Max's Search Warrants Released!!!! Discuss Max's Death here #2

[SunnieRN]

The carpet would have provided enough traction that the speed couldn't have been reached for MS to go over the railing with the velocity needed to get that type of head injury.

IMO

Maybe you could do a demonstration, proving that it is not possible. You said your two boys have scooters, maybe you could have them ride them on your carpet and show us the results. That would be very interesting.

As for Max being unconscious prior to hitting the ground, there is no way to know at this point. You state he was because he did not use his hands to break his fall.

People fall every day. We get a lot of them in the hospital. Some elderly, some young. Falls down stairs, or a step outside, falls deom tripping on a cement crack, where two pieces of cement don't fit together evenly, falls on wet floors. Even young adults can not always use their hands to catch themselves and did not break their falls or they wouldn't be in the hospital.

If Max did grab for the chandelier, as it did fall, so something happened, it wasn't broken yet. That is probably the reason there are no cuts on his hands. If the fall occurred like the video LE made, he face planted. He fell head/face first on to the ground. He wouldn't have had time to put his arms out to break the fall.

 

[SunnieRN]

Surely if that scooter went off the railing crashing to the bottom floor it would have dents and damages too wouldn't it? I think there would be some evidence seen on the scooter if it flew over the railings and crashed below.

IMO

Not if it landed on the carpet and didn't hit any objects on the way down. Why would it be damaged?

 

[SmoothOperator]

The carpet would have provided enough traction that the speed couldn't have been reached for MS to go over the railing with the velocity needed to get that type of head injury.

IMO

No, the velocity gained within which his head injury along with severe spinal cord injuries was from the great distance of the fall.. It has nothing to do with the velocity gained in theory of the scooter being part of the accident.. The scooter and it's velocity is irrelevant.. As is proven ny LE conclusion drawn and detailed in the demo.. It does not even take into account a scooter, period.. His injuries as consistent with a fall of such great magnitude along with the direction in which his body turned as it was falling.. That is what created the head injury of which you speak.. Nothing to do with a scooter, period.

 

[thinkingstraight]

As I clearly stated regardless the razor would not have been loud in the least.. It's easily proven..

If I may, I don't think that's the point CD made. It is the comment that RZ made to LE that Max had been warned not to play with his scooter in the house. It's kind of a strange thing to say at that time. IMO

 

[Melanie]

Is the same guy that use to be on tv and said he could tell if someone was lying just by hearing them speak and how they answered the questions?

Or was that another ex-polygraph examiner?

TIA

IMO

Sorry if this has already been answered, but he is the smarmy dude that always appears on Dr. Phil when there's a need for a LDT.

Not sure I would want one by this guy - I've never trusted him and feel he's bias (towards making the tests in Dr. P's favour).

Just my opinion of course.

Mel

 

[Melanie]

Yes you're right she did. It has bothered me too. Also she said (paraphrazing) the last time she had seen the scooter had been a couple days ago (at time of accident) and was upstairs. It is in her statement to police. I can no longer open the docs as I get file damaged. Wish I had of saved them.

ETA: she said that Max was warned not to play with the scooter upstairs.

I know it's been mentioned in MSM's about the scooter being upstairs at one point, yet finding it near the body. Who knows, maybe the scooter was already downstairs and he happened to fall near it.

WHY was the scooter there to begin with? If you don't want a child riding it around in the house, how does it get there. My son is past the scooter stage, but it was always in the garage. Why wasn't the scooter in the garage, or outside that lavish courtyard? A scooter and indoors just doesn't work for me - especially living in sunny san diego. It wasn't raining or snowing that's for sure.

Worrisome that a parent would ask for this rule, yet allow the scoote in the house.

Not blaming anyone here, cuz there's probably a plausible reason why it was there -- but I can't figure one out.

MOOOOOO

Mel

 

[greenpalm]

The idea that RN would want to hurt the child is absurd. The woman quit her job and moved in with a millionaire. Presumably she might have wanted to become a Mrs. S. Hurting the child is not the way to go to achieve that goal. So she has no motive whatsoever to do anything to the child.

I don't think for one minute that RZ wanted to hurt Max. I DO think DS may have had sufficient resentment towards RZ that she suspected RZ of wanting to hurt him. I imagine she could have drawn a quick conclusion about who she thought suffocated Max, once the doc expressed his suspicions.

Interesting that the SW states RZ told them she found MS on his back and turned him over to administer CPR (page 3, thumbnail 3). If that is true, how did the scooter wind up on his leg? Also, did she tell one cop one thing and something quite different to another?

I have always assumed that the scooter was already at the bottom of the stairs, and that Max either caused it to topple when he fell, or, shoot, Ocean was probably bouncing around the scene of the accident frantic with RZ's screaming, and a dogs innate interest in the goings on of people, not to mention, Ocean likely sensed Max was in big trouble. The scooter could have been standing on in the stairwell and either RZ, or Ocean, or the fall itself knocked it over so it ended up on top of Max's leg. I just don't think the scooter's position is mysterious here.

Wendy, what you likely are remembering is the following statement from LE conclusions in power point:

Referring to yes, there were statements given that Max was known to play in this hall area in question and the staircase.. But it doesn't get specific stating the scooter per se.. Tho the very next line does state that the scooter was found to be in the area where the accident occurred..

Referring to the quote regarding a scooter gaining enough velocity on a carpeted area.. All I can say is personal experience proves otherwise, especially in specifically speaking of an exact Razor scooter, along with a son who was small-med frame 6yr old just like Max and the velocity that can be gained with a child the size of Max riding a Razor scooter on carpet is much greater than what would be necessary in Wendy's theory of his going over the banister.. Without a doubt it's possible.. As for both Rebecca and XZ not hearing anything.. A) Rebecca was on a separate floor*
B) XV was in the shower and was just getting out when heard Rebecca screaming for her
C) A&B combined with C being that a Razor scooter on a carpeted hallway would not be audible to either of these two people! It wouldn't have been loud in the very least..

Jmo!! And personal experience.

BBM: This is what I asked earlier. Thank you for letting me know where I read that.

When I did read that, I assumed that Max was using his scooter and hit the railing and went over. Someone had commented back that there was carpet in the hallway, so Max wouldn't have had enough speed.

But… if Max was riding the scooter in the upstairs hallway, and let's assume he was able to achieve the required velocity to fly over the railing. The scooter wouldn't have gone over the railing. It would have stayed at the top of the steps. Unless he was trying to ride the scooter down the banister. Or, as someone (forgot who) suggested, using the scooter to try to knock a ball out of the chandelier, that could have brought Max and the scooter to the floor.

 

[Kimster]

Mod FYI of the night:

"your ignore list.

NOTE: Do NOT post a message saying you are doing so, that's a TOS violation by you. Put them on the list and be happy."
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91915"]Best Practices Dealing with your fellow posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

***THIS POST LANDS AT RANDOM***

 

[Kimster]

Mod FYI of the night:

"your ignore list.

NOTE: Do NOT post a message saying you are doing so, that's a TOS violation by you. Put them on the list and be happy."
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91915"]Best Practices Dealing with your fellow posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

***THIS POST LANDS AT RANDOM***

 

[jjenny]

I think JJenny was responding to the allegations of suffocation and Max being thrown off the railing. Suffocation and throwing (if indeed happened) can never be unintentional. That's why she said RZ had no motive for these two alleged actions.

Exactly. Why would RN want to hurt the child? It doesn't make any sense.
The doctor who suggested suffocation came up with the idea because visible injuries didn't explain cardiac arrest. Spinal cord damage is not a visible injury and Max had severe spinal cord damage. So there is nothing to support the idea of suffocation.

 

[SmoothOperator]

I think all can rest easy that "if" another LDT were to ever be given to Adam it would be given by someone who is still employed in LE, IMO likely even FBI.. But as for Jack he is retired so as far as investigation with this case by a LE agency no one has to worry they wouldn't be using someone who has retired..

 

[SmoothOperator]

Actually, MS's AR contains a blurb about RZ saying he was not allowed to ride the scooter in the hallway. The link to the AR is on the first page in the first post of the first Max death thread.

Thanks thinkingstraight for setting me straight..lol.. So in reply to the correct post what's tht got to do with Max riding his scooter in the hall??

Are you purposing that because a 6yr old child was warned not to ride the scooter there that when no one was looking(XZ in shower and Rebecca in another bathroom) that a 6 yr old boy wouldn't go right ahead and ride the scooter exactly where he was told not to??

Because it all goes back to a very bad decision made by a little boy in a split second believing it was going to be something fun and it was something dangerous that cost him his life.. These deaths happen hundreds a year and they are no one faults.. Certainly not the guardian who is in the bathroom at the time..

 

[SmoothOperator]

Just bringing forward relevant posts that are Important in the discussion.. Demo below:

 

[MyBelle]

What is most puzzling to me is if she really heard a woman screaming for help then why in the world wouldnt she have called 911 immediately????

My thoughts exactly. Ridiculous.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

That means he could not have said "Ocean" as Rebecca claims.

It's all pretty simple logic, imo. Nor does the AR say a spinal cord injury caused the cardiac arrest. If that were true, his heart would not have been successfully restarted to beat for another week. It is the lack of effective resuscitation that finally did the boy in.

The ME didn't make the diagnosis on the child, the Hospital ICU docs did and one of them had to sign the death certificate.

JMO

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Just bringing forward relevant posts that are Important in the discussion.. Demo below:

Dang, how many people fell over this balcony? New to the case.:waitasec:

 

[MyBelle]

Or maybe he just stopped breathing before he suffered the spinal cord contusion. Honestly, I'm not a doctor. I don't know.

But the ICU Chief is a doctor and his conclusion was that he stopped breathing prior to going over the railing. I have no reason to doubt the doctors who performed and interpreted the tests.

JMO

 

[Rhyme & Reason]

Dang, how many people fell over this balcony? New to the case.:waitasec:

Yo Doc, welcome to the forum! This is what LE put out as what happened to 6 year old Max. He died as a result of the injuries but notice how the person depicted in this animation seems to be an adult.

 

[MyBelle]

Do you not see any of it as peculiar? I don't know if she hurt Max intentionally or not, but I do see a coverup. IMO. So, why?

Child abusers often blame the victim. I also believe there is a coverup in regards to Max's death.

JMO

 

[CDS22]

From SW (warrant_4132-1.pdf, page 2, lines 20 - 22):

“The only adult present at the residence when the boy sustained his injuries was [RZ], with a birth date of [X XX XXXX]. [RZ]’s 13 year-old sister, [XZ] was also present at the residence. [XZ] called 911 while [RZ] provided first aid.”


My read concerning those present when MS fell is that RZ was the only adult, XZ was also there AND there was/were other minor(s) present who was/were not listed in the SW. IMO, MOO, etc.

Given the way the statement was written, if XZ had been the only minor present they would have stated as much. IMO.

My questions:

1. Why the hush-hush? [I think this is where the whole ugly snowball began. IMO. Where will it land and at what additional cost?]

2. Since XZ placed the 911 call, can the Z family/attorney push for the 911 recording to be unsealed?

TIA

If other minors were present, it would have said so. Also, the AR mentions only RZ and XZ in the house at the time of MS's injuries.