These are 'Facts' because William Gore said Jonah Shacknai said so

[MyBelle]

Who gave investigators and Gore the name of the person who reported that Rebecca was down and losing weight? Who gave them Rebecca's journals? Don't tell me it was Jonah again.

Seems like Jonah should have been paid for his part in directing the course of this ivestigation, imo.

Direct your questions to the investigators. Their email addresses are in the link I posted earlier from the Sheriff's websites about the deaths.

Investigators did have a search warrant. Jonah's permission wasn't needed to seize RZ's journals or anything else covered in the search warrant.

JMO

 

[bourne]

Since Rebecca had been living with Jonah for more than 2 years at the time of Max's death, if Dina had been so concerned for Max's safety prior to this, then why did she not do something about it previous to Max's death? For instance, why did she not drag Jonah back into court in Maricopa County? There are plenty of things that divorced parents can do in these types of situations.........doesn't seem to me that she was all that concerned, or she would have taken action long before July, 2011.

Agree. If Dina was so concerned about Max being with Rebecca and her family, why did Dina not show up early and pick up Max early before any accident could occur that Monday morning when she was supposed to retrieve Max from Jonah? Why did Dina neglect her own son? IMO by Dina's own admissions about her concerns regarding Rebecca and her family, Dina should be charged with reckless endangerment and neglect of a child.

 

[freespeech]

Direct your questions to the investigators. Their email addresses are in the link I posted earlier from the Sheriff's websites about the deaths.

Investigators did have a search warrant. Jonah's permission wasn't needed to seize RZ's journals or anything else covered in the search warrant.

JMO

<modsnip>. The title of the thread is'These are the Facts because Jonah said so.'

The point of the thread is to show how much of the information that passed as fact in this investigation was fed to Gore by Jonah Shacknai. <modsnip> make the ruling of suicide here HIGHLY questionable.

I also see Gore as very passive here having been directed by Jonah on key elements like the voice mail and Jonah's alibi. I am not able to grant Gore the benefit of doubt here <modsnip> I don't respect or trust that.

<modsnip>.

 

[freespeech]

Agree. If Dina was so concerned about Max being with Rebecca and her family, why did Dina not show up early and pick up Max early before any accident could occur that Monday morning when she was supposed to retrieve Max from Jonah? Why did Dina neglect her own son? IMO by Dina's own admissions about her concerns regarding Rebecca and her family, Dina should be charged with reckless endangerment and neglect of a child.

I agree and this point has been raised many times in the past. I have yet to hear Dina assume any responsibility for anything related to Max's accident. No nagging guilt about having allowed that scooter to be played with on the second floor when there was a big finished basement downstairs.

Over the weekend I was able to demonstrate how fast a Razor scooter could go on thick, plush carpeting and was surprised to learn that it can go very fast and certainly fast enough to slam into a railing and catapult a small child over it.

I was shocked that this particular four year old boy even owned a Razor scooter. However, the scooter was small and he was able to handle it. He uses a safety helmet when riding with adult supervision which took place in a large basement playroom. There were no stairs or railing to fall off so the circumstances here were much safer than they were for Max.

Also, this particular child was quite strong and coordinated as he is also involved in gymnasics and taekwondo. I'm sure Max was even stronger being two years older and also involved in soccer so he no doubt was able to go even faster. If you know any kids with scooters ask them to show you. They can go quite fast on carpeting but please do it under safe conditions.

It never ceases to amaze me that either parent allowed the scooter on the second floor or even how they deferred all important safety decisions on to someone they considered a babysitter. Where is the personal accountability for being a parent to your own child here?

 

[MyBelle]

I agree and this point has been raised many times in the past. I have yet to hear Dina assume any responsibility for anything related to Max's accident. No nagging guilt about having allowed that scooter to be played with on the second floor when there was a big finished basement downstairs.Over the weekend I was able to demonstrate how fast a Razor scooter could go on thick, plush carpeting and was surprised to learn that it can go very fast and certainly fast enough to slam into a railing and catapult a small child over it.

I was shocked that this particular four year old boy even owned a Razor scooter. However, the scooter was small and he was able to handle it. He uses a safety helmet when riding with adult supervision which took place in a large basement playroom. There were no stairs or railing to fall off so the circumstances here were much safer than they were for Max.

Also, this particular child was quite strong and coordinated as he is also involved in gymnasics and taekwondo. I'm sure Max was even stronger being two years older and also involved in soccer so he no doubt was able to go even faster. If you know any kids with scooters ask them to show you. They can go quite fast on carpeting but please do it under safe conditions.

It never ceases to amaze me that either parent allowed the scooter on the second floor or even how they deferred all important safety decisions on to someone they considered a babysitter. Where is the personal accountability for being a parent to your own child here?

BBM. To even suggest that Dina had control of a scooter or was even aware of the goings-on in her ex-husband's house is so off-base it is difficult to take you seriously.

You keep bashing a grieving mother over something that was the total responsibility of those in the household where the scooter was located. XZ told police that Max had ridden it in the upstairs hallway the day prior to his death. She was old enough to take it away from Max at that time or alert his father or her sister. So were the two siblings that had been staying there. Failure to protect him from something known to be unsafe shows a reckless disregard for his safety.

I don't believe all of the five people who did stay there were unaware of the scooter or unable to remove the scooter from the dangerous play.

JMO

 

[freespeech]

BBM. To even suggest that Dina had control of a scooter or was even aware of the goings-on in her ex-husband's house is so off-base it is difficult to take you seriously.

You keep bashing a grieving mother over something that was the total responsibility of those in the household where the scooter was located. XZ told police that Max had ridden it in the upstairs hallway the day prior to his death. She was old enough to take it away from Max at that time or alert his father or her sister. So were the two siblings that had been staying there. Failure to protect him from something known to be unsafe shows a reckless disregard for his safety.

I don't believe all of the five people who did stay there were unaware of the scooter or unable to remove the scooter from the dangerous play.

JMO

Didn't Dina know about the scooter? If he got it for his birthday wouldn't she have seen it at the party? Wasn't it her and Jonah's job as Max's parents to ensure that it was age appropriate and operated only with a helmet and adult supervision and only in a safe area?

The parents that I know consider that type of decision making their purview. I don't know any parent that would defer important decisions regarding their child's safety to the baby sitter or other children.

The rules of how, when and where Max could play with the scooter should have been determined by his parents. I truly do not understand how they could neglect that aspect of their duty to their son by deferring it others.

Imo, from my perspective this is a major cultural clash for me since I don't believe in laid back, permissive parenting. I believe that the parents should be in control and make the rules for their households and children.

This is also another reason why divorced parents with young children should try to get along with the ex's new GF. They need to be able to openly communicate their wishes to the person who will be caring for their child and trust that the other peson will listen to and respect their wishes.

Sorry, but I'm not bashing Dina. I sincerely do not understand why she was not more pro active regarding the laying down of rules for using the scooter. I really simply do not understand. Period.

 

[bourne]

It is not bashing the parents if the parents provided the toy (e.g., scooter) and the dangerous conditions (low balcony railings and overly permissive use of the scooter) inside the home that caused the tragic accident of their own child. This is called "reckless endangerment" of a minor.

 

[MyBelle]

Didn't Dina know about the scooter? If he got it for his birthday wouldn't she have seen it at the party? Wasn't it her and Jonah's job as Max's parents to ensure that it was age appropriate and operated only with a helmet and adult supervision and only in a safe area?

The parents that I know consider that type of decision making their purview. I don't know any parent that would defer important decisions regarding their child's safety to the baby sitter or other children.

The rules of how, when and where Max could play with the scooter should have been determined by his parents. I truly do not understand how they could neglect that aspect of their duty to their son by deferring it others.

Imo, from my perspective this is a major cultural clash for me since I don't believe in laid back, permissive parenting. I believe that the parents should be in control and make the rules for their households and children.

This is also another reason why divorced parents with young children should try to get along with the ex's new GF. They need to be able to openly communicate their wishes to the person who will be caring for their child and trust that the other peson will listen to and respect their wishes.

Sorry, but I'm not bashing Dina. I sincerely do not understand why she was not more pro active regarding the laying down of rules for using the scooter. I really simply do not understand. Period.

You are bashing Dina and using wild speculation to do so. I have no idea where you even get the idea that divorced parents need to know the toy inventory and have any control over it while the child is at the ex's house. You certainly haven't provided any links to support such wild accusations.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

It is not bashing the parents if the parents provided the toy (e.g., scooter) and the dangerous conditions (low balcony railings and overly permissive use of the scooter) inside the home that caused the tragic accident of their own child. This is called "reckless endangerment" of a minor.

The parents in this case are divorced. I do agree with you that it could be considered "reckless endangerment" which is a crime which is why there should be a complete investigation. The only adult in the house at the time of the fall was RZ. The parents weren't there, according to RZ's statement to LE and the child had been told not to ride the scooter the prior day. So, she knew the child had been warned about it and yet failed to ensure he didn't play with it near the upstairs balcony. Very reckless on her part, imo.

JMO

 

[*Lash*]

Maybe it was RZ who told Max not to ride the scooter upstairs? Since it is known that JS did not back RZ when disciplining the children, maybe JS told RZ to leave him alone. The scooter may also have been put downstairs, but children tend to break the rules. Max could have carried his scooter back upstairs while RZ was using the bathroom. We don't know!

 

[MyBelle]

Maybe it was RZ who told Max not to ride the scooter upstairs? Since it is known that JS did not back RZ when disciplining the children, maybe JS told RZ to leave him alone. The scooter may also have been put downstairs, but children tend to break the rules. Max could have carried his scooter back upstairs while RZ was using the bathroom. We don't know!

I think Dina's expert concluded that the scooter would not have gone over the banister if it was a situation with Max just riding it.

JMO

 

[bourne]

The parents in this case are divorced. I do agree with you that it could be considered "reckless endangerment" which is a crime which is why there should be a complete investigation. The only adult in the house at the time of the fall was RZ. The parents weren't there, according to RZ's statement to LE and the child had been told not to ride the scooter the prior day. So, she knew the child had been warned about it and yet failed to ensure he didn't play with it near the upstairs balcony. Very reckless on her part, imo.

JMO

I have to disagree that Rebecca should be held liable for reckless endangerment because it was Jonah's home, and Jonah is Max's parent in the Spreckels mansion, and what he says goes, particularly in his own home.

Additionally, Jonah knew about the scooter being kept and played with on the second floor by Max because Rebecca's sister XZ said that she witnessed Max demonstrating his scooter on the 2nd floor carpet the day she arrived. And Jonah was definitely at the Spreckels on Sunday.

So the legal responsibility for Max's welfare falls on Jonah, the custodial parent at the time of Max's accident.

 

[K_Z]

The parents weren't there, according to RZ's statement to LE and the child had been told not to ride the scooter the prior day. So, she knew the child had been warned about it and yet failed to ensure he didn't play with it near the upstairs balcony.
JMO

This is the first thing I have read that "the child had been warned not to ride the scooter the prior day" and that "Rebecca knew this."

Please provide a link, or explanation as to how you know this to be true.

Everything else I've read says he was allowed to ride the scooter in the house upstairs, that others clearly knew he was doing this, and that BOTH Jonah's home and Dina's home had "outside toys" such as soccer balls, etc, scattered throughout to accomodate his play. I remember Dina herself said as much in an interview. All of that indicates to me that both of his parents approved of "outside play" indoors, and allowed Max to play freely inside with these toys designed for outdoor use.

If what you say is true, why didn't Jonah take the scooter away from him the day before, and put it in the garage? It appears by all indications he was allowed to keep it inside. And who purchased the scooter for Max? Did he get it for his birthday just a couple weeks prior to his fall?

And even if it was true, I strongly disagree with your "reckless' statement about Rebecca. Max was a "normal" child by all accounts. Normal children do not need "eyes on" supervision 100% of the time in their own home. Or did Max have a developmental or behavioral issue that has been kept quiet, that you have knowledge of, that would have required 100% eyes on supervision at all times to ensure his safety?

 

[freespeech]

I think Dina's expert concluded that the scooter would not have gone over the banister if it was a situation with Max just riding it.

JMO

I can envision Max straddling the railing while pulling the scooter onto the newel post. That would explain the drag mark on the post and metal damage to the front of the handle bar bolt and also the paint transfer to the wheel. Max probably scraped the paint while dragging it up and on top of the post.

Possibly Ocean jumped up at an inopportune time and pushed Max and the scooter over the railing together. The top of the chandelier looks crushed like something fell on top of it. The weight of whatever it was loosened the link and pulled it off the chain. i wonder if that is how Max sustained some of the facial cuts and abrasions. There are multiple possible accident scenarios. Possibly a new investigation would explore some of the more likely ones.

 

[K_Z]

I think Dina's expert concluded that the scooter would not have gone over the banister if it was a situation with Max just riding it.

JMO

I agree. I also believe the newel post damage indicates Max wasn't riding the scooter on the carpet when he fell.

But it's a shame that Dina and Dr. Melinek didn't allow or encourage Dr. Bove to investigate many different fall scenarios. Dr. Bove's report clearly says he was directed by Dr. Melinek to examine the Gomez diagram (meaning, debunk it), and investigate a "proposed assault scenario" to see if it was "possible".

There are literally dozens of other fall scenarios he could have discussed and investigated. He was very constrained in the work product he was asked/ contracted to produce.

 

[MyBelle]

This is the first thing I have read that "the child had been warned not to ride the scooter the prior day" and that "Rebecca knew this."

Please provide a link, or explanation as to how you know this to be true.

Everything else I've read says he was allowed to ride the scooter in the house upstairs, that others clearly knew he was doing this, and that BOTH Jonah's home and Dina's home had "outside toys" such as soccer balls, etc, scattered throughout to accomodate his play. I remember Dina herself said as much in an interview. All of that indicates to me that both of his parents approved of "outside play" indoors, and allowed Max to play freely inside with these toys designed for outdoor use.

If what you say is true, why didn't Jonah take the scooter away from him the day before, and put it in the garage? It appears by all indications he was allowed to keep it inside. And who purchased the scooter for Max? Did he get it for his birthday just a couple weeks prior to his fall?

And even if it was true, I strongly disagree with your "reckless' statement about Rebecca. Max was a "normal" child by all accounts. Normal children do not need "eyes on" supervision 100% of the time in their own home. Or did Max have a developmental or behavioral issue that has been kept quiet, that you have knowledge of, that would have required 100% eyes on supervision at all times to ensure his safety?

I know it to be true because the LE report is quoted in one of the Autopsy Reports. I'm not sure why you presume I was there and can answer your questions. According to the same LE reports quoted in the AR, the only people there were RZ and XZ.

The child is dead. My opinion is that normal child's play does not include scooters near stairways.

My opinion is that his death was easily prevented and that "reckless endangerment" does apply.

JMO

 

[freespeech]

You are bashing Dina and using wild speculation to do so. I have no idea where you even get the idea that divorced parents need to know the toy inventory and have any control over it while the child is at the ex's house. You certainly haven't provided any links to support such wild accusations.

JMO

Actually, I haven't accused anyone of anything. I simply said that I don't understand. Period.

Also the mothers that I know are very concerned about the toys their child plays with but more importantly with their child's safety. They do not relax because someone else baby sits them. Sometimes they actually worry more and are careful to leave that person specific instructions. They are not always confident that another person will look after their child with the same care that they do.

This is not bashing but only my perspective from what I have experienced and observed from those in my enviroment. Imo, most mothers I know are highly protective. Is that wrong to write? Why?

Also, I don't have a link for my personal opinion, experience and observations.

 

[K_Z]

I know it to be true because the LE report is quoted in one of the Autopsy Reports. I'm not sure why you presume I was there and can answer your questions. According to the same LE reports quoted in the AR, the only people there were RZ and XZ.

The child is dead. My opinion is that normal child's play does not include scooters near stairways.

My opinion is that his death was easily prevented and that "reckless endangerment" does apply.

JMO

Thank you. I don't presume you were there, but your comments are worded as though you have personal knowledge of the situation.

Could you please link to the LE report that says Max was warned by someone not to ride his scooter, and that Rebecca knew this? I can't seem to find what you are referencing. It would be good to have that cleared up. TIA.

 

[MyBelle]

Actually, I haven't accused anyone of anything. I simply said that I don't understand. Period.

Also the mothers that I know are very concerned about the toys their child plays with but more importantly with their child's safety. They do not relax because someone else baby sits them. Sometimes they actually worry more and are careful to leave that person specific instructions. They are not always confident that another person will look after their child with the same care that they do.

This is not bashing but only my perspective from what I have experienced and observed from those in my enviroment. Imo, most mothers I know are highly protective. Is that wrong to write? Why?

Also, I don't have a link for my personal opinion, experience and observations.

It's bashing from my perspective because of reality. You repeatedly insist Dina was somehow at fault and that's pretty low. Dina requested her child not be left in the care of her ex's lover. Her request was protective, imo and not much more she could do at that point.

Without evidence to give to a court that documents dangerous or reckless behavior, how can divorced parents have control over toys in the ex's house or who their ex entrusts with their child? If what you believe to be possible were remotely possible, I doubt we'd have what seems to now be constant stream of dead children who have been left with people their parents trusted.

JMO

 

[freespeech]

The parents in this case are divorced. I do agree with you that it could be considered "reckless endangerment" which is a crime which is why there should be a complete investigation. The only adult in the house at the time of the fall was RZ. The parents weren't there, according to RZ's statement to LE and the child had been told not to ride the scooter the prior day. So, she knew the child had been warned about it and yet failed to ensure he didn't play with it near the upstairs balcony. Very reckless on her part, imo.

JMO

Or one of the parents who were the legal guardians should have removed the scooter from the dangerous inside locations and secured it in the garage for safety. If the parents do not set and enforce the ground rules then how can the baby sitter that no one likes or respects be expected to do it. You also have to wonder why an appropriate, respected and trusted child care worker wasn't retained by either parent. This is jmo.