Crime Scene Animation by Websleuths Member grayhuze

[ILikeToBendPages]

You DO know, right, that at the beginning, especially when the autopsy was done, and they didn't know who did this, and this wasn't a circus yet, that this was not a memorable or exciting or famous murder. Dr. Horn, I'm sure, does many autopsies so therefore why on EARTH would he remember any details about this autopsy? Look at how many years ago this actually happened. This was just one autopsy Dr. Horn did out of many, and there was nothing especially newsworthy or anything at the time he did it. The victim wasn't a famous person who was murdered. I bet if Dr. Horn kept a diary, he probably wrote in it that night….nothing noteworthy to report.

Nothing noteworthy sure has taken on a life of it's own hasn't it? Popping up all over Websleuths. :fence:

 

[LinTX]

(my comments in red Quoting grayhuze in black)

I am sure you meant bullet right? OMG a typo! :shame:

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.
No, I’m basing the fact of the exit point’s location and size on the autopsy report and Horn’s testimony. Yes the only pic available for now is grainy, but you can see the damage.

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.
Because at the time JW, was suggesting it may have somehow missed the brain. Same thing you say, despite the fact that it’s anatomically impossible based on the actual evidence.

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.
Going to the autopsy report, but ignoring his testimony explaining all of it? OK then. First once again you either don’t understand what you’re reading or are purposefully misinterpreting what it says. It doesn’t say anything close to a bullet “had not traveled through the brain” at all, quite the opposite in fact. “The wound track…traverses the right anterior fossa…“. Guess what that fossa houses? The right frontal lobe of the brain. It couldn’t have “traversed” the fossa from below it, so that means it traversed the brain, the right frontal lobe. What does symmetrical have to do this? That simply means that it was a healthy brain in a healthy body when TA was alive, it was not deformed in life. In testimony he described the “sectioning” as being similar to pulling a knife through pudding. As for no apparent trauma, if you pull your finger through pudding, does the track it leaves remain or disappear? He said he was not able to see it due to decomposition, not that it was never there, he said it had to have been there. He did find no hemorrhaging though, why do you think that was?

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.
That is, once again, not his testimony. First JW was using “projectile” not bullet in her question and Horn narrowed his answer to “similar cases” in his and in his colleague’s experience. He was asked if research was a part of his job and answered no, but said he has read articles but none he could quote that day. Judging his conclusion (based on similar cases) as not credible is IMO from you either not understanding the medical facts, refusing to listen to him and/or ignoring the tricks JW plays with her word games. Yes, in fairly rare cases people have survived gunshots to the head and even fewer were not incapacitated. They make the news because it’s not the normal result. But those people did not sustain the same type of injury that TA did, they are not “similar cases”. Their wound path, as statistics show, is front to back and do not crash through the cranial plate. That means two concussive events, one is normally enough to cause incapacitation.

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?
Apparently you don’t read my replies because I did answer this question and explained why I believe it along with your following thoughts & questions below. It’s still up there AFAIK.

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.
What is not right in this scenario, in my opinion, is that you are accusing Horn, Flores and by extension, JM, of criminal acts without any evidence other than “I think”, “it seems” or “I find” along with a lack of understanding of the medical facts. Horn is an MD who specialized in forensic pathology at top rated schools, and there is no evidence whatsoever that he held a different opinion. As for using the same standards as I did with Samuels and ALV, that’s a joke, right? They were destroyed by the lack of evidence used, tests not performed properly and extremely apparent bias in their testimony while Horn offered medically trained opinion of physical evidence along w/the written and photographic evidence upon which it was based.

 

[grayhuze]

You DO know, right, that at the beginning, especially when the autopsy was done, and they didn't know who did this, and this wasn't a circus yet, that this was not a memorable or exciting or famous murder. Dr. Horn, I'm sure, does many autopsies so therefore why on EARTH would he remember any details about this autopsy? Look at how many years ago this actually happened. This was just one autopsy Dr. Horn did out of many, and there was nothing especially newsworthy or anything at the time he did it. The victim wasn't a famous person who was murdered. I bet if Dr. Horn kept a diary, he probably wrote in it that night….nothing noteworthy to report.

You DO know, right that there was already a special on 48 hours before that hearing...right? That makes it a bit more noteworthy. Why wasn't the sequence corrected immediately after the special? Yes, that was a long time ago. Horn thought it was 10 years prior, at trial. Then he said 6 years but it was 4.5. Anyhow, lets just say you won't convince me and I obviously haven't convinced you and we are at a stand still.

 

[grayhuze]

He said he was not able to see it due to decomposition, not that it was never there, he said it had to have been there. He did find no hemorrhaging though, why do you think that was?

I think you read the autopsy the way you want to read it. For example "He said he was not able to see it due to decomposition, not that it was never there, he said it had to have been there. He did find no hemorrhaging though, why do you think that was?" That is untrue. It's spin.

 

[grayhuze]

As for using the same standards as I did with Samuels and ALV, that’s a joke, right? They were destroyed by the lack of evidence used, tests not performed properly and extremely apparent bias in their testimony while Horn offered medically trained opinion of physical evidence along w/the written and photographic evidence upon which it was based.

I see you doing the same sort of thing. bias. But that's cool. I don't have a dog in the fight. I think Jodi committed first degree murder with special cruelty but that the gunshot was first and Travis was not immediately incapacitating.

 

[LinTX]

I was being sarcastic. I thought how odd to have a psychologist rebut a medical doctor, but then it was the defense, and nothing new, nothing noteworthy in their experts opinion.
.

Sincere apologies ILTBP - I should have recognized that! Yes it is strange, especially since it was important to their case but not so much to the state. Guess it was like the mitigation witnesses, couldn't find one willing to do it, even with a bag over their head?

 

[geevee]

so he doesn't remember ever speaking to Flores in the biggest case of his life? ok...I disagree.

It wasn't any more than another murder case when it occurred and he did the autopsy and report or even during early hearings, it only became "a huge case" once it went to trial in 2013, 4 1/2 years after the autopsy.

 

[LinTX]

I see you doing the same sort of thing. bias. But that's cool. I don't have a dog in the fight. I think Jodi committed first degree murder with special cruelty but that the gunshot was first and Travis was not immediately incapacitating.

Is recognizing his education, training and experience bias? Is knowing enough about the medical facts to correct misconceptions or misunderstandings bias? No You don't have a dog in the fight, however you have nothing but your own suspicion to back what you say, but think that's enough to accuse these men of perjury and conspiracy. Your ability w/animation, etc. is cool, but doing that? Not so much, IMO.

 

[grayhuze]

Is recognizing his education, training and experience bias? Is knowing enough about the medical facts to correct misconceptions or misunderstandings bias? No You don't have a dog in the fight, however you have nothing but your own suspicion to back what you say, but think that's enough to accuse these men of perjury and conspiracy. Your ability w/animation, etc. is cool, but doing that? Not so much, IMO.

It is when you criticize the defense witnesses that are also educated, trained and experienced. yes they were criticism worthy and so is Horn and Flores for the memory issues. sorry

 

[grayhuze]

but think that's enough to accuse these men of perjury and conspiracy. Your ability w/animation, etc. is cool, but doing that? Not so much, IMO. .

Yes, I have no forensic evidence of what I am claiming, just like when Jodi stole the gun. We have no real evidence. It's circumstantial. You can't prove someone doesn't remember. That is true. But, do you really believe that Flores heard it wrong all those times? I don't

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

What you keep going back to, then, is JA's word. Why would you believe anything she said about that day?

I think it's that there is bit of truth in every lie. I think Jodi was standing over Travis before she shot him either by accident or purpose, the gun in her left hand, her making him beg for mercy or change his mind about that trip to Cancun, and the gun going off and she freaked out.

It lines up with Travis sitting in the shower, and then out on the floor on his knees moaning and telling her to go get help, go to a neighbor, Travis makes it to the sink as Jodi runs into the closet and gets the knife out of her purse that she left there. Jodi said that she ran into the closet because the two ninjas were in the hall, and the male ninja caught her as she was coming out into the bedroom. The reverse of what she said at trial. The female ninja back in the bathroom is the only one hurting Travis, not the man who quibbles over shooting Jodi and leaving a witness alive, with only a threat and a promise. She may have ran back down the hall back into the bathroom and started attacking Travis. He has to be standing up for the slicing wounds on his abdomen and hands, trying to grab the knife and she stabs him in the chest, and he tries to get away from her and she starts stabbing him in the back, then cutting his throat exactly where she said the male ninja was standing. After the gunshot Jodi couldn't let Travis leave that bathroom alive. There would be no going for help, she'd be exposed for everything, so she made a decision that she had to kill him. No fog - just premeditated murder.

The gun had jammed and there was a knife on the nightstand. It was more bloody and harder than she had thought - I'm sure she was in a frenzy to stop him from getting away, not she just snapped and did the "bad thing".

 

[grayhuze]

The gun had jammed and there was a knife on the nightstand. It was more bloody and harder than she had thought - I'm sure she was in a frenzy to stop him from getting away, not she just snapped and did the "bad thing".

I actually think she ran and got the knife from the kitchen, allowing Travis the 10 to 15 seconds to get up to the sink. Flores at trial said "we were unable to determine whether one of the kitchen knives was used" Which means that one of them could have been used. I think Jodi thought they would be able to determine this so came up with the rope theory to place that kitchen knife in the bathroom. Then at trial when Flores said the above comment she switched it to a vague memory because now it wasn't useful and would suggest more consciousness of guilt.

 

[Renee110]

You DO know, right that there was already a special on 48 hours before that hearing...right? That makes it a bit more noteworthy. Why wasn't the sequence corrected immediately after the special? Yes, that was a long time ago. Horn thought it was 10 years prior, at trial. Then he said 6 years but it was 4.5. Anyhow, lets just say you won't convince me and I obviously haven't convinced you and we are at a stand still.

Just because there was a special on Tv doesn't mean Dr. Horn saw it. This is a job for him. Just because the case turned into something big doesn't mean it is big for him, or that he remembers it. I am a horse trainer, and I've had I don't know how many horses in training over the years. If one of the horses I trained 5 years ago made it to Congress and was named World Champion, that does not mean that all of a sudden I remember this horse that at the time was just another horse in training. I'd probably have to find a picture to remind myself WHICH horse it was, and even then I wouldn't remember particular things that the horse did while in training. I would be doing good to be able to differantiate that horse from the 100 others I trained that year. I would have to look at notes, or whatever.

So obviously you believe that every single autopsy Dr. Horn did he should be able to remember minute details not only about the autopsy itself, but WHO he talked to, and what he said. That just isn't possible. I can barely remember what I told an owner last month, let alone 5 years ago. I have one horse that broke it's owner's hip, broke another trainers back, and killed a dog, and I remember how hard that horse was to train, but I sure can't remember every horse that I've trained and all of the things it did and all of the conversations I had with all of the owners.

<modsnip>

Thank you for the cool computer reenactments. Those were interesting.

 

[grayhuze]

If one of the horses I trained 5 years ago made it to Congress and was named World Champion, that does not mean that all of a sudden I remember this horse that at the time was just another horse in training.

That's a poor analogy. Horn was contacted many times over the years about the case. It's common for the ME, Detectives and prosecutors to discuss things. A better analogy with your horses would be if you trained a horse and then the owner a year later contacted you again and asked more questions and gave you a progress report, then again later and then the horse turned out to be a famous horse you would no doubt remember.

 

[knt]

Her bare foot is visible in 5:32:16, look just above lower arrows, you can see it, it's a bit blurry as it's moving to the right, her toe nails look painted (or it could be blood but it's fairly uniform so I think it's polish:

View attachment 69706



Also, I think what appears to be a sock is actually a towel, probably what she had one or both weapons hidden in, you can see his bare back through where an ankle should be, to me it's clearly not a socked foot.

Geevee, I see the toes. You've done a great job of patiently pointing it out. Thanks.

 

[Tricia]

I'm getting very tired of rude comments on this thread.

Please stop. I am out of patience.

Tricia

 

[LinTX]

That's a poor analogy. Horn was contacted many times over the years about the case. It's common for the ME, Detectives and prosecutors to discuss things. A better analogy with your horses would be if you trained a horse and then the owner a year later contacted you again and asked more questions and gave you a progress report, then again later and then the horse turned out to be a famous horse you would no doubt remember.

Many times? Not by Flores, but you obviously have information we don't because according to him they had 2 short conversations prior to 2009, one at the autopsy itself. As for your analogy, let's use Horn's numbers. If you trained over 6,000 horses in 6 or 7 years time, and talked to one horse's owner in a very short conversation a year after originally meeting him, along with 15,000 other conversations with different horse's owners, other trainers, suppliers and vets, why would you remember that one 5 min conversation, the owner or the specific horse 3 years later? Especially if it was about routine questions you could probably answer in your sleep. You wouldn't. He didn't.
48 Hours was in 2009, Horn was interviewed by Nurmi in 2011 IIRC. That Nurmi interview was when Flores realized his error. Why you think it's the state's job to inform anyone of developments in their theory, especially the media, is beyond me. It was the defense and their client that used the press, not JM. Flores testified in 2009 to what he understood, he was wrong and who knows everything or everyone that influenced his original theory? Not you and not me - only Flores would possibly know that, and I assume JM since he relied on Flores' for details of the case. The defense knew Horn's opinion before Flores did, so no need to inform them either.

 

[Schmatz]

That's a poor analogy. Horn was contacted many times over the years about the case. It's common for the ME, Detectives and prosecutors to discuss things. A better analogy with your horses would be if you trained a horse and then the owner a year later contacted you again and asked more questions and gave you a progress report, then again later and then the horse turned out to be a famous horse you would no doubt remember.

You know... in this forum I really appreciate the way the members are communicating with each other.
In this thread unfortunately it's not working.
I get the feeling that you are stubborn and aggressive and just waiting for the chance to pounce at something written and rip it apart. Maybe because you expected lots of praise for your work (which is definetely due and has been given lots as far as I can see) and are deeply hurt by getting unexpected critism as well. Am I getting the wrong impression?

I think... if you worded your posting slightly different, the conversation would be much more productive and less offensive.

For example take the quoted part.
"That's a poor analogy." This is your opinion. I for one agree with that analogy.
If you had written along the lines of "I feel that this analogy is not very fitting, because..." I would consider it less rude.

Or all the times you wrote "You are wrong".
That could come across as very hostile.
Rudely I suggest wordings like: "I can't agree with you on that due to this evidence and those statements resulting in this conclusion."

I used to be very harsh in my writing style and have had to take a lot of cut downs. Now I try to think a bit first before cutting in. I'm not always successful, I didn't want the critism at the time and found it totally uncalled for, but I have definitely benefited from it. So I try to be a better online person.

Please excuse typos, I'm German and not always 100% sure. Two puns intended.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

My problem with him is that I think he lied. Sorry.

And his motive would be? They certainly had enough evidence no matter what came first. Since he is the expert, I will go with his professional expert opinion.

 

[LambChop]

Okay folks we need to move on to another subject because all we have is a circular argument. The ME gave his expert opinion when he testified. It was his opinion whether it agreed with the State's case at the time, or not, he was testifying under oath to his belief. That is it. It was his final conclusion. So let's move on to something a little more constructive to discuss because we have almost 500 posts of back and forth which is not productive for discussion purposes.

Remember to post links and if it is just your opinion you need to make that clear in your post, such as: JMO, MOO, or just state that in your post.

Thanks, Lambchop