Max's Scooter

[K_Z]

Hi Carioca. Yes, the head trauma, IMO, caused the cardiac arrest. The murmur was likely just a benign childhood murmur. There is no indication, given the circumstances, that this healthy 6 yo had any kind of medical cardiac event. If he had dropped into a cardiac arrest while, for example, playing soccer (a low impact event), the situation would be vastly different. This is a case of major head trauma.

Max sustained a 10+ foot fall pretty much directly onto his head, and in the process sustained a 7 1/2 inch sagittal skull fracture. That is major trauma, by any definition. Please see many of the links I put in the EMS thread from a while back, and google "tramautic cardiac arrest secondary to head trauma". Essentially, cardiac arrest at the scene in a child with blunt force head trauma is a death sentence in nearly every situation, and in the very few cases of survival, the child is profoundly neurologically devastated. I have at least a half dozen or more links explaining this dismal outcome in the EMS thread. Those links are very large outcome studies of children's blunt force trauma with cardiac arrest, thousands of cases in the study, and one of the major studies was done using San Diego data. Statistics were, at best 1-2% survival, depending on the study. (Some studies put survival at less than 1%.) Max was in the best place he could be to attempt to survive his devastating injuries. Max was not in any kind of a shockable rhythm on arrival of the EMS crew (according to the EMS report)-- he was in asystole.

Here are a few quick links for a general overview (I'm a bit short on time at the moment):

http://www.trauma.org/archive/archives/arres1.html

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/112/24_suppl/IV-146.full

http://bctg.bcas.ca/Condition/Principles/15

Also, the positive benzodiazepine is from medically administered benzos in the stabilization and intubation process. Nothing malicious there.

Max sustained a 30-45 min cardiac arrest. His heart was not suitable for donation due to the cardiac arrest.

 

[bourne]

Am curious about Max's heart and how this could have played out in the various scenarios (planking, owling, running on or off scooter, being hit by the car, etc.) For example, could he have been rushing to go down the stairs with the scooter on his shoulder, the scooter then swings around impacting on the newel causing him to lose his footing, over he goes at that lowest point below the newel, and in the fright of the event he suffers the cardiac arrest simultaneously upon impact? Just tossing this one out, no need to debate it

Respectfully snipped.

Hi Carioca, I think any one of those scenarios you mentioned -- planking, etc. -- could have caused Max's fall. It doesn't take a genius to know that a young healthy physically active boy such as Max whose hands and legs were FREE & UNBOUND with ropes (as opposed to Rebecca whose wrists and legs were bound along with neck constriction with noose and t-shirt and mouth gag) could easily have climbed onto the bannister or even the nearby chair (IIRC two of the items on the 2nd floor landing were a chair and a soccer ball) and his Center of Gravity (CG) would have thusly been elevated sufficiently for him to fall over the bannister.

Also from what I remember, the chandelier used to be about the same level in height as the bannister so that it would have been easy for Max to have slipped over the bannister and caught hold of the chandelier.

I think the only reason CG became a point of contention is because Dina desperately wanted to find fault with Rebecca and the Zahaus for Max's accident because Dina knows she is guilty as heck for Rebecca's death.

Thus, Dina challenged the "accident" ruling of SDLE by claiming nonsense about Max's CG not being sufficient to cause his fall, and then Dina heftily paid her two "experts" to come up with a scenario however convoluted, ridiculous and scientifically implausible, wherein Max could have possibly been assaulted and physically thrown over the bannister by one or two malicious people (whom in Dina's sick mind are Rebecca and her younger teen sister XZ).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For those of us with math and science knowledge:

The formula for CG of a discrete (as opposed to a continuous) 3-dimensional body is: Xcg = ∑xW/∑W for CG along the x-axis, Ycg = ∑yW/∑W for CG along the y-axis, and Zcg = ∑zW/∑W for CG along the z-axis. xW,yW,zW = directional magnitudes of body; W = weight in magnitude of body; ∑=sum of individual components. The point at which all three intersect via vector-analysis (summations by both direction and magnitude) is the center of gravity for the 3-D object.

If you think about this logically, this means that even though Max if standing on the 2nd floor landing on foot has a low CG, the CG can be raised if Max: a) stood on a chair; b) jumped up and climbed on the bannister; c) stepped on Ocean the large Weimaraner; d) stepped on any item that elevated his height, etc.

If you think about this mathematically, if Max was carrying his scooter, his weight with the scooter (the denominators in the CG equation) will always increase because two objects added together always give greater weight. However, the directional magnitudes of the CG (the numerators in the CG equation) will vary, that is, the CG can increase, decrease, or remain the same, depending on where Max held the scooter in relation to his body.

For example, if Max was holding the scooter in the typical fashion as seen in the pics on http://www.letskickscoot.com/home/articles/carry_scooter.cfm, there would be NO WAY NO HOW Max’s CG would be increased enough vertically for Max to fly over railing independently because the x- and z-components of CG would cancel out and/or outweigh that of y-component (vertical) of CG.

In order for the theory that Max was flipping his scooter over his shoulders and at that exact moment he was somehow disoriented by this motion and the scooter with Max's CG raised it sufficiently for Max to fly over the bannister, Max would have to be carrying his scooter in an extended fashion such that the x-, y- and z-components of both Max's and scooter's CG added together would give a vertical CG that sufficiently raises Max’s CG so that he can fly over the bannister. Remember this is vector analysis and vectors can cancel out each other!

This hypothetical COULD happen, for example, if Max fully extended his scooter WHILE FACING THE CHANDELIER and was holding one end of his scooter so that Max plus the scooter's CG is sufficient to overcome gravity. But again, this would depend on the actual dimensions (weight, height, length, etc.) of both Max and the scooter and how exactly the scooter was oriented and positioned with respect to Max, and where Max was standing and facing which objects (e.g., chandelier) while executing this motion. I can only see such a strange action happening if Max was trying to reach the chandelier with the scooter (perhaps as some had proposed to dislodge a soccer ball or he was trying to catch hold of the chandelier with the scooter so he could swing from the chandelier). Other than that, I see no other plausible reason Max would be flipping his scooter over his shoulder while facing the chandelier and that at that precise moment of maximal extension of the scooter, the scooter then caught the chandelier and all (Max, scooter and chandelier) came tumbling down.

Therefore, given the physical evidence of the numerous fresh scrapes and dents made on the railing the day of Max’s accident, it is much more likely that Max was attempting to RIDE his scooter on the railing (as we see many young kids do on scooters in the scooter/skateboard parks) and slipped off, flying into the air and grabbing hold of the chandelier (which at that time had been in a much lower position prior to Jonah renovating the mansion after Max’s accidental fall) and then he, scooter and chandelier then came crashing down with Max sustaining the life-threatening injuries. In short, from Occam's razor, it's most plausible that Max had a freak accident trying to do a scooter stunt on the stairway railings.

 

[LoveAlways7]

Respectfully snipped.

Hi Carioca, I think any one of those scenarios you mentioned -- planking, etc. -- could have caused Max's fall. It doesn't take a genius to know that a young healthy physically active boy such as Max whose hands and legs were FREE & UNBOUND with ropes (as opposed to Rebecca whose wrists and legs were bound along with neck constriction with noose and t-shirt and mouth gag) could easily have climbed onto the bannister or even the nearby chair (IIRC two of the items on the 2nd floor landing were a chair and a soccer ball) and his Center of Gravity (CG) would have thusly been elevated sufficiently for him to fall over the bannister.

Also from what I remember, the chandelier used to be about the same level in height as the bannister so that it would have been easy for Max to have slipped over the bannister and caught hold of the chandelier.

I think the only reason CG became a point of contention is because Dina desperately wanted to find fault with Rebecca and the Zahaus for Max's accident because Dina knows she is guilty as heck for Rebecca's death.

Thus, Dina challenged the "accident" ruling of SDLE by claiming nonsense about Max's CG not being sufficient to cause his fall, and then Dina heftily paid her two "experts" to come up with a scenario however convoluted, ridiculous and scientifically implausible, wherein Max could have possibly been assaulted and physically thrown over the bannister by one or two malicious people (whom in Dina's sick mind are Rebecca and her younger teen sister XZ).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For those of us with math and science knowledge:

The formula for CG of a discrete (as opposed to a continuous) 3-dimensional body is: Xcg = ∑xW/∑W for CG along the x-axis, Ycg = ∑yW/∑W for CG along the y-axis, and Zcg = ∑zW/∑W for CG along the z-axis. xW,yW,zW = directional magnitudes of body; W = weight in magnitude of body; ∑=sum of individual components. The point at which all three intersect via vector-analysis (summations by both direction and magnitude) is the center of gravity for the 3-D object.

If you think about this logically, this means that even though Max if standing on the 2nd floor landing on foot has a low CG, the CG can be raised if Max: a) stood on a chair; b) jumped up and climbed on the bannister; c) stepped on Ocean the large Weimaraner; d) stepped on any item that elevated his height, etc.

If you think about this mathematically, if Max was carrying his scooter, his weight with the scooter (the denominators in the CG equation) will always increase because two objects added together always give greater weight. However, the directional magnitudes of the CG (the numerators in the CG equation) will vary, that is, the CG can increase, decrease, or remain the same, depending on where Max held the scooter in relation to his body.

For example, if Max was holding the scooter in the typical fashion as seen in the pics on http://www.letskickscoot.com/home/articles/carry_scooter.cfm, there would be NO WAY NO HOW Max’s CG would be increased enough vertically for Max to fly over railing independently because the x- and z-components of CG would cancel out and/or outweigh that of y-component (vertical) of CG.

In order for the theory that Max was flipping his scooter over his shoulders and at that exact moment he was somehow disoriented by this motion and the scooter with Max's CG raised it sufficiently for Max to fly over the bannister, Max would have to be carrying his scooter in an extended fashion such that the x-, y- and z-components of both Max's and scooter's CG added together would give a vertical CG that sufficiently raises Max’s CG so that he can fly over the bannister. Remember this is vector analysis and vectors can cancel out each other!

This hypothetical COULD happen, for example, if Max fully extended his scooter WHILE FACING THE CHANDELIER and was holding one end of his scooter so that Max plus the scooter's CG is sufficient to overcome gravity. But again, this would depend on the actual dimensions (weight, height, length, etc.) of both Max and the scooter and how exactly the scooter was oriented and positioned with respect to Max, and where Max was standing and facing which objects (e.g., chandelier) while executing this motion. I can only see such a strange action happening if Max was trying to reach the chandelier with the scooter (perhaps as some had proposed to dislodge a soccer ball or he was trying to catch hold of the chandelier with the scooter so he could swing from the chandelier). Other than that, I see no other plausible reason Max would be flipping his scooter over his shoulder while facing the chandelier and that at that precise moment of maximal extension of the scooter, the scooter then caught the chandelier and all (Max, scooter and chandelier) came tumbling down.

Therefore, given the physical evidence of the numerous fresh scrapes and dents made on the railing the day of Max’s accident, it is much more likely that Max was attempting to RIDE his scooter on the railing (as we see many young kids do on scooters in the scooter/skateboard parks) and slipped off, flying into the air and grabbing hold of the chandelier (which at that time had been in a much lower position prior to Jonah renovating the mansion after Max’s accidental fall) and then he, scooter and chandelier then came crashing down with Max sustaining the life-threatening injuries. In short, from Occam's razor, it's most plausible that Max had a freak accident trying to do a scooter stunt on the stairway railings.

I love your explanation ...

Would love to know how, carrying or riding the scooter, even riding or attempting to ride the scooter down the bannister, enough velocity would be achieved to vault over to the chandelier?

Suppose he is trying to balance the scooter on the rail, he is up higher on a chair... he begins to become unsteady... gravity is pushing him DOWN I assume... how does he then end up catapulted to the chandelier. Because, I'm thinking in order to assume he could get that much velocity he would have had to have been successful at getting up onto the scooter on the rail, and that seems prettttty far fetched, to me.

Assuming that happened, and he reached the chandelier... one would have to assume he was upright and not upside down upon grabbing the chandelier.. how does he then tip and land on the top of his head?

Pretty weird, I see why Dina is wondering what happened.

 

[bourne]

Hi bourne - I remember reading it somewhere and have gone back through copious files trying to where it is stated. The best I could find was a comment by tvscum at following link. It was during a discussion of why would LE take XZ prints and not the teen's prints, and only made sense if XZ was staying in that room. Which IMO still doesn't make sense since all of them were there at Spreckels in the days preceding MS' accident.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=153253&page=2

So we don't know that XZ was staying in the hanging room then...

Personally I don't believe she was because her older sister Rebecca was sleeping in the master bedroom which is on the opposite end of the main house and generally a young child/teen would want to be close to their siblings in a house that is not their own and for which they are visiting for the very first time.

 

[bourne]

I love your explanation ...

Would love to know how, carrying or riding the scooter, even riding or attempting to ride the scooter down the bannister, enough velocity would be achieved to vault over to the chandelier?

Suppose he is trying to balance the scooter on the rail, he is up higher on a chair... he begins to become unsteady... gravity is pushing him DOWN I assume... how does he then end up catapulted to the chandelier. Because, I'm thinking in order to assume he could get that much velocity he would have had to have been successful at getting up onto the scooter on the rail, and that seems prettttty far fetched, to me.

Assuming that happened, and he reached the chandelier... one would have to assume he was upright and not upside down upon grabbing the chandelier.. how does he then tip and land on the top of his head?

Pretty weird, I see why Dina is wondering what happened.

That would depend on the distance between the chandelier and the bannister.

It's easy for a young physically active boy to climb on the bannister, even with a scooter. The scooter can be placed atop the newel first, then boy climbs on bannister. Ta-da. No big feat. Easily done. From there, boy gets on top of scooter which he's done on ground and carpet lots of times before. Again, no great feat. Then boy tries to ride scooter and slips off, flying into chandelier.

 

[STS-135]

It's an interesting theory, something to consider. I've always thought, if the scooter was involved in the accident, that it was something that could have happened easily, given the low level of the bannister on the stairway.

OTOH, Ann Bremner was also quoted as saying an investigator told her it was a "planking" accident. In that scenario, the scooter could have been parked at the bottom of the stairwell and fell over on him after he landed below. Bremner served as the Zahau family's attorney at the beginning of the case and had numerous conversations with the law enforcement and medical professionals who handled the investigation. She would have a lot to lose, professionally speaking, if she was not honest about that. In addition, very early media coverage (much of which was later changed or "scrubbed" reported on the "planking" accident story.

I'm not sure all the scrapes on the newel post are relevant, maybe they are, maybe not. Some of them could have been from previous scrapes, when moving furniture, etc. in the house.

The one thing I'm convinced of is that MS's death was an accident. Had it been murder, one of the many medical experts would have figured it out and reported it as such. They had no motivation to put their careers on the line to cover up a murder of a child.

I love Anne Rule's book. I also found a number of inconsistencies and, in regards to some theories/scenarios, what appear to be bases of artistic license applied to inside information. Which could be nothing more than an Investigator saying to her privately and off the record: I think this is what happened... Had the Investigator also offered a logical explanation to support his/her tips which included an explanation for the damage on the newel post and banister as well as the injuries on poor Maxie's back, Anne would've no doubt mentioned it already...

As for Anne Bremner, I have no doubt she was being perfectly honest. I also have no doubt she was probably also basing her truthful statements on erroneous information being provided to her at the time. Some might have even come from posters on this forum if my recollection servers me well. Even awesome Attorneys are susceptible to the GIGO principle (Garbage-In Garbage-Out), just like the experts who worked this case...

And in regards to the news media, well, 'nuff said... Another case of "we now have the pilot and crew names" and every other news outlet in the world just being taken along for the ride...

 

[*Lash*]

I love your explanation ...

Would love to know how, carrying or riding the scooter, even riding or attempting to ride the scooter down the bannister, enough velocity would be achieved to vault over to the chandelier?

Suppose he is trying to balance the scooter on the rail, he is up higher on a chair... he begins to become unsteady... gravity is pushing him DOWN I assume... how does he then end up catapulted to the chandelier. Because, I'm thinking in order to assume he could get that much velocity he would have had to have been successful at getting up onto the scooter on the rail, and that seems prettttty far fetched, to me.

Assuming that happened, and he reached the chandelier... one would have to assume he was upright and not upside down upon grabbing the chandelier.. how does he then tip and land on the top of his head?

Pretty weird, I see why Dina is wondering what happened.

Hi LoveAlways7!

BBM - In my opinion, I believe just about everyone understands why Dina wonders what happened to her only child. Dina wasn't there. Any parent would have questions about a fatal accident their child suffered. It is human nature, even more so if you're not with your child at the time. At first Dina received a second hand account of what happened, even a third coming from Nina's conversation with Rebecca. I'm sure this was difficult for Dina, it would be for any parent. If you add her distrust of Jonah and Rebecca I can believe her imagination was running wild. In my opinion, she was tortured by her own speculation and assumptions because she was not in control. Which is why I believe she ultimately went to the mansion to confront Rebecca first hand.

 

[Zoot]

Am curious about Max's heart and how this could have played out in the various scenarios (planking, owling, running on or off scooter, being hit by the car, etc.) For example, could he have been rushing to go down the stairs with the scooter on his shoulder, the scooter then swings around impacting on the newel causing him to lose his footing, over he goes at that lowest point below the newel, and in the fright of the event he suffers the cardiac arrest simultaneously upon impact? Just tossing this one out, no need to debate it

At the moment, I'm more interested in what caused his cardiac arrest.

CPD report states: Cardiac arrest prior to arrival.

Max's autopsy report states (page 5):
"He had no significant medical history, although a II/IV systolic heart murmur was detected on May 25, 2011. Had been referred to pediatric cardiology, but had not had that appointment."

Note: I could only find 5 Systolic Murmur Grades and II/IV is not included, so I can only presume this must be a typo on the autopsy report! Murmurs range from I/VI through VI/VI, but none end in IV….
http://www.utmb.edu/pedi_ed/CORE/Cardiology/page_03.htm

There are a number of heart conditions that can lead to sudden cardiac arrest. These are called primary heart rhythm abnormalities. Citing two of these conditions, one is called Brugada's Syndrome and another is called Long QT Syndrome (LQTS).

I am familiar with LQTS. Ten years ago, my perfectly healthy 21-year-old cousin died of sudden cardiac arrest while playing soccer in college. He literally dropped dead while running on the field. It was attributed to previously undetected LQTS. In fact, many athletes have died as a result of undetected LQTS. I cite this since little Max was an avid and talented soccer player.
http://www.texasheartinstitute.org/HIC/Topics/Cond/longqts.cfm

LQTS is an abnormality of the heart's electrical system. The mechanical function of the heart is entirely normal. The electrical problem is due to defects in heart muscle cell structures called ion channels. These electrical defects predispose affected persons to a very fast heart rhythm (arrhythmia) called "Torsade de Pointes" (TdP) which leads to sudden loss of consciousness (syncope) and may cause sudden cardiac death.
http://www.qtsyndrome.ch/faq.html

Guidelines for management of patients with LQTS:
Competitive sports should be avoided.

As to Brugada Syndrome: Many people who have Brugada syndrome don't have any symptoms, and so they're unaware of their condition.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/brugada-syndrome/DS01142/DSECTION=symptoms

Back to Max's AR:
"Toxicology testing detected of blood drawn during admission to the hospital revealed presumptive positive benzodiazepines, but this was not confirmed."

Back to LQST:
There is a long list of drugs to be avoided in LQST. Maybe K_Z can chime in on whether any on the list are benzodiazepines (TIA, K_Z!).
http://www.azcert.org/drugs_to_avoid.pdf

Back to Max's AR: page 10:
"There has been organ procurement, including the liver, pancreas, great vessels (aorta and vena cava), kidneys, and perirenal fat with adrenal glands."

Question 1: A heart with congenital heart disease would NOT be donated. This leads me to question if Max's heart was not suitable for procurement, only the aorta and vena cava, thus the entire heart was not donated?

Question 2: In one of K_Z's excellent comments and expert analyses, she states:
"IMO, the evidence that we have strongly supports that Max had cardiac arrest secondary to the head trauma (as opposed to a deteriorating cardiac rhythm that becomes aystolic from hypoxia, which is a completely different electrical process in the heart.)"

K_Z, are you saying the head trauma would have CAUSED the cardiac arrest? If so, could it not have been the opposite: cardiac arrest leads to fall causing head trauma.

Bottom line: It is possible Max could have had an undetected heart condition that perhaps would have been detected if he had been examined by a pediatric cardiologist, as was suggested 6 weeks before his fatal accident.

As a parent, I can only imagine the horrid feeling of guilt for not having followed through with that recommendation. As is often the case, it's less painful to blame another rather than accept responsibility (such as "If only I had ----").

All above just my opinion unless accompanied by a link

Unlike adults, children almost never have cardiac arrest for pure "cardiac" reasons because their hearts are young and healthy. Almost always, cardiac rest in kids follows respiratory arrest. In Maxie's cas, brain stem damage led to respiratory arrest (part of the brain reponsible for resiratory function stopped functioning) and cardiac arrest followed as a result.

 

[SweetT]

cirque du soliel

No offense, but are you serious right now?

I challenge each and every person to get a scooter, carry it running or walking, and try to end up POLE VAULTING over a railing onto a chandelier and crack the top of your head. Aint gonna happen!

I've raised 2 boys and both with scooters and stairs, I would love to see a 6 yr old do this, climb up onto a bannister with a scooter that is not stable and then trying to climb onto the scooter, not happening and not going to throw you into the chandellier or across the stairwell. I would even challenge someone to set this scenerio up on floor level and even let a 6 yr old attempt it, I'd say impossible. And then of course the bruise to Max's back that seems to be a bannister hit him in the back.
I still think this scooter was thrown, hit the newel post while being slung and then the chandelier, I think Max was upset and fought with the person who threw the scooter down and ended up being pushed or thrown over

 

[time]

Bumping this to show how low the Chandelier was.

Apologies if I missed something (trying to catch up), but do we know as fact that the damaged newel post was the one at the top of the stairs and not the one heading down from the landing? If could have been thrown, or projected, from the top, hit the chandelier perhaps, and then hit the lower newel post. Just throwing this out as food for thought.

 

[time]

I've raised 2 boys and both with scooters and stairs, I would love to see a 6 yr old do this, climb up onto a bannister with a scooter that is not stable and then trying to climb onto the scooter, not happening and not going to throw you into the chandellier or across the stairwell. I would even challenge someone to set this scenerio up on floor level and even let a 6 yr old attempt it, I'd say impossible. And then of course the bruise to Max's back that seems to be a bannister hit him in the back.
I still think this scooter was thrown, hit the newel post while being slung and then the chandelier, I think Max was upset and fought with the person who threw the scooter down and ended up being pushed or thrown over

I have never been able to match the bannister shape to the bruises on Max's back. In fact, I believe it is in Melinek's report about the '7 'shape on his back. That shape appears to correspond rather well with the side of the scooter. This does not coincide with Melinek's other claims that someone pushed Max into the bannister and/or threw him over or he escaped (I believe this covers most of the options she ends up claiming). But perhaps with graphics you could compare all this and try to explain what you are thinking?

There is actually a lot of forensic evidence in Max's case if one chooses to use it.

 

[STS-135]

Respectfully snipped.

Hi Carioca, I think any one of those scenarios you mentioned -- planking, etc. -- could have caused Max's fall. It doesn't take a genius to know that a young healthy physically active boy such as Max whose hands and legs were FREE & UNBOUND with ropes (as opposed to Rebecca whose wrists and legs were bound along with neck constriction with noose and t-shirt and mouth gag) could easily have climbed onto the bannister or even the nearby chair (IIRC two of the items on the 2nd floor landing were a chair and a soccer ball) and his Center of Gravity (CG) would have thusly been elevated sufficiently for him to fall over the bannister.

Also from what I remember, the chandelier used to be about the same level in height as the bannister so that it would have been easy for Max to have slipped over the bannister and caught hold of the chandelier.

I think the only reason CG became a point of contention is because Dina desperately wanted to find fault with Rebecca and the Zahaus for Max's accident because Dina knows she is guilty as heck for Rebecca's death.

Thus, Dina challenged the "accident" ruling of SDLE by claiming nonsense about Max's CG not being sufficient to cause his fall, and then Dina heftily paid her two "experts" to come up with a scenario however convoluted, ridiculous and scientifically implausible, wherein Max could have possibly been assaulted and physically thrown over the bannister by one or two malicious people (whom in Dina's sick mind are Rebecca and her younger teen sister XZ).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For those of us with math and science knowledge:

The formula for CG of a discrete (as opposed to a continuous) 3-dimensional body is: Xcg = ∑xW/∑W for CG along the x-axis, Ycg = ∑yW/∑W for CG along the y-axis, and Zcg = ∑zW/∑W for CG along the z-axis. xW,yW,zW = directional magnitudes of body; W = weight in magnitude of body; ∑=sum of individual components. The point at which all three intersect via vector-analysis (summations by both direction and magnitude) is the center of gravity for the 3-D object.

If you think about this logically, this means that even though Max if standing on the 2nd floor landing on foot has a low CG, the CG can be raised if Max: a) stood on a chair; b) jumped up and climbed on the bannister; c) stepped on Ocean the large Weimaraner; d) stepped on any item that elevated his height, etc.

If you think about this mathematically, if Max was carrying his scooter, his weight with the scooter (the denominators in the CG equation) will always increase because two objects added together always give greater weight. However, the directional magnitudes of the CG (the numerators in the CG equation) will vary, that is, the CG can increase, decrease, or remain the same, depending on where Max held the scooter in relation to his body.

For example, if Max was holding the scooter in the typical fashion as seen in the pics on http://www.letskickscoot.com/home/articles/carry_scooter.cfm, there would be NO WAY NO HOW Max’s CG would be increased enough vertically for Max to fly over railing independently because the x- and z-components of CG would cancel out and/or outweigh that of y-component (vertical) of CG.

In order for the theory that Max was flipping his scooter over his shoulders and at that exact moment he was somehow disoriented by this motion and the scooter with Max's CG raised it sufficiently for Max to fly over the bannister, Max would have to be carrying his scooter in an extended fashion such that the x-, y- and z-components of both Max's and scooter's CG added together would give a vertical CG that sufficiently raises Max’s CG so that he can fly over the bannister. Remember this is vector analysis and vectors can cancel out each other!

This hypothetical COULD happen, for example, if Max fully extended his scooter WHILE FACING THE CHANDELIER and was holding one end of his scooter so that Max plus the scooter's CG is sufficient to overcome gravity. But again, this would depend on the actual dimensions (weight, height, length, etc.) of both Max and the scooter and how exactly the scooter was oriented and positioned with respect to Max, and where Max was standing and facing which objects (e.g., chandelier) while executing this motion. I can only see such a strange action happening if Max was trying to reach the chandelier with the scooter (perhaps as some had proposed to dislodge a soccer ball or he was trying to catch hold of the chandelier with the scooter so he could swing from the chandelier). Other than that, I see no other plausible reason Max would be flipping his scooter over his shoulder while facing the chandelier and that at that precise moment of maximal extension of the scooter, the scooter then caught the chandelier and all (Max, scooter and chandelier) came tumbling down.

Therefore, given the physical evidence of the numerous fresh scrapes and dents made on the railing the day of Max’s accident, it is much more likely that Max was attempting to RIDE his scooter on the railing (as we see many young kids do on scooters in the scooter/skateboard parks) and slipped off, flying into the air and grabbing hold of the chandelier (which at that time had been in a much lower position prior to Jonah renovating the mansion after Max’s accidental fall) and then he, scooter and chandelier then came crashing down with Max sustaining the life-threatening injuries. In short, from Occam's razor, it's most plausible that Max had a freak accident trying to do a scooter stunt on the stairway railings.

Bourne, your theory is seriously flawed, because it doesn't explain the damage on the newel post and banister. If you could only please throw all the assumptions you are making out the window, even if only to indulge us for a little while, I have absolutely no doubt that you'd be able to clearly and fully describe the complex mathematical principles behind my theory:

1. Maxie tried to lift the fully-extended scooter by the handle to take it downstair.

2. Foot section swiveled and bumped into the newel post (see photo with dent halfway up the post)

3. He's having trouble keeping the foot section from swiveling so he decides to put it over his right shoulder

4. The 7-pound foot section, at the end of the fully extended steerer tube, likely with his left hand on the handle and his right hand on the tube, then swivels and strikes him hard on the right shoulder and neck, explaining that completely and previously unexplainable plane of injuries.

5. Maxie reacts to the pain and uses both his hands to literraly swing the foot section away from him, exerting so much force on the steerer tube, alike swinging a baseball bat, that the foot section now swings violently in a counter-clockwise direction (when viewed from above).

6. The foot section strikes the flared/tapered edge of the newel post and banister.

7. All the damage on the hallway-facing edge of the newel post and banister match scooter components *exactly*, as you can no doubt also go confirm yourself.

8. The foot section bounces off the the banister as a result of that violent strike, moving the combined COG even higher - much higher as it is at the end of the fully extended steerer tube.

9. Not only is the combined COG much, much higher now after the foot section bounces off the banister, it is also hanging at the other end of the steerer tube - a very long lever.

10. The steerer tube, as Maxie continues to try to hold on to it as the scooter starts to succumb to gravity and starts moving downward, comes into contact with the corner/edge of the newel post facing towards the chandelier - that damage is clearly visible on the high-res photos, clearly the result of a metal object (in this case an aluminum pipe) hitting and then rubbing against it and leaving those dark rub marks you too can no doubt see.

11. The foot section of the scooter, still moving in a counter-clockwise direction (when viewed from above) after bouncing, exerted such a force on 40-pound Maxie at the other end of the steerer tube (lever) that he moved to what by then was his left and went down one step on the staircase.

12. The effect of the Combined-COG, by now incredibly higher than the Combined-COG graphed/reported by the experts, is now way above what would be required for Maxie to easily fall over that much lower part of the railing (one step down)

13. As if #12 wasn't already enough, the 7-pound foot section is exerting a huge force on Maxie, but I agree with you, only partially overcoming the effect of gravity.

14. As if #12 and #13 together were not already enough, the foot section is also still moving violently, and the momentum it generates at the other end of that lever/steerer tube, is more than enough to throw Maxie off balance

15. Maxie is literally catapulted over the banister.

16. The scooter violently strikes the chandelier, so hard in fact to snap one of the chain links, however, it takes a moment longer to actually rip that electrical cable, which slows down the descent of the scooter.

17. Maxie's 40-pound body literraly torpedoes straigh into the ground. Followed by the chandelier and the scooter.

18. Chandelier falls next to Maxie. They never come in contact with each other, thus no cuts.

19. Scooter lands on Maxie's back, creates those injuries in a "7 shape", strikes the back of his neck, and the relatively sharp edge of the foot section scrapes the skin off his back in two spots (the ones I earlier speculated looked more like carpet burns). Dina finds skin redisue in his shirt later.

20. This is the only scenario that explains both, the level of injuries he suffered in the fall, as well as their location and plane, especially those previously mysterious and extremely disconcerning shoulder injuries. It was those injuries, and what I previously thought were carpet burns on his back, that no doubt convinced Maxie's Mother that it was a homicide, especially when neither LE nor her own experts could explain them convincingly. No wonder she thought and still thinks that her precious little child was murdered.

RIP Maxie Shacknai. I pray that Rebecca Zahau can still play with you and watch you while you sleep. I also pray that conclusively explaining how your tragic accident occurred, might lead to new devopment in her case too - because both families deserve answers.

 

[DeDee]

Scooter -

<respectfully snipped>

Newel Post -

*Warning! Clicking this link takes you to a graphic photo of Max's facial injuries while in ICU*

http://www.maxshacknai.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Maxie1.jpg

Corresponding the 2 round abrasions on Max's battered face in the ICU photo with the 2 round indentations of the newel as suggested by Ausgirl on post #69 of the Max's Scooter threads

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188466&page=2

This is too sad. A moment of silence to honor Max...

 

[STS-135]

Bourne, your theory is seriously flawed, because it doesn't explain the damage on the newel post and banister. If you could only please throw all the assumptions you are making out the window, even if only to indulge us for a little while, I have absolutely no doubt that you'd be able to clearly and fully describe the complex mathematical principles behind my theory:

1. Maxie tried to lift the fully-extended scooter by the handle to take it downstair.

2. Foot section swiveled and bumped into the newel post (see photo with dent halfway up the post)

3. He's having trouble keeping the foot section from swiveling so he decides to put it over his right shoulder

4. The 7-pound foot section, at the end of the fully extended steerer tube, likely with his left hand on the handle and his right hand on the tube, then swivels and strikes him hard on the right shoulder and neck, explaining that completely and previously unexplainable plane of injuries.

5. Maxie reacts to the pain and uses both his hands to literraly swing the foot section away from him, exerting so much force on the steerer tube, alike swinging a baseball bat, that the foot section now swings violently in a counter-clockwise direction (when viewed from above).

6. The foot section strikes the flared/tapered edge of the newel post and banister.

7. All the damage on the hallway-facing edge of the newel post and banister match scooter components *exactly*, as you can no doubt also go confirm yourself.

8. The foot section bounces off the the banister as a result of that violent strike, moving the combined COG even higher - much higher as it is at the end of the fully extended steerer tube.

9. Not only is the combined COG much, much higher now after the foot section bounces off the banister, it is also hanging at the other end of the steerer tube - a very long lever.

10. The steerer tube, as Maxie continues to try to hold on to it as the scooter starts to succumb to gravity and starts moving downward, comes into contact with the corner/edge of the newel post facing towards the chandelier - that damage is clearly visible on the high-res photos, clearly the result of a metal object (in this case an aluminum pipe) hitting and then rubbing against it and leaving those dark rub marks you too can no doubt see.

11. The foot section of the scooter, still moving in a counter-clockwise direction (when viewed from above) after bouncing, exerted such a force on 40-pound Maxie at the other end of the steerer tube (lever) that he moved to what by then was his left and went down one step on the staircase.

12. The effect of the Combined-COG, by now incredibly higher than the Combined-COG graphed/reported by the experts, is now way above what would be required for Maxie to easily fall over that much lower part of the railing (one step down)

13. As if #12 wasn't already enough, the 7-pound foot section is exerting a huge force on Maxie, but I agree with you, only partially overcoming the effect of gravity.

14. As if #12 and #13 together were not already enough, the foot section is also still moving violently, and the momentum it generates at the other end of that lever/steerer tube, is more than enough to throw Maxie off balance

15. Maxie is literally catapulted over the banister.

16. The scooter violently strikes the chandelier, so hard in fact to snap one of the chain links, however, it takes a moment longer to actually rip that electrical cable, which slows down the descent of the scooter.

17. Maxie's 40-pound body literraly torpedoes straigh into the ground. Followed by the chandelier and the scooter.

18. Chandelier falls next to Maxie. They never come in contact with each other, thus no cuts.

19. Scooter lands on Maxie's back, creates those injuries in a &quot;7 shape&quot;, strikes the back of his neck, and the relatively sharp edge of the foot section scrapes the skin off his back in two spots (the ones I earlier speculated looked more like carpet burns). Dina finds skin redisue in his shirt later.

20. This is the only scenario that explains both, the level of injuries he suffered in the fall, as well as their location and plane, especially those previously mysterious and extremely disconcerning shoulder injuries. It was those injuries, and what I previously thought were carpet burns on his back, that no doubt convinced Maxie's Mother that it was a homicide, especially when neither LE nor her own experts could explain them convincingly. No wonder she thought and still thinks that her precious little child was murdered.

RIP Maxie Shacknai. I pray that Rebecca Zahau can still play with you and watch you while you sleep. I also pray that conclusively explaining how your tragic accident occurred, might lead to new devopment in her case too - because both families deserve answers.

Yes, please look at the photos of precious little Maxie's injuries. But do so from a medical/scientific point of view. They were not caused by assault, they were caused by poor Maxie literally torpedoing into the ground from at least 12 or is it 14 feet. Maxie was not assaulted. There was no rage. It can now all be explained medically and scientifically, and I have already reached out to various entities with my (our) findings. Yes, going public. Maxie's Mom deserves answers too. Regardless of what role she may have or not have played in Rebecca's death. The Zahau family deserves our help and answers too, but we are not going to ever be able to make a difference unless they too release all their case files and expert's reports.

Please, let's honor Maxie's life by at least trying to undestand how his tragic and totally preventable accident occurred.

My condolences to the Shacnai's and Romano's for your tragic loss. I feel it too. I do.

 

[time]

Yes, please look at the photos of precious little Maxie's injuries. But do so from a medical/scientific point of view. They were not caused by assault, they were caused by poor Maxie literally torpedoing into the ground from at least 12 or is it 14 feet. Maxie was not assaulted. There was no rage. It can now all be explained medically and scientifically, and I have already reached out to various entities with my findings. Yes, going public. Maxie's Mom deserves answers.

Rebecca's family deserves answers too. And her case might very well turn out to be homicide. We don't know yet. So all your recent posts might still be right-on in Rebecca's case. But, please, let's honor Maxie's life by at least trying to undestand how his tragic and totally preventable accident occurred. My condolences for your tragic loss. I feel it too. I do.

Can you tell me why you are so uniquely qualified medically and forensically/scientifically to come up with these findings and think no one else has come up with a plausible scenario, especially the Zahau's experts? I think even Dr. Bove could have shown how it was an accident if his goal were not constrained to showing how it had to include an assault.

Maybe you can make a computer simulation if they are so astounding, that would be great.

It's obvious to me that Max could have made the marks on the bannister in a number of ways including this explanation...

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.

The only thing I question is possibly "A paint transfer to the front wheel" as there is clearly paint marked up on the wall in the upstairs hallway not far from the banister. That could probably have happened at a different time and paint was transferred onto the scooter wheel at the same time. And, I believe the scooter could have caught the chandelier on the way down.

BBM - So you are responding to another poster who is Dina, right.

 

[STS-135]

*Warning! Clicking this link takes you to a graphic photo of Max's facial injuries while in ICU*

http://www.maxshacknai.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Maxie1.jpg

Corresponding the 2 round abrasions on Max's battered face in the ICU photo with the 2 round indentations of the newel as suggested by Ausgirl on post #69 of the Max's Scooter threads

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188466&page=2

This is too sad. A moment of silence to honor Max...

I agree. Let's start please honoring Max. And stop dishonoring Rebecca. By the way, please stop looking at this photo. It is the worst possible photo to be looking at because it is extremely misleading. Those marks are on a flared/tapered edge and are side-ways impressions, not downward impressions. Also, this photo doesn't show the damaged caused by either the guard over the rear wheel nor that caused by the steerer tube on the outer edge/corner of the newel post, the pivot point.

Respectfully, the right photo to be looking at, which clearly shows all of the above and from the proper perspective is include in Dr. Bove's report. I believe it was on page 8 of the report, page 10 of the file. Please look at that one instead, because I agree, it is hard not to get the feeling this was a hard downward strike which misled us all to think there had to be some anger or rage involved. There was no such thing. These marks were all done by the result of a side-ways motion, you just cannot see that at all on this photo you quoted. Thank you.

 

[STS-135]

BBM - How do you feel about the wild speculating, slandering and libel that has been brought against Rebecca and her family in Maxie's case? Is there a difference? Maxie's own mother has slandered Rebecca and her minor sister. Again, MINOR sister. A little hypocritical in my opinion.

If I'm guilty of engaging in what you described, it is because I am sick of the outrageous and ridiculous theories that are thrown towards Rebecca and her family. I'm sick of the Zahau's being bullied. My commando comments were an attempt to express how demoralizing some have been to Rebecca. She is deceased, just like Maxie. They both deserve respect, but you see it doesn't work that way. If you notice most people who believe Rebecca was murdered also believe both cases should be opened. The Zahau's and their attorneys included. However, for some strange reason if you ( I mean you in general ) believe Maxie was murdered, you don't support opening Rebecca's case. Why is that?

I agree, wholeheartedly, with everything you posted here. It was not my intention to step on your toes again - so to speak. I just can't understand why so many people here seem more interested in gossiping than in truly trying to solve both cases. The slandering Dina has done against Rebecca's memory is completely unacceptable. But, as Maxie's Mom, she deserved answers too. It just so happened that enough data had been disclosed about his case to be able to solve it. While not nearly enough data has been released in Rebecca's case. When and if that ever happens, I so hope to GOD to please help us all again find the solution to her equally mysterious and far more disturbing case.

I am sorry if I offended you with my condolences to the Shacknai's/Romano's; but, unless proven guilty down the road, for the time being the only humane thing that I can do - HAVING SUFFERED THEIR AGONY FOR 20-PLUS YEARS - is to offer them the answers they were deprived of for two years and my condolences. I also want to be able to do the same for Rebecca's family, it is and remains the reason I'm here, but how can any of us make any difference in Rebecca's when her Family is unwilling to release all the case files. If and when they release them, I'll go at it again with the same gusto I examined Maxie's case.

For the time being, it was the fact that you had all already collected such a wealth of information here on this forum (which allowed me to do 'data mining' as we call it in IT), combined with the fact that Maxie's Mom released the actual photos of the injuries as well as the actual expert reports, that made finding the right answers possible. I believe the same is probably true in Rebecca's case, but only when all the files are released.

As to your assertion that I do not support reponing Rebecca's case, nothing could be further from the truth. It is in fact what brought me here, to find new evidence or shed new light/interpreations on old evidence to force LE to reopen her case. And maybe we can still do it, I just do not think that enough information has already been released to be able to arrive at any intelligent scenario. And until her case files are released in their entirety, if ever, I have a family to protect and refuse to continue to engage in wild accusations and possibly even libel - or do you think our silly little IMHO, IMO, my opinion only, or even the long disclaimer in my signature below truly protect us?

If you had read all my posts from day one, you would not doubt have already known that reopening Rebecca's case was and remains my number #1 goal. As someone else posted to the other thread, as acknowledged and even bolded in red by me, I also still STRONGLY believe that we are helping Rebecca's case by solving Maxie's case first.

Insofar as not having stated any concerns over Dina slandering Rebeeca, what do you base that on? I have clearly expressed my anger at her repeatedly made accussations too along the way since I started posting recently. I can see, however, how you too might've missed or already forgotten those comments because some of my posts can be quite long. My apologies if that is the case.

 

[LoveAlways7]

I agree. Let's start please honoring Max. And stop dishonoring Rebecca. By the way, please stop looking at this photo. It is the worst possible photo to be looking at because it is extremely misleading. Those marks are on a flared/tapered edge and are side-ways impressions, not downward impressions. Also, this photo doesn't show the damaged caused by either the guard over the rear wheel nor that caused by the steerer tube on the outer edge/corner of the newel post, the pivot point.

Respectfully, the right photo to be looking at, which clearly shows all of the above and from the proper perspective is include in Dr. Bove's report. I believe it was on page 8 of the report, page 10 of the file. Please look at that one instead, because I agree, it is hard not to get the feeling this was a hard downward strike which misled us all to think there had to be some anger or rage involved. There was no such thing. These marks were all done by the result of a side-ways motion, you just cannot see that at all on this photo you quoted. Thank you.

How do you know whether there was anger or rage?

Nobody knows the series of events that led to Max being fatally injured.

 

[Betty P]

Again, I'd like to repeat warnings from previous posters to avoid clicking on links to web sites that you're not familiar with. This warning is not targeted to any specific individuals, just a general warning to be careful.

 

[STS-135]

How do you know whether there was anger or rage?

Nobody knows the series of events that led to Max being fatally injured.

None of us will ever really know exactly what happened. We do now know that it was no more than a tragic accident, science will prove it!

Having reasonably concluded that it was in fact an accident, then I think we can also reasonably please eliminate all the "anger, assault, planking, teens in town, rage, Russian mob, little-green-men" theories. That's all I'm suggesting, at least to those here only to help reopen both cases.

But veryone is entitled to their opinion. So I'll just create another thread where we can please discuss only our new theory. Thank you.