Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[RealityMan]

The ground was tripping the shutter release button when it was moved.

That's the theory advanced by the prosecution. In fact, detective Flores demonstrated how the camera button could be activated if the camera was lying upside down and bumped.

However, the angles in the last two photos do not appear to be consistent with each other, much less with the camera resting upside down on the floor.

 

[RealityMan]

Knife firsters often assert that gun-firsters have no basis for challenging the ME's testimony and autopsy report because, for example, gun-firsters are not medical examiners who have reviewed TA's body for themselves. In fact, some knife-firsters have even gone so far as to hurl insults at gun-firsters, accusing them of being "arrogant," "irrational," or whatever else for even suggesting that JA could've used the gun first in view of the ME's autopsy report and testimony.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I believe most knife-firsters who make such statements have not even listened to the ME's testimony from start to finish or read his autopsy report.

I have listened to all of the ME's testimony from start to finish, and I have read the transcript of his testimony many times.

I do not have to be a medical examiner or have reviewed TA's body to see that the ME does not rule out the gun-first theory. He is merely playing the odds and stating that it is more likely that TA sustained the gunshot wound after he suffered the defensive wounds to his hands.

He does not ever rule out other possibilities. And the reliance of the knife-firsters on such evidence as the lack of bleeding in the brain is misplaced. The ME states early on in his testimony that, unlike with her tissues of the body, hemorrhaging cannot be detected after five days of decomposition in organs, such as the brain. And he clearly states in his autopsy report that the lack of evidence of hemorrhaging in the brain may have been a result of decomposition.

Furthermore, despite having many opportunities to be absolutely clear on this issue, the ME wavers on whether TA would have been immediately incapacitated by the gunshot wound. In fact, under cross-examination, the ME states exactly the opposite. His exact quote: "I think I've said it here in court that I don't think it [the gunshot wound] would immediately incapacitate him or kill him."

Throw in the fact that the ME told detective Flores after the autopsy that TA sustained the gunshot wound first, as evidenced by detective Flores's investigative report, and it is even more obvious why gun-firsters have a valid case.

 

[MeeBee]

Well, keep in mind that when the camera is lying on the floor, the lens is not going to be level, flat, and facing straight forward. Due to the angles on the camera, it is going to be elevated a little and leaning up because the camera will be leaning back. I tend to think Jodi brought the camera out to the hall with her, but I think she laid it on the floor in a haste, upside down, to continue her frenzy and drag him back. Also, if the angles aren't consistent, it might be because it was knocked or kicked and it caused the camera to move and take the picture. But to me the do look like the same angles, they are just facing different directions.

 

[Whisperer]

We know w/e object is closest to the camera lens will appear very large. In the first pic on this page, it would appear the camera was on the floor.

 

[MeeBee]

Knife firsters often assert that gun-firsters have no basis for challenging the ME's testimony and autopsy report because, for example, gun-firsters are not medical examiners who have reviewed TA's body for themselves. In fact, some knife-firsters have even gone so far as to hurl insults at gun-firsters, accusing them of being "arrogant," "irrational," or whatever else for even suggesting that JA could've used the gun first in view of the ME's autopsy report and testimony.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I believe most knife-firsters who make such statements have not even listened to the ME's testimony from start to finish or read his autopsy report.

I have listened to all of the ME's testimony from start to finish, and I have read the transcript of his testimony many times.

I do not have to be a medical examiner or have reviewed TA's body to see that the ME does not rule out the gun-first theory. He is merely playing the odds and stating that it is more likely that TA sustained the gunshot wound after he suffered the defensive wounds to his hands.

He does not ever rule out other possibilities. And the reliance of the knife-firsters on such evidence as the lack of bleeding in the brain is misplaced. The ME states early on in his testimony that, unlike with her tissues of the body, hemorrhaging cannot be detected after five days of decomposition in organs, such as the brain. And he clearly states in his autopsy report that the lack of evidence of hemorrhaging in the brain may have been a result of decomposition.

Furthermore, despite having many opportunities to be absolutely clear on this issue, the ME wavers on whether TA would have been immediately incapacitated by the gunshot wound. In fact, under cross-examination, the ME states exactly the opposite. His exact quote: "I think I've said it here in court that I don't think it [the gunshot wound] would immediately incapacitate him or kill him."

Throw in the fact that the ME told detective Flores after the autopsy that TA sustained the gunshot wound first, as evidenced by detective Flores's investigative report, and it is even more obvious why gun-firsters have a valid case.

I think you are right. I was watching the ME's testimony for the first time yesterday and I agree, he puts forth a medical hypothesis, but does not definitely rule out that the shot was first. He acknowledges that the body was to decomposed to be 100% certain. I don't know what came first anymore. But if I am a juror, it doesn't really matter to me.

 

[molly333]

Thanks, Molly,

I, personally, do not put any expectations on what the jury is going to do in that room, and what they will or won't talk about. I think anything can and does happen. Maybe they will or won't discuss things in terms of labels, but as you pointed out in your post, I am free--as are we all--to do that, regardless of whether the jury is. I can't possibly behave like a juror and also be in this forum because talking about this case with others is against jury instructions.

In my view, we cannot control what's in a person's head, and if they recognize symptoms, they might very well apply symptoms to Jodi. Even the term "crazy" has a psychological foundation. psychiatrists have simply divided "crazy" up into vast categories of crazy. I don't know that jurors can't think she's crazy just because no expert has said so. They might even think she's a nympho, though no expert has said so. And they might think Travis is a sexual deviant, but I doubt any expert can testify to this.

I don't know that we'll have a Mormon expert explain that Travis and Jodi had broken the rules, but the jury will probably discuss that they had. And, as this thread has proved, just because an expert (like the ME) says something, doesn't mean they will or will not believe it.

My hope is that the jury will not think in all or nothing, absolute terms that will restrain them from true discovery, and that they will apply the law accordingly while reaching a verdict.

ETA--I don't see where JM has really disagreed with testimony from Jodi that the gun was first. So far, he's let her say this. Maybe that's enough for the jury to believe the gun first theory. I don't know. They are not required to believe the ME.

Yeah. You don't need an expert necessarily if you have the proper evidence. Jodi calling Travis a pedophile is presented as evidence to the Jury but what backs that up? Can the abuse expert give an opinion on that? I doubt it. Is there a second witness to that of any sort, eye witness, victim, police report, expert, anything? Not so far. So, they just have Jodi's word for it and she has been proven a liar to them about many things, by now, I think. I think they get she lies. "Why should we believe you...?" If this is all they get on that subject, chances are very high they will just throw it out, imo.

We just saw the new videotapes with her standing on her head, flipping her hair, giggling and singing in the interrogation room. That is data about her that we have and that the Jury will probably never see. There is lots of stuff like that which is kept away from the Jury by the endless legal fights over probative versus prejudicial. So to understand what they know or think, we have to also ask ourselves--what if I had never seen that? Or, what if I never heard Travis friends telling Dr. Drew stuff that sent chills up and down my spine. They won't hear that testimony most likely. They will not have the same picture we do.

But, then they asked a question about her being a stalker. So they are paying attention to certain aspects of the evidence that is giving them a picture of her mental state. How complete that will be will depend on the evidence they are given.

And, yes, there might be a juror who says, I know what this is--Ive seen it before. Both Menendez Juries were hung by Jurors who had experience with abuse and believed their stories on the witness stand even though there was very little other evidence to back it up.


IMO

 

[wasnt_me]

Molly, what's bothering me right now is what I saw in that picture. Did you read what I think I see in that foot picture? can you look at it and tell me if you are seeing it, too?

 

[Whisperer]

If the shot was first, Travis would have been incapacitated. A bullet to the brain will do that. The bullet didn't just graze the skull, it entered the skull, rendering him unconscious. Anyone who receives a bullet to his forehead can't survive that, no less fight the perp.

Here is Dr. Horn stating that the bullet to the brain and the cutting of his neck are lethal. it is at the very end of the short video.

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/01/09/kevin-horn-jodi-arias-trial

 

[MeeBee]

Molly, what's bothering me right now is what I saw in that picture. Did you read what I think I see in that foot picture? can you look at it and tell me if you are seeing it, too?

I definitely see her foot. I can even see her toes through the sock. It doesn't look like the shadow of Travis' head. It looks too dark and close to the lens to be his shadow. I think it's important to find a good quality pic of the foot pic. I have seen some bad ones where I could see anything. When I saw the real, clear print, not the picture of a print, I could clearly see what people have been describing.

 

[wasnt_me]

I definitely see her foot. I can even see her toes through the sock. It doesn't look like the shadow of Travis' head. It looks too dark and close to the lens to be his shadow. I think it's important to find a good quality pic of the foot pic. I have seen some bad ones where I could see anything. When I saw the real, clear print, not the picture of a print, I could clearly see what people have been describing.

Look just to the left of that think blood on Travi's back, where her foot is supposed to be. There's a flesh space right there. You don't see that? It's a gap where it should be black. It's right where the cuff of her pants start. See how the cuff of her pants ripple? right in front of that ripple appears to be her heel, indicating that her foot is facing the wall. You can almost see a real foot right in front of that ripple. I'll try to outline this on the picture.

 

[MeeBee]

Look just to the left of that think blood on Travi's back, where her foot is supposed to be. There's a flesh space right there. You don't see that? It's a gap where it should be black. It's right where the cuff of her pants start. See how the cuff of her pants ripple? right in front of that ripple appears to be her heel, indicating that her foot is facing the wall.

I am having a hard time finding a good pic right now. What do you mean flesh space?

 

[MeeBee]

I found a photo outlining what I see. Are we seeing the same thing?

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Jodi Arias Trial discussion, #2

 

[wasnt_me]

Can you see it between the arrows I drew?

 

[wasnt_me]

I found a photo outlining what I see. Are we seeing the same thing?

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Jodi Arias Trial discussion, #2

No, they drew over what I'm talking about.

 

[MeeBee]

Can you see it between the arrows I drew?

I see something, but it doesn't look like a gap to me. That just looks like grains on the picture. She was apparently wearing long socks so I don't think there would be a gap anyhow.

 

[wasnt_me]

I see something, but it doesn't look like a gap to me. That just looks like grains on the picture. She was apparently wearing long socks so I don't think there would be a gap anyhow.

okay, but if it is a gap, look at the top of what you think is a toe and see how a shadow of the whip of Travis' hair is actually there?

 

[Whisperer]

I found a photo outlining what I see. Are we seeing the same thing?

yep, and it has to be her right foot.

 

[MeeBee]

okay, but if it is a gap, look at the top of what you think is a toe and see how a shadow of the whip of Travis' hair is actually there?

I don't. All I see are blood streaks.

 

[wasnt_me]

Okay. I see it, and I see the outline of his forehead. I see that her foot is turned to the wall. If you look into that black space, you can see the definition of it.

It's not a big deal, but I don't think she's standing the way people around the web have drawn it.

 

[MeeBee]

Okay. I see it, and I see the outline of his forehead. I see that her foot is turned to the wall. If you look into that black space, you can see the definition of it.

It's not a big deal, but I don't think she's standing the way people around the web have drawn it.

I think you just haven't seen a very clear picture. The ones they show in the court room are much clearer and her foot is easy to see. I see that her foot is turned to the wall too, so I am really confused what we are talking about and what you are seeing that I am not seeing, lol.

Also, I don't know how you see Travis' forehead because he's laying on his back in this picture.