Crime Scene Animation by Websleuths Member grayhuze

New Posts

I see what you did there:) During the original trial I tried explaining this info as well. Some seems to be stuck on 2 things...One that they would have been lying (Horn & Flores) at trial and that's just not the case - they changed their opinion. They can change their opinion because its just that - an opinion medical or not Dr. Horn established issues with the brain and stated his opinion. 2. some seem to think you can't survive a bullet in the head Travis - only "survived" the bullet for a matter of minutes while there are many cases of people surviving to this day walking and talking.

GH you have established some very valid points that were brought out during the original trial in this forum and there were many that had the same opinion as you and I back then just as there are some very passionate with the opposite opinion. Thing is only one person knows the truth and she lies like a big dog!
 
well, you must not have read the august 2009 position of the state.
 
well, I have had this opinion for 2 years but never came here. I concluded this all on my own research, so it's nice that other people saw the same thing. I think it's fine to change a theory. But instead of just owning up to that they did some creative editing of reality. Yes, Flores has to say he misheard for if he didn't Horn's credibility would be in question. To me it's obvious. You also can't prove someone can't remember. Does anyone think it's credible when Horn says he can't ever remember talking to detective Flores? I don't
 
you might find it interesting to look back at some of the old threads you are not as alone as you think you are:).
 
cool..I don't really know how to navigate on Websleuths. It's one of the reasons I didn't come here very often. I can get to this thread though...lol
 
grayhuze said:
well, you must not have read the august 2009 position of the state.
Click to expand...

In a discussion forum it helps to give some indication of who you're addressing, or what comments. That said, if you're talking about the aggravation ruling, it's been online for years. Most of the members here probably read and discussed it long ago - surprised it seems new to you though.
 
johunt said:
I see what you did there:) During the original trial I tried explaining this info as well. Some seems to be stuck on 2 things...One that they would have been lying (Horn & Flores) at trial and that's just not the case - they changed their opinion. They can change their opinion because its just that - an opinion medical or not Dr. Horn established issues with the brain and stated his opinion. 2. some seem to think you can't survive a bullet in the head Travis - only "survived" the bullet for a matter of minutes while there are many cases of people surviving to this day walking and talking.

GH you have established some very valid points that were brought out during the original trial in this forum and there were many that had the same opinion as you and I back then just as there are some very passionate with the opposite opinion. Thing is only one person knows the truth and she lies like a big dog!
Click to expand...
(BBM)
1. It is the case. Dr. Horn testified that he would have never have said the gunshot would not have been incapacitating. If that's not true, he lied in his interview with Nurmi and committed perjury @ trial. If he remembers talking to Flores, that's perjury. If Flores was part of some conspiracy to change facts they knew to be true and to present false evidence, he committed perjury.

2. No one is saying it's impossible to survive a gunshot to the head. Dr. Horn didn't say this one would have been immediately fatal either, but said several times that with the type of damage this one did, purposeful movement would not have been possible. He also said he can't know what came first, only that the gunshot had to have come after he sustained his defensive wounds.
 
LinTX said:
(BBM)
1. It is the case. Dr. Horn testified that he would have never have said the gunshot would not have been incapacitating. If that's not true, he lied in his interview with Nurmi and committed perjury @ trial. If he remembers talking to Flores, that's perjury. If Flores was part of some conspiracy to change facts they knew to be true and to present false evidence, he committed perjury.

2. No one is saying it's impossible to survive a gunshot to the head. Dr. Horn didn't say this one would have been immediately fatal either, but said several times that with the type of damage this one did, purposeful movement would not have been possible. He also said he can't know what came first, only that the gunshot had to have come after he sustained his defensive wounds.
Click to expand...

But you are wrong. Horn did say at trial "I think I said right here that the gunshot would not have been immediately incapacitating" a moment of honesty. then he looked at Juan and moment later changed what he said.
 
Please provide links for what is posted as fact.

Thanks, Lambchop
 
No, I'm not wrong and I didn't use "immediately" either. Now in the part you quoted he was addressing that specific qualifier in his answer to Wilmott's use of "completely" and "immediately" in her questions, IMO. He is an MD, he's hearing specific terms, and those words mean different things medically. "Completely" would mean unconscious. In this statement he is referring to earlier testimony where at one point he did concede that although he believes TA would have been unconscious, he can't be absolutely certain of that and it might have taken seconds for incapacitation. But he added that TA wouldn't have been capable of purposeful movement even if conscious for a short period of time. In the clarification that follows your snippet, he uses simply incapacitation because he did make that one earlier concession. IMO

But OK, let’s ignore hours of testimony about his certainty of incapacitation (whether immediate or not), both injuries to the skull, damage to the brain, and zoom in on this one fragment of a sentence as you prefer. First of all, there is no break in his speech pattern that indicates anything or anyone caused him to change a thing and you don’t know who he glanced at – it was more likely Flores IMO. You want to use it, so you interpret a quick glance as being intimidated into changing testimony, and quote just a snippet for proof of your theory? He looks in several directions throughout his days on the stand, including this section, just as most witnesses do At times he glances down, to his left, his right and even to the direction of the defense team, so does that mean he’s taking direction from them or the court reporter too?

Next, let’s look at the whole statement, not just part of it (or better, watch it @ beginning about 2:41:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1tZKYBlfkxI#t=7750s . In the part you quoted he does glance in (IMO)Flores’ direction but does several times, even before saying what you want to use and claim he changed. Maybe because Flores is the subject? Doesn’t appear to me that he’s influenced at all by anything other than his own expert medical opinion of the facts. Here’s the transcript that includes your snippet:
Jennifer Willmott: And, do you remember telling Detective Flores that you knew this because the gunshot wound wouldn't have completely incapacitated somebody?
Kevin Horn: I don't recall saying that either.
Jennifer Willmott: Is that something that you think you would have never said to Detective Flores?
Kevin Horn: I think I've said it in court that I don't think it would immediately incapacitate or kill him, but it would be a serious injury. But I don't recall telling Detective Flores that, no.
Jennifer Willmott: Okay. So, let me back up for a second. So you're saying that the gunshot wound is not immediately incapacitating.
Kevin Horn: I would say not immediately fatal.
Jennifer Willmott: Okay. I'm not talking about fatal, I'm just talking about incapacitating.
Kevin Horn: I think, yes. I think that it would be incapacitating. It's passing through his brain, so yes.
Jennifer Willmott: Okay. So... And that's assuming it passed through his brain, you would say it's incapacitating, right?
Kevin Horn: I'm saying it did pass through his brain.
Click to expand...

And now that you’re willing to again discuss Horn's testimony, maybe you’ll finally answer my repeated question. How does a bullet exit the cranial cavity, leaving a large hole in the plate, if it was never there to begin with?
 
Hope4More said:
Your videos are incredibly well done! Thanks for sharing them here.

As for gunshot first. Your conclusion asks...why the robbery etc. if she intended to use a knife? One reply- if she only intended to use a gun, why did she have a knife on her in the bathroom?

I think she used the gun to force him to sit down- he is staring right at her, angry or fearful in that final photo, and no way he volunteered to sit down. Once he was sitting she pulled out the knife. She used the knife because she wanted to him to feel as much pain as possible.

To your other points. Horn's typo was just that. A typo. And no, I don't believe Flores lied or "took one for the team." With sincere due respect, I think that's an offensive suggestion.
Click to expand...

I keep going back to there was a loud noise ,which to me is the gunshot first.

JA: Umm… if this is his shower and he was sitting here, I was like…Well, if this is his shower, and he’s sitting here, I was like right there on my knees, and his bathtub was right here, and I was taking them here, and I was just going through the pictures, and I heard this loud ring, and Jodi goes through the motions of Travis out of the shower on his knees. That gun going off in a tile bathroom would certainly make you ears ring, and I think the gun did jam. She mentions her purse being on the dresser in the bedroom, and she could of made it there and back by the time Travis was at the sink. Jodi liked knives and I'm sure she carried one. Anyway I agree that stranger things have happened and it a possibility here.
 
LinTX said:
BK is a former attorney who has no more information than anyone else about what led to the original theory error, other than Flores and JM. She's not medically trained and has shown to be uninformed or has misinterpreted other issues of this case. Flores is the only one that really knows and has admitted it under oath - once he realized his error they corrected it, that's all he could do. Whether you or anyone believes him is another matter, but medical facts support gunshot last and I see nothing that indicates Horn ever changed his opinion. Flores absolutely did not say specifically what Horn told him that led to his misunderstanding and said his testimony @ Chronis mistakenly and unknowingly included opinion he reached based on what he thought Horn indicated (in some way). He believed he was testifying to Horn's opinion, plain and simple. He was wrong but that doesn't make him guilty of perjury @ Chronis, nor did it affect the aggravator ruling. Unfortunately, this (IMO) probably did affect his career as a detective because any defense attorney would throw this in his face in other trials. The state would not take having to correct this error lightly, but they did it because it was based on sound medical fact and opinion.

Accusing these people of a criminal conspiracy during the trial though, is serious. I know we're just forum members talking here, and voicing our thoughts about the case. But let's please at least make efforts to not distort or misstate what we use for our reasons. If there are facts beyond "I think" opinion that prove gunshot first, I have yet to hear any. I have not heard a motive for the state to engage in this conspiracy either. If there was ever anything to be gained by gunshot first or for the implications made at trial that these people were lying, as I said earlier, it would be for the defense. It was important to their case, not the state's. Yet they called no MD or ME to dispute/testify for them. Wonder why?
Click to expand...


The defense called Geffner to disputer Horn in the sur rebuttal about the brain injury fighting for the gun first.
 
LinTX said:
Jennifer Willmott: And, do you remember telling Detective Flores that you knew this because the gunshot wound wouldn't have completely incapacitated somebody?
Kevin Horn: I don't recall saying that either.
Jennifer Willmott: Is that something that you think you would have never said to Detective Flores?
Kevin Horn: I think I've said it in court that I don't think it would immediately incapacitate or kill him, but it would be a serious injury. But I don't recall telling Detective Flores that, no.
Jennifer Willmott: Okay. So, let me back up for a second. So you're saying that the gunshot wound is not immediately incapacitating.
Kevin Horn: I would say not immediately fatal.
Jennifer Willmott: Okay. I'm not talking about fatal, I'm just talking about incapacitating.
Kevin Horn: I think, yes. I think that it would be incapacitating. It's passing through his brain, so yes.
Jennifer Willmott: Okay. So... And that's assuming it passed through his brain, you would say it's incapacitating, right?
Kevin Horn: I'm saying it did pass through his brain.
Click to expand...

He looked over at Juan and then changed it. He said exactly what I said he said then changed it to "I think, yes. I think that it would be incapacitating. It's passing through his brain, so yes." after looking at Juan. Anyhow, I know what I saw. That is why I remember it. Also when he was asked if he remembered ever talking to Flores he said NO. and made a face that told a story. But it's just unbelievable to me that Kevin Horn never remembers ever talking to Flores about this case, the highest profile case of his career. don't you find that odd? How convenient. Flores has it wrong and he can't remember. wow.
 
I am positive the gunshot was first...well, 99 percent...and for all of you who didn't believe me that Beth Karas also believes that, she finally mentioned what she believes on her post day of trial Video. Exactly what she had told me.
 
ILikeToBendPages said:
The defense called Geffner to disputer Horn in the sur rebuttal about the brain injury fighting for the gun first.
Click to expand...
Yes they did, but as I said they never called an MD or an ME. He's a psychologist with no education or training in this field, only in carrying the defense's water for a fee.

grayhuze said:
He looked over at Juan and then changed it. He said exactly what I said he said then changed it to "I think, yes. I think that it would be incapacitating. It's passing through his brain, so yes." after looking at Juan. Anyhow, I know what I saw. That is why I remember it. Also when he was asked if he remembered ever talking to Flores he said NO. and made a face that told a story. But it's just unbelievable to me that Kevin Horn never remembers ever talking to Flores about this case, the highest profile case of his career. don't you find that odd? How convenient. Flores has it wrong and he can't remember. wow.
Click to expand...

I never said he didn't say what you quoted originally, I said you took a fragment of it out for your purposes, which was exactly what you did originally. And btw, if you read my post you would know I already posted a link to that video testimony and the transcript, so no need to quote those partials for us again. As for "He looked over at Juan and then changed it", none of us can tell who or what he glanced at and none of us have any proof that he ever thought TA was not incapacitated - that is opinion not fact. Asked and answered your "odd" question a couple times. Now are you going to answer my question on the exit point?
If not I have to assume you can't, and that you realize that it's a problem for your theory.
 
LinTX said:
Now are you going to answer my question on the exit point?
Click to expand...
are you referring to the exit point of the bullet? I can see that the bullet did enter and exit at the midline but missed the brain or if it did, it merely grazed the front. Travis was not immediately incapacitated.
 
grayhuze said:
are you referring to the exit point of the bullet? I can see that the bullet did enter and exit at the midline but missed the brain or if it did, it merely grazed the front. Travis was not immediately incapacitated.
Click to expand...
Thank you for finally addressing the question, but you are proving you don't understand the anatomical issue here. The brain had to have entered the cranial cavity in order to exit from it. Cranial cavity is filled with what? The brain. The brain rests on the bony plate at the bottom of the cavity. That plate had a large exit hole, which was not close to the frontal bone. What was above that hole? The the brain that the bullet passed through. It could not in any way shape or form miss the brain and it didn't graze the front either, based on that trajectory. That is the part you missed when you drew your version of the trajectory. Well, that in addition to that huge space you show between the frontal bone and the brain.
 
LinTX said:
The brain had to have entered the cranial cavity in order to exit from it.
Click to expand...
I am sure you meant bullet right? Anyhow, I would have to see the actual photograph because your entire opinion is based on a photograph that is a still shot from a video and is very grainy. If what you are saying is true then why was horn so quick to point out that the brain in younger adult fills out that portion more than older adults. I think he knows it's close. He observed the brain and it was symmetrical. He was confident that a bullet had not traveled through the brain after observing the serial cross sections and noted that the observation was mildly ("somewhat") limited do to decomposition.
Now, if the bullet did hit the brain does that mean Travis was immediately incapacitated? NO. I found it not credible that Horn had never heard of another case where a bullet hit the brain and the person was not immediately incapacitated. I also find it not credible and none of you seem to want to address it, is the fact that Horn said "I don't remember ever speaking to Flores about this case" This is the highest profile case of his career. How is that possible? I think it's much more believable that Flores heard exactly what Horn told him on numerous occasions. The supplemental report says
"The initial report from Dr. Horn was that the gunshot wound to Travis' head would not have been fatal. The gunshot would have possibly disabled him temporarily." So, is Flores lying when he says Horn told him that? or did he just not hear Horn correctly? There are two element in this sentence. Not fatal and disabled temporarily. Did he hear incorrectly regarding both of those elements? Did he also hear Horn incorrectly on two other occasions? How convenient that Horn doesn't remember or recall any of those conversations. Again, in the highest profile case of his career. I find this not credible. I think if we apply the same standard we did to Sammuals, Laviolette and others, we might see things more honestly. Something isn't right in this scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 146 more.
Total: 3,916 (members: 147, guests: 3,769)

Online statistics

Members online
147
Guests online
3,769
Total visitors
3,916
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,432
Messages
17,987,072
Members
229,132
Latest member
softtaillover
Back
Top