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 was attentively following Dr. Melinek right up to the point that Dinas wallet biopsy results came inwhen 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 specificallyif she had simply advocated for reclassifying Maxs 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 MEs physical findings and medical interpretationso for her to specifically name RZ as the perpetrator is disingenuous and demonstrates her wallet biopsy bias, imo.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.