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

[JBean]

Links to back up your statements about Wecht please. My father worked with him on several cases and had the utmost respect for him, professionally and personally.

I think there are those that do not have respect for Wecht since he was investigated by the FBI and tried for corruption,bank fraud, wire fraud and dozens and dozens of other counts. It was ultimately a mistrial of course- but prosecutors really wanted to try him again. But when the judge suppressed a lot of the evidence- it became futile to retry him and charges were dropped.
here is some background information

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/uncategorized/the-prosecution-of-cyril-h-wecht-377785/

We do not want to sidetrack the thread and Wecht has not been found guilty of anything and he is respected overall.

However there are certainly other public figures that do not respect him for some things and let's just leave it at that.

 

[K_Z]

I still wonder about Dr. Melinek's use of cited sources. How anyone would consider them credible is beyond me. What troubles me even more than that is the fact that Dr. Bove didn't ever state the same findings yet his report is touted along with hers. Where was Dr. Bove in all of the MSM interviews? Why haven't we heard from him? Dr. Melinek had no problem appearing on MSM...but Dr. Bove, nothing. I'd really like to hear the reasoning behind that.

Always, MOO

I thoroughly agree with your observations, inthedark14. I'd like to hear the reasoning behind not using Dr. Bove, also, in her media appearances. I have my own ideas about why she has chosen not to use Dr. Bove. He is actually the more credible of the 2 reports, imo-- however, he was clearly directed to ONLY run the numbers for Dina and Dr. Melinek's scenario, as opposed to investigating multiple scenarios that could explain how Max fell. I think his contract with Dina was very specific to do this one thing only. HOwever, I also think that a lot of people disagree with the Gomez diagram of how Max fell. There are many mechanisms of fall that could have occurred, especially ones using the evidence from the scooter and newel post damage. I would have liked to see multiple scenarios examined in Dr. Bove's report. That would have been very interesting, and possibly explained a lot. However, other scenarios don't support Dina's ideas about assault. So, it's not a big leap to see that Dr. Bove was quite constrained in the work product he was contracted to perform for Dina.

(Bringing a portion of my post #159 in this thread forward, originally posted 8-13-12)

If we consider Dr. Melinek’s report commissioned by Dina Shacknai, the concerns about the use of Dr. Melinek's cited sources and references in her opinion, such as a People Magazine article, personal memorial photobooks, multiple discussions from an anonymous, non-professional, (and hate filled) internet chat forum, and Wikipedia articles, becomes rather magnified in significance, IMO.

IMO, Dr. Melinek’s opinion written for DS would have much more weight, and relevance, if she had referenced even a single forensic text, website, or professional journal article as part of her opinion that an assault happened. We already know that it was Dr. Melinek’s opinion that an assault may have occurred that shaped and framed the analyses of Dr. Bove.

It appears from these sources (and others with identical wording) that Dr. Melinek completed her review first, and then proposed her scenario to Dr. Bove, the second independent expert retained by Dina Shacknai (DS).

“Bove reported that Melinek proposed a scenario in which the boy was assaulted and "moved or was moved" over the railing, according to the press statement.”

http://wtop.com/209/2457746/Mother-o...eks-new-probe-

“Dr. Bove reports, "Dr. Melinek has proposed a scenario in which Maxfield Shacknai was assaulted, which resulted in the facial and forehead injuries sustained by Maxfield Shacknai. In her scenario, as a result of this assault…..”

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/06/469...dependent.html

Dr. Bove was directed, imo, in his work to take a speculative inference, and run the numbers until they fit well enough that he said “uncle”. After several days of reading, I believe he was NOT given complete license to run the numbers on many DIFFERENT scenarios; rather, only the target scenario of the theory of assault. I think it is very noteworthy that Dr. Bove is not willing to say anything intentional happened. He breaks ranks with Dr. Melinek at that point in the process.

So, we are left with the question, has Dr. Melinek, once again, made an improper inferential leap? To what extent did the People Magazine article, anonymous internet forum discussions, and Wikipedia articles contribute to this improper inferential leap? This is little more than rumor and innuendo. What percentage of Dr. Melinek’s opinion rests on these sources?

Surely an opposing attorney will ask many, many questions about how she processed and interpreted, and assigned relevance to the anonymous, unsubstantiated internet forum discussions, and Wikipedia and People articles.

Surely Dr. Melinek must understand on some level how terribly embarrassing that line of questioning would be for her professionally in a deposition or in court—so the question begs, why??

Why include frivolous, unsubstantiated, unreliable, anonymous sources in this report? Why not run the scenario instead past several of her established professional colleagues, and include them by name in her report? I was right there with her in the report—right up until the People magazine citation. From that point on, I was simply baffled that she would even admit that she read or received the blog discussions, Wiki entries, etc. It’s like she started writing a scholarly review of the case records, but then digressed into a middle school social studies project.

It’s not the caliber and quality I would expect from a professional at her level, IMO. If I were a jury member, I’d want to hear a whole lot of explanation about why those sources were somehow better than using established scholarly professional references to support her opinions. It feels like “junk science”—that’s the best description I can give. An improper inferential leap.

 

[time]

I thoroughly agree with your observations, inthedark14. I'd like to hear the reasoning behind not using Dr. Bove, also, in her media appearances. I have my own ideas about why she has chosen not to use Dr. Bove. He is actually the more credible of the 2 reports, imo-- however, he was clearly directed to ONLY run the numbers for Dina and Dr. Melinek's scenario, as opposed to investigating multiple scenarios that could explain how Max fell. I think his contract with Dina was very specific to do this one thing only. HOwever, I also think that a lot of people disagree with the Gomez diagram of how Max fell. There are many mechanisms of fall that could have occurred, especially ones using the evidence from the scooter and newel post damage. I would have liked to see multiple scenarios examined in Dr. Bove's report. That would have been very interesting, and possibly explained a lot. However, other scenarios don't support Dina's ideas about assault. So, it's not a big leap to see that Dr. Bove was quite constrained in the work product he was contracted to perform for Dina.

(Bringing a portion of my post #159 in this thread forward, originally posted 8-13-12)

If we consider Dr. Melinek’s report commissioned by Dina Shacknai, the concerns about the use of Dr. Melinek's cited sources and references in her opinion, such as a People Magazine article, personal memorial photobooks, multiple discussions from an anonymous, non-professional, (and hate filled) internet chat forum, and Wikipedia articles, becomes rather magnified in significance, IMO.

IMO, Dr. Melinek’s opinion written for DS would have much more weight, and relevance, if she had referenced even a single forensic text, website, or professional journal article as part of her opinion that an assault happened. We already know that it was Dr. Melinek’s opinion that an assault may have occurred that shaped and framed the analyses of Dr. Bove.

It appears from these sources (and others with identical wording) that Dr. Melinek completed her review first, and then proposed her scenario to Dr. Bove, the second independent expert retained by Dina Shacknai (DS).
<snipped>

Thank you for a great post.

PURPLE - I have also wondered if Dr. Bove did not want to do any media interviews. He did step forward at one point (article) and say he did not conclude it was an assault, I think. I'm betting he was a bit horrified when Dina and Melinek started conducting their interviews and was especially disturbed when he saw the first 'Summary of Reports' come out (written by Hallier?) using his work to support the assault theory and such. He was quoted extensively in that synthesis of the two reports (and interesting what was left out), while Melinek was only quoted like 3-5 times. Yes, it truly became 'junk science' when put together.

And, I think Melinek's report was junk science to begin with and was not extensive enough (in the report anyway) to support anything. It appears as if Melinek thinks her opinion is so valuable, she just can wave her hand and interject a few sentences claiming something and it should darn well be believed. If those few pages were all she wrote up, then it seems she didn't put much time into it in the first place. A shame when pointing the finger to someone who was violently murdered in the course of all this and given that any belief there was foul play in Max's death could have been a motive to murder Rebecca. I think Melinek's unprofessionalism and precarious involvement along with a junk science Summary of reports has strengthened the fact that there was motive to kill Rebecca and muddied the waters on an explanation for Max's accidental death. It's a shame.

 

[time]

Wecht has long been a joke to prosecutors and law enforcement, and the feeling is probably mutual, imo.

I don't believe Dr. Melinek has ever been indicted or prosecuted nor do I believe Wecht has ever had the Cali Attorney General as a client.

JMO

Melinek has, as others have pointed out, a very similar and recent case on record. I have no idea why the CA AG is of any importance here. Are you saying she has to be bad enough that she would not be asked to lend her expertise on any where? Maybe that is coming. If this is how she operates, then I'm hoping it does.

 

[Inparadise]

I thoroughly agree with your observations, inthedark14. I'd like to hear the reasoning behind not using Dr. Bove, also, in her media appearances. I have my own ideas about why she has chosen not to use Dr. Bove. He is actually the more credible of the 2 reports, imo-- however, he was clearly directed to ONLY run the numbers for Dina and Dr. Melinek's scenario, as opposed to investigating multiple scenarios that could explain how Max fell. I think his contract with Dina was very specific to do this one thing only. HOwever, I also think that a lot of people disagree with the Gomez diagram of how Max fell. There are many mechanisms of fall that could have occurred, especially ones using the evidence from the scooter and newel post damage. I would have liked to see multiple scenarios examined in Dr. Bove's report. That would have been very interesting, and possibly explained a lot. However, other scenarios don't support Dina's ideas about assault. So, it's not a big leap to see that Dr. Bove was quite constrained in the work product he was contracted to perform for Dina.

(Bringing a portion of my post #159 in this thread forward, originally posted 8-13-12)

If we consider Dr. Melinek&#8217;s report commissioned by Dina Shacknai, the concerns about the use of Dr. Melinek's cited sources and references in her opinion, such as a People Magazine article, personal memorial photobooks, multiple discussions from an anonymous, non-professional, (and hate filled) internet chat forum, and Wikipedia articles, becomes rather magnified in significance, IMO.

IMO, Dr. Melinek&#8217;s opinion written for DS would have much more weight, and relevance, if she had referenced even a single forensic text, website, or professional journal article as part of her opinion that an assault happened. We already know that it was Dr. Melinek&#8217;s opinion that an assault may have occurred that shaped and framed the analyses of Dr. Bove.

It appears from these sources (and others with identical wording) that Dr. Melinek completed her review first, and then proposed her scenario to Dr. Bove, the second independent expert retained by Dina Shacknai (DS).



http://wtop.com/209/2457746/Mother-o...eks-new-probe-



http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/06/469...dependent.html

Dr. Bove was directed, imo, in his work to take a speculative inference, and run the numbers until they fit well enough that he said &#8220;uncle&#8221;. After several days of reading, I believe he was NOT given complete license to run the numbers on many DIFFERENT scenarios; rather, only the target scenario of the theory of assault. I think it is very noteworthy that Dr. Bove is not willing to say anything intentional happened. He breaks ranks with Dr. Melinek at that point in the process.

So, we are left with the question, has Dr. Melinek, once again, made an improper inferential leap? To what extent did the People Magazine article, anonymous internet forum discussions, and Wikipedia articles contribute to this improper inferential leap? This is little more than rumor and innuendo. What percentage of Dr. Melinek&#8217;s opinion rests on these sources?

Surely an opposing attorney will ask many, many questions about how she processed and interpreted, and assigned relevance to the anonymous, unsubstantiated internet forum discussions, and Wikipedia and People articles.

Surely Dr. Melinek must understand on some level how terribly embarrassing that line of questioning would be for her professionally in a deposition or in court&#8212;so the question begs, why??

Why include frivolous, unsubstantiated, unreliable, anonymous sources in this report? Why not run the scenario instead past several of her established professional colleagues, and include them by name in her report? I was right there with her in the report&#8212;right up until the People magazine citation. From that point on, I was simply baffled that she would even admit that she read or received the blog discussions, Wiki entries, etc. It&#8217;s like she started writing a scholarly review of the case records, but then digressed into a middle school social studies project.

It&#8217;s not the caliber and quality I would expect from a professional at her level, IMO. If I were a jury member, I&#8217;d want to hear a whole lot of explanation about why those sources were somehow better than using established scholarly professional references to support her opinions. It feels like &#8220;junk science&#8221;&#8212;that&#8217;s the best description I can give. An improper inferential leap.

IMO, the "chastising" of Dr. Melinek by Dr. Wecht on Dr. Phil is only a sampling of what she will get on the witness stand by an attorney. I would not want to be her.....

 

[*Lash*]

I've always questioned how Dr. Melinek came to know about this particular forum and discussions? In my opinion, Melinek was directed to view this site by Dina. I don't believe Melinek just happened upon the LHK forum. This tells me Dr. Melinek, a professional, had the choice to exclude this information from her research. As a professional, she is definitely smart enough to know the bias of forum discussions. Melinek had the option not to review this information but chose to knowing the content of a forum is highly questionable. Very telling. I have never understood why Melinek did not dismiss reviewing this material.

 

[Inparadise]

I've always questioned how Dr. Melinek came to know about this particular forum and discussions? In my opinion, Melinek was directed to view this site by Dina. I don't believe Melinek just happened upon the LHK forum. This tells me Dr. Melinek, a professional, had the choice to exclude this information from her research. As a professional, she is definitely smart enough to know the bias of forum discussions. Melinek had the option not to review this information but chose to knowing the content of a forum is highly questionable. Very telling. I have never understood why Melinek did not dismiss reviewing this material.

IMO, if this ever gets to court, Melinek is going to be "harpooned" by the defense in depositions and on the witness stand, and rightfully so.

 

[MyBelle]

I've always questioned how Dr. Melinek came to know about this particular forum and discussions? In my opinion, Melinek was directed to view this site by Dina. I don't believe Melinek just happened upon the LHK forum. This tells me Dr. Melinek, a professional, had the choice to exclude this information from her research. As a professional, she is definitely smart enough to know the bias of forum discussions. Melinek had the option not to review this information but chose to knowing the content of a forum is highly questionable. Very telling. I have never understood why Melinek did not dismiss reviewing this material.

google the case and some forums pop up. It would be prudent to monitor all the public domain, including the Internet and I'm betting it is support staff for Dina's attorney rather than the doctor who is doing it. If there is a court-case, they may use some of them to obtain subpoenas for identities. Some of the stuff falls on the slippery-slope of libel.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

IMO, if this ever gets to court, Melinek is going to be "harpooned" by the defense in depositions and on the witness stand, and rightfully so.

Who do you expect to "harpoon" the doctor? She's an expert witness who believes a dead child is the victim of homicide. Only an incompetent lawyer would try to harpoon a forensic pathologist for merely standing up and seeking justice for an innocent dead child. Such a tactic would back-fire badly.

JMO

 

[Inparadise]

Who do you expect to "harpoon" the doctor? She's an expert witness who believes a dead child is the victim of homicide. Only an incompetent lawyer would try to harpoon a forensic pathologist for merely standing up and seeking justice for an innocent dead child. Such a tactic would back-fire badly.

JMO

Obviously you have never been deposed in a civil case, otherwise, you would know how hostile the opposing side can be. The defense team of whom ever Dina sues will grill not only Melinek for her statements and past work, but each and every other potential witness and/or expert witness.

 

[K_Z]

I've always questioned how Dr. Melinek came to know about this particular forum and discussions? In my opinion, Melinek was directed to view this site by Dina. I don't believe Melinek just happened upon the LHK forum. This tells me Dr. Melinek, a professional, had the choice to exclude this information from her research. As a professional, she is definitely smart enough to know the bias of forum discussions. Melinek had the option not to review this information but chose to knowing the content of a forum is highly questionable. Very telling. I have never understood why Melinek did not dismiss reviewing this material.

BBM.

Dr.Melinek clearly says she received all of the materials from Dina in her report. That establishes the link between Dina and LHK. I have posted several times that I don't fault Dina for providing the forum posts, People article, Wikipedia entries, etc to Dr. Melinek. And Dr. Melinek, as Dina's contracted agent had to note somewhere that she received them from Dina.

However, Dr. Melinek should have simply documented in her report that she received them, but did not rely upon them in any way to form her opinion. That would have been the most professional way to handle that, imo. That she did not clearly dismisss their importance is de facto evidence that she DID rely on them in forming her opinion. That is the part that will be very problemmatic for Dr. Melinek (and professionally very embarrassing), if she is deposed or testifies in a civil suit filed by Dina.

She will be excoriated by opposing counsel because she did not dismiss those sources in forming her opinion, imo.

The order of events, imo, was:

1. Dina "thinks up" an assault scenario to blame Rebecca and her sister. (Justification for her intense hatred of Rebecca, and justification for Rebecca's murder/ suicide.)
2. Dina contracts with Dr. Melinek, presents her assault scenario, and all of the reference materials she has accumulated.
3. Dr. Melinek feels sympathy/ pity for Dina's position as a grieving mother.
4. Dr. Melinek performs a "wallet biopsy" on Dina's finances.
5. Dr. Melinek buy$ into Dina's version of events. She review$ what Dina gave her over $everal month$, and form$ her "opinion".
6. Dr. Melinek directs Dr. Bove to do 2 things: review the Gomez diagram and debunk it, and run the numbers to "prove" an assault scenario was "possible".

All of the above occurred as she was forming her ideas for her nonprofit, the roll out, and workinging with her PR team. Her ultimate goal, imo, was only tentatively to have Max's case reopened, as I'm sure all of her team members told her how remote that possibility was. The real goal was setting the stage for the civil suits coming. That was becoming very evident when she filed suit to obtain Max's autopsy photos. And this isn't only my opinion-- MSM reporters also commented on this numerous times. (See the sticky thread with MSM reports.)

 

[MyBelle]

Obviously you have never been deposed in a civil case, otherwise, you would know how hostile the opposing side can be. The defense team of whom ever Dina sues will grill not only Melinek for her statements and past work, but each and every other potential witness and/or expert witness.

I have testified in a wrongful death case. The only hostility I saw from opposing counsel was her lame attempt to diminish her client's role and the Judge laughed. And my side won.

JMO

 

[*Lash*]

Thanks KZ. My opinion that Dina provided the material to Dr. Melinek's came from something I thought I had read. I was under the impression this was indicated in Dr. Melinek's report, however I did not have a source readily available.

I couldn't agree more on the importance of Dr. Melinek's choice to include this material in her research and final opinion. Maybe Dr. Melinek was introduced to these forum posters on a personal basis? AND, maybe this is why Melinek decided to use this material in such a professional report? This would lead me to believe the forum posters are insiders in Max's case.

 

[Gilgamesh]

There are plenty of statements made in the LHK site that don't just border on libel, they are out and out lies and the authors could definitely be proscuted for libel. Works both ways, MyBelle. Just sayin......

 

[Inparadise]

There are plenty of statements made in the LHK site that don't just border on libel, they are out and out lies and the authors could definitely be proscuted for libel. Works both ways, MyBelle. Just sayin......

You mean like the ones made about me?

 

[Gilgamesh]

You mean like the ones made about me?

Among others that can be proven to be harmful and that are actually vicious as well as completely untrue.

 

[Inparadise]

Among others that can be proven to be harmful and that are actually vicious as well as completely untrue.

If these posters think that there are not going to be legal consequences for their actions, they are sadly mistaken. While they are having their laughs at other's expense, they are putting themselves in a not so good position, one that they will not be laughing at.

 

[K_Z]

Thanks KZ. My opinion that Dina provided the material to Dr. Melinek's came from something I thought I had read. I was under the impression this was indicated in Dr. Melinek's report, however I did not have a source readily available.

I couldn't agree more on the importance of Dr. Melinek's choice to include this material in her research and final opinion. Maybe Dr. Melinek was introduced to these forum posters on a personal basis? AND, maybe this is why Melinek decided to use this material in such a professional report? This would lead me to believe the forum posters are insiders in Max's case.

Exactly. There are many thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) of posts here on Rebecca's forum on WS, as well as a number of other sites on the web discussing this case. That "only" this one particular offshoot (and hate filled) blog was chosen by Dina, to share with Dr. Melinek, is VERY compromising as to HOW Dr. Melinek formed her "opinion".

And recent comments by some of Dina's ardent supporters as to negligence strategies leads me to believe Dina may be considering "ordinary" negligence as the basis for a filed suit, and backing away from her assault theory from a few months ago. The assault scenario hasn't played well anywhere the case is discussed, and most only think it makes Dina appear rather desperate and mentally unbalanced. Assault was floated, it didn't play well, so the team is revising their strategy, imo. The new sound bite I keep reading over and over from Dina's supporters is "Jonah was the proximate cause". Legalspeak.

 

[MyBelle]

There are plenty of statements made in the LHK site that don't just border on libel, they are out and out lies and the authors could definitely be proscuted for libel. Works both ways, MyBelle. Just sayin......

FYI: Libel is not a crime so it can't be prosecuted. It can be a civil matter which is why I refrain from libeling anyone. No worries here....

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Exactly. There are many thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) of posts here on Rebecca's forum on WS, as well as a number of other sites on the web discussing this case. That "only" this one particular offshoot (and hate filled) blog was chosen by Dina, to share with Dr. Melinek, is VERY compromising as to HOW Dr. Melinek formed her "opinion".

And recent comments by some of Dina's ardent supporters as to negligence strategies leads me to believe Dina may be considering "ordinary" negligence as the basis for a filed suit, and backing away from her assault theory from a few months ago. The assault scenario hasn't played well anywhere the case is discussed, and most only think it makes Dina appear rather desperate and mentally unbalanced. Assault was floated, it didn't play well, so the team is revising their strategy, imo. The new sound bite I keep reading over and over from Dina's supporters is "Jonah was the proximate cause". Legalspeak.

<modsnip>.

I doubt Dina's legal team view Max's death as a result of "ordinary negligence" because her medical expert has publicly stated her opinion of homicide. I also doubt they are floating their strategy any place the case is being discussed on the Internet because they don't need to do so. It's been fairly straight-forward. First to LE, then the City Council and the next steps don't need to be announced ahead of time.

Jonah wasn't there so he can't be 100% the proximate cause.

JMO