Max's Death - Dina's Independent Experts Summary Reports

[bourne]

I think those are in Dr. Bove's report?

Thanks for this.

On the Dr. Phil show, Dr. Melinek claimed that Max was shoved against the spindles of the railing on the second floor. According to Dr. Bove's report, the spindles are approximately 2 inches apart. This doesn't seem to match the abrasions on Max's back (5 1/2 inch x 3/4 inch array of healing abrasions and thin, brown scabs. ... Also on the midline over the upper lumbar back there is a 1/14/ inch x 2/8 inch diameter brown, healing scab).

But to be more accurate, we need to take into account the 3-dimensions of the spindles and Max's injuries, which I can't do here because those dimensions are not given.

 

[time]

Dr. Bove basically says that the back injuries were "superficial", and could have happened at any time, with any object or multiple objects, not necessarily flat. He outright states that "the abrasions and bruising on his back could have been sustained at different times due to contact with different structures."

So I don't understand why Dr. Melinek definitively stated in her report that Max only sustained the back '7' from the bannister! Even her own co-expert stated the ambiguous nature of where, when, and with what different objects Max could have came into contact with. Why did Dr. Melinek push the bannister as the only object? Dr. Melinek's conclusion is so wrong on so many different levels!

I know, thank you for quoting him. I don't get it either. I think I got through all of Dr. Bove's report and I think he had some good points about Dr. Gomez's report that should be considered. I don't find a lot to even support what Dr. Melinek claimed except a very few tidbits that related to some small points.

I hoped that any shows about all this would include Dr. Bove, I take it he does not want to be on them? That wouldn't preclude an expert commenting on what he does say in his report. Bove's report is 29 pages long and heavily quoted, relied upon, in the Summary of Reports (written by Hallier?). Dr. Melinek's report is short and is only referenced a few times in contrast. But the magic is in the cut and pasting and rearranging into the story they want, methinks.

 

[bourne]

I want to be fair and objective here, as Max's death also deserves thorough understanding. And if Max's death was not an accident, I'd like to know what exactly happened.

So what interests me the most about Dr. Bove's report are his following statements:

"In the absence of a mechanism to raise Maxfield Shacknai's center of gravity, no events or actions involving only Maxfield Shacknai and initiated at floor level, including those that involved riding the scooter, could be identified that were consistent with all aspects of the incidence scene and would result in an accidental fall to the first floor." (1st page of report)

"Other activities that would sufficiently raise his center of gravity so that it was higher than the railing, such as jumping, sitting on the railing, standing on a soccer ball or standing or riding on the dog must also be considered as potential contributing factors to an accidental fall, however, any these types of activities would have to also be associated with a sufficient horizontal speed and the proper trajectory to result in interaction with the chandelier. Any such alternative scenario would also have to account for the rest position of the scooter as discussed below. In other words, while a scenario such as standing on soccer ball is within the realm of possibility, one would have to be standing on the soccer ball while still traveling down the hallway with a forward horizontal velocity while also holding the scooter."(Page 18 of the report)

The first quoted paragraph suggests that Max could not have gone over the railing if he were initially standing at floor level.

I would ask what if Max first put the scooter on top of the bannister, perhaps still holding onto it or perhaps just resting it on top (a scooter is narrow and lightweight enough to sit on top of the railing without toppling over), then climbed atop it, and then rode the scooter down the railings? Standing on top of the railing would make Max was no longer merely standing on floor level, and that his fall could then occur, correct?

Or is Dr. Bove saying Max cannot climb atop the bannister? I find that hard to believe, particularly because according to Anne Bremner, one side of the railing was as low as 26 inches? That's a little more than 2 feet. And Max was what? close to 4 feet tall?

Also, there are nooks and crannies in the spindles of the bannister. Why can't Max put his feet in between the spindles to use them as a stepladder to get on top of the railing? I know I was a daredevil when I was young, and I'd put my feet anywhere that had any edge or gap to climb up! What's to prevent Max from doing the same?

Perhaps because the day before when Max was demonstrating riding the scooter on the carpet to Rebecca's sister XZ and he could only ride it slow due to carpet drag, Max decided to practice riding on the uncarpeted bannister so he could later show XZ when she came out of the showers? So Max placed the scooter on top of bannister railing. Then he climbs the spindle edges, gets on top of scooter and starts riding the scooter down the railings. Ocean the dog gets excited seeing Max atop the bannister, jumps at Max, knocking him over. Max screams out, "Ocean!" and manages to grab hold of the chandelier. Max's scooter falls first. The chandelier is swinging wildly with Max on it, banging Max against the different railings where he sustained his superficial back injuries. Then finally the chandelier gave way and Max falls next to an initially erect scooter, and the sudden motion causes the scooter to tip over and hit Max on his back or leg.

I'm not sure why the scooter was found on top of his leg. Wouldn't the logical thing be to quickly try to resuscitate Max and push every object away? Perhaps the scooter was on top of Max's back and Rebecca moved it but only slightly because she was too focused on giving CPR to Max?

From the second cited paragraph above, it appears that Dr. Bove also tried to account for the necessary rise in Max's center of gravity by suggesting that it is possible that Max was standing on the soccerball or the dog, except he says there still needs an impetus for the horizontal velocity. Well, what about after Max got on top of object to climb on bannister, Max rode on his scooter? The riding of the scooter on the bannister would account for horizontal velocity.

In summary, Dr. Bove did not make any definitive conclusions about the mechanisms behind Max's fall. He was however scientific in his assessments of what happened, but appears to have been limited in speaking out about additional scenarios besides the one accident scenario proposed by Dr. Gomez and the one homicide scenario by Dr. Melnick.

 

[bourne]

I know, thank you for quoting him. I don't get it either. I think I got through all of Dr. Bove's report and I think he had some good points about Dr. Gomez's report that should be considered. I don't find a lot to even support what Dr. Melinek claimed except a very few tidbits that related to some small points.

I hoped that any shows about all this would include Dr. Bove, I take it he does not want to be on them? That wouldn't preclude an expert commenting on what he does say in his report. Bove's report is 29 pages long and heavily quoted, relied upon, in the Summary of Reports (written by Hallier?). Dr. Melinek's report is short and is only referenced a few times in contrast. But the magic is in the cut and pasting and rearranging into the story they want, methinks.

I agree that the Summary of Reports distorts Dr. Bove's statements. A lot of things were taken out of context and as you said, edited with cut-and-paste to read the way Dina and her lawyers want the conclusion to be.

 

[time]

The first quoted paragraph suggests that Max could not have gone over the railing if he were initially standing at floor level.

I would ask what if Max first put the scooter on top of the bannister, perhaps still holding onto it or perhaps just resting it on top (a scooter is narrow and lightweight enough to sit on top of the railing without toppling over), then climbed atop it, and then rode the scooter down the railings? Standing on top of the railing would make Max was no longer merely standing on floor level, and that his fall could then occur, correct?

Or is Dr. Bove saying Max cannot climb atop the bannister? I find that hard to believe, particularly because according to Anne Bremner, one side of the railing was as low as 26 inches? That's a little more than 2 feet. And Max was what? close to 4 feet tall?

<respectfully snipped>

I tend to have the same scenario in mind as you do or some slight variation.

Believe me, Max could definitely get on top of that banister. My two year old grandson climbs that high already and can get over their gate at the top of the stairs, much to his parents dismay! And, he is not big for his age. My theory though is that Max may have put the scooter on the end of the banister and Newel post, climbed up around the 26 " mark and turned somewhat sideways to get on the scooter.

If the scoot made those marks on the Newel post (I'm repeating myself), then it looks as if it had to be parallel with the railing going down the stairs and possibly pushed/pulled that direction.

I would like to hear another expert or two chime in with their opinion since the marks are quite distinct on the Newel post. I'd like to know if they, in any way, match up with the paint on the scooter. It somehow didn't look like it to me. Maybe that is why they tried to identify a paint chip on the scooter (cause that seems to match the missing paint on the post, but not a wide swath like the scooter swiped some paint somewhere, IDK, we need a better look at all the paint on the scooter). And, if Max was around the 26" mark, he would be closer to the chandelier, right?

On the other hand, I think those marks could have been made anytime that day.

 

[bourne]

I tend to have the same scenario in mind as you do or some slight variation.

Believe me, Max could definitely get on top of that banister. My two year old grandson climbs that high already and can get over their gate at the top of the stairs, much to his parents dismay! And, he is not big for his age. My theory though is that Max may have put the scooter on the end of the banister and Newel post, climbed up around the 26 " mark and turned somewhat sideways to get on the scooter.

If the scoot made those marks on the Newel post (I'm repeating myself), then it looks as if it had to be parallel with the railing going down the stairs and possibly pushed/pulled that direction.

I would like to hear another expert or two chime in with their opinion since the marks are quite distinct on the Newel post. I'd like to know if they, in any way, match up with the paint on the scooter. It somehow didn't look like it to me. Maybe that is why they tried to identify a paint chip on the scooter (cause that seems to match the missing paint on the post, but not a wide swath like the scooter swiped some paint somewhere, IDK, we need a better look at all the paint on the scooter). And, if Max was around the 26" mark, he would be closer to the chandelier, right?

On the other hand, I think those marks could have been made anytime that day.

I agree that if a child (or anyone really) wants to climb up something, no matter what their height, they'd find a way. I think as long as there's something, an edge or even tiny crevices where you can only get your toe in, to step into, they will.

I also thought that one of the ways Max might have climbed up the banister is at the lower point, the 26" mark. I thought I said that in my post. lol

Did Dr. Bove state in his report that the marks on the bannister could be made at any time? I have to reread it now. I know he said that the superficial marks on Max's back could have been sustained at any time.

 

[katydid23]

I want to be fair and objective here, as Max's death also deserves thorough understanding. And if Max's death was not an accident, I'd like to know what exactly happened.

So what interests me the most about Dr. Bove's report are his following statements:

"In the absence of a mechanism to raise Maxfield Shacknai's center of gravity, no events or actions involving only Maxfield Shacknai and initiated at floor level, including those that involved riding the scooter, could be identified that were consistent with all aspects of the incidence scene and would result in an accidental fall to the first floor." (1st page of report)

"Other activities that would sufficiently raise his center of gravity so that it was higher than the railing, such as jumping, sitting on the railing, standing on a soccer ball or standing or riding on the dog must also be considered as potential contributing factors to an accidental fall, however, any these types of activities would have to also be associated with a sufficient horizontal speed and the proper trajectory to result in interaction with the chandelier. Any such alternative scenario would also have to account for the rest position of the scooter as discussed below. In other words, while a scenario such as standing on soccer ball is within the realm of possibility, one would have to be standing on the soccer ball while still traveling down the hallway with a forward horizontal velocity while also holding the scooter."(Page 18 of the report)

The first quoted paragraph suggests that Max could not have gone over the railing if he were initially standing at floor level.

I would ask what if Max first put the scooter on top of the bannister, perhaps still holding onto it or perhaps just resting it on top (a scooter is narrow and lightweight enough to sit on top of the railing without toppling over), then climbed atop it, and then rode the scooter down the railings? Standing on top of the railing would make Max was no longer merely standing on floor level, and that his fall could then occur, correct?

Or is Dr. Bove saying Max cannot climb atop the bannister? I find that hard to believe, particularly because according to Anne Bremner, one side of the railing was as low as 26 inches? That's a little more than 2 feet. And Max was what? close to 4 feet tall?

Also, there are nooks and crannies in the spindles of the bannister. Why can't Max put his feet in between the spindles to use them as a stepladder to get on top of the railing? I know I was a daredevil when I was young, and I'd put my feet anywhere that had any edge or gap to climb up! What's to prevent Max from doing the same?

Perhaps because the day before when Max was demonstrating riding the scooter on the carpet to Rebecca's sister XZ and he could only ride it slow due to carpet drag, Max decided to practice riding on the uncarpeted bannister so he could later show XZ when she came out of the showers? So Max placed the scooter on top of bannister railing. Then he climbs the spindle edges, gets on top of scooter and starts riding the scooter down the railings. Ocean the dog gets excited seeing Max atop the bannister, jumps at Max, knocking him over. Max screams out, "Ocean!" and manages to grab hold of the chandelier. Max's scooter falls first. The chandelier is swinging wildly with Max on it, banging Max against the different railings where he sustained his superficial back injuries. Then finally the chandelier gave way and Max falls next to an initially erect scooter, and the sudden motion causes the scooter to tip over and hit Max on his back or leg.

I'm not sure why the scooter was found on top of his leg. Wouldn't the logical thing be to quickly try to resuscitate Max and push every object away? Perhaps the scooter was on top of Max's back and Rebecca moved it but only slightly because she was too focused on giving CPR to Max?

From the second cited paragraph above, it appears that Dr. Bove also tried to account for the necessary rise in Max's center of gravity by suggesting that it is possible that Max was standing on the soccerball or the dog, except he says there still needs an impetus for the horizontal velocity. Well, what about after Max got on top of object to climb on bannister, Max rode on his scooter? The riding of the scooter on the bannister would account for horizontal velocity.

In summary, Dr. Bove did not make any definitive conclusions about the mechanisms behind Max's fall. He was however scientific in his assessments of what happened, but appears to have been limited in speaking out about additional scenarios besides the one accident scenario proposed by Dr. Gomez and the one homicide scenario by Dr. Melnick.

There is no possible way that anyone, much less a small child, could have ridden a scooter down a thin bannister. Those scooters are unbalanced and unwieldy and very heavy. He could not have gotten it on top of the bannister, let alone gotten himself successfully atop the scooter. ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. My son did bmx bike tricks and I am familiar with those kinds of things, and a scooter is not something to work with in that way. They are very bottom heavy and awkward.

 

[SweetT]

I'd say the last person who was with a child before they are killed is usually the one who is suspect. And in most cases everyone here would agree..but somehow since Rebecca is now gone we seem to throw out all senses.

 

[bourne]

There is no possible way that anyone, much less a small child, could have ridden a scooter down a thin bannister. Those scooters are unbalanced and unwieldy and very heavy. He could not have gotten it on top of the bannister, let alone gotten himself successfully atop the scooter. ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. My son did bmx bike tricks and I am familiar with those kinds of things, and a scooter is not something to work with in that way. They are very bottom heavy and awkward.

I disagree. I have a small nephew who can do stunts with his scooter on tiny 2 inch wide railings. But Max might not have been able to do so, and that is why he fell.

 

[SweetT]

There is no possible way that anyone, much less a small child, could have ridden a scooter down a thin bannister. Those scooters are unbalanced and unwieldy and very heavy. He could not have gotten it on top of the bannister, let alone gotten himself successfully atop the scooter. ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. My son did bmx bike tricks and I am familiar with those kinds of things, and a scooter is not something to work with in that way. They are very bottom heavy and awkward.

Where has it been published that RZ had a child? Since the TOS tells us we cannot discuss minors I believe the speculating on a minor's possible frame of mind is off limits. Of course DS is not a minor and has made her opinions very public. So therefore the information she has made public can be discussed. There is nothing but DS's statements regarding her timeframe for that day. If I am incorrect in this assumption will a mod please delete. TIA

Always MOO

IIRC Rebecca herself told someone that XZ was her daughter..

 

[bourne]

IIRC Rebecca herself told someone that XZ was her daughter..

Citation plz.

 

[Salem]

Wild speculation is NOT allowed, you guys. If you are going to be pulling things out of thin air, you are going to need to link them.

There are lots of facts in this case, medical reports, pictures, etc. etc. Speculation should be based on this available information and what has been reported in the media.

Knock off the bicking. STOP using the name of minors in your posts. Keep the discussion relevant.

Salem

 

[SweetT]

Citation plz.

I'll look for that info..I read it on here and on the Hinky Meter..will post when I find.

 

[i.b.nora]

Supposedly she told the Diggity Dog guy. Did she owe it to him to describe each and every relationship? Did she owe it to him to tell him the whole story of Max's fall? I don't think so.

 

[SweetT]

Here you go....
Ted Greenberg was one of the last people to see Rebecca Nalepa alive.

She had called his kennel, Camp Diggity Dogs, to pick up Ocean, the family&#8217;s 14-month-old Weimaraner the afternoon following the Monday accident that left her boyfriend's son with serious injuries.

&#8220;She asked us to come get the dog, because she wanted to get to the hospital to see her child,&#8221; Greenberg said. &#8220;I understand it&#8217;s (her boyfriend's) son, but I guess she thought of him as hers.&#8221;

&#8220;She called about 4:40 pm,&#8221; he said. &#8220;She told me about the accident and said that her daughter was also injured.&#8221;

Nalepa wanted him to take the dog right away, but that proved impossible. &#8220;We were really busy,&#8221; Greenberg said. &#8220;I asked her if she could bring the dog in, but she said she didn&#8217;t have time, that she had to get to the hospital.&#8221;

The move to the kennel was also delayed because Ocean&#8217;s vaccinations weren&#8217;t up-to-date. Greenberg couldn't take the dog to the veterinarian for Nalepa until Tuesday

http://coronado.patch.com/articles/...ls-victim-less-than-24-hours-before-her-death

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-148932.html

 

[SweetT]

Supposedly she told the Diggity Dog guy. Did she owe it to him to describe each and every relationship? Did she owe it to him to tell him the whole story of Max's fall? I don't think so.

What purpose would it serve to lie ? Why not say its your sister? WHY LIE? She didnt have to tell him anything, she volunteered it.

 

[katydid23]

Supposedly she told the Diggity Dog guy. Did she owe it to him to describe each and every relationship? Did she owe it to him to tell him the whole story of Max's fall? I don't think so.

But why would she call a child her 'daughter' if it was really her little sister?

And all of the daughters are around RZ's age, and then one lone child is 13 yrs old and lives alone with the grandparents.

The only reason to discuss it is because it is very vital to the circumstances of the day and of the accident, imo.

 

[steff13]

What purpose would it serve to lie ? Why not say its your sister? WHY LIE? She didnt have to tell him anything, she volunteered it.

Is it possible he misunderstood her, or misheard her?

Sent from my VS840 4G using Tapatalk 2

 

[katydid23]

Is it possible he misunderstood her, or misheard her?

Sent from my VS840 4G using Tapatalk 2

There are lots of other things, besides just his statement, that point to that being the truth.

 

[jjenny]

There are lots of other things, besides just his statement, that point to that being the truth.

What other things? There are plenty of people having children years and years apart.