Originally Posted by justice be served
I am going to take a wild guess that this has not been Dr. Melinek's shining moment in her career. And one that she probably wishes she had not been roped into regardless of what she was paid.
I have to agree with you that Dr. Melinek's participation in reviewing Max's case has not been one of her proudest career moments.
I think Dr. Cyril Wecht, who is arguably a prominent and well respected forensic pathologist, also agrees that Dr. Melinek's opinions she rendered for Dina Shacknai are not one of her bright shining career moments.
I thought it was quite interesting to observe the interaction between Dr. Wecht and Dr. Melinek on the Dr. Phil show.
http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1874/
**Note- scroll down to Cyril Wecht's video. I'm unable to embed in this format.
In "doctor speak", Cyril Wecht was basically saying "what the heck are you doing here? You should be way better than this" to Judy Melinek. His demeanor says to me that he wanted to communicate to her that she had far overstepped her boundaries, and was acting foolishly for the level of professional she is supposed to be. The effusive praise of her education and professional accomplishments is the "tell" that he thinks she has gone way overboard with her professional opinions in Max's case. If he truly didn't respect where she SHOULD be coming from, he would have omitted all that. It was, for me, like watching a Morbidity and Mortality monthly meeting, where Wecht was the department chief criticizing a good colleague for doing something foolish or careless. Wecht was very professional-- he was, in essence, giving her an "out". She was mightily annoyed, but she "got" the message (rolled eyes). And Wecht rightly points out Melinek's own recent inconsistencies that she is backing away from her "Rebecca is the killer" and "this is a homicide."
Dr. Melinek has had several cases in addition to this one recently where she has been chastised for "reaching", and making improper inferential leaps in her role as an expert. (Burford v Glaxo Smith Kline, and the Hannah Overton case, to name two.)
She has a fantastic career, and has written some very scholarly works. She is well known for her teaching with residents. I think those are her professional strengths as a physician and pathologist. If she continues to participate in high profile cases where her controversial opinions appear frivolous, tabloid quality, or "bought and paid for", she risks her entire professional reputation.
But if Dina persists in her "Max was assaulted" line of thinking, I think we can look forward to hearing more of Dr. Melinek in a civil suit. But her comments will not be unopposed-- and this interaction with Cyril Wecht is a preview of what could be coming.
