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).
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 “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.