Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[wasnt_me]

We have no clue how long he was in the shower. When I first step into the shower, I let water run over me. No one puts soap to a dry body, right?

We do know that he was in that shower for 8 minutes at least. from 5:22pm to 5:30pm. Eight minutes and no soap suds. Maybe it wasn't a real shower, like I said.

 

[molly333]

The problem is you can't say an organized offender wouldn't choose this. With millions of offenders in the world and over the years, you can't make the statement that not a one would choose a knife over a gun. You're talking in absolutes, but if just one person has ever done it, then your theory is wrong and it means that Jodi could also have chosen it, too.

I don't know what hand she held the gun with but was there gun powder residue on her palm print that was on the wall? If her left hand was the palm print and if she used that hand to wield a gun and there was no gunpowder residue in that bloody print, then she might not have shot the gun until he'd been dragged back to the bathroom, as the empty shell indicates.

This is where I lose everyone in my reasoning about this--so I don't seem to be able to communicate it well--but I'll try one more time.

I am not the one calling her an organized offender. The Prosecutor is calling her an organized offender with his circumstantial case which begins with her stealing the gun from her grandparents.

But, then he tells us she used a knife first and fails to explain why she didn't use the gun.

So his circumstantial case falls apart. It doesn't fall apart for me because I don't believe the ME. I believe she used the gun first. But, it could fall apart for any Jury member who asks the obvious question:

Why would she steal a gun to use a knife?

And, one conclusion --based on the Prosecutor's own case--is that she never stole a gun to kill him. Maybe she just wanted a gun for her trip and knew they wouldn't give it to her.

So maybe she didn't plan murder, it's not murder one, she got there and he attacked her and she grabbed the knife and now it's murder two or less--which is why you have that messy impulsive looking crime scene that RS referred to.

It is a way for people to arrive at a lessor charge, and not so far off base that you couldn't predict it.

IMO

 

[wasnt_me]

Step in shower, wet down hair and body while adjusting temperature to suit. Sometimes with my back muscle strained, I run hot water on my back to help muscle strains and relax a bit before taking on the task of washing hair first...body second.

Again. 8 minutes he was in there with no apparent moves to actually clean himself, not even to take a sexy picture like the one I posted earlier with the soaps suds going down the torso.

 

[teledude]

The problem is you can't say an organized offender wouldn't choose this. With millions of offenders in the world and over the years, you can't make the statement that not a one would choose a knife over a gun. You're talking in absolutes, but if just one person has ever done it, then your theory is wrong and it means that Jodi could also have chosen it, too.

I don't know what hand she held the gun with but was there gun powder residue on her palm print that was on the wall? If her left hand was the palm print and if she used that hand to wield a gun and there was no gunpowder residue in that bloody print, then she might not have shot the gun until he'd been dragged back to the bathroom, as the empty shell indicates.

Well, we know she brought the gun with her.

We know the trajectory of the bullet and it conforms best with him sitting in the shower as the last pics show. Very difficult to get that downward right to left trajectory when he's laying on his back and impossible from the way he was found laying in the shower.

Common sense or simple logic dictates she brought the gun to use it, and it fits with the physical evidence.

I am sure they did not test the bloody palm print for gunshot residue..that is not normally done in any crime scene.

No reason to do so.

 

[wilsodh]

I've uploaded them with the most clarity I can get here (both should be right on top of the first page):

http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/g.../?page=1&_suid=136407506037505519036324471938

Awesome geevee, thanks! Much better!

The location where his throat was cut is puzzling to me. That dragging pic looks like his neck is still intact, thought it could be raised because she is holding it up somehow. And in the last pic his shoulders are up off the floor. Is she pulling him up? Is he raising himself? Each alternative seems odd.

I really can't be sure what is the main blood source on the carpet. Anybody know of a good analysis of that stain?

+1. Has there been any general consensus emerging of the dragging pix? I've heard both that it depicts Travis' skin/back and that it is the bottom of a blood-soaked duvet cover. The color of the photo may be distorted, but on first blush it looks like the later to me. How do we think the body is positioned in this photo? I'm sure I've missed some discussion around this.

This is the picture I was looking at when I said I could see an outline of Travis' body on the carpet. Does anyone else see it? With is left arm up on the side where the wall is?

Yeah, looks eerie. The outline would be consistent with Travis' body keeping the carpet relatively shielded from Jodi's blood-soaked sockprints in those areas.

Jodi seems to have been quite busy on the carpet around Travis' dying body. This leads me to reconsider what may have been going on in the 1 min 17 sec between the two last photos. Rather than the throat slashing prior to the 'foot' photo, it may have occurred after this photo, along with additional stabbing. In the 'foot' photo, Travis certainly appears to still be alive, and I don't see how he could have lifted his head with severed frontal neck muscles.

A minor observation: re-enacting a 'death moment' on one's back, assuming Travis was on his back, and assuming that one's natural reaction to having one's throat sliced open would be to draw one's hands up to the throat, the natural tendency of the arm positioning is with elbows down rather than up. Of course we don't know what was going on in that final, terrible moment. Travis' arm(s) could well have been positioned differently.

Dave

 

[BW0000]

Just wanted to make a few points backing BW0000's theory about the pics of 6/4/08: * please read, BW0000 & Sleuth5:

1. We all know Travis was human and Travis was weak: Which is why he continued to engage in the kinky sex with JA, long after he knew she was really not someone he wanted to be involved with.

2. And yet, as BW0000 points out, the email of May 26 had an air of finality about it. We know that it's said that stalkers often escalate to rage and violence when a final break is made - even though, ironically, you are indeed supposed to break with them.

3. Travis took Jodi's name off the Cancun trip, and replaced it with Mimi's. Mimi had said they should go only as friends due to Travis' admited status of being "temple unworthy".

4. We know such a status came from having come clean to Church elders. This is not a light matter: He has allowed those he serves and respects to know of his mistake with Jodi, and he is willing to publicly be on probation. Think about it: He was scared. He was finished. What else could the elders have told this much-cherished and much-honored youth but to "break with her completely." ???

4a. We see in his blog post of May 18 - 2 1/2 weeks before his murder - that he is longing for a wife, longing to be a good Mormon.

5. Was Travis SO weak that on June 4, given all of the above, he would indulge in lying around, using KY, posing for Calvin Klein like sultry shower pics, and taking graphic pics of a woman who had cost him Lisa, Mimi, and his standing in the church???? Think about it. Travis was done. Jodi knew this. Ergo, she had murder in her heart, and on her mind. He would sense this.

6. I believe she was never invited in and ambushed him. As per my other posts, I believe the shower pics and the sex pics were from a much earlier date.

I think TA was human and did some things because it was new for him. He admits he never pleasured himself before meeting her. Of course on the stand, she says I beg to differ sir. (my words) Those are HIS words and.

Now she can say anything she wishes. Baptized and immediate sex. June04 we had sex TWICE, not once. No evidence about boys whatsoever.

When she agreed to 2nd degree she basically said if she didn't get it she would embarrass the Morman Church, TA's family etc and she's doing just that.

I knew nothing about the Mormon Church before now. It seems like 30 years old and you need to be married. He was running late. He realized he made bad choices.

 

[wasnt_me]

This is where I lose everyone in my reasoning about this--so I don't seem to be able to communicate it well--but I'll try one more time.

I am not the one calling her an organized offender. The Prosecutor is calling her an organized offender with his circumstantial case which begins with her stealing the gun from her grandparents.

But, then he tells us she used a knife first and fails to explain why she didn't use the gun.

So his circumstantial case falls apart. It doesn't fall apart for me because I don't believe the ME. I believe she used the gun first. But, it could fall apart for any Jury member who asks the obvious question:

Why would she steal a gun to use a knife?

And, a superficial conclusion --based on the Prosecutor's own case--is that she never stole a gun to kill him. Maybe she just wanted a gun for her trip and knew they wouldn't give it to her.

So maybe she didn't plan murder, it's not murder one, she got there and he attacked her and she grabbed the knife and now it's murder two or less.

It is a way for people to arrive at a lessor charge, and not so far off base that you couldn't predict it.

IMO

I don't see how being an organized offender means you are a perfect offender. I don't see how it means you are an organized murderer, as well, or that being organized is held in such high degree that no outside force or incident can make you do things to any lesser degree (such as grading you with a C in the school of organized offenders versus grading you with an A).

There are degrees of organization when they categorize criminals. I don't even know if JM is saying this about her murder or about her planning of the murder.

Your theory on this doesn't take into account anything Jodi could have "thought" she could handle in her narcissistic brain, either. It gives no consideration to the idea that maybe she brought both and would decide which one to use based on what the activity in the neighboorhood was like or who was home in the house, etc.

I still contend that if just one so-called organizer offender ever in this world chose a knife over a gun, then Jodi is capable of making that same choice.

Trying to say what was going on in Jodi's head because of what you think is logical is a mistake. Dr. Drew said as much on one of his shows when he reminded viewers that they couldn't pose their thoughts, logic, and rationality on Jodi.

 

[wasnt_me]

Well, we know she brought the gun with her.

We know the trajectory of the bullet and it conforms best with him sitting in the shower as the last pics show. Very difficult to get that downward right to left trajectory when he's laying on his back and impossible from the way he was found laying in the shower.

Common sense or simple logic dictates she brought the gun to use it, and it fits with the physical evidence.

I am sure they did not test the bloody palm print for gunshot residue..that is not normally done in any crime scene.

No reason to do so.

I don't see why they wouldn't test the palm print for it if a gun was involved in the crime. I also don't think it's common sense logic about this gun and when it was used or else about 70% of the poll wouldn't be disagreeing with it. There is also a segment of the population on the Jodi is innocent website that totally believe her. So common sense and logic changes from one person's view to another.

She did indeed use the gun she brought.

And we have no idea at what point she used that gun or in what position Travis was in when she used the gun. Again, I ask--is there blood spatter on the shower door or in the crack between it to indicate he got shot right there?

Was there gunshot residue on the shower door? Stippling on the shower door? I don't know if it would be, but I don't see any indication that he was shot there other than a theory of others based on a trajectory that we don't know where or when Travis was actually shot. If we don't know that, the possibilities to make that trajectory are endless.

 

[wasnt_me]

Awesome geevee, thanks! Much better!



+1. Has there been any general consensus emerging of the dragging pix? I've heard both that it depicts Travis' skin/back and that it is the bottom of a blood-soaked duvet cover. The color of the photo may be distorted, but on first blush it looks like the later to me. How do we think the body is positioned in this photo? I'm sure I've missed some discussion around this.



Yeah, looks eerie. The outline would be consistent with Travis' body keeping the carpet relatively shielded from Jodi's blood-soaked sockprints in those areas.

Jodi seems to have been quite busy on the carpet around Travis' dying body. This leads me to reconsider what may have been going on in the 1 min 17 sec between the two last photos. Rather than the throat slashing prior to the 'foot' photo, it may have occurred after this photo, along with additional stabbing. In the 'foot' photo, Travis certainly appears to still be alive, and I don't see how he could have lifted his head with severed frontal neck muscles.

A minor observation: re-enacting a 'death moment' on one's back, assuming Travis was on his back, and assuming that one's natural reaction to having one's throat sliced open would be to draw one's hands up to the throat, the natural tendency of the arm positioning is with elbows down rather than up. Of course we don't know what was going on in that final, terrible moment. Travis' arm(s) could well have been positioned differently.

Dave

I agree. I've posted here before, but was ignored, about the fact that the foot picture was taken in the middle of the hall. You can see that tile flooring all around and no carpet. so I think where that picture was taken, Travis somehow got himself up on the wall and you can see his back sliding along the wall and then he falls into that blood angel picture we are discussing. She then slashes his throat in fear of him actually getting his bloody self out of the room.

 

[Sleuth5]

I think TA was human and did some things because it was new for him. He admits he never pleasured himself before meeting her. Of course on the stand, she says I beg to differ sir. (my words) Those are HIS words and.

Now she can say anything she wishes. Baptized and immediate sex. June04 we had sex TWICE, not once. No evidence about boys whatsoever.

When she agreed to 2nd degree she basically said if she didn't get it she would embarrass the Morman Church, TA's family etc and she's doing just that.

I knew nothing about the Mormon Church before now. It seems like 30 years old and you need to be married. He was running late. He realized he made bad choices.

I think you're entirely right about the threat implied in her plea negotiation, but I am convinced she would have "revealed" all of these "truths" about Travis in any case. She has shown no remorse for having killed him, despite the rivers of crocodile (or rather faux-crocodile, even worse) tears about how she loved him so and feels so terrible for having to reveal his "secret." This is all about a rage that she cannot control. She wasn't satisfied with simply killing him -- because it wasn't about killing him, it was all about punishing him for the humiliation she felt at having been cast aside as a potential serious interest. She is continuing to punish him now, via his family, the church, and any friend or remote acquaintance she can find to drag into her web.

That said, I think you and many others here are quite right about his being human and either unable or unwilling to resist Jodi's advances. I do not have any illusions about the young man's humanity, and I for one do not expect perfection regardless of religious credo. I think only Ms. Arias imagines that he "deserved" his fate.

 

[molly333]

I don't see how being an organized offender means you are a perfect offender. I don't see how it means you are an organized murderer, as well, or that being organized is held in such high degree that no outside force or incident can make you do things to any lesser degree (such as grading you with a C in the school of organized offenders versus grading you with an A).

There are degrees of organization when they categorize criminals. I don't even know if JM is saying this about her murder or about her planning of the murder.

Your theory on this doesn't take into account anything Jodi could have "thought" she could handle in her narcissistic brain, either. It gives no consideration to the idea that maybe she brought both and would decide which one to use based on what the activity in the neighboorhood was like or who was home in the house, etc.

I still contend that if just one so-called organizer offender ever in this world chose a knife over a gun, then Jodi is capable of making that same choice.

Trying to say what was going on in Jodi's head because of what you think is logical is a mistake. Dr. Drew said as much on one of his shows when he reminded viewers that they couldn't pose their thoughts, logic, and rationality on Jodi.

Once again, last time, I am talking about the Prosecutor's case.

He presented us with an organized [very organized, compulsive even] offender who was going to use a gun to kill her ex-boyfriend.

He did that. I didn't do that. He did. He's the one with the burden of proof. That is a very high burden to meet.

So he gives us a circumstantial case of a highly organized offender and concludes with a completely disorganized murder that uses a different weapon.

I could even say, His case sucks! Because he is disproving his own case.

He tries to convince you she is a premeditated killer by proving she stole a gun to kill him, therefore murder one, and then he torpedoes his own case by trying to convince you she didn't use a gun to kill him, therefore she was never planning murder back when she stole the grandparent's gun.

Because the only way you can prove she was planning murder when she stole the gun is if she kills him with the gun. That is his circumstantial case.

If you can't see this, ok. But, there will be a Juror who will be confused by it--I guarantee you,-- and what they will do at that point is out of the Prosecutor's control.

IMO

 

[SMK]

I think TA was human and did some things because it was new for him. He admits he never pleasured himself before meeting her. Of course on the stand, she says I beg to differ sir. (my words) Those are HIS words and.

Now she can say anything she wishes. Baptized and immediate sex. June04 we had sex TWICE, not once. No evidence about boys whatsoever.

When she agreed to 2nd degree she basically said if she didn't get it she would embarrass the Morman Church, TA's family etc and she's doing just that.

I knew nothing about the Mormon Church before now. It seems like 30 years old and you need to be married. He was running late. He realized he made bad choices.

Yes. I understand and agree. Thanks so much - But what I actually wanted your opinion on is, if the enumerated items I posted would preclude, logically, his having sex with her on June 4?

 

[SMK]

Once again, last time, I am talking about the Prosecutor's case.

He presented us with an organized [very organized, compulsive even] offender who was going to use a gun to kill her ex-boyfriend.

He did that. I didn't do that. He did. He's the one with the burden of proof. That is a very high burden to meet.

So he gives us a circumstantial case of a highly organized offender and concludes with a completely disorganized murder that uses a different weapon.

I could even say, His case sucks! Because he is disproving his own case.

He tries to convince you she is a premeditated killer by proving she stole a gun to kill him, therefore murder one, and then he torpedoes his own case by trying to convince you she didn't use a gun to kill him, therefore she was never planning murder back when she stole the grandparent's gun.

Because the only way you can prove she was planning murder when she stole the gun is if she kills him with the gun. That is his circumstantial case.

If you can't see this, ok. But, there will be a Juror who will be confused by it--I guarantee you,-- and what they will do at that point is out of the Prosecutor's control.

IMO

I think you're right, and I think similar happened with Jeff Ashton's case against Casey Anthony: He didn't convince along the lines he originally began along.

 

[wasnt_me]

The ME testified that almost all of the wounds that TA suffered, even the cluster of stabs to his back, would have been incapacitating eventually. He also testified that, out of the three most serious injuries that TA suffered, the heart wound was the least likely to be immediately incapacitating. The ME wavered in his testimony when he was asked how quickly TA would've been incapacitated by the gunshot wound.

This is a critical issue in terms of the sequence because we know TA was bleeding from his neck at the end of the hallway just one minute and 46 seconds after the last shower photo.

I believe it is obvious why the ME was unwilling to say with certainty that TA would have been immediately incapacitated: it is well known that a bullet through the frontal lobe is the least likely of all bullet wounds to the brain to cause someone to be immediately incapacitated and unable to function for one minute and 46 seconds.

So, yes, there is a difference between incapacitating and immediately incapacitating.

If the bullet entered and didn't incapacitate him, then the damage from the bullet is the thing that would eventually incapacitate him, not the gunshot. Just as the stab wound wouldn't incapacitate him, the bleeding out does it.

I thought that was the whole reason of discussion whether it went through the brain, etc.

 

[wasnt_me]

Once again, last time, I am talking about the Prosecutor's case.

He presented us with an organized [very organized, compulsive even] offender who was going to use a gun to kill her ex-boyfriend.

He did that. I didn't do that. He did. He's the one with the burden of proof. That is a very high burden to meet.

So he gives us a circumstantial case of a highly organized offender and concludes with a completely disorganized murder that uses a different weapon.

I could even say, His case sucks! Because he is disproving his own case.

He tries to convince you she is a premeditated killer by proving she stole a gun to kill him, therefore murder one, and then he torpedoes his own case by trying to convince you she didn't use a gun to kill him, therefore she was never planning murder back when she stole the grandparent's gun.

Because the only way you can prove she was planning murder when she stole the gun is if she kills him with the gun. That is his circumstantial case.

If you can't see this, ok. But, there will be a Juror who will be confused by it--I guarantee you,-- and what they will do at that point is out of the Prosecutor's control.

IMO

I believe my post above still applies. Did the words "organized offender" come out of JM's mouth or did you conclude within your own mind that this is what he'd done with his case? Because--unless those words came out of his mouth (I was taking for granted that they had)--then I don't agree that he showed us an organized offender.

I believe he showed us a narcissistic offender who thought she'd planned the perfect murder.

 

[BW0000]

Let me upload those pics to my PB album so we can look at the bedding more closely, I'll have to black out the naughty parts so I don't run afoul of PB's user agreement but that won't take me too long.

Okay, uploaded:

http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/g...?page=1&_suid=1364079520390014590579261406533

geevee


Thanks for your effort

Find the other one of her at 1:42:53 with braids laying in another position That one is better. You might have to black out depending where you get it.

 

[SMK]

I believe my post above still applies. Did the words "organized offender" come out of JM's mouth or did you conclude within your own mind that this is what he'd done with his case? Because--unless those words came out of his mouth (I was taking for granted that they had)--then I don't agree that she showed us an organized offender.

I believe he showed us a narcissistic offender who thought she'd planned the perfect murder.

What I am assuming molly333 is getting at , is that an organized offender is a pre-meditating offender. A disorganized offender did not premeditate and hence no murder one.

 

[MeeBee]

Once again, last time, I am talking about the Prosecutor's case.

He presented us with an organized [very organized, compulsive even] offender who was going to use a gun to kill her ex-boyfriend.

He did that. I didn't do that. He did. He's the one with the burden of proof. That is a very high burden to meet.

So he gives us a circumstantial case of a highly organized offender and concludes with a completely disorganized murder that uses a different weapon.

I could even say, His case sucks! Because he is disproving his own case.

He tries to convince you she is a premeditated killer by proving she stole a gun to kill him, therefore murder one, and then he torpedoes his own case by trying to convince you she didn't use a gun to kill him, therefore she was never planning murder back when she stole the grandparent's gun.

Because the only way you can prove she was planning murder when she stole the gun is if she kills him with the gun. That is his circumstantial case.

If you can't see this, ok. But, there will be a Juror who will be confused by it--I guarantee you,-- and what they will do at that point is out of the Prosecutor's control.

IMO

You're forgetting something though: the knife. Juan is not just contending she brought a gun but also a knife (I believe this). She brought two murder weapons with her knowing she would either use one or both. Of course she had to stage the burglary to get the gun because it belonged to someone. She couldn't ask to borrow it and she couldn't buy one because that can be traced back to her. She could get a knife from anywhere. The knife is not as important in that sense. I think the prosecution's case is intact. She inflicted the pain and suffering that she wanted with the knife and used the gun to make sure he was dead and to maybe even make it seem like more than one person killed him. You keep saying organized offender, but I have never heard Juan even utter those words. I also don't understand the idea that the chaotic nature of those scene means it couldn't have been premeditated. Never heard that before either. Obviously she wanted this to all stay in the shower that way she could just wash any DNA away. She hadn't banked on him making it out of the shower. I don't think this speaks to an un-planned crime, but a silly woman who thought she could take out a man with only a couple blows and that man decided to fight back. She planned everything out, but hadn't planned on his will to live.

I don't think for one second he has lost the jury on these points.

 

[wilsodh]

I've looked at the blood stain on the carpet a little closer, and I'm starting to wonder if Travis wasn't on his stomach during the final throat slash.

Here's my reasoning. If Travis was on his back for the throat slash, the blood would have dripped down his neck and off his shoulders on both sides. This should have resulted in a blood pattern that is different from what we see in the photo.

To test this, I did a reenactment. I laid on my back on top of an absorbent towel. Then I poured a significant volume of water slowly over my neck in the region where the throat slash occurred. The water runs down the neck and its flow is effected by running off the shoulders (the trapezius area, where the shoulder meets the neck). I got up and saw a wet pattern that looked like the pattern depicted in the first attachment below.

When we look at the actual blood stain in the photo, it shows no sign of this pattern. It is even across the stain. This may suggest that Travis was on his stomach for the coup de grace. During the final slice, he may have collapsed and was, in death throes, reaching up with his right hand, as if one final desperate gesture away from the monster (attachment 2 below).

This may help explain all the Jodi blood-soaked sockprint activity around Travis' body. Perhaps she was delivering back stabs, and then realizing these weren't doing the job, decided to slit his throat. Before trying to pull him back to the shower, she attempted to reposition his body, perhaps trying to get him on the duvet cover. This would have entailed attempting some maneuvers aimed at rolling him over onto the cover.

A potential implication of this may be that Travis was backing up from Jodi during the knife attack, and fell backwards in the hallway. Jodi delivered a volley of chest stabs while Travis, weakening and almost resigning, lay on his back. To gain an advantageous position, Jodi moved around over his head. In a final attempt to get away, Travis rolled over and attempted move to the bedroom on hands and knees perhaps trying to knock Jodi's feet out from under her in a last attempt to stop the attack. I would think it instinctive when one is facing an unstoppable onslaught, one will want to flip over onto one's stomach to shield the face. Travis did not succeed in knocking Jodi off her feet, she backed up as Travis collapsed, face down, on the carpet. Then she proceeded to finish him off.

Whew. I need to take a break....

Dave

 

[molly333]

I believe my post above still applies. Did the words "organized offender" come out of JM's mouth or did you conclude within your own mind that this is what he'd done with his case? Because--unless those words came out of his mouth (I was taking for granted that they had)--then I don't agree that she showed us an organized offender.

I believe he showed us a narcissistic offender who thought she'd planned the perfect murder.

You can only use what is proven in court. Did he prove she is a narcissist? Most people, outside of professionals, don't even know what a narcissist is, much less try to diagnose someone they have never met.

That's neither here nor there. I just am mentioning it to show you how you are not thinking like a jury. Because a jury member might think to themselves she is a narcissist, if they happen to know what that is, but unless that is proven in court, it won't enter into the mix.

I am talking about his case, not about what you think. The problem is there is the evidence in court, and then there's what the rest of us know about, and all the chatter back and forth, which is totally different from what is going on in court.

This is why everyone was blindsided by the Casey Anthony verdict.

IMO