What is the origin of the planking rumor?

[Betty P]

As for the involvement of older kids, that sounds plausible. Certainly not hard to imagine older kids talking a younger one into a stunt like that.

But even if older kids did, no one would find them legally responsible for Max's death. Seems it would be written off as a bad prank and tragic accident. Unless I'm missing something, other kids wouldn't get in trouble for egging him on. Its rather scary to think someone might harm them as retribution for MS's death, let's hope that wasn't the case.

I still think its more likely the stories were scrubbed as part of an effort to shift the blame to Rebecca, to bolster the lie that her death was a suicide because she harmed Max. I could be wrong, I hope I am, but until these cases are re-investigated, we won't know the answers.

MOO

 

[Betty P]

Editors usually edit things if they are incorrect. The EDITOR has the final decision on what is in and what is out. Not a PR firm.

Who could provide them proof that it was incorrect, especially if they had gotten the "planking" information from someone they felt was a reliable, if confidential, source.

What kind of proof could someone offer that would make USA Today and other reputable media outlets "correct their error"? An eyewitness? By that time Rebecca was dead and her sister wasn't giving media interviews. Who else was a witness to the accident and could offer proof that the "planking" story was wrong?

 

[katydid23]

If the older kids had been there, then XZ would have told people about it. There is no reason for her to talk to LE and say that she and RZ were the only ones there, if in fact the older sibs were present.

Why would she cover for them, especially when people have looked at her suspiciously for months now?

If the older kids were there, then LE would already have figured that out. Jonah would have been caught in a big lie. Since that has not happened, I will accept the autopsy reports and the Police Reports, when they state that RZ and her 13 yr old relative were the ONLY ones present when Maxie fell.

 

[Inparadise]

Who could provide them proof that it was incorrect, especially if they had gotten the "planking" information from someone they felt was a reliable, if confidential, source.

What kind of proof could someone offer that would make USA Today and other reputable media outlets "correct their error"? An eyewitness? By that time Rebecca was dead and her sister wasn't giving media interviews. Who else was a witness to the accident and could offer proof that the "planking" story was wrong?

I would suggest that perhaps someone directed an assistant to release a statement to USA Today that the older kids weren't there and that there was no planking going on. Lots of MSM do not fact-check, and print anything that is told to them.

 

[Ausgirl]

Just to clarify, my previous post was not to make a case for planking (nor to break any WS TOS regarding the sleuthing of minors, w/e), it was to negate the likelihood that it happened, and offer an explanation for why --whoever-- chose to scrub the news of reference to it may have done so.

Because:

--- It's just bleeding obvious that a 6-yo would not be planking alone, with nobody there to encourage/take pics,

therefore:

-- the decision to omit references to planking may have been made because the most obvious inference of 'planking' is that older kids were probably involved,

and so, quite probably:

-- the mentions were omitted in order to avoid such perceptions and any liability that may come of them being printed

If that makes sense.

 

[CuriousGeorgia]

I wonder if XZ had planked before? Or taken pictures of planking?

 

[CuriousGeorgia]

I've noticed that with many of the articles by the Zahaus.

 

[Carioca]

There sure were a lot of cameras taken as evidence. Planking and owling are valid only with the photos to post as proof.

Search Warrant 41227:
Item: 7: flip camera
item 8: Basket w/ cameras
Item 39: Olympus camera
Item 40: Lumix camera

Obviously, having an abundance of cameras in a home in which a six year old child suffered a fatal fall and then the child's father's girlfriend suffered a violent and suspicious death the following night is meaningless. Yet, that the investigators felt the cameras were significant enough to take into evidence is indicative that they believed the film in the cameras might shed light on what took place the morning of July 11 and evening of July 12, 2011.

Considering the extensive list of obvious items NOT taken into evidence (hair, dog bone, chair, red comforter, panties, Adam's clothing and boots, etc etc. etc.,), IMO taking the cameras is a huge red flag.

 

[CuriousGeorgia]

Taking of the cameras proves there was no planking, IMO, since Sheriff Gore said there was no evidence of planking.

 

[Betty P]

Taking of the cameras proves there was no planking, IMO, since Sheriff Gore said there was no evidence of planking.

Actually, it doesn't prove anything. There have been numerous facts that Sheriff Gore claimed about this case that were later debunked.

The question, for me anyway, is why Jonah's PR contractors would go to such great lengths to scrub those stories in the media outlets.

 

[Carioca]

Taking of the cameras proves there was no planking, IMO, since Sheriff Gore said there was no evidence of planking.

Hi CuriousGeorge - Can you supply a source to Gore saying there was NO evidence of planking? TIA

To quote Gore when questioned about planking during the September 2, 2011 Press Conference:

REPORTER
There was a report that Max was planking when he fell. Did you hear anything about that?
GORE
I have no idea where that came from -- it was not represented to any family members by any of the investigators involved in this case.

For fear of sounding pedantic, IMO "I have not idea where that came from -- it was not represented…" does not translate to "there was no evidence of planking."

BTW what propelled Reporter to even ask about planking if it hadn't already hit the mainstream? (No need to answer. That's a rhetorical question.)

 

[Betty P]

That's not a very clear answer, is it?

This is just another example of the many odd "facts" and claims that just don't fit together in these cases. None of the explanations or omissions make sense when taken as a whole.

The explanation for Max's accident doesn't make sense, nor does the scenario proposed for Rebecca's death.

All I can say is, in my limited experience of studying crime cases, this usually means there's some major fact or evidence that is being withheld from the public that, when made public, makes all the pieces of the puzzle fit together.

The facts of these two cases are just too incomplete, inconsistent and contradictory to support the conclusions. There's something missing, something big that is being withheld from public view.

 

[CuriousGeorgia]

If only Anne Bremner would release ALL the files and information on this case!

 

[Inparadise]

Actually, it doesn't prove anything. There have been numerous facts that Sheriff Gore claimed about this case that were later debunked.

The question, for me anyway, is why Jonah's PR contractors would go to such great lengths to scrub those stories in the media outlets.

You are right.....and most cell phones have cameras on them, and they didn't confiscate those.

 

[CuriousGeorgia]

SDSO had Rebecca's phone and CPO should have taken and checked XZ's as well.

 

[Betty P]

SDSO had Rebecca's phone and CPO should have taken and checked XZ's as well.

What about Jonah's children? They may have been playing around encouraging Max to "plank" before they left town. R may have gotten onto the kids to make them stop.

Once the older kids were gone and R & her sister were in the bathroom, Max may have tried the stunt on his own, just goofing around. Whatever the scenario, there was some reason why Max was playing round those stairs on the second floor that day.

What about [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x98jCBnWO8w"]Parkour[/ame]? Maybe little Max had been watching videos of these stunts and thought he'd give it a try himself. Sounds unlikely, but if you've ever been the parent of an overactive 6 year old boy, you know they will try some crazy stuff.

ETA: Check the video at about the 3:11 mark. The stunt guy is walking along the inside of a railing.

 

[katydid23]

What about Jonah's children? They may have been playing around encouraging Max to "plank" before they left town. R may have gotten onto the kids to make them stop.

Once the older kids were gone and R & her sister were in the bathroom, Max may have tried the stunt on his own, just goofing around. Whatever the scenario, there was some reason why Max was playing round those stairs on the second floor that day.

What about Parkour? Maybe little Max had been watching videos of these stunts and thought he'd give it a try himself. Sounds unlikely, but if you've ever been the parent of an overactive 6 year old boy, you know they will try some crazy stuff.

The main problem withg the planking theory is that it does not begin to explain how that little body brought down a chandelier from the ceiling. In order to land how he did and with such force, they drew a picture of him running head long up and over the banister.

Planking involves laying flat and still on the banister. If he had done that [which I highly doubt]---he would have just slipped off the side, straight down to the floor. He would not have ended up on top of the chandelier.

 

[K_Z]

Congratulations, Inparadise, for becoming a verified insider on the Rebecca Zahau case!

I know many people on these threads will appreciate having a verified insider! Thank you for your willingness to become verified!

I really appreciate the verification process WS has established, and appreciate your time spent in the process. Thank you to WS admin, also!

IIRC, inparadise is our first verified insider on these threads!

:gthanks:

 

[Betty P]

The main problem withg the planking theory is that it does not begin to explain how that little body brought down a chandelier from the ceiling. In order to land how he did and with such force, they drew a picture of him running head long up and over the banister.

Planking involves laying flat and still on the banister. If he had done that [which I highly doubt]---he would have just slipped off the side, straight down to the floor. He would not have ended up on top of the chandelier.

The chandelier part isn't difficult to understand at all. If you look at some of the photos here in this forum, you'll see it hung below the level of the second floor staircase and balcony. It pretty much filled up the entire area between the flights of stairs, so anyone falling from either the stairs or the balcony couldn't avoid hitting it. Chandeliers are usually hung to support their own weight and not much more - their connection to the ceiling isn't usually strong enough to support the weight of a person or even a child.

As for the banister, I recently came across some newer photos of the upstairs banister area from the video of the Dr. Phil show. The one below is taken from a little different perspective than the photos we've seen before.

From this view, its easy to see how someone running or riding a scooter could go over the stair portion of the banister.

The scooter/running theory aside, I've wondered if he hadn't climbed over the banister to walk down the stairs on the "open" side and fell from there.

 

[K_Z]

As for the banister, I recently came across some newer photos of the upstairs banister area from the video of the Dr. Phil show. The one below is taken from a little different perspective than the photos we've seen before.

From this view, its easy to see how someone running or riding a scooter could go over the stair portion of the banister.

The scooter/running theory aside, I've wondered if he hadn't climbed over the banister to walk down the stairs on the "open" side and fell from there.

BBM

It's also easy to see that the newel post could be a balancing or posing pedestal, imo.

And I agree-- it would not be difficult to become entangled in the chandelier. And while the CEILING attachment (inside the ceiling) is usually fairly robust, the chain links suspending chandeliers are not meant to support any more weight than the chandelier. IIRC, the chandelier chain broke-- the broken link was photographed, but ultimately the link was lost. I haven't heard that the chandelier actually pulled out from the ceiling attachment.

The chains are usually not very robust. Wouldn't take much to pull the links apart or break them. And then the only thing holding up the chandelier would be the electrical cord woven into the chain links. And that can't be rated for much weight or torque.