Hi
readers.
For several months now I've been pondering something that you might already be familiar with - the deaths of 6-year-old Max Shacknai and 32-year-old Rebecca Zahau - in a large Coronado California home, and within days of one another. The circumstances surrounding both deaths have become international news, and have confused police investigators, private investigators, forensic pathologists, family, friends and the public since the events took place in 2011. And, well, I was one of the confused - until just recently.For those of you who know me, you know that I try very hard to make logical sense out of a very illogical world. And that frustrates me tremendously, which is why those two cases have been taking up so much of my mental energy lately. But I think I've made some interesting insights into both cases, and I'd like to tell you about them, if for no other reason than to just get all of this stuff out of my head.By the way... Just in case you have no desire to read a LOT, or if you're not already familiar with these cases, or if you simply don't care, I have to warn you that I'm going to make several posts, and they're likely to be LONG. Also, the thoughts, questions and timeline of events proposed will be mine. I'm responsible for them.But before I even begin, I'd like to give you the standards I apply in my everyday life to help me make up my mind when I have questions about pretty much anything.
1. Why?
2. Isn't there a better way to do that?
3. From my grandparents' school of logic: If it looks like a rat, if it acts like a rat, if it smells like a rat... Guess what?
4. If it happens once, it's a fluke. If it happens twice, it's a coincidence. If it happens three times, it's a pattern.
Now, with those convenient little tidbits in mind, let's get started.Max Shacknai fell to his death from the second-floor staircase down to the first floor of his father's home on July 11th, 2011. The police investigators had event drawings that I believe are completely wrong, based upon the autopsy drawings of Max's injuries. And this is one of the greatest areas of contention by all parties directly involved. It's also an area of contention for me, because the drawings basically have little Max flying through the air like a monkey, and bouncing off of everything that might get in the way of his fall - two banisters at 90 degrees to each other, and a chandelier. No one seems to be able to pair his injuries accurately enough to the event to make sense of what happened, and I believe that's because everyone involved in the investigation has lost the ability to look at his fall from Max's perspective. As adults, we're looking for some sort of logic in what happened. As adults, we want to find someone to blame. But kids don't always act logically; and sometimes there just isn't anyone to blame. Sometimes people just make honest mistakes.
So here are the things we know for sure.
1. Max fell from the second-floor banister.
2. Rebecca and her sister were both in the home at the time Max fell.
3. Max impacted the chandelier hard enough to make it fall.
4. There were dents and gouges in the second-floor railing that appeared to be from a very solid object.
5. There was paint missing from the second-floor railing.
6. Paint from the second-floor railing was found on the underside of the scooter Max was riding that day.
7. Max fell directly onto his head.
8. There was a "L"-shaped bruise at the top of Max's back, and a line of smaller, round bruises going down the remainder of his back.
9. The home is enormous - a mansion. It's over 12,000 square feet, with 10 bedrooms and 9.5 baths.
10. The scooter Max was riding that day was found on the first floor in the opposite corner of the room where he fell.*
11. Rebecca reported that while attending to Max, he said "Ocean," which is the name of the family dog.
12. Glass from the chandelier was found to have little, if any, effect on Max's body.
13. Max's center of gravity was lower than the top of the railing.
14. Max died five days later from his injuries.
There's plenty more to say about little Max's death than what I have. But I need to start somewhere, and I think that start is here, with the above information. My idea of Max's accident takes place in part from my own perspective, from my perspective as having been a 6-year-old boy, and what I think could be Max's perspective.
Riding a push-style scooter on carpeting has to be frustrating. You push hard, but not much happens. You can only travel a few feet at a time. But chances are pretty good that a young guy his age was riding his scooter all morning, and still had plenty of energy to burn. I would also guess that he watched skateboarders on TV, and had ideas of his own on how to do certain tricks - especially tricks like the ¨foot-plant,¨ or the popular ¨grind¨ - both of which would put his ¨center of gravity¨ well above the railing. There were dents and gouges on the banister that indicate he had tried more than once to attempt something on that particular corner - the one that the forensics experts, and the Zahau family attorney all acknowledged was the lowest point on the banister. And Rebecca, seeing the obvious danger of fooling around on the edge of the second floor, would likely have scolded him each time. So the only way for Max to try his trick would be to wait until Rebecca wasn't looking.
I believe once he was sure that Rebecca and her sister were both out of the room, Max tried a ¨grind,¨ a ¨foot-plant,¨ (or something similar) - both of which would involve placing one foot on the railing. But he didn´t realize that he no longer needed to push at all. The force of a good, hard push between two hard surfaces (the bottom of the scooter, and the top of the wood railing) would send him immediately heels over head. But he didn´t have the body mass to fall back to the carpeted second floor; nor did he have the body mass to gain a lot of momentum and fly toward the other side of the entrance room on the first floor. He simply flipped - heels over head - directly over the top of the banister. Think for a moment that what he did is similar to slipping on a banana peel.Once we have this inverted position in mind, the other pieces of Max´s accident fall into place very nicely. Max's upper back would impact the corner of the railing first, which would leave a ¨L¨- shaped bruise on his upper back. Then, he began to bounce (or slide, if you prefer) down that same corner, which would leave a pattern of smaller bruises going down the remainder of his back, until the top of his tailbone was reached. And that area, being the most curved part of the back, would hook Max´s back even more, giving him a slightly larger bruise at the base of his spine. And that bruise is obvious in the autopsy photos and drawings.
For several months now I've been pondering something that you might already be familiar with - the deaths of 6-year-old Max Shacknai and 32-year-old Rebecca Zahau - in a large Coronado California home, and within days of one another. The circumstances surrounding both deaths have become international news, and have confused police investigators, private investigators, forensic pathologists, family, friends and the public since the events took place in 2011. And, well, I was one of the confused - until just recently.For those of you who know me, you know that I try very hard to make logical sense out of a very illogical world. And that frustrates me tremendously, which is why those two cases have been taking up so much of my mental energy lately. But I think I've made some interesting insights into both cases, and I'd like to tell you about them, if for no other reason than to just get all of this stuff out of my head.By the way... Just in case you have no desire to read a LOT, or if you're not already familiar with these cases, or if you simply don't care, I have to warn you that I'm going to make several posts, and they're likely to be LONG. Also, the thoughts, questions and timeline of events proposed will be mine. I'm responsible for them.But before I even begin, I'd like to give you the standards I apply in my everyday life to help me make up my mind when I have questions about pretty much anything.
1. Why?
2. Isn't there a better way to do that?
3. From my grandparents' school of logic: If it looks like a rat, if it acts like a rat, if it smells like a rat... Guess what?
4. If it happens once, it's a fluke. If it happens twice, it's a coincidence. If it happens three times, it's a pattern.
Now, with those convenient little tidbits in mind, let's get started.Max Shacknai fell to his death from the second-floor staircase down to the first floor of his father's home on July 11th, 2011. The police investigators had event drawings that I believe are completely wrong, based upon the autopsy drawings of Max's injuries. And this is one of the greatest areas of contention by all parties directly involved. It's also an area of contention for me, because the drawings basically have little Max flying through the air like a monkey, and bouncing off of everything that might get in the way of his fall - two banisters at 90 degrees to each other, and a chandelier. No one seems to be able to pair his injuries accurately enough to the event to make sense of what happened, and I believe that's because everyone involved in the investigation has lost the ability to look at his fall from Max's perspective. As adults, we're looking for some sort of logic in what happened. As adults, we want to find someone to blame. But kids don't always act logically; and sometimes there just isn't anyone to blame. Sometimes people just make honest mistakes.
So here are the things we know for sure.
1. Max fell from the second-floor banister.
2. Rebecca and her sister were both in the home at the time Max fell.
3. Max impacted the chandelier hard enough to make it fall.
4. There were dents and gouges in the second-floor railing that appeared to be from a very solid object.
5. There was paint missing from the second-floor railing.
6. Paint from the second-floor railing was found on the underside of the scooter Max was riding that day.
7. Max fell directly onto his head.
8. There was a "L"-shaped bruise at the top of Max's back, and a line of smaller, round bruises going down the remainder of his back.
9. The home is enormous - a mansion. It's over 12,000 square feet, with 10 bedrooms and 9.5 baths.
10. The scooter Max was riding that day was found on the first floor in the opposite corner of the room where he fell.*
11. Rebecca reported that while attending to Max, he said "Ocean," which is the name of the family dog.
12. Glass from the chandelier was found to have little, if any, effect on Max's body.
13. Max's center of gravity was lower than the top of the railing.
14. Max died five days later from his injuries.
There's plenty more to say about little Max's death than what I have. But I need to start somewhere, and I think that start is here, with the above information. My idea of Max's accident takes place in part from my own perspective, from my perspective as having been a 6-year-old boy, and what I think could be Max's perspective.
Riding a push-style scooter on carpeting has to be frustrating. You push hard, but not much happens. You can only travel a few feet at a time. But chances are pretty good that a young guy his age was riding his scooter all morning, and still had plenty of energy to burn. I would also guess that he watched skateboarders on TV, and had ideas of his own on how to do certain tricks - especially tricks like the ¨foot-plant,¨ or the popular ¨grind¨ - both of which would put his ¨center of gravity¨ well above the railing. There were dents and gouges on the banister that indicate he had tried more than once to attempt something on that particular corner - the one that the forensics experts, and the Zahau family attorney all acknowledged was the lowest point on the banister. And Rebecca, seeing the obvious danger of fooling around on the edge of the second floor, would likely have scolded him each time. So the only way for Max to try his trick would be to wait until Rebecca wasn't looking.
I believe once he was sure that Rebecca and her sister were both out of the room, Max tried a ¨grind,¨ a ¨foot-plant,¨ (or something similar) - both of which would involve placing one foot on the railing. But he didn´t realize that he no longer needed to push at all. The force of a good, hard push between two hard surfaces (the bottom of the scooter, and the top of the wood railing) would send him immediately heels over head. But he didn´t have the body mass to fall back to the carpeted second floor; nor did he have the body mass to gain a lot of momentum and fly toward the other side of the entrance room on the first floor. He simply flipped - heels over head - directly over the top of the banister. Think for a moment that what he did is similar to slipping on a banana peel.Once we have this inverted position in mind, the other pieces of Max´s accident fall into place very nicely. Max's upper back would impact the corner of the railing first, which would leave a ¨L¨- shaped bruise on his upper back. Then, he began to bounce (or slide, if you prefer) down that same corner, which would leave a pattern of smaller bruises going down the remainder of his back, until the top of his tailbone was reached. And that area, being the most curved part of the back, would hook Max´s back even more, giving him a slightly larger bruise at the base of his spine. And that bruise is obvious in the autopsy photos and drawings.
The ¨hook¨ portion of Max's fall would also push him past the
inverted position, so that the only things in his sight would be the
floor and the chandelier. And the closest parts of his body to the
chandelier would then be his legs and feet.
He would also immediately let go of his scooter, and let it fly. If he was tumbling backwards in one corner of the room, then the scooter would land in the opposite corner of the room. And that's where it was found.*
He would also immediately let go of his scooter, and let it fly. If he was tumbling backwards in one corner of the room, then the scooter would land in the opposite corner of the room. And that's where it was found.*
The problem, though, is that the best Max can do in such a position is thrust his legs into the chandelier. And he DID. He actually did it. He hit the chandelier so hard, and with so much weight, that the chain snapped. Now Max would be falling with his upper torso below the chandelier, while his legs would be either still entangled in the chandelier, or if he couldn´t maintain his hold, the chandelier would follow right behind him in just a split second. This scenario describes and explains many of the elements of Max's fall that have plagued investigators since the event took place.
Q: Why didn't Max's hands and arms have bruises and glass on them, if he was supposedly swinging from the chandelier?
A: Because his hands didn't touch the chandelier.
Q: Why did Max fall head first onto the floor?
A: Because he was inverted.
Q: Why did he have those oddly-shaped bruises on his back?
A: They were all caused by the corner of the railing.
Q: How could his center of gravity have been above the railing?
A: Max put his foot on the railing.
Q: Why was there paint from the top of the railing missing, that matched the paint found on the bottom of the scooter?
A: Max placed the bottom of the scooter on top of the railing.
Q: What motivation did Rebecca have to harm Max?
A: None. In fact, to the contrary, Rebecca had a great deal of motivation to protect Max from harm.
Q: Why did Rebecca's younger sister call 911?
A: Because Rebecca was directly responsible for taking care of Max.
Summary:I believe that Max simply made a childhood mistake. I think he wanted to try a trick that Rebecca wouldn't let him try, and he was too young and inexperienced to understand the ramifications of his actions. I think Rebecca's sister was in the other room (as per their agreement with the Shacknai family). He then simply waited for Rebecca to go to the bathroom, and if Max had been particularly energetic that day, she would most likely choose one of the bathrooms that was out of the way (in a more remote part of the house), so she could take a break. When both sisters heard the crash, they ran to the room where Max was playing. Rebecca tried to help him as best as she could, while her younger sister called for emergency services. Rebecca later stated to police that Max had said the name ¨Ocean.¨ A case such as this is in and of itself quite an anomaly. So Max saying the name ¨Ocean¨ appears to be an anomaly among anomalies - until you view it from Max´s perspective. He's 6 years old. He just fell an entire story onto his face. When his father finds out, he's going to be in big trouble. He's hurt badly and he knows it; he's in terrible pain; and, most importantly, he's very, very scared. So why would he say ¨Ocean¨ just before he loses consciousness? Because he wanted to be comforted by the family dog. He wasn't blaming the dog for anything. To a 6-year-old boy there are only a few things in the whole world that are truly comforting. And those at the very top are: mom, dad, dog. He just wanted his dog.
* I'm going by the photos that were used in the media many times over. I have read one forensic's report that says the scooter was found over Max's right shin. If that is in fact the case, then the scenario above will change very little. The main difference would be that the scooter would add some weight to Max's fall, and could very well act as a lever/hook between Max and the chandelier, making Max's weight and leverage more forceful to the resistance of the chandelier's chain, and hence, the fall would be more likely to break the chain.
Up next: The death of Rebecca Zahau
Thanks for reading
M. B. Davidson
No comments:
Post a Comment