Max's Scooter

[time]

Scooter -

Scooter Damage -

Scooter Wheel -

Scooter Spot -

Newel Post -

I'm not quite getting the match between the paint on the scooter and the scuffs on the Newell Post.

In *LASH*'s third pic (paint on a metal part of the scooter), I can see that matching the longer scratch in the Newell Post paint or maybe one of the others... but only one. Can't see the paint getting on the tire like that, but maybe.

I almost seems to me like the scooter would have to have been on there sideways, folded up, or something to get all those scratches at once? Not sure of that either. Or it flipped around making those marks? Some of the marks were made earlier (I think Jonah only said that they were not there the day before?). Or, as someone mentioned a ramp. IDk

I doubt it was Rebecca who bought Max a toy that is not even recommended for kids that age. Nor encouraged him to ride it in the house. Yes, maybe toooo permissive with him, but I don't think it was Rebecca. She's chided for even promoting healthy food.

I just don't think there is anything fishy about Rebecca claiming that Max said "Ocean"... she could have heard air expelling and filled in the blanks. I doubt she was trying to blame it on the dog, but I do think the dog could have been involved. Dogs want to be involved in whatever activity is going on usually.

 

[Betty P]

That's pretty much an accusation, IMO.

Who do you think lied? Since you think someone killed Max, who do you think it was?

 

[time]

I'd really hope this thread could be about analyzing the scooter, the marks on the post/paint on the scooter and if and how it was involved in an accident instead of about whether or not Rebecca and her sister were covering something up, lying, or doing what Jonah told them to do.

 

[Inparadise]

That's pretty much an accusation, IMO.

Who do you think lied? Since you think someone killed Max, who do you think it was?

Betty P, just to be clear, to whom are you asking this question?

 

[time]

Does anyone know who bought the scooter for Max?

 

[Ausgirl]

Are we supposed to flatter her?

I am personally very sad for this family, and particularly for Max (of course). But people do not become saints just because they die. And there's doubt surrounding Rebecca's actions the day Max died, and it's not all unwarranted. I don't think asking pertinent questions or raising theories in which she isn't saintly is a terrible thing to do, when what everybody (one would hope) wants is the truth, and hopefully appropriate justice based on that truth.

And as it happens sometimes the truth just isn't what we'd prefer it to be.

As for all this unlikelihood of other persons "climbing" up on the railing on a kid's scooter -- hey, I agree. All of those theories are pretty darned unfeasible.

But there's other theories.. like somebody struggling with Max and maybe hitting him with the scooter, the scooter being thrown or swung and hitting the newel, somebody not used to handling a swiveling scooter (hey, my daughter's banged my shins up a few times before I got used to lifting it..) trying to throw it over the rails after Max fell.. or was pushed....

There's tons of far more likely scenarios than --anyone-- trying to scooter down the banister. Including Max. IMO.

-- And in examining the marks, how we can we not cross into the part of the discussion where the possibility exists that this was not an accident?

I don't think it was. Those marks are not mere scrapes - it looks like somebody really banged that scooter on the newel. There's a lot of them, in just one single place on the banister, right above where Max 'fell' that day. If Max was indeed attempting to --somehow--- balance his scooter on that rail, I believe there'd be a lot more scrapes up and down the rail, not just some deep dents in one particular small place.

Plus the BS about the CPR. The -dubious- story about the dog.

Not accusing. Just thinking with an open mind, taking all things into consideration... popular choice or not.

 

[CuriousGeorgia]

Time, you are incorrect about Max being too young for the scooter. It is recommended for kids 5 or 6, depending on the model. I posted the link earlier in this thread.

 

[time]

Time, you are incorrect about Max being too young for the scooter. It is recommended for kids 5 or 6, depending on the model. I posted the link earlier in this thread.

Thanks... I only got as far as the post about scooters in general.

Still, I would never let a kid ride a scooter, bike, whatever with an exposed stair case. Then again, I would have been very worried about that low part of the banister too - it's not up to safety standards.

 

[time]

Are we supposed to flatter her?

I am personally very sad for this family, and particularly for Max (of course). But people do not become saints just because they die. And there's doubt surrounding Rebecca's actions the day Max died, and it's not all unwarranted. I don't think asking pertinent questions or raising theories in which she isn't saintly is a terrible thing to do, when what everybody (one would hope) wants is the truth, and hopefully appropriate justice based on that truth.

And as it happens sometimes the truth just isn't what we'd prefer it to be.

As for all this unlikelihood of other persons "climbing" up on the railing on a kid's scooter -- hey, I agree. All of those theories are pretty darned unfeasible.

But there's other theories.. like somebody struggling with Max and maybe hitting him with the scooter, the scooter being thrown or swung and hitting the newel, somebody not used to handling a swiveling scooter (hey, my daughter's banged my shins up a few times before I got used to lifting it..) trying to throw it over the rails after Max fell.. or was pushed....

There's tons of far more likely scenarios than --anyone-- trying to scooter down the banister. Including Max. IMO.

-- And in examining the marks, how we can we not cross into the part of the discussion where the possibility exists that this was not an accident?

I don't think it was. Those marks are not mere scrapes - it looks like somebody really banged that scooter on the newel. There's a lot of them, in just one single place on the banister, right above where Max 'fell' that day. If Max was indeed attempting to --somehow--- balance his scooter on that rail, I believe there'd be a lot more scrapes up and down the rail, not just some deep dents in one particular small place.

Plus the BS about the CPR. The -dubious- story about the dog.

Not accusing. Just thinking with an open mind, taking all things into consideration... popular choice or not.

There are a lot of other threads about the theories and so forth, I'm not trying to stop discussion. Since Lash specifically provided us with the photos and went to a lot of work to do so, I was hoping we could look at the actual scooter and marks. We've been through the CPR discussion and what was said about that in another thread also. And, there is an entire thread for Dina's experts reports that do not add up to an assault.

It's fine... I'll just take another long break from these threads because they never stay on topic.

 

[Betty P]

Betty P, just to be clear, to whom are you asking this question?

Apologies, its directed to My Belle.

She need not answer, I can ask her in another thread in the interest of keeping this one on topic.

 

[elfie]

Are we supposed to flatter her?

I am personally very sad for this family, and particularly for Max (of course). But people do not become saints just because they die. And there's doubt surrounding Rebecca's actions the day Max died, and it's not all unwarranted. I don't think asking pertinent questions or raising theories in which she isn't saintly is a terrible thing to do, when what everybody (one would hope) wants is the truth, and hopefully appropriate justice based on that truth.

And as it happens sometimes the truth just isn't what we'd prefer it to be.

As for all this unlikelihood of other persons "climbing" up on the railing on a kid's scooter -- hey, I agree. All of those theories are pretty darned unfeasible.

But there's other theories.. like somebody struggling with Max and maybe hitting him with the scooter, the scooter being thrown or swung and hitting the newel, somebody not used to handling a swiveling scooter (hey, my daughter's banged my shins up a few times before I got used to lifting it..) trying to throw it over the rails after Max fell.. or was pushed....

There's tons of far more likely scenarios than --anyone-- trying to scooter down the banister. Including Max. IMO.

-- And in examining the marks, how we can we not cross into the part of the discussion where the possibility exists that this was not an accident?

I don't think it was. Those marks are not mere scrapes - it looks like somebody really banged that scooter on the newel. There's a lot of them, in just one single place on the banister, right above where Max 'fell' that day. If Max was indeed attempting to --somehow--- balance his scooter on that rail, I believe there'd be a lot more scrapes up and down the rail, not just some deep dents in one particular small place.

Plus the BS about the CPR. The -dubious- story about the dog.

Not accusing. Just thinking with an open mind, taking all things into consideration... popular choice or not.

I think the newel post theory is just that--if a trick was attempted, that was as far as it went before the fall.

I don't know if Max could have attempted such a stunt or not. We don't know if he had seen other kids practicing railing stunts either in person (presumably outside) or on videos on tv or on the internet. Six year olds, while quite bright and capable of a great many things, probably do not possess the reasoning skills necessary to recognize how dangerous that situation could be. If it had been a mantra in the household, ie "Do not play on the stairs", "Do not play on the railing", perhaps those brief moments while he was not under surveillance by Rebecca or XZ provided him the opportunity to give it a try.

 

[Inparadise]

Thanks... I only got as far as the post about scooters in general.

Still, I would never let a kid ride a scooter, bike, whatever with an exposed stair case. Then again, I would have been very worried about that low part of the banister too - it's not up to safety standards.

Scooters are intended for outdoor use, not inside, and certainly not near a staircase. To allow that is just plain nuts. In California,VC 21212, Youth Bicycle Helmets, Minors: (a) A person under 18 years of age shall not operate a bicycle, a nonmotorized scooter, or a skateboard, nor shall they wear in-line or roller skates, nor ride upon a bicycle, a nonmotorized scooter, or a skateboard as a passenger, upon a street, bikeway, as defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any other public bicycle path or trail unless that person is wearing a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet that meets the standards of either the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), or standards subsequently established by those entities. This requirement also applies to a person who rides upon a bicycle while in a restraining seat that is attached to the bicycle or in a trailer towed by the bicycle.

 

[CuriousGeorgia]

I don't know if Max could have attempted such a stunt or not. We don't know if he had seen other kids practicing railing stunts either in person (presumably outside) or on videos on tv or on the internet. Six year olds, while quite bright and capable of a great many things, probably do not possess the reasoning skills necessary to recognize how dangerous that situation could be. If it had been a mantra in the household, ie "Do not play on the stairs", "Do not play on the railing", perhaps those brief moments while he was not under surveillance by Rebecca or XZ provided him the opportunity to give it a try.

<modsnip>.

JMO

 

[Zinn]

What if Max was not the one responsible for those marks on the newel, nor the scooter ending up in the foyer?

I think the massive elephant in the room is Rebecca's claim that Max (despite his head injuries, and horrendously severe, and fatal, asphyxiating injuries) whispered 'Ocean' (and not 'Mommy'...like most kids would..) -- and the way Ocean just happened to be sitting on the landing when people arrived... because, you know, excitable young dogs are so prone to sitting still in handily incriminating positions, when all about them is chaos..?? :waitasec:

If all this 'Ocean' business was a deflection (and I think it was!) -- then why - what was it meant to deflect from? If Max's death was so plainly a scooter accident (which I doubt) then why make a case for the dog being to blame?

A sense of guilt for neglecting to keep an eye on Max? Or something else?

ETA:

<modsnip>?

Since CPR was not actually administered?

Ausgirl - Can you help me understand this theory about Rebecca falsely claiming to administer CPR? I'm confused about the line of reasoning in relation to this belief. We know XZ told the 911 operator Rebecca was attempting to resuscitate Max (though she didn't specify "CPR" in the snippet of the 911 call that was released). We also know the EMS report states CPR had not been administered prior to their arrival at the scene. And we've been told JS said Rebecca told him she performed CPR. So what is the belief about the inconsistency of these reports? Is the belief that Rebecca asked XZ to lie to 911, then attempted to lie to EMS but was caught in the lie at the scene? Perhaps due to the position of Max's body upon their arrival? <modsnip>? Or is the belief that Rebecca got mixed up about her cover story and forgot to lie to EMS when they arrived, but remembered again when she told Jonah what had happened? Can you help me understand this line of reasoning?

You've mentioned you believe Rebecca was murdered. If that's the case, I think it could be helpful to understand more about the belief surrounding a false claim of CPR on Max, considering the 911 call reporting Rebecca's death included a claim of CPR on her long dead body, and the message painted on the bedroom door could potentially be interpreted as a reference to what was believed to be a false claim of CPR.

All of the above is just my opinion.

 

[elfie]

Like you, I also believe that Jonah was there and convinced Rebecca to "cover" for him and the older kids........I can imagine what he promised her in return. I do think that he was/is afraid of having to deal with Dina in "Round 2"......after Gloria and Nathan were able to break the pre-nup in Round 1.

Early on I was considering a scenario of this nature, but the difficulty with this is that Jonah arrived home in time to see Max being loaded into the ambulance.

He didn't have time to get the other children to the airport after the accident. Could he have dropped them with a shuttle service? Possibly. I have difficulty believing that he would postpone the prompt medical attention that Max needed in order to do this. Could he have been there at the time of the incident? Possibly. But why leave and then come back? In the end I had to discard this as a probability because of the extent of Max's injuries and his dire need for prompt medical attention. I just don't think he would have risked such a delay.

 

[Inparadise]

Early on I was considering a scenario of this nature, but the difficulty with this is that Jonah arrived home in time to see Max being loaded into the ambulance.

He didn't have time to get the other children to the airport after the accident. Could he have dropped them with a shuttle service? Possibly. I have difficulty believing that he would postpone the prompt medical attention that Max needed in order to do this. Could he have been there at the time of the incident? Possibly. But why leave and then come back? In the end I had to discard this as a probability because of the extent of Max's injuries and his dire need for prompt medical attention.

The other kids would have been flying as unaccompanied minors, and it is a requirement of the airlines and the FAA that they be checked in by a guardian and escorted by them to the gate, and that they remain in the gate area until the flight is wheels up, in case of a mechanical or other delay. What is important is there has been no mention of what time Jonah arrived at Rady......when he left Coronado Hospital, he had plenty of time to return to Spreckels to pick up the older kids and take them to the airport, then once they were in the air, drive from the airport to RCH.......IMO.

 

[elfie]

The other kids would have been flying as unaccompanied minors, and it is a requirement of the airlines and the FAA that they be checked in by a guardian and escorted by them to the gate, and that they remain in the gate area until the flight is wheels up, in case of a mechanical or other delay. What is important is there has been no mention of what time Jonah arrived at Rady......when he left Coronado Hospital, he had plenty of time to return to Spreckels to pick up the older kids and take them to the airport, then once they were in the air, drive from the airport to RCH.......IMO.

I think there was some speculation of a private plane for the early morning flight, because no one could find a flight bound for AZ or SC that early in the morning. Still, I see your point.

 

[Ausgirl]

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

 

[Inparadise]

I think there was some speculation of a private plane for the early morning flight, because no one could find a flight bound for AZ or SC that early in the morning. Still, I see your point.

I checked with San Diego Lindbergh field and other small airports in the area, and there were no private flights leaving that day.......and Jonah/Medicis did not have a private plane.

 

[Ausgirl]

posted by elfie:

I think the newel post theory is just that--if a trick was attempted, that was as far as it went before the fall.

See - this is what's really boggling my mind. How such an action might have been attempted, if indeed Max was trying to scoot on the rail.

We've established that those scooters do tend to swivel about a lot. So did Max lift the swivelly scooter onto the rail (leaving surprisingly few and area-limited marks on the timber), and somehow hold it in place there while he attempted to climb up and stand on the narrow strip of wood?

Or did he clamber up to balance on the rail, before trying to lift the scooter up after him? Would he have had to bend toward the scooter in order to try picking it up, since it's unlikely he could climb up on the rail while holding onto the scooter? And if he fell in his attempt to pick the scooter up, how did the scooter end up where it was, without getting hooked on the newel's ledge? And if he fell while trying to hoist the scooter up onto the rail with him, why did he not fall -toward- the landing rather than toward (and into) the chandelier, in the complete opposite direction?

This, and the limited area and depth of the dents, is what has me convinced Max was not attempting some Evil Knieval stunt on the rail, and leans me toward other explanations for both the marks and his fall.