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

[K_Z]

Really CuriousGeorgia? You can't appreciate the absurdity of asking (paying) a prominent forensic medical examiner to look at, and consider Wikipedia printouts, and anonymous internet forum postings?

Really?

 

[CuriousGeorgia]

Not when they are about the death of that cute little 6-year old. Not funny to me.

 

[K_Z]

I agree. Max deserves reference sources better than Wikipedia and anonymous internet forum postings.

At last we agree on something.

 

[screecher]

Absolutely K_Z, it is absurd and unbelievable an "expert" would use those two sources to reach the conclusion she did. Unbelievable.

 

[stmarysmead]

There would be no stone I would leave unturned, no matter WHAT it was, if I were a Mother that lost her only child in this manner. The references to these experts being paid...I find curious. What Mother in this position would not pay anything, read everything, use anything and everything at her disposal to get answers? If some of these things are in the report...they can be investigated and discounted if inaccurate. But as a grieving Mother...I would ignore NOTHING.

DS is a victim of this tragedy...without any doubt. She has suffered what I consider to be about life's greatest tragedy. There are no other children to comfort her. There is no husband to console her. It does not demean the grief of RZ's family to recognize the enormity of DS's loss. Why the hostility?

I respect this grieving Mother and admire everything she is doing to get answers. These experts have not relied just on Wikipedia and blog posts...so one can discount those if desired...but the totality of their reports would leave any grieving Mother doing just what DS is doing. What should she do if she feels her child was murdered? Take up golf and forget it? No, she is using her resources, her time, and energies to try to get answers to her questions. Just as RZ's family has done. Why is one effort criticized and the other praised,or vice versa? None of us have the answers so we cannot pick out the villians with certainty.

Families of crime victims have pleaded with the public to share anything, no matter how insignificant it seems...in hope it might lead to answers. That is all that has been done here.

And I agree there is nothing funny about the grief of a Mother who has lost her only child and her attempts to find out why. The grief of both families should be respected IMO...in light of our own ignorance of the true facts of this case.

 

[Yoda]

There would be no stone I would leave unturned, no matter WHAT it was, if I were a Mother that lost her only child in this manner. The references to these experts being paid...I find curious. What Mother in this position would not pay anything, read everything, use anything and everything at her disposal to get answers? If some of these things are in the report...they can be investigated and discounted if inaccurate. But as a grieving Mother...I would ignore NOTHING.

DS is a victim of this tragedy...without any doubt. She has suffered what I consider to be about life's greatest tragedy. There are no other children to comfort her. There is no husband to console her. It does not demean the grief of RZ's family to recognize the enormity of DS's loss. Why the hostility?

I respect this grieving Mother and admire everything she is doing to get answers. These experts have not relied just on Wikipedia and blog posts...so one can discount those if desired...but the totality of their reports would leave any grieving Mother doing just what DS is doing. What should she do if she feels her child was murdered? Take up golf and forget it? No, she is using her resources, her time, and energies to try to get answers to her questions. Just as RZ's family has done. Why is one effort criticized and the other praised,or vice versa? None of us have the answers so we cannot pick out the villians with certainty.

Families of crime victims have pleaded with the public to share anything, no matter how insignificant it seems...in hope it might lead to answers. That is all that has been done here.

And I agree there is nothing funny about the grief of a Mother who has lost her only child and her attempts to find out why. The grief of both families should be respected IMO...in light of our own ignorance of the true facts of this case.

I agree that as a mother I would look at everything, everything! But if I am hiring an expert to analyze the scene and come to a conclusion why would the expert be referencing what was said on Internet blogs? If the expert needs to assess RZ's background, temperament, etc then friends, family, coworkers should be interviewed. If they refuse to cooperate then note that and conclude temperament can not be determined. The impartial expert lost credibility, IMO, when opinions on blog sites were a factor in the analysis. Jmo
I still don't agree/understand LE's findings on how MS was injured and would like to see the case reopened.

 

[stmarysmead]

'Then again, Dina paid her big bucks to review Wikipedia entries, and anonymous internet forum postings! ROFLAMO! Who exactly got the better end of that deal-- Dr. Melinek or Dina?! That is hilarious, when I stop to think about it critically!"

No, there is nothing "hilarious" about anything surrounding the the death of a child, especially an only child, or the attempts of his Mother to understand why.Most of us would use every penny we possess..."big bucks" if we had them. We might assume that even those who felt the death was an accident would at least have compassion.

Where is the compassion...for both families? Why the animosity when NO ONE has the facts yet?

Maybe Dina wanted to be sure that every thing she read ANYWHERE was not overlooked...again as grieving parents often ask for ANY detail, any rumor...ANYTHING in their desparation.

And if one believes that it was a waste of money, or DS was taken advantage of...is that "hilarious?" No, our compassion for a grieving mother should make that profoundly sad. Why not hope that DS will find the answers to her questions and RZ's family will as well?

 

[bourne]

I was attentively following Dr. Melinek right up to the point that Dina’s wallet biopsy results came in—when she mentioned Rebecca Zahau by name as the likely perpetrator of a possible assault on Max. I would put more weight in what she had stated if she had said more generally that “someone”, in her opinion, assaulted Max. I feel she overstepped the bounds of an ME by naming RZ specifically—if she had simply advocated for reclassifying Max’s death as a homicide, for example, WITHOUT naming RZ, I would place more value on her comments. I feel she loses a lot of credibility when she names a specific person as a possible perpetrator. Law Enforcement investigators are charged with connecting the dots of an ME’s physical findings and medical interpretation—so for her to specifically name RZ as the perpetrator is disingenuous and demonstrates her wallet biopsy bias, imo.

Agree. Dr. Melinek showed clear bias when she outright named Rebecca as assaulting and killing Max. No objective scientist who wanted to be taken seriously would have named anyone as a suspect unless they had solid, irrefutable proof. Dr. Melinek is a paid joke.

 

[time]

Of course, I agree with comments that Dr. Melinek appears biased and unprofessional. It lowers her credibility in my opinion. I have never seen a pathology report as a review or as an original that looks like this for the various reasons mentioned. The results are also overstated - to put it mildly. I'm not sure Dr. Melinek was paid as she does this pro bono for parents of murdered children - but that begs the question of whether that is where the bias is coming in and if the info that was given her, plus, relying on Dina as the only source of some info (jiujitsu?) shows selection bias/influence. I do believe she was given some scenario and then worked to prove it. And, possibly after refinement, Dr. Bove was given a scenario and asked to show it COULD have happened. I do not think either proved this is true because, as I have said there are a few missing pieces not to mention it doesn't appear everything is explained. Whoever gave her the forum content also shows a bias because I do not think anyone on that forum really ever considered Rebecca not guilty, although I have to profess after one or two readings a long time ago and having read comments by the same posters on Patch articles, I declined to go there any more.

 

[K_Z]

A few posters have missed my point entirely. I find absolutely nothing funny about a mother's grief, or quest to find comfort and understanding about the death of her only child. But that is not at all what I said, if you scroll back and read my post. My comments are about Dr. Melinek's use of the Wikipedia articles and blog posts, which have little to nothing to do with Dina, except that Dina paid for her review.

What I find hilarious is the concept of paying (or BEING paid) to consider Wikipedia articles and anonymous blog posts as part of a serious scientific review of a child's death.

And I DO find it very odd that Dr. Melinek admits that these sources were included in the materials she was asked to review, AND that she does not make any statements about the inability of relying in any way on those materials. Because by NOT making that statement, she has de facto admitted that she DID give merit and reliability to Wikipedia articles and blog posts.

How exactly would that hold up in court-- criminal OR civil? She would be absolutely excoriated and discredited by opposing counsel. A jury might even laugh or smirk.

No serious scientist or law enforcement professional should rely on internet blog posts, no matter how brilliant, as any sort of foundation for their research or case. Read, say "hmmm", and then go search for the REAL scholarly or scientific basis for the finding.

Can yiou imagine a dissertation or a professional journal submission that uses Wikipedia in the bibliography? An editorial committee wouldn't be able to stop laughing.

These are not serious references that any physician should be using to make determinations about anything. THAT is my point. I cannot fault DINA for providing them to Dr. Melinek-- but I CAN fault Dr. Melinek for not professionally commenting about dismissing them. Dina gave them to her, so she has to put that in her report somewhere. Dr. Melinek was very remiss for not dismissing them.

And that is what I have done.

 

[time]

And I DO find it very odd that Dr. Melinek admits that these sources were included in the materials she was asked to review, AND that she does not make any statements about the inability of relying in any way on those materials. Because by NOT making that statement, she has de facto admitted that she DID give merit and reliability to Wikipedia articles and blog posts.

I think this is a major point. She includes them as if they are valid 'reference' materials in writing up a scientific opinion.

 

[CuriousGeorgia]

How is using these sources any different from how Mary Zahau has believed every internet rumor out there (forget science!), and then used them as reason to reopen Rebecca's case on Dr. Phil and in every news article on Radar Online she can get in?

 

[CuriousGeorgia]

Well we all have an opinion, don't we?

 

[scorekeeper]

I agree that as a mother I would look at everything, everything! But if I am hiring an expert to analyze the scene and come to a conclusion why would the expert be referencing what was said on Internet blogs? If the expert needs to assess RZ's background, temperament, etc then friends, family, coworkers should be interviewed. If they refuse to cooperate then note that and conclude temperament can not be determined. The impartial expert lost credibility, IMO, when opinions on blog sites were a factor in the analysis. Jmo
I still don't agree/understand LE's findings on how MS was injured and would like to see the case reopened.

BBM

Wouldn't talking to JS or RZ's family be a resource for RZ's background? I know that the Doc was paid by DS but wouldn't they want to draw their conclusions after talking to all that knew RZ? I guess the Doc was paid to prove that RZ murdered MS - I wonder if someone had paid the Doc to prove that DS murdered RZ what those conclusions would have been?

Before you hit me with eggs lease:, I'm just asking "was the Doc paid to say one thing only"??

 

[Jessica2012]

How is using these sources any different from how Mary Zahau has believed every internet rumor out there (forget science!), and then used them as reason to reopen Rebecca's case on Dr. Phil and in every news article on Radar Online she can get in?

I don't understand what the big deal is in using sources other than high profile, paid experts/attorneys. If the site and what is written, and who has written is verified, I see nothing wrong with using those opinions to support a valid conclusion, and using them as references. If the opinions are ones that are scientifically proven, backed up with references, then what is wrong with using it?

 

[time]

I don't understand what the big deal is in using sources other than high profile, paid experts/attorneys. If the site and what is written, and who has written is verified, I see nothing wrong with using those opinions to support a valid conclusion, and using them as references. If the opinions are ones that are scientifically proven, backed up with references, then what is wrong with using it?

Wikipedia hardly constitutes expertise on a topic although I'm not sure what was to be gleaned about jiujitsu by a Pathologist or why it was important in her examination.

There are articles and research in the unreliability of Wikipedia information and it is forbidden to cite it as an authoritative source in most cases. Wikipedia is edited by anyone and while there is a process by which entries can be reviewed or changed, no one knows if that has occurred at all or if the article was factual at the time it was copied.

 

[katydid23]

Wikipedia hardly constitutes expertise on a topic although I'm not sure what was to be gleaned about jiujitsu by a Pathologist or why it was important in her examination.

There are articles and research in the unreliability of Wikipedia information and it is forbidden to cite it as an authoritative source in most cases. Wikipedia is edited by anyone and while there is a process by which entries can be reviewed or changed, no one knows if that has occurred at all or if the article was factual at the time it was copied.

Wait...are we now saying the new reports were based upon wiki cites or something?

 

[Jessica2012]

Wikipedia hardly constitutes expertise on a topic although I'm not sure what was to be gleaned about jiujitsu by a Pathologist or why it was important in her examination.

There are articles and research in the unreliability of Wikipedia information and it is forbidden to cite it as an authoritative source in most cases. Wikipedia is edited by anyone and while there is a process by which entries can be reviewed or changed, no one knows if that has occurred at all or if the article was factual at the time it was copied.

But was it used as an actual source? Correct me if I am wrong, but there was actual experts who wrote that report- it is their opinion that the report is based on. They did not quote opinions from Wikepedia. Don't they have to make note of every single thing they use? I don't see any direct quotes from anywhere. And honestly, many medical forensic pathology books have noted wikepedia...it is not the only source, it's a source, that they might have used only one word from.But they have to make note of it right?

 

[jjenny]

I don't believe Max was assaulted and murdered. Although it probably didn't happen like in the drawing presented by the police either. He probably wasn't just running and fell.
Seems the scooter was somehow involved if there is paint on it.
Looking at you tube, number of videos of young males doing stunts on these scooters.

 

[Jessica2012]

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:



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.

Hi time, I did not understand it as they are saying Rebecca committed homicide. They are questioning the original conclusion, and the story told of what happened, and voiced concerns of the way the events happened or if certain things happened at all, and that assault had taken place first, but no one was named as a suspect or accused. JMO.