Max's Scooter

[bourne]

Surely Cynic could do a better job at this. Nonetheless, for whatever it's worth, the attached unscientific illustration demonstrates that adding Max's reach (11-1/2 inches is minimum reach for height of 45 inches) + height of scooter (35 inches), it would have been possible for him to reach the chandelier with the scooter. NOT taken into consideration is the angle created by difference in height of chandelier vs height of railing at reach point. (The chandelier would have been closer to him and at his eye level half way down the stairs, but then the railing is higher than 20 inches at that point.)

It is conceivable Max damaged the newell post and the scooter while trying to lift the scooter up over his shoulder (first jamming it between 2 railings, thus causing the paint marks on both sides of the wheel). Then stretching out his arm while standing at the lowest point in the balcony (20 inches high, thus well below his CG), holding the scooter by the handle bar, he loses his balance, the scooter is momentarily lodged on the chandelier, he falls forward hitting the chandelier as he goes down, thus dislodging the scooter that consequently lands in the foyer near him (plus chandelier), after which the scooter topples over onto his shin. This would explain the lack of bruising on his shin.

Maybe the scooter was already downstairs in the foyer, taken down either the night before or that morning?? Did the detectives even ask Jonah about that?

Hi Carioca, kudos on your attempt to make sense of all this! I can't even fathom how to approach this without actually setting foot on the property and physically see/make measurements of the objects involved (e.g., Max's scooter and its associated damages, the bannister and chandelier and the conditions they were presumed to be in before his fall -- e.g., were the chandelier link rusted and about to break, did the bannister sustain pre-existing paint chips and damages to its forms, the soccerball intact placement before authorities arrived, Max's physicals, etc.)

Furthermore, inasmuch as I'd like to trust the "facts" -- measurements, descriptions, and everything in-between asserted as "facts" by Dina's paid experts and/or the side show circus of SDLE, I really just DON'T, particularly given how some have inferred "irrefutable" "scientific" conclusions from outrageous assumptions such as cellphone triangulation to establish a "solid" alibi, and/or make ginormous leaps of logic from A to Z about Rebecca's psychological state of mind with absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER including the LACK OF ACQUIRING the so-called "suicide trigger voicemail." :scared:

But that's just me But I think Cynic is a much better scientist than I will ever be too so he provide some good scientific food for thought in this area.

 

[IQuestion]

Dr. Bove - Inspection of the Chandelier -
I respectfully snipped a lot from the aforementioned posts from LASH:seeya:
The chandelier, ceiling mount and supporting chain were made available for my inspection on November 15, 2011. Measurements and notes were taken but I was not allowed to take any photographs.
BOLDED BY ME ABOVE
The base metal to which the ring was connected and the exposed cross-sectional surface of the ring exhibited signs of apparent metal failure. The existing portion of the ring was an apparent match to a portion of a ring found on the landing and visible in photographs of the scene. The portion of the ring found on the landing was not available for inspection. Additional examination, including photography and/or testing of the chandelier and/or the broken link found on the landing, may allow for a more quantitative analysis of the forces and mechanisms required to cause separation of the chandelier from the chain.
BOLDED BY ME ABOVE
http://media.utsandiego.com/news/documents/2012/08/06/Dr.Bove_Report.pdf

Why in the world would a biomechanical engineer, hired by the Mother, investigating the death of her child NOT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE ANY PHOTOGRAPHS?! Ya' know, when I read "not allowed to take photographs" even though the photos of inanimate objects (ie the broken link showing APPARENT METAL FAILURE???) would not IMO invade anyone's privacy and might even help find the answers being sought. After all, taking a photograph is not "destructive testing." If I am reading this correctly, even DS's hired investigators were intentionally hampered in their investigation....hmmm
I KNOW THIS SDSO TACTIC, WELL. Keep the "stupid Mother in the dark" and do not cooperate with her investigators.....(I am not saying DS was stupid...I just feel that is how she was being treated by SDSO, Coronado PD etc....maybe even her own ex?) I would think Kamala Harris' office should be having her investigators ask the same question....why would you deny PHD's, Dr's, specialists in their fields etc...the right to photograph inanimate objects?
I believe BOURNE once asked why I thought DS had been "lied to" about the circumstances surrounding her child's injury? I guess because I know LE investigators lie, are allowed to lie, can lie to anyone they choose, can lie to suspects, can lie to Mothers, can lie to the public....but why the need for any lies, or any secrecy if truly an accident and suicide occurred?......to be continued.

 

[IQuestion]

This a link to a "short version" of Sherf G's second dog and pony show, IMO a one minute 15 sec clip which begins [B]"Barring any new evidence [/B]Rebecca Zahau's death last July in Coronado is still CONSIDERED a suicide......"
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaA1EQf4z4w"]Zahau Death Still Ruled Suicide After Dr. Phil Show - YouTube[/ame]
And of course he goes on to criticize the Zahau family....but NEVER, NEVER, NEVER criticizes DS for going on TV to refute their "considered" findings...
...go figure
I find the choice of words "Barring any new evidence"...to be the ultimate irony as SDSO has a way of always barring new evidence. As a matter of fact, if I recall correctly, even the retrieval of items belonging to the deceased could only be obtained "with the help of the AG's office."
...go figure
I think it awfully smug for a member of LE (please insert disrespectful snicker and eye roll) to claim to be open and impartial....and then criticize the family for attempting to get answers, request an independent investigation and seek the advice of attorneys!
School just started in many areas of our beautiful country and little children everywhere will be reciting The Pledge of Allegiance. I always love the way they mispronounce words, run sentences together...until they get to the last and final clause.... "AND JUSTICE FOR ALL." (The little kids always say it so clearly.)
I want them to remember...so one day they can grow up and refuse to testify and invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, huh? Go figure.

 

[Ausgirl]

ausgirl, is this quote from your original post valid? To whom is it attributed?
[/COLOR]

I apologise for not linking the source. And as this was a while ago now - I can't recall. I am pretty sure it was from a timeline post in a sticky somewhere.


The very probable lie regarding Max and "Ocean" speaks volumes to me as to what happened to Max.

And if you wanted to make a fall look like an accident for any reason.. it wouldn't be hard to grab the child's scooter, smack it on the railing and throw it over the rails after him. Even better, if it takes the chandelier with it on the way down. Then call out for help..

That'd explain why there's no glass under Max, and the position of the scooter. It's explain the confusion as to which way up Max was facing when found.

It explains the "Ocean" lie. And removes the inherent problems of stretching to fit the 'center of balance' for everything and everyone concerned with the fall.

I'm finding that removing the question of "who" makes the "what" seems a little more logical. Mind you, I am not saying I think "Rebecca did it". Just that the above scene makes the most sense to me, presently.

 

[time]

Sorry, folks, but is there anything to support a claim that LE lied to Dina (I guess as related to the scooter)... I'm just not getting the point.

Plus, does anyone know what the protocal typically is when an independent investigator looks at evidence? Do they typically get to photograph? Was that the decision of the mansion owners anyway and not LE?

 

[Salem]

Please don't fight and bicker in here or go off on tangents. Alert the offending posts and step away if necessary while the mods review.

Salem

 

[*Lash*]

This a link to a "short version" of Sherf G's second dog and pony show, IMO a one minute 15 sec clip which begins [B]"Barring any new evidence [/B]Rebecca Zahau's death last July in Coronado is still CONSIDERED a suicide......"
Zahau Death Still Ruled Suicide After Dr. Phil Show - YouTube
And of course he goes on to criticize the Zahau family....but NEVER, NEVER, NEVER criticizes DS for going on TV to refute their "considered" findings...
...go figure
I find the choice of words "Barring any new evidence"...to be the ultimate irony as SDSO has a way of always barring new evidence. As a matter of fact, if I recall correctly, even the retrieval of items belonging to the deceased could only be obtained "with the help of the AG's office."
...go figure
I think it awfully smug for a member of LE (please insert disrespectful snicker and eye roll) to claim to be open and impartial....and then criticize the family for attempting to get answers, request an independent investigation and seek the advice of attorneys!
School just started in many areas of our beautiful country and little children everywhere will be reciting The Pledge of Allegiance. I always love the way they mispronounce words, run sentences together...until they get to the last and final clause.... "AND JUSTICE FOR ALL." (The little kids always say it so clearly.)
I want them to remember...so one day they can grow up and refuse to testify and invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, huh? Go figure.

Hey there IQuestion :seeya:

I just want to clarify the statement concerning Gore not criticizing Dina for going on TV. Dina did not appear in the November 2011 Dr. Phil show. The press conference above with Gore is from 11/2011. Dina did not appear on Dr. Phil until September 2012. Gore did not hold a press conference after the 9/2012 show. I wonder if he had held another presser if he would have criticized both families? CPD allegedly led Max's investigation, but we cannot forget Gore stated it was a combined effort. In my opinion, Gore most likely would have thrown CPD under the bus.

 

[IQuestion]

**LASH**(aka the FLASH :blushing I was totally aware the 2nd mini-press conference was before DS appeared on the Dr. Phil show, Dr. Drew, Pat's Personal Profiles, spoke before the Coronado council, DS's radio show etal...
I just found it astounding that Sherf G never took it upon himself to criticize anyone but the Zahau family for disagreeing with SDSO's conclusions.
It reminds me of the famous quote from Mencius: It is not difficult to govern. All one has to do is not to offend the noble families.Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mencius.html#ezLGyWwHT6fW01HL.99