maybe the marks on Max's back were caused by some entirely different reason. I just don't think anyone would throw the scooter after he fell, even in anger.

 

[time]

@time- Respectfully, I was referring to what Dr. Peterson hypothesized. You don't think that's a lot? In my opinion, I think that a medical conclusion of an accident vs. one of homicide is A LOT of medical discrepency, and would need a lot of information to prove. But later in court, not now. I have written my statement is all my opinion.

Oh, ok. Thank you. I believe that Dr. Peterson realized he was wrong when the autopsy was done. Having said that, I believe he probaby changed his mind. Had he stuck with his opinion, then I think it still would have to be proven it was a homicide. Since the autopsy showed he was wrong, the only thing pertinent in my opinion concerning Dr. Peterson's original diagnosis is when did he tell that to Dina and Jonah. And, could what he said possibly be connected to Rebecca's death.

 

[screecher]

Thank you K_Z for your post. It is most informative, explained in the most simplest of terms, so even a matted hair-brain (just a term I sometimes use referring to myself LOL) should understand it.

 

[screecher]

It is my understanding that the medical information (and there is ALOT) which proves Maxie did not die the way Rebecca said he did ...

Link please

 

[screecher]

K_Z, did Maxie present with petechiae?

 

[time]

Meaning that the center of gravity did not match the conclusion in Rebecca's case? Or in Max's or both?

I'd have to relisten but I thought it didn't agree with Dr. Bove's report. I think they also had someone, maybe the same person, work on the dynamics of Rebecca's case. I'm guessing but possibly the bed frame movement and the whole balcony, going over the rail possibilities.

 

[katydid23]

Link please

I think her 'link' is in the subject title of this thread.

 

[Jessica2012]

Oh, ok. Thank you. I believe that Dr. Peterson realized he was wrong when the autopsy was done. Having said that, I believe he probaby changed his mind. Had he stuck with his opinion, then I think it still would have to be proven it was a homicide. Since the autopsy showed he was wrong, the only thing pertinent in my opinion concerning Dr. Peterson's original diagnosis is when did he tell that to Dina and Jonah. And, could what he said possibly be connected to Rebecca's death.

@time- I agree with you, even if Dr.Peterson had stuck with his opinion, it would still in my opinion have to be proven to be a homicide. I think if there is a re investigation into these cases, what Dr. Peterson hypothesized would be pertinent if the spinal cord contusion is proved not to be the cause of death in Maxie's case, and as you said, when he told Jonah and Dina in Rebecca's case. My opinion

 

[screecher]

Has it been established with certainty who put together/ authored the "Summary of Reports"?

Angela Hallier?

Nah. No author/authoress.

They're thinking/hoping we're all dumber than dirt and wouldn't know what to do with a pail of nails with a hammer along side it.

 

[time]

@time- I agree with you, even if Dr.Peterson had stuck with his opinion, it would still in my opinion have to be proven to be a homicide. I think if there is a re investigation into these cases, what Dr. Peterson hypothesized would be pertinent if the spinal cord contusion is proved not to be the cause of death in Maxie's case, and as you said, when he told Jonah and Dina in Rebecca's case. My opinion

I'm a bit confused how that would come about, even Dr. Melinek agree with the cause of death. Or are you saying, no matter what Dr. Peterson would be called to testify? Or that some other pathologist will come along and claim some different cause of death that we have yet to hear from?

 

[Jessica2012]

I'm a bit confused how that would come about, even Dr. Melinek agree with the cause of death. Or are you saying, no matter what Dr. Peterson would be called to testify? Or that some other pathologist will come along and claim some different cause of death that we have yet to hear from?

@time- this is all purely my opinion and speculation so please take it as such
In my opinion, Dr. Melinek agrees with the cause of death in the original report (which is Anoxic/Ischemic Encephalopathy) but she does not agree with the manner of death. In other words, how the Anoxic/Ischemic Encephalopathy came about. In my opinion, they may question whether the spinal contusion causing cardiopulmonary arrest is what led to Maxie's brain death. I am not saying no matter what Dr. Peterson will be called to testify. Dr. Peterson is not a forensic pathologist. They would have to bring in a new pathologist in Maxie's case regardless because of the information obtained through autopsy. Dr. Peterson in my opinion may only be called in Maxie's case if they want to question for the record why he had the opinion that he did. I'm not a lawyer though, and I have absolutely no legal knowledge I do agree with you about Rebecca's case that he may be called to state when he stated his opinion to Jonah and Dina.

 

[screecher]

Link please

I think her 'link' is in the subject title of this thread.

I think not.

The scenario put forth in the summary report is a theory.

Where is the evidence? Where are the facts? Where is the proof.

Oh. Okay.

No link.

 

[time]

Maybe I am just having a brain blip here, but do we have this document?

Expert Report by Mark A. Gomez

 

[time]

The Summary Report describes some back injuries as critical to the assumption of an assault.

In the official autopsy report (page 9) there are quite a few abrasions described as healing or scabbed on Max's back. Some of the injuries are described as having a brown healing scab. I cannot see that his back injuries would have done any healing, but then again I am not a medical expert. I am wondering if these are different injuries than what they are talking a bout in this report. A picture of Max's back (hospital) shown on Dr. Drew did not look like injuries from a railing to me. many of them were vertical not horizontal, but they went by quickly so IDK.

Here is a sample from the autopsy:

TORSO:

On the mid thoracic back there is a vertically oriented 5 1/2 inch x 3/4 inch array of healing abrasions and thin, brown scabs. ... Also on the midline over the upper lumbar back there is a 1/14/ inch x 2/8 inch diameter brown, healing scab.

I very perplexed at how they propose an assault scenario (saying it had to happen because of injuries he could not have sustained during the fall) and then proceed to say "He was either lifted over the banister or (he) escaped over the banister, falling down to the front entry way." If he could have escaped from someone or a dog, let's say, then why couldn't he do that with no one present?

Furthermore, in one scenario they present Max as backing into the banister as the conclusion as he was escaping someone - why wouldn't any discussion of perhaps playing with the dog be entertained?

And how do they magically come to the conclusion at the end that this was not only a homicide but that Rebecca did it? Is Dr. Melinik qualified, as a pathologist, to make the sorts of comments on RZ having direct involvement? I have never heard of a pathologist doing this, period.

If anyone wants to tackle trying to match the scooter or the railing to the injuries on Max's back, here are some possible measurements.

For me, it's the angle shown and the marks that possible match the scooter (wheels?) that are most telling. I don't see how that angle would correspond at all to the staircase elements/banister.

 

[bourne]

If anyone wants to tackle trying to match the scooter or the railing to the injuries on Max's back, here are some possible measurements.

For me, it's the angle shown and the marks that possible match the scooter (wheels?) that are most telling. I don't see how that angle would correspond at all to the staircase elements/banister.

Thanks for the info. Do we also have the measurements of the bannister?

I wonder if the official ME report had experts do a 3D comparison of the bannister, scooter, and Max's injuries?

 

[time]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=25619&d=1344902216

Reposting this - What Dr. Bove has to say about Max's back injuries. Interesting.

 

[time]

Thanks for the info. Do we also have the measurements of the bannister?

I wonder if the official ME report had experts do a 3D comparison of the bannister, scooter, and Max's injuries?

I think those are in Dr. Bove's report?

 

[bourne]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=25619&d=1344902216

Reposting this - What Dr. Bove has to say about Max's back injuries. Interesting.

Dr. Bove basically says that the back injuries were "superficial", and could have happened at any time, with any object or multiple objects, not necessarily flat. He outright states that "the abrasions and bruising on his back could have been sustained at different times due to contact with different structures."

So I don't understand why Dr. Melinek definitively stated in her report that Max only sustained the back '7' from the bannister! Even her own co-expert stated the ambiguous nature of where, when, and with what different objects Max could have came into contact with. Why did Dr. Melinek push the bannister as the only object? Dr. Melinek's conclusion is so wrong on so many different levels!