Max's Scooter

[Zinn]

Zinn - interesting point of discussion. Mind if I move it to an appropriate thread though, when I get a moment to look for one? I fear I've derailed this one enough already.

Ausgirl - Sounds good. TIA.

 

[Carioca]

And Rebecca's sister was only 13. That is a difficult age for many girls. If she for some reason, took frustration out on Max, it may have been due to quick burst of anger. During adolescence moods can quickly swing up or down. Rebecca also placed her upstairs, on the same floor with Max. She could have been encouraging or helping him to try something dangerous.

JMO

CuriousGeorge - I don't recall reading anything about in which room XZ was sleeping. You say Rebecca place her upstairs. Which room upstairs? IIRC from the floor plan, all the bedrooms are upstairs, other than the garage caretaker apartment and the guest house. Are you suggesting a 13 year old visiting the house should have been placed alone outside the main house? TIA

 

[K_Z]

And Rebecca's sister was only 13. That is a difficult age for many girls. If she for some reason, took frustration out on Max, it may have been due to quick burst of anger. During adolescence moods can quickly swing up or down. Rebecca also placed her upstairs, on the same floor with Max. She could have been encouraging or helping him to try something dangerous.

JMO

I have to completely disagree with this completley unfounded speculative attack on a 13 year old young teen.

It is equally likely that she is a responsible young lady, and was trying to prevent Max from attempting something extremely dangerous. Involving a toy he never should have had inside, or near stairs, in the first place.

The best evidence we have about this teen's character is this young lady's composure in the 911 call snip that was played on the Dr, Phil show recently. She performed admirably for a young teen in a horrific crisis, and did exactly the right thing by promptly dialing 911 and giving the most pertinent and accurate information she could to the 911 dispatcher. She did her level best as a young teen to help Max after his tragic accident. I'm proud of her efforts, and I'm deeply disgusted with the accusations and speculation here and elsewhere against her.

This is not just an "opinion". This post, imo, is just another example of (imo) the current orchestrated scapegoating campaign of a young teen, in the run up to civil suits being filed. Shameful.

As well as an attempt to derail the thread, imo.

Added: And it is ALSO equally likely that she was telling the truth, and was in the shower, and didn't see anything when Max fell. The absence of wet hair doesn't mean she wasn't in the shower, for pete's sake. People CAN shower without getting their hair wet.

 

[justice be served]

I have to completely disagree with this completley unfounded speculative attack on a 13 year old young teen.

It is equally likely that she is a responsible young lady, and was trying to prevent Max from attempting something extremely dangerous. Involving a toy he never should have had inside, or near stairs, in the first place.

The best evidence we have about this teen's character is this young lady's composure in the 911 call snip that was played on the Dr, Phil show recently. She performed admirably for a young teen in a horrific crisis, and did exactly the right thing by promptly dialing 911 and giving the most pertinent and accurate information she could to the 911 dispatcher. She did her level best as a young teen to help Max after his tragic accident. I'm proud of her efforts, and I'm deeply disgusted with the accusations and speculation here and elsewhere against her.

This is not just an "opinion". This post, imo, is just another example of (imo) the current orchestrated scapegoating campaign of a young teen, in the run up to civil suits being filed. Shameful.

As well as an attempt to derail the thread, imo.

Added: And it is ALSO equally likely that she was telling the truth, and was in the shower, and didn't see anything when Max fell. The absence of wet hair doesn't mean she wasn't in the shower, for pete's sake. People CAN shower without getting their hair wet.

The enlightening piece of your very good post is that it is obvious there is a concerted effort to cast aspersions on the only people purported to have been at the scene of Max's death - that being both Rebecca and her sister. And hell hath no fury because certainly the parents bear NO responsibility for Max's death. Max was allowed to ride an outdoor scooter inside, a 13 year old of course is a raging young woman and the staircase was of couse up to code and safe. What I see is an artificial need to point the finger anywhere other than what is a parent's responsibility because it was the babysitter's fault (sarcasm)or her sister's fault. So let's blame the dead girl. She can no longer speak. If Dina wants to sue then go after the dad who had custody of Max at the time of his death. These parents have proven their parenting responsibilities by having multiple police reports while little Max was around. So if anyone has led a less than stellar life as parents it is Max's own parents - not a 13 year old or a dead woman who paid the ultimate price being involved with this family. Shame on these efforts to blame others for their own screwed up lives. They frankly need to look inward IMO.

 

[Inparadise]

The enlightening piece of your very good post is that it is obvious there is a concerted effort to cast aspersions on the only people purported to have been at the scene of Max's death - that being both Rebecca and her sister. And hell hath no fury because certainly the parents bear NO responsibility for Max's death. Max was allowed to ride an outdoor scooter inside, a 13 year old of course is a raging young woman and the staircase was of couse up to code and safe. What I see is an artificial need to point the finger anywhere other than what is a parent's responsibility because it was the babysitter's fault (sarcasm)or her sister's fault. So let's blame the dead girl. She can no longer speak. If Dina wants to sue then go after the dad who had custody of Max at the time of his death. These parents have proven their parenting responsibilities by having multiple police reports while little Max was around. So if anyone has led a less than stellar life as parents it is Max's own parents - not a 13 year old or a dead woman who paid the ultimate price being involved with this family. Shame on these efforts to blame others for their own screwed up lives. They frankly need to look inward IMO.

I have been wondering for a while about that stair case.....if it was so unsafe, then I would expect that it would have been changed as part of the remodel..........doesn't appear that it was modified at all.

 

[K_Z]

I have been wondering for a while about that stair case.....if it was so unsafe, then I would expect that it would have been changed as part of the remodel..........doesn't appear that it was modified at all.

With a historic home, there may be no legal compulsion to bring something like a bannister up to code. If the railing was removed as part of the remodel, there likely would be language to compel the new bannister and railing to meet code, but if it wasn't touched in the remodel, it may be legally "ok".

 

[justice be served]

With a historic home, there may be no legal compulsion to bring something like a bannister up to code. If the railing was removed as part of the remodel, there likely would be language to compel the new bannister and railing to meet code, but if it wasn't touched in the remodel, it may be legally "ok".

If it were my home, it would matter not that I lost $5 million or more to simply dump it considering what tragedies occurred. I cannot understand remodeling it and moving back in. Knowing that is apparently what has happened, probably the stair has not been fixed. But then I'm a different person and care deeply about things that really matter in life - not material things.

 

[Inparadise]

With a historic home, there may be no legal compulsion to bring something like a bannister up to code. If the railing was removed as part of the remodel, there likely would be language to compel the new bannister and railing to meet code, but if it wasn't touched in the remodel, it may be legally "ok".

Actually, in CA, and specifically in San Diego County, when doing a remodel, the current codes are enforced.......I am not current on the ones involving staircases except that there is a 4-inch rule in the width of the posts on bannisters.........I will have to do some research about the height related restrictions.

 

[Ausgirl]

Is it just me?

I finally let myself view a picture of Max taken at the hospital.. and something in it was nagging at me, I couldn't put my finger on what.. Until I came back to this thread:

And realised I'd been reminded of the two odd-looking, very circular and similarly spaced bruise marks on Max's forehead.

 

[Ausgirl]

Zinn, I couldn't find a thread so I made one:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8491523#post8491523"]Rebecca and the 'rescue breaths' - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[K_Z]

Is it just me?

I finally let myself view a picture of Max taken at the hospital.. and something in it was nagging at me, I couldn't put my finger on what.. Until I came back to this thread:

And realised I'd been reminded of the two odd-looking, very circular and similarly spaced bruise marks on Max's forehead.

It is not possible to look at pics of a severely head injured pediatric ICU patient (taken after 5 days in ICU), and with any certainty, say that "this" mark or "that" mark on a forehead is due to some impact from 5 days ago. Max had a head first/ forehead impact from a second story fall, 30 min cardiac arrest, 2 ambulance transports, 2 emergency rooms and care, and 5 days of very intensive therapies in the ICU of a pediatric hospital. He had numerous diagnostic studies and lots of ICU therapies (tubes, tube holders, head immobilizers, eye protectors, etc).

While pics of ICU patients who have sustained multiple trauma are often very shocking (especially head and face trauma), it just isn't logical or reasonable for a lay person to make inferences about what the source of the marks are. Max's head injuries are consistent with a second story fall onto his head. He also had a 7 and a half inch saggital skull fracture as a result of this fall-- which basically separated the 2 halves of his skull vertically. That is a very severe fracture.

 

[Charterhouse]

They are just showing a self propelled scooter on one of the shopping shows on television. It is self propelled yet. I know Max's wasn't. What were those people (since we don't know which one) thinking when they gave him that scooter.

The person selling them told how they used the scooter in their family and there was never a mention of using it in the house.

That presentation of the scooter just gave me the chills..

Just saying. IMO

 

[*Lash*]

BBM. To even suggest that Dina had control of a scooter or was even aware of the goings-on in her ex-husband's house is so off-base it is difficult to take you seriously.

You keep bashing a grieving mother over something that was the total responsibility of those in the household where the scooter was located. XZ told police that Max had ridden it in the upstairs hallway the day prior to his death. She was old enough to take it away from Max at that time or alert his father or her sister. So were the two siblings that had been staying there. Failure to protect him from something known to be unsafe shows a reckless disregard for his safety.

I don't believe all of the five people who did stay there were unaware of the scooter or unable to remove the scooter from the dangerous play.

JMO

BBM - How do you know XZ didn't take it away from Max or tell the adults in the household? She may have. Awareness is much different than responsibility. It was not XZ responsibility to parent Max. It was Jonah's.

(Moved quote to discuss in the appropriate thread)

 

[Inparadise]

BBM - How do you know XZ didn't take it away from Max or tell the adults in the household? She may have. Awareness is much different than responsibility. It was not XZ responsibility to parent Max. It was Jonah's.

(Moved quote to discuss in the appropriate thread)

I agree, it was Jonah's responsibility to parent Max, not Rebecca's.

 

[MyBelle]

BBM - How do you know XZ didn't take it away from Max or tell the adults in the household? She may have. Awareness is much different than responsibility. It was not XZ responsibility to parent Max. It was Jonah's.

(Moved quote to discuss in the appropriate thread)

Looking out for safety isn't just a parent's job in a household.

I think if XZ would have told LE if she had physically removed the scooter. iirc, the LE report just noted that Max had been riding it and was told not to.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

I agree, it was Jonah's responsibility to parent Max, not Rebecca's.

Jonah wasn't there when Max's fall took place. RZ was.

JMO

 

[*Lash*]

I wonder who told Max not to ride his scooter in the hallway?

 

[MyBelle]

I wonder who told Max not to ride his scooter in the hallway?

I can't remember if that detail was contained in the LE report or not.

 

[freespeech]

The scooter apparently came into contact with the railing somehow during the accident as evidenced by:

1) A paint transfer to the front wheel

2) Freshly gouged paint on the newel post

3) A dent on the front of the bolt that secures the handlebar shaft proximate to the wheel with the paint transfer

4) The scooter was reportedly last see on the second floor where Max played with it but was found on the first floor and in contact with his body after the suspected fall

The newel post looks as though there is newer damage overlying previously painted over damage. The damage appears to has been caused by impact with a hard (metallic) object possibly shaped like one or two large bolts. The damage to the top of the newel post appears to have been caused by a metallic object being pulled over the top of it.

Possibly Max straddled the railing close to the newel post then attempted to pull the scooter up and on top of the newel post but lost his balance and fell to the side and off the railing. When he fell he may have dragged the scooter over with him. Possibly as he went over the scooter landed on top of the chandlier and caused the link to break and it fell too.

Also because of the painted over gouges it appears that there was a past history of rough activity around the newel post. Possibly Max or Jonah's other children played in that area and caused some of the damage also.

Other possible scenarios could include Ocean jumping up and pushing him over or one of the other kids throwing a ball or ruler at him while they told him to get off of it. Since there were other toys found in the area it is possible that other kids were there horsing around when it happened.

The above factors give evidence as to how the scooter may have been involved in the accident. I do not see any scenario where Max's six year old body (head, flesh, muscle and skin) could have caused gouges in the wood. That strikes me as a scientifically and physically impossible feat.

 

[time]

You can also see in one of the upstairs hallway photos that there is a big scuff on the wall, down low. I would bet this came from play. I'm also wondering if that is how the paint got on the scooter wheel and if it was on there before the accident. This would be important to know in any recreation of the accident. I still contend the paint on the wall would probably be different than the paint on the banister, staircase, and newell post and that this could be easily tested.