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

[time]

K_Z: 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.

When I read his report, I thought it felt strained. Part of that seems to be from discounting a lot from the beginning. First, if there are unaccounted for injuries on Max, any possibilities should be looked at. Dr. Melinek did not convince me they had to have come from an assault - and the injuries are inextricably connected to what scenario you are willing to entertain, right?

Melinek's report appears somewhat petty I hate to say because she is also making some conclusion that not only would it be impossible for Max to say 'Ocean', but that Rebecca said that as some sort of coverup. Ironic since the dog is a variable that is not even considered in any of scenarios. Also, the idea that Rebecca said Max uttered Ocean for some nefarious purposes doesn't really make logical sense as the dog also doesn't need to be part of any scenario to explain an accident. Of course, everything else in the room is discarded as involved also.

 

[MyBelle]

When I read his report, I thought it felt strained. Part of that seems to be from discounting a lot from the beginning. First, if there are unaccounted for injuries on Max, any possibilities should be looked at. Dr. Melinek did not convince me they had to have come from an assault - and the injuries are inextricably connected to what scenario you are willing to entertain, right?

Melinek's report appears somewhat petty I hate to say because she is also making some conclusion that not only would it be impossible for Max to say 'Ocean', but that Rebecca said that as some sort of coverup. Ironic since the dog is a variable that is not even considered in any of scenarios. Also, the idea that Rebecca said Max uttered Ocean for some nefarious purposes doesn't really make logical sense as the dog also doesn't need to be part of any scenario to explain an accident. Of course, everything else in the room is discarded as involved also.

I don't believe the dog was part of a scenario to explain an accident but was, instead, part of a scenario to disguise a criminal act as an accident.

JMO

 

[bourne]

I'd have to reread, I'm not sure it was proven to be paint? Or that the composition of paint if it was on it i matched the banister or was matched to anything. Maybe I missed something?

Dr. Bove say there was white transfer marks and "a small flake, consistent with a flake of white paint was located adjacent to one of the white transfer marks" (report pg 11).

I don't know, but did he just see a small flake (which is what a part of a paint chip and what size) in photos?

Was it noted in the LE report? Could it just have landed on the scooter from some other source in the accident, come from the carpet, IDK? Where the transfer marks tested for paint and did anyone say they weren't there before? Then you would need to test to see if it was paint on the scooter, does it match the paint they are talking about.

I'd like to know the answers before saying the scooter even caused that damage or had paint on it because of that damage. But also, it could have happened anytime since the day before if Jonah actually does remember the damage was not there. The scooter could also have paint from the walls or the banister on it, but that's still not what caused the damage.

Dr. Bove said he inspected the scooter, I just don't see any forensic testing on paint, period.

Agree. In Websleuth talk radio yesterday, Zahau lawyer Rudoy said that Max regularly rides the scooter around the stairs inside the house. Could be that the paint chip and damage are from other times.

It'd be helpful to determine when the damage was made.

 

[time]

It is almost as if the report was written by two different people.

"It’s like she started writing a scholarly review of the case records, but then digressed into a middle school social studies project."

Perhaps where the report begins to digress is where the report is authored by someone else? It's not outside the realm of possibilities considering all the factors in these two cases.

It is hard for me to imagine Dr. Melinek risking her professional reputation by citing those sources in her report. And surely "Dr." Dina Romano would question why Dr. Melinek would use those sources?

Perhaps those kinds of references are ok to use at Argosy, then again, we have never seen any research paper authored by Dina except with her added as fourth author, so we don't know how she would write up something.

 

[time]

K_Z... thank you for another very informative post!

I also found this:

Two expert witnesses on specific causation were the subject of GSK’s challenge in Burford: Dr. Nicholas DePace and Dr. Judy Melinek. The court readily dispatches Dr. Melinek, who opines that Mr. Burford’s fatal cardiac event, which she characterizes as a heart attack, was caused by Avandia because Avandia causes heart attacks. The court correctly noted that this inference was improper because risk does not equal causation in a specific case.

http://schachtmanlaw.com/the-other-...andia-mdl-hand-waiving-on-specific-causation/

 

[time]

Agree. In Websleuth talk radio yesterday, Zahau lawyer Rudoy said that Max regularly rides the scooter around the stairs inside the house. Could be that the paint chip and damage are from other times.

It'd be helpful to determine when the damage was made.

I can't imagine a 6 year old riding a scooter in the house and not bumping into things, especially walls, molding, and banisters, let alone furniture.

 

[i.b.nora]

It's too bad Bove didn't illustrate the actual scooter in its entirety in relation to the stairwell railing, the newell post and the bannister. It would be interesting to see where the handlebars of the scooter fall. Instead, he provides only a line indicating the height of the foot platform to illustrate the center of gravity theory.

I also would like to see better, more close up pictures of the damage. Actually, I would prefer to see it in person. It is not clear to me exactly what the brown tones are. Especially as it surrounds the split in the Newell post. I am not convinced that the scooter went over the railing that day. I am more inclined to think that the damage to the railing already existed and that the accident included a dog, a soccer ball, and a ruler. JMO.

 

[katydid23]

It's too bad Bove didn't illustrate the actual scooter in its entirety in relation to the stairwell railing, the newell post and the bannister. It would be interesting to see where the handlebars of the scooter fall. Instead, he provides only a line indicating the height of the foot platform to illustrate the center of gravity theory.

I also would like to see better, more close up pictures of the damage. Actually, I would prefer to see it in person. It is not clear to me exactly what the brown tones are. Especially as it surrounds the split in the Newell post. I am not convinced that the scooter went over the railing that day. I am more inclined to think that the damage to the railing already existed and that the accident included a dog, a soccer ball, and a ruler. JMO.

But how does the scooter end up on the boy's leg at the bottom of the stairs?

I agree that it probably did not figure into the initial accident, but why did it end up there if the boy was trying to get a ball off of the chandelier or something like that?

 

[i.b.nora]

But how does the scooter end up on the boy's leg at the bottom of the stairs?

I agree that it probably did not figure into the initial accident, but why did it end up there if the boy was trying to get a ball off of the chandelier or something like that?

See my post Number 148, this thread.

 

[katydid23]

See my post Number 148, this thread.

But what about this:
Description of white transfer marks on scooter:

Front wheel - several white transfer marks on lateral faces of the wheel (largest being 2 inches)

White transfer marks on the top and bottom of the front face of the hub (connecting front of deck to vertical shaft)


It sounds like it was thrown from the 2nd story, imo.

 

[Betty P]

But how does the scooter end up on the boy's leg at the bottom of the stairs?

I agree that it probably did not figure into the initial accident, but why did it end up there if the boy was trying to get a ball off of the chandelier or something like that?

One theory that was considered early on was that it was parked on the first floor in the stairwell area. It seems a logical spot for him to leave his toys, near the front door. When MS and the chandelier fell to the stairwell floor, it may have tipped over and fallen on him. Those scooters are lightweight and fall over easily.

IIRC, one of the early scenarios (before the SDSO reports) considered was that his soccer ball had gotten caught in the chandelier and he was standing on the banister, trying to use the ruler to knock it free when he fell.

 

[freespeech]

REPOSTED

QUESTOR: Did LE recover the chandelier and check it for human tissue/blood/DNA?

If so, was that tissue/blood/DNA found on the upper portion of the chandelier, as though MS fell on top of it, or on the lower portion, as though the chandelier fell on top of MS? TIA

Could the chandelier that fell beside him have sheared against his back during the fall? That could have caused the back abrasions. If the chandelier was loose it could have been knocked out just by the motion of Max somehow catapulting into it.

The facial injuries most likely came from landing face down. If the scooter was also invovled it may have landed close by him also but possibly ended up of top of Max's leg if Rebecca turned him over.

Are there any other planes of injury that were not already mentioned?

 

[time]

Could the chandelier that fell beside him have sheared against his back during the fall? That could have caused the back abrasions. If the chandelier was loose it could have been knocked out just by the motion of Max somehow catapulting into it.

The facial injuries most likely came from landing face down. If the scooter was also invovled it may have landed close by him also but possibly ended up of top of Max's leg if Rebecca turned him over.

Are there any other planes of injury that were not already mentioned?

Free ... I don't know if I can answer because I'm not sure I have the expertise or we have enough info. I'm not sure any of the experts, including from the initial conclusions, explored all the possibilities of how various injuries occurred (face, back).

I also always wondered about alternative scenarios like if Max grabbed the chandelier somehow and swung back against the landing railing - could he get injuries to his back that way that are consistent. Is it possible he initially hit his back on the railing after swinging into it, he hit into it and then was flung forward and a bit to the side of the chandelier that fell. This might at least take into account how he didn't have that much contact with the chandelier, why the broken ring ended up on the landing, and Max still was jolted forward and could have landed on his head.

Maybe the broken ring is the elephant in the room that really needs accounting for?

I'm not saying this to claim it covers everything, but neither does Dr. Bove and Dr. Melinek's scenarios obviously as it would seem key to explain the ring on the landing. In my mind the face and back injuries could probably be explaned in quite a few different ways base on what the public knows.

Too bad we can't go back and ask Rebecca - I'm wondering if Max could have hit the floor and ended in a side position not completely on his tummy. That could explain why Rebecca was unclear about moving him if she was, e.g., he was rolled a bit but not turned completely over. Depending on where the scooter was when she did that it could have just moved with him and ended int hat position.

 

[bourne]

I can't imagine a 6 year old riding a scooter in the house and not bumping into things, especially walls, molding, and banisters, let alone furniture.

Agree. That's why it would be important to note when the damages were made and by what objects.

 

[Mrs. Holmes]

But how does the scooter end up on the boy's leg at the bottom of the stairs?

I agree that it probably did not figure into the initial accident, but why did it end up there if the boy was trying to get a ball off of the chandelier or something like that?

It might be that the "seven" shape on MS's back may have come from the scooter when it landed on him after the fall. It is imperative to find out what came down in what order, boy, scooter, chandelier... would be my guess.

The boy and scooter go over the railing at the top stair corner. Scooter scrapes newel post, gets caught in chandelier, boy holding to scooter caught in chandelier swings out and boy crashes into middle landing railing, chandelier gives way from ceiling, boy falls do ground with scooter and then chandelier landing on him.

 

[time]

It might be that the "seven" shape on MS's back may have come from the scooter when it landed on him after the fall. It is imperative to find out what came down in what order, boy, scooter, chandelier... would be my guess.

The boy and scooter go over the railing at the top stair corner. Scooter scrapes newel post, gets caught in chandelier, boy holding to scooter caught in chandelier swings out and boy crashes into middle landing railing, chandelier gives way from ceiling, boy falls do ground with scooter and then chandelier landing on him.

Thanks for commenting - I can't find it, was the scooter handle open? I'm assuming it was. If so, that is a 7 shape when laid on it's side.

Frankly, I missed them saying it appears as a 7 shape on Max's back. I did see the pic of his back (briefly shown on Dr. Drew) and didn't see a 7 shape. If anyone has a quote, that would be great.

Dr. Bove's report say the injuries on Max's back are primarily midline and left of midline. He talks about the vertical location of the uppermost injury on his back being consistent with the height of the railing along the second floor hallway (he doesn't say consistent with the post height). And he talks about there being additional geometric relationships between the back injuries and the shape of the railing and spindles. I'm a little confused about this as the large post, of course, has no spindles so Max would either have to be to one side of it in the upper hallway or down the stairs from the post? And, I'm not sure how either of those jive with the damage on the post.

 

[i.b.nora]

Can you please tell me where the number 7 thing is mentioned?

I was wondering too.

Melinek says it in her report:
"... Suggesting a pattern: configured roughly in a figure "7" as the back is viewed in an upright position. ..."

However, I can find nothing about it being "an exact impression mirroring it to a portion of the railing" etc. More made up 'scientific' stuff, IMO.

 

[time]

I was wondering too.

Melinek says it in her report:
"... Suggesting a pattern: configured roughly in a figure "7" as the back is viewed in an upright position. ..."

However, I can find nothing about it being "an exact impression mirroring it to a portion of the railing" etc. More made up 'scientific' stuff, IMO.

Hmm... I just don't remember the pic on Dr. Drew even looking like a number 7?

 

[time]

Still cant find it in Bove's report, but he does talk about the injuries on Max's back being superficial and could have occurred at different times, locations, and because of different structures.

 

[time]

I watched Dr. Drew 2 last night, not much info to be gained. I did think it was odd they asked Dr. Melinek why Max's death was murder and her total reply stemmed around a very brief, generic description of planes of injury (not explained as to how that connects to an assault scenario) and Max hitting his head differently on the floor than what LE claimed. Disappointing as the later doesn't have anything to do with an 'assault scenario'.

I've looked back through her report and I do not find any reference to medical journal articles (or any reference, period) to the literature on planes of injury or, more specifically, planes of injury related to homicides/assaults vs. accidental deaths/accident.

Form Melinek's report, "The more planes of injury ... the more likely that an incident is the result of an assault rather than a simple or even complex fall."