Dina Shacknai wants Max's death reopened; gives ICU pic to media

[screecher]

Also, I am pretty sure the rule included Rebecca taking Max to the airport by herself. Because it really doesn't make any sense if Jonah was present.

Oh yes. I think Ms. D Romano's "rules" were ingrained in Rebecca's head.

 

[MyBelle]

Please keep in mind that experts have also concluded that Rebecca's death investigation should be reopened as well.

The best solution overall is for the CA Atty General's office to conduct an independent investigation of both deaths.

My point is that this thread is about Max and the request of his mother to local LE, not the AG. Local LE have refused to reopen the investigation into RZ's death and I'm not aware that DS has made a request to the AG to reopen RZ's investigation.


JMO

 

[MyBelle]

According to the " Boy, Interupted" interview with DS, Rebecca was not allowed to go to the airport with Max.

"According to Dina, Rebecca was not allowed to cross state lines alone with Max or take him to an airport."

If this is true RS could have been really pissed that she needed to
stay home that morning and not go with the others to the airport. The
wording of the article does not state clearly, whether she could be at an airport with JS and Max or not at all.

If RS did something to Max when he returned form the airport then
Dina might feel some guilt that she laid down all those rules. Moo

www.phoenixmag.com

Is the entire interview now available? The link posted earlier contained only the first part so I'll try this one.

I still hold the opinion that if RZ did anything at all to Max whether it be retaliation for not being allowed to go to the airport (really, how childish is that?) or just because she knew his mother didn't like her (again, very childish on her part) is no excuse for harming the child. In my opinion, there is no excuse for harming a child.

I also think the only guilt Dina feels is the same guilt any other parent would feel when they instinctively sense their child is in danger and their worst fears become reality.

JMO

FYI: Link doesn't inclue material being discussed by some posters. Instead it states:

For more of PHOENIX magazine’s 'Boy, Interrupted', check back soon, find us at newsstands Valleywide or call 480-664-3960. Subscribe today so you don’t miss another issue!

 

[screecher]

Is the entire interview now available? The link posted earlier contained only the first part so I'll try this one.

I still hold the opinion that if RZ did anything at all to Max whether it be retaliation for not being allowed to go to the airport (really, how childish is that?) or just because she knew his mother didn't like her (again, very childish on her part) is no excuse for harming the child. In my opinion, there is no excuse for harming a child.

I also think the only guilt Dina feels is the same guilt any other parent would feel when they instinctively sense their child is in danger and their worst fears become reality.

JMO

FYI: Link doesn't inclue material being discussed by some posters. Instead it states:

For more of PHOENIX magazine’s 'Boy, Interrupted', check back soon, find us at newsstands Valleywide or call 480-664-3960. Subscribe today so you don’t miss another issue!

BBM

What evidence (facts), do you base your opinion Rebecca 'harmed the child'?

 

[MyBelle]

BBM

What evidence (facts), do you base your opinion Rebecca 'harmed the child'?

I didn't offer an opinion that RZ harmed any child. What I said was: In my opinion, there is no excuse for harming a child.

I'll continue to hold my opinion.

 

[Salem]

Geez you guys - get a grip! Knock it off.

There is no reason to attack each other. There are two sides to every story and sometimes more. The mission here is to go through the facts and see what fits and what doesn't. Everyone sees the facts differently and that's okay. Attacking each other because they don't see things the way you do or their opinion is different is not okay.

Knock it off. I'm getting really tired of saying that. This is the last time. Starting tomorrow, no warnings, just 48 hour TOs for anyone that can not move past a post they shouldn't respond to.

Salem

PS - everyone has an ignore list. This might be a good time to figure out how it works.

 

[*Lash*]

Saturday morning Dina was on CNN - here is a link to the transcript.

CNN SATURDAY MORNING NEWS
Aired August 18, 2012 - 11:00 ET

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1208/18/smn.05.html

 

[katydid23]

Saturday morning Dina was on CNN - here is a link to the transcript.

CNN SATURDAY MORNING NEWS
Aired August 18, 2012 - 11:00 ET

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1208/18/smn.05.html

ANGELA HALLIER, ATTORNEY: The most significant findings from our experts that show this was not an accident and in fact was an assault scenario was that Max fell on the top, the vertex of his head, not his front forehead. The back injuries were not the result of an impact. They were the result of scraping, pushing against the railing.

His center of gravity would not have allowed him to go over the banister the way the accidental scenario said it would. There were no dicing abrasions on his hands from having grabbed at a chandelier. And importantly, the multiple planes of injuries on his body, including in recessed body areas like the inside of your eye, and the nose and the neck, would not have happened from an accidental fall.

KAYE: Now had you suspected that this might be a homicide before these findings, Dina?

SHAKNAI: I was perplexed with the finding of the San Diego Sheriff's Department and Coronado Police Department. When I was given the debriefing really all I saw was the diagram they presented to me. And it really didn't even look like the Max. The figure looked much taller and I didn't receive the report from their expert until three weeks later.

And their report summed it up saying it was a dog, a ball or a scooter. And it wasn't really clear. So it didn't make sense. It didn't add up and I didn't know what happened. And I was hoping that the Coronado Police Department would have gone further than they did at the time. KAYE: Tell me just a bit about your son.

 

[time]

Saturday morning Dina was on CNN - here is a link to the transcript.

CNN SATURDAY MORNING NEWS
Aired August 18, 2012 - 11:00 ET

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1208/18/smn.05.html

This probably belongs int he other thread, but I'm a bit confused about this statement (and similar ones)

"ANGELA HALLIER, ATTORNEY: The most significant findings from our experts that show this was not an accident and in fact was an assault scenario was that Max fell on the top, the vertex of his head, not his front forehead."

BBM - this may be a weakness of the original claim of SDSD, but I don't see any reason this connects to an 'assault scenario". I see it like when I did a lot of diving at the pool, a slight change of angle and your hit your face first, the top of your forehead, or go straight in (top of your head). Ok, so? SDSD maybe had a slight angle of hitting the floor wrong, not good, but what does that h ave to do with claiming Max was assaulted?

 

[Jessica2012]

This probably belongs int he other thread, but I'm a bit confused about this statement (and similar ones)

"ANGELA HALLIER, ATTORNEY: The most significant findings from our experts that show this was not an accident and in fact was an assault scenario was that Max fell on the top, the vertex of his head, not his front forehead."

BBM - this may be a weakness of the original claim of SDSD, but I don't see any reason this connects to an 'assault scenario". I see it like when I did a lot of diving at the pool, a slight change of angle and your hit your face first, the top of your forehead, or go straight in (top of your head). Ok, so? SDSD maybe had a slight angle of hitting the floor wrong, not good, but what does that h ave to do with claiming Max was assaulted?

My opinion is in the report she is disagreeing with the flexion/extension of the neck causing the spinal cord contusion theory (page 20 of her report). She instead in my opinion is stating that it was a vertex presentation fall, therefore there was no flexion/extension injury, and the other signs typical of a flexion/extension injury are not present. Maxie had injuries to his face, and inner part of his eye which according to her were not caused by the fall. She is also in the report stating that the other injuries he sustained are not consistent with the fall. His back injuries(completely seperate from the face,head and neck injuries) according to the report do not correspond to a fall as having caused them. This is how she came up with the assault scenario in my opinion. This whole statement is my opinion.

 

[jjenny]

Yet these experts aren't alleging his spinal cord injury wasn't caused by a fall.
So, what are they saying, exactly? No simulation was provided of how he went over the railing to fit this assault scenario.

 

[Jessica2012]

Yet these experts aren't alleging his spinal cord injury wasn't caused by a fall.
So, what are they saying, exactly? No simulation was provided of how he went over the railing to fit this assault scenario.

@jjenny- I just wrote you a detailed response, but I lost it I will write again in detail tommorrow. This is all my opinion, and please keep in mind I have no knowledge of kinematics.
The report is stating that his spinal cord injury was caused by the fall. "As a result of his contact with the first floor, he sustained his skull fracture, subgaleal contusion and cervical cord injury."
(page 24).
She is basically stating that in her opinion, Maxie was assaulted and in an effort to get away he went over the railing,or was put over the railing and crashed head first into the floor. It is also my opinion that this is only a request for a re investigation, where they would have to show discrepencies in the original investigation. The burden of proving it was homicide would be during the reinvestigation and not at this point in my opinion.
I do hope that they open both cases.

 

[bourne]

This probably belongs int he other thread, but I'm a bit confused about this statement (and similar ones)

"ANGELA HALLIER, ATTORNEY: The most significant findings from our experts that show this was not an accident and in fact was an assault scenario was that Max fell on the top, the vertex of his head, not his front forehead."

BBM - this may be a weakness of the original claim of SDSD, but I don't see any reason this connects to an 'assault scenario". I see it like when I did a lot of diving at the pool, a slight change of angle and your hit your face first, the top of your forehead, or go straight in (top of your head). Ok, so? SDSD maybe had a slight angle of hitting the floor wrong, not good, but what does that h ave to do with claiming Max was assaulted?

Agree. Dina's experts' report only disputes the scenario SDSD put forth and nothing more. They give no evidence to support an assault other than the doctor's personal hunches, and her hunches presuppose linkages between variables and wild conclusions not proven in science.

 

[time]

Agree. Dina's experts' report only disputes the scenario SDSD put forth and nothing more. They give no evidence to support an assault other than the doctor's personal hunches, and her hunches presuppose linkages between variables and wild conclusions not proven in science.

That's what I pretty much concluded. It seems in media PR they are going even beyond what the report goes beyond.

 

[jjenny]

I do believe that it likely didn't happen the way police describe it. But I don't think many here believed it happened the way it was depicted by the police, even before this report came out.

 

[MyBelle]

Agree. Dina's experts' report only disputes the scenario SDSD put forth and nothing more. They give no evidence to support an assault other than the doctor's personal hunches, and her hunches presuppose linkages between variables and wild conclusions not proven in science.

To be considered experts, doctors must base their opinion on their education, training and experience. The reports do just that, imo.

 

[*Lash*]

Dr. Lucas on page 1 of the autopsy report indicates there was a vertex fracture.

1. D - Midline, linear, nondisplaced frontal and vertex skull fracture.

Dr. Lucas did not dismiss this fracture. His opinion of how the fracture occurred differs from Dr. Melinek. She believes it occurred from a fall where Max landed on the top of his head. Lucas believes Max landed on his face. Dr. Lucas did not leave this fracture out of his report. The two appear to disagree on how Max landed and the cause of the vertex fracture. In my opinion in this interview Hallier comes across as postulating the vertex fracture is a new find. By looking at the autopsy report it is not a new find.

http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/shacknai, max_report.pdf

 

[Jessica2012]

Dr. Lucas on page 1 of the autopsy report indicates there was a vertex fracture.

1. D - Midline, linear, nondisplaced frontal and vertex skull fracture.

Dr. Lucas did not dismiss this fracture. His opinion of how the fracture occurred differs from Dr. Melinek. She believes it occurred from a fall where Max landed on the top of his head. Lucas believes Max landed on his face. Dr. Lucas did not leave this fracture out of his report. The two appear to disagree on how Max landed and the cause of the vertex fracture. In my opinion in this interview Hallier comes across as postulating the vertex fracture is a new find. By looking at the autopsy report it is not a new find.

http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Other/shacknai, max_report.pdf

@Lash-Respectfully, Dr. Melineck did not state that Dr. Lucas left the fracture out of the report.
Page 20-"Microscopic examination of his cervical cord byLawrence A. Hansen, M.D., a neuropathologist, also revealed what was described as “cervical spinal cord-Acute hemorrhagic necrosis consistent with contusion.” Apparently based on this
finding and the presence of the frontal bone fracture, the deputy medical examiner,
Jonathan Lucas, M.D., described Maxfield Shacknai as sustaining a high spinal cord injury due
to hyperextension."

The actual fracture is not a new find. In my opinion, they are not stating it is a new find. However, if the fall was a vertex presentation, and not a face presentation, it is not possible for the spinal injury to be due to extension/hyperextension of the neck.

 

[bourne]

Agree. Dina's experts' report only disputes the scenario SDSD put forth and nothing more. They give no evidence to support an assault other than the doctor's personal hunches, and her hunches presuppose linkages between variables and wild conclusions not proven in science.

To be considered experts, doctors must base their opinion on their education, training and experience. The reports do just that, imo.

No one's quibbling about whether so-called experts have a right to their personal hunches and opinions. I'm talking about science and the scientific method. A real scientist uses evidence in the form of proven links between variables, and they speak of probabilities if the links are flimsy. They don't publish a medical report and unequivocally state conclusions based on conjectures and make assertions they cannot prove.

 

[time]

However, if the fall was a vertex presentation, and not a face presentation, it is not possible for the spinal injury to be due to extension/hyperextension of the neck.

Aren't you making a simple statement here about what could be a complex chain of events - making a very conclusive (not possible) if/then statement based on eliminating many possible variables? Obviously, I don't have the knowledge to even know if what you are claiming is true even if all the other possibilities are controlled, but this all seems to be in the realm of accident reconstruction at some point - not something a pathologist or doctor can know based on one injury.