She meant he was forcibly backed into the railing, imo.
"On his own" doesn't support her conclusion of homicide.
Max's Death - Dina's Independent Experts Summary Reports
- Thread starter time
- Start date
New Posts
-
TX TX - Terri 'Missy' Bevers, 45, killed in church/suspect in SWAT gear, Midlothian, 18 Apr 2016 #49
- Latest: I am not Sherlock H.
-
-
TX TX - Austin, UnkFem 40-55, UP72619, surg clips in breast, clothes/shoes, Apr'20
- Latest: imstilla.grandma
- Status
She meant he was forcibly backed into the railing, imo.
"On his own" doesn't support her conclusion of homicide.
gypsychild
Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2011
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 1
IMO the marks on this railing seem like they would have come from something hard scraping against it. I would not think a person backed up into this would create these gouges.
I thought the same thing when I looked at it. I'm finding the report a bit confusing, but I thought at one point they claimed the scooter made marks. A child's back would not make those marks no matter how hard they hit the railing. If it was the scooter or some other object, then the marks appear to be going from the end post upstairs straight downward towards the landing (parallel with the stair railing)?? That's what it looks like to me. I'm not sure how that fits any of the scenarios we have heard.
Also, we can't be 100% certain those marks have anything to do with Max's fatal accident.
The broken ring off the chandelier was on the landing.
In Dr. M's report
gypsychild
Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2011
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 1
This is what confuses me. Are they claiming the marks on that post are from the scooter?? Or from his back?
All in all I think the report is a bit confusing. Are they trying to claim MS was backed into the post, then tossed over the railing, then his scooter tossed over the railing thereby hitting (and taking down) the chandelier?
Do we know if there was glass on top of MS or underneath him?
I don't think Max had any scratches from the glass. At least I can't see any scratches on the photos provided.
My interpretation of the report:they admit here that despite the center of gravity he could have fallen over that lower area of the railing (as claimed by police). Although they claim that some of the rest of the scene doesn't exactly fit with that. But since they weren't there, how could they know? Just because they haven't come up with how the rest of the scene could fit, does it mean that's it impossible? I personally don't think so.
Yeah, I think there are a lot of scenarios that could possibly 'fit', t hey tried to counteract that by saying this is the only one that takes in their chosen variables. However, it could also be that one of those is not a must to include or their case is a little shaky/overstated. I was glad to here the biomechanics guy say he had not come to a conclusion there had to be a perpetrator present/assault.
We have a scooter, a dog, a ball, and a chandelier. So, many possible combinations. And by the way, where is the re-enactment of the assault scenario that perfectly fits with all the data? Did I miss it?
I couldn't put all that together either from the Summary Report (attorney) or Dr. Melinek. I can't even determine where they are claiming he went over on his back if the scooter had to be there also (and I think going in a direction that would be 90 degrees from his body?). Clearly, they are claiming at some point he couldn't have gone over the railing at the lower height railing (because of the marks on the banister or being able to get up momentum - UGH?). The momentum thing doesn't work for me because of them saying be could have backed into the railing (for some reason) and escaped over it... that sounds passive itself. The marks the railing thing doesn't work because they don't look like a body, how would the scooter be in that position and forced somehow to make those marks, I forgot my last point!
I haven't read Dr. Bove's report from beginning to end, but maybe it is more clear. If so, and he hasn't concluded a perpetrator or assault had to have occurred, then I'd say the Summary Report is possibly cut and pasted in a way that misrepresents what Dr. Bove said.
No, I didn't see any re-enactment.
Dr. Bove says in his conclusion that essentially he doesn't think Gomez's scenario is consistent with the injuries Max sustained but Dr. Melinek are consistent.
He states on pg 29 of the report:
"I cannot affirmatively state exactly what happened in the subject matter. I also am unable to determine the initiating event and who was at fault at the time of the subject accident. Although I have ruled out certain types of accidental events or actions..., I have not take a position as to whether the actual incident that resulted in Maxfield Shacknais' injuries was intentional."
He states on pg 29 of the report:
"I cannot affirmatively state exactly what happened in the subject matter. I also am unable to determine the initiating event and who was at fault at the time of the subject accident. Although I have ruled out certain types of accidental events or actions..., I have not take a position as to whether the actual incident that resulted in Maxfield Shacknais' injuries was intentional."
Good question, I'm not sure there is a scenario now that you asked that! I'm a little weary with going through this stuff so I think I'll take a break and look at it anew later.
I still say, they never even considered taking a possibly rambunctious dog into account.
Ok jjenny... thought about the scenario, but will check my thoughts later.
I think Melinek presents possibilities. Like this happened or this, and then this happened. But it's not a clear path from beginning to end for me - maybe because of the confusing aspects we've discussed and because there is are no re-enactments that take into account her various variables. I sense if it was reenacted on one of those sets of variables there would be NO perpetrator involved. Of course, then she would say some scratches on Max's face weren't accounted for.
I think Melinek presents possibilities. Like this happened or this, and then this happened. But it's not a clear path from beginning to end for me - maybe because of the confusing aspects we've discussed and because there is are no re-enactments that take into account her various variables. I sense if it was reenacted on one of those sets of variables there would be NO perpetrator involved. Of course, then she would say some scratches on Max's face weren't accounted for.
From Dr. Ms report, can someone please interpret what the following means? TIA:
The lung sections have a pronounced aspiration pneumonia
with numerous multi-nucleated giant cells phagocytosing foreign material,
including some plant material.
with numerous multi-nucleated giant cells phagocytosing foreign material,
including some plant material.
Coma is one of the things that can lead to aspiration pneumonia. And he was in a coma for several days.
"Aspiration pneumonia occurs when foreign materials (usually food, liquids, vomit, or fluids from the mouth) are breathed into the lungs or airways leading to the lungs."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001179/
Thanks jjenny!
How about the "plant material" part? Would he have had to have eaten some plant material on the morning of his fall as he probably was on a liquid diet / feeding tube while in hospital? Where did that plant material come from? TIA
- Status