Cheaper by the Dozen

[arielilane]

[video=dailymotion;x7mp6s]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7mp6s_cheaper-by-the-dozen-swing-from-cha_lifestyle[/video]

Dawna Kauffman made an excellent point on WS radio tonight about this movie.

 

[jjenny]

That's not the only movie where people are shown swinging on chandeliers. I was watching a tv series for children a couple of weeks ago and that show had 3 people swinging on a chandelier.

 

[Curious Me]

Oh heavens, yes, this movie scene is so close to what might have happened! It isn't the least bit cute now, which it was meant to be. Did MS ever see this movie?

 

[SunnieRN]

I loved that movie. There is no way to know if Max saw the movie, unless a family member tells us.

 

[Curious Me]

That's not the only movie where people are shown swinging on chandeliers. I was watching a tv series for children a couple of weeks ago and that show had 3 people swinging on a chandelier.

I remember you mentioning that. Doesn't the stairway in this movie scene look similar enough to give you chills? Horrible accident.

 

[CDS22]

Even if MS saw the movie, it doesn't mean he emulated it.

 

[CocoChanel]

Even if MS saw the movie, it doesn't mean he emulated it.

I agree. I think I can probably speak for all of us posting here when I say that if it can be proved that Max saw this movie, we agree that alone does not prove that he was copying it when he had the accident.

Can you agree that, under the same circumstances, if it could be proved that Max saw this movie, there is then a POSSIBILITY that he might be intrigued enough to try to copy it, in which case it could explain this accident?

 

[SophieRose]

I agree. I think I can probably speak for all of us posting here when I say that if it can be proved that Max saw this movie, we agree that alone does not prove that he was copying it when he had the accident.

Can you agree that, under the same circumstances, if it could be proved that Max saw this movie, there is then a POSSIBILITY that he might be intrigued enough to try to copy it, in which case it could explain this accident?

So if you think he copied it, are you saying he used the scooter. The movie had hardwood floors where one could speed up to swing over, the Spreckels mansion is carpeted.

 

[KarenM]

I actually thought about this chandelier theory before. It was possible but the scooter could not fit in the scenario. The scooter was so hard to explain that even the LE left it out of the demo picture.

Based on the AR, Max must have landed face down. His face hit the ground so hard, causing his head to turn up violently and his spinal cord to be unplugged from his brain stem. But when LE arrived, he was lying face up. I think Rebecca turned him over to check on him and gave him CPR. This was very natural, nothing suspicious to me. If you see your child lying face down and unreponsive, wouldn't you immediately turn him/her over to check on him/her? The AR also mentioned that Rebecca could not remember whether Max was facing up or down when she first saw him and whether she turned him over. Combining this with the AR's description on Max's injury, it only makes sense that Max landed face down. So the interesting question was the scooter. No matter the scooter flew down with Max and landed on him or the scooter was on the first floor to begin with and fell on him during the impact, when Rebecca turned him over, the scooter should be moved out of the way or slipped out of the way. Why was it found to be on the Max's leg?

We probably will never find out what happened to Max that day. There were too many possibilities. Rebecca could have told complete truth based on what she knew. It was also possible that she did not mention a few things either unintentionally or intentionally. Some items at the scene could be placed there aferwards (such as the scooter). Even if the scooter was laid out on Max later, it does not necessarily indicate foul play. It might simply be someone needed a more convincing explanation to LE and the kid's parents. These are just pure speculation, of course.

One thing I don't believe is that RN purposely harmed Max. She had no motivation doing that because Max's injury under her care would do no good to her but making her life miserable, regardless whether she was responsible for his injury or not. With the relationship she had with JS's ex, she knew she'd have a hard time with the explanation.

I also thought of the possiblity that Xena was playing with Max and got injured in the accident also. Her injury on the leg required stitches from what I read. Only wounds too deep to heal naturally require stitches. If her wound was acquired when picking up the broken chanderlier, it was more likely to be on her hand and a superficial cut. Of course, these are also my wild guesses.

RIP, Max. I also want to say his parents' decision to donate his organs was very respectable and generous.

 

[CocoChanel]

So if you think he copied it, are you saying he used the scooter. The movie had hardwood floors where one could speed up to swing over, the Spreckels mansion is carpeted.

I do not think MS copied this particular movie scene because I don't know if he ever saw this movie. If he did see it, then I would say it was POSSIBLE that he could have tried something he saw in the movie involving a chandelier. I personally do not think the scooter went over the railing with MS. I think it was on the first floor near where MS landed.

 

[katydid23]

I don't think Max would have suddenly jumped to swing on the chandelier. He was reportedly a very intelligent, and athletic kid. I think he was plenty old enough and smart enough about gravity to prevent himself from attempting a swing on the chandelier.

The planking I could understand a little more, if he saw older sibs trying it, and if he thought he could easily stay balanced upon the rail. But the planking theory does not fit with the way his body supposedly was propelled over the top.

The scooter could not go that fast on a carpet, imo. And I see no way that it would have gone over the rail itself. Scooters are bottom heavy. It would have to have been going very fast for awhile to make it over the rail. imoo

The scenario of him running fast and missing the top step for some reason and then falling over the rail makes the most sense, I suppose.

In terms of the 'physical' outcome, it appears most likely he was thrown over the balcony, if you just take into account what LE described was the way the body fell.
But I cannot come up with any believable scenario in which anyone would have thrown that poor sweet boy over the railing. So I am going to assume that did not happen.

 

[jjenny]

Children do imitate what they see in the movies. Doesn't matter how intelligent they are. Children are very impressionable and might not understand the dangers of doing something somebody did in a move. Now, I have no idea if Max tried to imitate something he saw in a movie, but that's not out of the question.

 

[katydid23]

Children do imitate what they see in the movies. Doesn't matter how intelligent they are. Children are very impressionable and might not understand the dangers of doing something somebody did in a move. Now, I have no idea if Max tried to imitate something he saw in a movie, but that's not out of the question.

I understand how impressionable they are. But it was breakfast time, on a normal morning, and his stepmom was just in the bathroom. What would compel him to suddenly, out of the blue, decide to take a swing on the chandelier? I just don't buy it. He was a smart kid. He would understand how dangerous that was. He was old enough to understand gravity and pain, imo.
So imo, it does matter how intelligent they are. An intelligent child WOULD understand the dangers involved in trying to swing on a chandelier two flights down. imoo.

 

[jjenny]

He is also only six. I don't care how intelligent he might be. The child's brain isn't as developed as an adult's, and the child might not understand the danger of doing something an adult would understand. I don't know if he saw the movie but in the movie it looked like fun and no one got injured.

 

[katydid23]

He is also only six. I don't care how intelligent he might be. The child's brain isn't as developed as an adult's, and the child might not understand the danger of doing something an adult would understand.

Six year old are pretty smart already in terms of what they can and cannot do in terms of heights. They play on monkey bars and climb on really high slides, and very very few of them will just purposely jump from a very high place without understanding the consequences.

I think you could take a hundred first graders into that home, one by one,stand at the top of the stairs,and ask each child if they think they should try to swing on that chandelier. I don't think many of them would think it was possible to do without being hurt. imoo

 

[jjenny]

Accidents are a leading cause of death in children. If all children were so cautious as you apparently think, I really don't think it would have been the case.

 

[Melanie]

It also reminds me of War of the Roses with Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner - where the husband and wife die after falling on the chandelier. Sorry if that's a spoiler for anyone, but it's been out forever!

Poor Max

Mel

 

[katydid23]

Accidents are a leading cause of death in children. If all children were so cautious as you apparently think, I really don't think it would have been the case.

There is a big difference between an 'accident', like a kid stumbling and falling from a bunk bed, or falling from their tree house, and a kid jumping on purpose from a very high dangerous place. imoo

Even impressionable, clumsy, six year olds know what is safe and what is not. Sure, they are rambunctious and impulsive, and they may try something beyond their abilities. But I think most 6 yr olds know that it is dangerous and stupid to try and jump on a chandelier from the second story of their home. imoo

 

[SunnieRN]

I don't think Max would have suddenly jumped to swing on the chandelier. He was reportedly a very intelligent, and athletic kid. I think he was plenty old enough and smart enough about gravity to prevent himself from attempting a swing on the chandelier.

The planking I could understand a little more, if he saw older sibs trying it, and if he thought he could easily stay balanced upon the rail. But the planking theory does not fit with the way his body supposedly was propelled over the top.

The scooter could not go that fast on a carpet, imo. And I see no way that it would have gone over the rail itself. Scooters are bottom heavy. It would have to have been going very fast for awhile to make it over the rail. imoo

The scenario of him running fast and missing the top step for some reason and then falling over the rail makes the most sense, I suppose.

In terms of the 'physical' outcome, it appears most likely he was thrown over the balcony, if you just take into account what LE described was the way the body fell.
But I cannot come up with any believable scenario in which anyone would have thrown that poor sweet boy over the railing. So I am going to assume that did not happen.

Six year old are pretty smart already in terms of what they can and cannot do in terms of heights. They play on monkey bars and climb on really high slides, and very very few of them will just purposely jump from a very high place without understanding the consequences.

I think you could take a hundred first graders into that home, one by one,stand at the top of the stairs,and ask each child if they think they should try to swing on that chandelier. I don't think many of them would think it was possible to do without being hurt. imoo

There is a big difference between an 'accident', like a kid stumbling and falling from a bunk bed, or falling from their tree house, and a kid jumping on purpose from a very high dangerous place. imoo

Even impressionable, clumsy, six year olds know what is safe and what is not. Sure, they are rambunctious and impulsive, and they may try something beyond their abilities. But I think most 6 yr olds know that it is dangerous and stupid to try and jump on a chandelier from the second story of their home. imoo

Not trying to pick on you Katy, it's just that I have heard you say in the past, that maybe Rebecca didn't supervise Max closely enough that day. All of the posts you have made in this thread, sound more like you feel that Max was old enough to understand what was safe and what was dangerous, (which I agree with to a point, because most 6 years olds still believe in fantasy and can not understand consequences to their actions yet).

I am curious if your opinion of Rebecca's ability to supervise Max have changed?

 

[lauriej]

I don't think Max would have suddenly jumped to swing on the chandelier. He was reportedly a very intelligent, and athletic kid. I think he was plenty old enough and smart enough about gravity to prevent himself from attempting a swing on the chandelier.

The planking I could understand a little more, if he saw older sibs trying it, and if he thought he could easily stay balanced upon the rail. But the planking theory does not fit with the way his body supposedly was propelled over the top.

The scooter could not go that fast on a carpet, imo. And I see no way that it would have gone over the rail itself. Scooters are bottom heavy. It would have to have been going very fast for awhile to make it over the rail. imoo

The scenario of him running fast and missing the top step for some reason and then falling over the rail makes the most sense, I suppose.

In terms of the 'physical' outcome, it appears most likely he was thrown over the balcony, if you just take into account what LE described was the way the body fell.
But I cannot come up with any believable scenario in which anyone would have thrown that poor sweet boy over the railing. So I am going to assume that did not happen.

..i have no idea how maxie's accident occurred---but i do think it was an unfortunate accident.

..we know the chandelier factors in somewhere-------b/c in the AR it's mentioned that paramedics find it sitting there right next to him.

..as far as theories "not fitting" with the way the body fell---or "taking into account what LE described" ------LE put together a ( very brief, child tumbling ) power point for the PC------which, was horribly inaccurate.

..val of THM actually uses the data----proving how LE's brief little presentation ---was seriously lacking.

( why LE showed "a kid" simply running and falling---without factoring in the height of the kid, the railing etc????-----is bizarre.)

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=1344
---how max's accident----DIDN'T happen-----