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

Status
Not open for further replies.
It looks to me like Dr. Melinek wrote a very short report based on the footnotes - perhaps 5 pages. That's fine but why not just include that report as it was written, it is not extensive. Dr. Bove appears to have written at least a 25 page report, with quotes/cites/notes from about 12 of the pages.
 
First of all, I do not think this is the original report from the two Drs because of some wording and because a lot of it is in quotes.

Here is just the wording I was talking about. I have to say it doesn't all work together for me either - having to go over on his back and whatever! It says he first he was injured on his back because he was pushed against the railing or backed into it and THEN was "either lifted over the banister or escaped over the banister, falling down to the front entry way." ACK. And, how would this explain the chandelier or scooter?

Well I think it would be more difficult to escape backwards over the banister than to fall forward over the banister. Yet one scenario is somehow plausible according to this report, and the other one is not.
 
Well I think it would be more difficult to escape backwards over the banister than to fall forward over the banister. Yet one scenario is somehow plausible according to this report, and the other one is not.

Agree ... it doesn't make sense to me.
 

Attachments

  • Untitled Image 1.pdf
    82 KB · Views: 18
And by the way, looking at the photos, the injuries to his face look like abrasions to me. Same as on his back. They don't look like scratches, or a hit to the face. So how does that prove assault?
 
It looks to me like Dr. Melinek wrote a very short report based on the footnotes - perhaps 5 pages. That's fine but why not just include that report as it was written, it is not extensive. Dr. Bove appears to have written at least a 25 page report, with quotes/cites/notes from about 12 of the pages.

This may have already been posted if so forgive me.

DR. JUDY MELINEK
Board Certified Forensic Pathologist
Forensic Pathology Expert Witness


Dr. Melinek's curriculum vitae (updated April 2012)
To view an on-line contract (updated April 2012)
To contact Dr. Melinek click here
To subscribe to Dr. Melinek's blog click here

Dr. Melinek is a ABP board-certified forensic pathologist practicing forensic medicine full-time in San Francisco, California as well as an Assistant Clinical Professor of Pathology at the UCSF Medical Center. Dr. Melinek trained as a forensic pathologist at the New York City Medical Examiner's Office from 2001-2003. She has consulted and testified in criminal and civil cases in New York, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Oregon and California.

Dr. Melinek has been qualified as an expert witness in forensic pathology, neuropathology and wound interpretation. She has had subspecialty training in surgery and has published and consulted on cases of medical errors and therapeutic complications. She trains doctors on forensic pathology, proper death reporting and certification. She has been invited to lecture at professional conferences on the subjects of death certification, complications of therapy and in-custody deaths.

Past clients include the Santa Clara County District Attorney, Office of the County Counsel County of Contra Costa, Marin County Public Defender, the Court Appointed Attorney Program of the Alameda County Bar Association, the Attorney General of the State of California, and private civil plaintiff's and defense attorneys.


http://www.pathologyexpert.com/drmelinek.htm
 
Dina did fine explaining why she was concerned to have Rebecca alone with Max. She got in the word assault a few times. Hope some of you got to see the JVM show tonight.

Who ever supposedly assaulted Max was not the same person responsible for Rebecca's death, JMOO. There might be two separate people being exposed eventually. The answers may not be comfortable for everyone.
 
I am so glad to see Dina is wanting Max' case reopened. I sincerely hope it happens. His 'freak accident' never made any sense.

JMO


Well, now you have the report. Good luck making sense of it if you care to read it.
 
If Dina was so concerned over leaving Rebecca alone with Max (I didn't watch the show, so what were her reasons, except the shoplifting episdoe?) why didn't Mr. S, millionaire that he was, hire a nanny to watch Max when he was over there?
 
I know I go against a lot of you when I say this, but I was right into these sad cases when they happened and I for one have never beleived that that child jumped over that railing......now saying that I also dont want to say that RZ did anything to him, but I beleive there was more to it.....I dont think it was intentional, more some form of conflict that ended in his tragic death.
 
The scenario put forth in this report is as ridiculous the original one put forth. It makes no sense.
 
If Dina was so concerned over leaving Rebecca alone with Max (I didn't watch the show, so what were her reasons, except the shoplifting episdoe?) why didn't Mr. S, millionaire that he was, hire a nanny to watch Max when he was over there?

This is my way of telling it. Dina started out with when she first met Rebecca. Right then and there in their first meeting...
Rebecca gave the Zahou name, didn't mention she was/had been married, and that there was that shoplifting episode Dina found out about later. Things you need to know if your child is with a person. So, right then and there, Dina didn't trust Rebecca forevermore. This is my simple version only.
 
I find the last paragraph of the report to be bizarre. Dr. M wasn't provided with information on previous aggressive acts by Rebecca? Isn't it because there weren't any? Not a single person said anything about Rebecca having any violent tendencies as far as I can tell. Why put that into the report?

We never learned what all LE discovered about Rebecca in their investigation. They never released any of it.

ETA: But didnt LE threaten to release some of the information on Rebecca when they said that her family/attorney were saying untruths in the media?

IMO
 
I hope they ask Dina's lawyer about some of the odd claims in that report as I mentioned above.
She did not, at least, not that I saw or heard. That whole portion with Dina and I think it was her lawyer, was the part that I was most interested in and yet it went by in a flash. I guess it was more important to get that piddly stuff out of the way so Jane could talk about the benefits of gluten, and who knows what else is coming, perhaps how to perfect your dumpster diving. Sorry, time, I have no information for you. It wasn't asked and wasn't discussed to my knowledge.
 
Well, now you have the report. Good luck making sense of it if you care to read it.

What is confusing about it?

We all know about how the center of gravity works.

It looks like they took both scenarios into consideration and neither works. With him not on the scooter and IF he was on the scooter.

IM
 
The Shacknais - husband and ex-wife - are the only ones with a documented history of physical violence toward another person.

Their accusations against Rebecca smack of projection.
 
The Shacknais - husband and ex-wife - are the only ones with a documented history of physical violence toward another person.

Their accusations against Rebecca smack of projection.

I really dont think that means anything though. Neither one of them were there when Max had his 'accident' and there have been countless people who had no documented violence in their past but still did a violent act.

imo
 
I really dont think that means anything though. Neither one of them were there when Max had his 'accident' and there have been countless people who had no documented violence in their past but still did a violent act.

imo

You don't know what "projection" means then.

Simply put, Dina may suspect others of violence because she herself has had violent episodes and may not know how to resolve situations without it. She "projects" her own behavior onto others. There is simply no evidence, in the long period in which RZ was Jonah's girlfriend, and went out in public with Max, cared for Max, etc., that she ever needed to deal with him or anyone else in a violent way. Not so with Dina.

Further, we have no idea where Dina was and when, nor whether IF Max had prior injuries, where he might have received them. Again, Dina had access to him and Dina is the one with a documented police history of violence. She seems to think everyone forgets this - we have not.
 
What is confusing about it?

We all know about how the center of gravity works.

It looks like they took both scenarios into consideration and neither works. With him not on the scooter and IF he was on the scooter.

IM


I have already addressed part of what I find problematic about it. In effect, one of the Dr's claims is that Max could have 'escaped' over the balcony on his own. I do not think the word 'escaped' should actually be used if this is the case but it is under the section where someone did something to Max for whatever reason. How in the world does that include the chandelier or the scooter, unless he was holding the scooter as he escaped - although he also had to have previous injuries to his back from the banister. Again it said those injuries were either someone pushing him up against it OR he backed into the banister.

Neither the backing to the banister nor the escape on his own necessitates another person being there. So, it appears to me that even by Dina's own experts, it's possible Max did this on his own and no one did anything to him.

I also pointed out that the 'report' we got today is a summary and it quotes the different doctors. I'm not assuming their actual reports say anything different, but it is something I am going to note. I like to read the primary documents not just a lawyers cut and paste of what experts said at some point in their reports.
 
Katydid23, XZ is a victim and a child. She lost her sister. You are not implying that a child and a victim is a murderer without proof or facts are you? That would certainly be out of character for you now wouldn't it?

Just like it wouldn't be right to accuse a grieving mother who believed Rebecca stole her husband and murdered her son of murdering Rebecca likewise it is not right to accuse a possible murder victim or her grieving sister of Max's murder with out facts or proof. REMEMBER, WE ARE ALL TRYING TO BE VICTIM FRIENDLY HERE, NO?

No, but she is not the only other person thought perhaps to be there either. There may have been a few others present/

But someone asked why nobody tried to prove that RZ was temperamental, and I said because she might not have been the focus of someone's investigation. People accused me of saying that RZ was the person who might have scuffled with Maxie---so I said that RZ was not the only person present. That is all I said.
 
I really dont think that means anything though. Neither one of them were there when Max had his 'accident' and there have been countless people who had no documented violence in their past but still did a violent act.

imo


Well if it doesn't mean anything as far as Max's death it surely is relevant to Rebecca's death, even the suicide reporting SDSD claimed it was violent. So, let's see who do we know that was violent related to all this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
169
Guests online
4,376
Total visitors
4,545

Forum statistics

Threads
591,846
Messages
17,959,934
Members
228,622
Latest member
crimedeepdives23
Back
Top