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

[freespeech]

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?

Wikipedi is not a expert source but more of a quick reference. See Wikipedia Disclaimer below C&P from Wikipedia on Wikipedia:

"Wikipedia disclaimers apply to all pages on Wikipedia. However, the consensus in Wikipedia is to put all disclaimers only as links and at the bottom of each article. Proposals to have a warning box at the top have been rejected. Some do not like the way it looks or that it calls attention to possible errors in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia, in common with many websites, has a disclaimer that, at times, has led to commentators citing these in order to support a view that Wikipedia is unreliable. A selection of similar disclaimers from places which are often regarded as reliable (including sources such as Encyclopædia Britannica, Associated Press, and the Oxford English Dictionary) can be read and compared at Non-Wikipedia disclaimers. Wikipedia content advisories can also be found here."

 

[K_Z]

Well, just to inject some humor, here are 2 wikipedia links explaining how wikipedia is not a credible or reliable source for academic use.

(I would characterize a scientific investigation by a physician into a child's death to be at least as important as an academic paper-- a whole lot more impoortant, imo.)

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use"]Wikipedia:Academic use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia"]Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[Wendy101]

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"??

Well, the saying goes "You get what you pay for"

 

[Salem]

Knock off the bickering. It derails the thread and interrupts the flow. STOP.


Salem

 

[Salem]

It is against TOS to attack other posters or discuss other posters like they can't read what is being said about them.

If a post is against TOS, alert it and MOVE ON! Do not respond to it. By responding, you continue the derailment of the discussion and you subject yourself to consequences.

I'm becoming weary of posting warnings, so please follow the rules. There is good discussion to be had here.

Thanks,

Salem

 

[Amalie]

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.

I see the stunts all the time on scooters and skateboards but look at the surface they are on.
The problem I have with a stunt on the scooter is that the hall is carpeted.

 

[time]

I see the stunts all the time on scooters and skateboards but look at the surface they are on.
The problem I have with a stunt on the scooter is that the hall is carpeted.

There is no carpet on the top of the banister. Carpet would have nothing to do with a scooter handle (assuming it had one) being used to try and knock a ball out of hte chandelier and so on.

jjenny said ... "Seems the scooter was somehow involved if there is paint on it." If there is paint on it that matched the banister/post, which I don't think was actually tested, then the scooter did not make the marks on the railing because Max was just riding it on the carpet.

 

[i.b.nora]

No one was allowed to take pictures of the scooter but I can't help but wonder about possible damage to the scooter or other evidence on the scooter itself that it fell from the second floor landing. What if it was already in the foyer maybe propped up against the potted plant and fell on top of Max's shin/s after he and the chandelier plummeted to the floor? I realize that it was stated that the scooter was last seen on the second floor the night before. Just some thoughts prompted by reading the 'reports'.

 

[time]

No one was allowed to take pictures of the scooter but I can't help but wonder about possible damage to the scooter or other evidence on the scooter itself that it fell from the second floor landing. What if it was already in the foyer maybe propped up against the potted plant and fell on top of Max's shin/s after he and the chandelier plummeted to the floor? I realize that it was stated that the scooter was last seen on the second floor the night before. Just some thoughts prompted by reading the 'reports'.

Nora... I think it could very well be the case that the scooter was not really involved except for what you say BBM.

 

[jjenny]

Nora... I think it could very well be the case that the scooter was not really involved except for what you say BBM.

Then how did the paint get on it?

 

[time]

Then how did the paint get on it?

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.

 

[time]

Did Dr, Bove get the scooter from LE evidence or was it perhaps returned to Joanh or Dina and he got it from them? Why would he not be allowed to take pictures?

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)


Generic Razor Cruiser Scooter Pic

 

[Tink56]

Has anyone read about whether or not LE tested to dog for DNA?

If the dog was accidently kicked or hit with the scooter would it become defensive? Would that frighten the child enough that he would run up against the banister?

Frankly, I can think of several possible scenarios for the child's fall besides being thrown over. Some not so over the top possibilities include using the scooter to knock down a ball caught in the chandelier. Maybe throwing the ruler at it first...There are so many possibiities that I find it difficult to conceive that a professionally based report would identify Rebecca as the person who is responsible for Max's death.

In some ways, it appears that this suit is designed to counter Rebecca's family queries. Who knows....???? It is all very sad, IMO.

 

[time]

It's highly possible in my mind that the dog could be invovled unless Rebecca or her sister said he was in the bathroom with him. Those kinds of dogs are kind of hyperactive IIRC so he was probably following Max around.

I cannot figure out how paint got on the scooter the way the white transfer is explained in conjunction with only the damage on the banister/post. Dr. Bove says that both lateral faces of the wheel had transfer on them - doesn't that mean on opposite sides of the wheel? He also said both the top and bottom of the front face of the hub. We are still trying to figure out exactly where that is on the scooter we have - very similar to the Razor Scooter.

I can't come up with any scenario where the paint would have transferred to all these spots based on the banister damage. You might get it on both sides of the wheel if you stuck it in between the banister spindles? Maybe someone else can come up with an explanation.

Also, if you look at the pic I've attached again, there may have been marks on the wall from a scooter of something (lower left hand corner of the pic). There is also a painted over chunk missing from the Banister post.

Do we know this is the actual condition of the banister as it was at the crime scene?

And, that the scooter was still in evidence when Dr. Bove examined it?

 

[*Lash*]

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?

One problem I see is the bias that can exist on ANY forum/site/blog. While reading even a thorough presented valid conclusion on a post, it is difficult to skip past all the other bias and name calling posts. In my opinion these types of posts can influence the reader. Objectivity can be lost and fact less mean spirited posts can be left in the mind of the reader. Too many posts that are not based on science or facts.

 

[jjenny]

Has anyone read about whether or not LE tested to dog for DNA?

...

The dog definitely was not tested for DNA. My understanding that nothing was tested for DNA at all in Max's case. Even whatever was under his fingernails was apparently not tested.

 

[Betty P]

After reading the reports and listening to Furman's interview, I have a few questions.

What is the nature of the web forum "Left-Handed Kitty" quoted numerous times in Dr. Melinek's report? She makes several references to "Left Handed Kitty" as a source for "information sheets" used in her report. What kind of information? Where did it come from? Is it credibly sourced? My review of the site revealed it appears to be little more than a gossip forum.

What is the Powerpoint Presentation about RZ's Death? In the sources, Dr. M lists a reference "Powerpoint Presentation titled "July 13th, 2011" about Rebecca Zahau's death." It doesn't show the source for the presentation or who developed it. Did it come from someone at Left Handed Kitty?

How did Dr. M reach the conclusion that RZ assaulted MS? There doesn't appear to be any real evidence to back up that claim.


Who is paying Mark Furman for his expertise? I found his opinions on the case to be pretty muddled and lacking in some factual information. Is he criticizing Coronado PD and SDSO's investigation?

Who does DS and her experts want to handle a new investigation? Is she asking for SDSO to re-investigate the case? If so, they've already declined to do so. Does she want the California AG's office to oversee a new investigation?

Which cases does DS want re-opened? Just MS's case or RZ's as well? It would be difficult to re-open one without the other.

Why was the Spreckels Mansion sold and remodeled? If DS and JS didn't feel the investigation into MS's death was inadequate, why did they allow the mansion (and any possible evidence) to be stripped, painted, remodeled, etc.? Such a process would destroy important evidence not gathered in the original investigation.

Overall, I found Dr. Melinek's report lacking in credibility. It was poorly written, filled with typos and misspellings and had significant problems with the sources cited. It leaves more questions than answers.

 

[time]

Which cases does DS want re-opened? Just MS's case or RZ's as well? It would be difficult to re-open one without the other.

As far as I know Dina has never said anything about wanting RZ's case reexamined or reopened. Dr. Drew mentioned on his show that both should be reopened and it was sort of a deer in the headlight look from her.

 

[K_Z]

Dr. Melinek has indicated in writing that she is available and willing to serve as an expert witness in any future litigation. This is expected and understandable, as she was retained privately to conduct a review of Max’s death over the past 9 months or so. While a quest for understanding and comfort is often the catalyst for retaining such experts, common sense also indicates that there is likely civil litigation being strongly considered, and these experts analyses retained by DS (Bove and Melinek) are part of laying foundation for any potential litigation. It is also logical to conclude that these experts, having performed a collaborative review, would be retained together as experts for DS as a plaintiff, if litigation proceeds.

One of the things I think should be a bit concerning for DS, is Dr. Melinek’s recent history as a plaintiff expert (both in the Burford case, and the Overton case.) There is a possibility that her testimony may be challenged and disregarded, due to improper inferential leaps. I respect Dr. Melinek’s credentials. Dr. Melinek has a very celebrated career and a laudable CV—she is a well respected expert by many measures. I cannot, and will not fault any of her career positions or resume—she appears to be a consummate professional, and legitimately concerned about her clients, from what is available on the internet on cases she has participated in. She is a “rock star”. So why be concerned that she could potentially have any difficulty as an expert witness? A recent history of improper inferential leaps, and a less than robust written report, that resulted in her testimony being dismissed in the Burford case, and problematic testimony in the Overton case.

Dr. Melinek’s very laudable CV and notoriety may possibly be interfering with her ability to be an effective expert witness. She may be reaching too far in her opinions. Hard, humble, and intensive work is needed by experts to persuade juries and judges that their opinions are based in hard science, and not subjective belief, unsupported inferences, or speculation.

Dr. Melinek was retained by plaintiff as an expert in the Burford v Glaxo Smith Kline suit. One can conclude that any case that involves a suit against a manufacturer as large and prominent as Glaxo Smith Kline should have a large chunk of attention by any expert retained—particularly if one is testifying for the plaintiff. In Jan 2011, the judge in the case, Cynthia M. Rufe, granted the defendant’s (GSK) request to exclude Dr. Melinek’s opinion in a civil suit brought by the estate of the plaintiff against the pharmaceutical manufacturer. In this opinion, the judge stated:

Dr. Melinek is a forensic pathologist who is an Assistant Medical Examiner in San Francisco, CA. In a very brief report, the substance of which covers less than two pages, Dr. Melinek opines that Burford suffered a fatal myocardial infarction due to a ruptured atherosclerotic plaque in the coronary artery, and further opines that Avandia was a significant contributing cause of his death. To form her opinion, she relied upon general research on Avandia, package inserts and warnings for Avandia published by GSK, the reports and testimony of other experts, Burford's death certificate and the medical examiner's reports, a hospital autopsy report, and her own analysis of Burford's tissue samples from prepared slides. She also had access to Burford's medical records dated January 3, 1991 through his death on November 21,2006.

The problem for this Court is not that Dr. Melinek fails to identify that Avandia as the sole cause of Burford's myocardial infarction. Rather this Court is troubled by the fact that Dr. Melinek points to nothing more than the epidemiological research to support her opinion that Avandia played a role in Burford's fatal myocardial infarction. Turning to Dr. Melinek's deposition testimony, the Court finds no testimony from which it can conclude that Dr. Melinek used reliable methods to conclude that Avandia was a contributing cause of death in this specific case.

The Court concludes that Dr. Melinek made an improper inferential leap from general causation to specific causation in her report, without any evidence to show that Avandia caused or even contributed to Burford's myocardial infarction. Accordingly, the Court will not permit Dr. Melinek to testify as to her opinion regarding the role of Avandia in Burford's death.

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/MDL/MDL1871/opinions/Specific causation opinion.pdf

Now, if we compare that recent history (which I would characterize as a professional tongue lashing), and consider Dr. Melinek’s recent report commissioned by Dina Shacknai, the concerns about the use of 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-of-boy-who-died-at-mansion-seeks-new-probe-

“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://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/06/4699061/new-information-provided-by-independent.html

“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…..”

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.

 

[screecher]

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?