Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[Paige SC]

I don't recall him saying there was zero bleeding, just not what he would expect. He said there were no hematomas, which would take time to form.

I also heard him admit that the bleeding and coughing blood at the sink could be the result of the gunshot wound--that wound could cause an injury that would allow for bleeding into the nose and mouth.

IMO

" the gun shot wound's lack of blood STAINING or residual clotting in the cranial cavity indicates that the victim was NOT perfusing adequately." The only logical conclusion that can be reached is there wasn't blood flow to the area at the time the bullet entered his brain. This has nothing to do with decomposition of brain tissue or trajectory of the bullet.

 

[RealityMan]

But I can see some of us prefer to speculate about the infinite possibilities as opposed to the likely probabilities.

Depending on the weights one gives the various pieces of evidence, it could be argued that you are the one who is "speculating about infinite possibilities as opposed to the likely probabilities," whatever that may mean.

 

[Paige SC]

Depending on the weights one gives the various pieces of evidence, it could be argued that you are the one who is "speculating about infinite possibilities as opposed to the likely probabilities," whatever that may mean.

Considering your own words of "whatever that may mean", I find it humorous you would argue a point for which you aren't clear.

But just so I'm clear - I'm not 'arguing' anything. My opinion regarding the sequence is indeed supported by forensics and reinforced by the ME's testimony. These two factors aren't ad odds with each other. Even if you want to discount the ME (along with the supporting narrative from our pathologist / Websleuth contributor), there's still the forensics and the forensics don't support her sequence either. The truth in this case can only be overlooked by wanton disregard for it.

 

[Mountaindreamer]

I think what gets me the most is her being so disrepectful to Martinez

 

[RealityMan]

But just so I'm clear - I'm not 'arguing' anything. My opinion regarding the sequence is indeed supported by forensics and reinforced by the ME's testimony. These two factors aren't ad odds with each other. Even if you want to discount the ME (along with the supporting narrative from our pathologist / Websleuth contributor), there's still the forensics and the forensics don't support her sequence either. The truth in this case can only be overlooked by wanton disregard for it.

Yes, I think I understand your position. Based on the testimony of the ME and the positioning of the shell casing on top of the blood, you believe there is a 100% chance that JA stabbed TA first. You are so convinced by this evidence that you won't even characterize your belief as requiring any argument to support it. Rather, you think these two pieces of evidence demonstrate with absolute certainty that JA stabbed TA first.

I disagree. In post #34, minor4th lays out many points in support of the alternative view that JA shot TA first. Even after reading the transcript of the ME's testimony, I can see nowhere that the ME says TA was necessarily totally incapacitated by the gunshot wound. Furthermore, the ME doesn't even seem to want to take a position on the order in which the injuries were sustained. I would agree that, if the only evidence was the ME's testimony, it would be more likely that JA stabbed TA first. However, all of the circumstances surrounding the killing, such as the points laid out by minor4th in post #34, lead me to believe, with approximately 60% certainty, that JA shot TA first. In other words, I give far more weight to the circumstances surrounding the killing than you do.

 

[danzn16]

At first I thought the stabbing came first , but now, after reading other people's posts, I am not as sure as I first was. But think about it. Why would she steal a gun if she didn't plan to shoot him? She was meticulous in her plan to kill him, making sure no one could place her in Mesa or even in Arizona. By taking the gas cans full of gas, making sure she didn't have to gas up in Arizona, this took some well-thought out planning. Why would she risk having all that bloody mess from 29 stab wounds and slicing his throat if something didn't go horribly wrong with her plan?

I don't know if the ME is right in his assessment that the gunshot wound would have rendered TA incapacitated. The reason I think this is that I personally knew a man who shot himself in the mouth with a shotgun, ripping off one side of his face and blowing out most of his teeth, but he still made his way out of his bedroom and called 911 himself, giving them directions to his home, made his way out the front door and was sitting on the doorsteps bleeding profusely when the EMTs arrived. This would have taken 15 to 20 minutes, and he didn't die from this horrible wound. So TA could have very well not been incapacitated if she shot him first if the bullet didn't go through the brain.

In the picture of TA's face, he looks to me like he is in total disbelief. it could have been that JA was standing there with a gun or a knife, either one. So I just am not sure which one came first, the stabbing or the gunshot, and I guess we will never know unless JA decides to tell the truth, which is very doubtful.

I know a few people that have lived from a shotgun to the mouth. I stated in a earlier post these gun shot wounds to the head are the ones most likely to like from because it has to go through so much bone in order to hit the brain, if it even reaches it all. My dad is a firefighter and 1st responder and he has told me multiple stories about going on a call for someone that had put a gun in their mouth and pulled the trigger and have lived. But this is very different than a bullet through the temple, where the bone of the skull is the thinnest and would go in the brain. Those are more likely to die from than a shot to the mouth. So I just think it's two totally different situations here. And still there is no other explanation for why there would be little blood in the cranial cavity when the face and head is such an immensely vascular structure.

 

[danzn16]

There is very little wiggle room. Had there been blood in the vessels of any of the tissue the bullet passed through, there would have been evidence. There would have been blood along the path of the bullet. His testimony was that what he saw during the autopsy was not consistent with TA being alive when he was shot. That is hard information to get around.

It really doesn't matter which happened first, he is still dead however it went down in that bathroom. While I agree that using a gun would be the most logical approach for Jodi against Travis (due to the size difference), the only medical findings we have point to the knife being used first and the gun last after her was dead. Until some solid medical evidence is entered to counter the opinion of the ME, I see no reason to concoct a scenario that is not supported by the physical evidence. We have no evidence of gunpowder residue in the shower. We have no evidence of blood splatter in or above the shower. There is very little blood around the front of the shower that is not related to him being drug back into the shower. My opinion may change if there is solid evidence presented that shows/strongly implies the gun was used first, but if I have to pick between believing Jodi and a ME that freely admitted that it was difficult to be 100 accurate due to the state of the body, that isn't a hard choice for me as to who I believe. I can't come up with nor have I heard a good explanation as to why she switched from the gun to a knife she just happened to have with her.

I agree with this. This is what a forensic pathologist does everyday. Determine cause of death and injuries that resulted in death or not. It is not that difficult to see that there was little blood in an area that is highly vascular and always results in massive blood loss in an alive person. I don't know why we need a "traumatic brain expert" to determine something that any doctor that performs autopsies can determine. It would be different saying what TA could or could not have done after the shot if he was still alive when the shot occurred. But since there was little blood resulting from the wound that doesn't matter because he was already dead or in the very least in the end stages of hemorrhagic shock which is not able to come back from after that much blood is lost. Half of your blood lost from your body without immediate intervention results in death, and usually so even with intervention. For you to not bleed from a gun shot wound to the head, where your brain is one of the last areas to stop receiving blood since it is such a vital organ, you would have to have even more blood loss than half. So that is why it doesn't matter to have a traumatic brain expert in this case, because the evidence already showed he was dead. Can't really move around there and doesn't really matter where you were shot in the head then does it? And also that a pathologist could tell you the resulting cause of a shot to the head if alive just as a neurosurgeon could. A forensic pathologist is the traumatic brain expert in a dead and decomposing patient.

 

[Paige SC]

Yes, I think I understand your position. Based on the testimony of the ME and the positioning of the shell casing on top of the blood, you believe there is a 100% chance that JA stabbed TA first. You are so convinced by this evidence that you won't even characterize your belief as requiring any argument to support it. Rather, you think these two pieces of evidence demonstrate with absolute certainty that JA stabbed TA first.

I disagree. In post #34, minor4th lays out many points in support of the alternative view that JA shot TA first. Even after reading the transcript of the ME's testimony, I can see nowhere that the ME says TA was necessarily totally incapacitated by the gunshot wound. I would agree that, if the only evidence was the ME's testimony, it would be more likely that JA stabbed TA first. However, all of the circumstances surrounding the killing, such as the points laid out by minor4th in post #34, lead me to believe, with approximately 60% certainty, that JA shot TA first. In other words, I give far more weight to the circumstances surrounding the killing than you do.

Then you need to go back and listen to the testimony again because he did say he would be immediately incapacitated in such a way that even if he didn't die quickly, the neurological shock caused by the tumbling projectile and expansive gasses, he wouldn't, at that point, be functional.

JM - and if brain was perforated, what would happen to this individual
ME - He'd be incapacitated
JM - He'd go down?
ME Yes
JM Immediately?
ME rapidly, yes
JM and by rapdily fatal what are we talking about
ME Well, if you have a projectile going through the front part of the brain, the person may not die immediately but they probably lose the ability to function, normally, they'll lose consciousness and they'll be laying on the floor.
JM in very short order, shot and they go down?
ME Yes
JM tell me about sequencing of events as it applies to the TWO injuries, one to the head and slitting of the throat and when this individual may have grabbed the knife or the knife was applied to his hands.
ME with the throat wound and the head wound I don't think this person could have had a purposeful activity, meaning I don't think they could have raised their arms and attempted to defend themselves.
JM Then in terms of sequence of injuries.. what is your opinion
ME well the throat injury is, and or the head wound are going to be immediately incapacitated and he's not going to attempt to def himself after that

CROSS EXAM

JW okay and we know people who've had injuries to their crainum depending on the section of the brain, they're not always incapacitated isn't' that true.
ME For the most part if you have a bullet pass through the brain you're not going to be standing, your not going to be functional and you're going to fall.

I am not sure how much more clear the ME could be regarding the level of incapacitation and or functional capacity post GWS to the brain.

 

[Paige SC]

I agree with this. This is what a forensic pathologist does everyday. Determine cause of death and injuries that resulted in death or not. It is not that difficult to see that there was little blood in an area that is highly vascular and always results in massive blood loss in an alive person. I don't know why we need a "traumatic brain expert" to determine something that any doctor that performs autopsies can determine. It would be different saying what TA could or could not have done after the shot if he was still alive when the shot occurred. But since there was little blood resulting from the wound that doesn't matter because he was already dead or in the very least in the end stages of hemorrhagic shock which is not able to come back from after that much blood is lost. Half of your blood lost from your body without immediate intervention results in death, and usually so even with intervention. For you to not bleed from a gun shot wound to the head, where your brain is one of the last areas to stop receiving blood since it is such a vital organ, you would have to have even more blood loss than half. So that is why it doesn't matter to have a traumatic brain expert in this case, because the evidence already showed he was dead. Can't really move around there and doesn't really matter where you were shot in the head then does it? And also that a pathologist could tell you the resulting cause of a shot to the head if alive just as a neurosurgeon could. A forensic pathologist is the traumatic brain expert in a dead and decomposing patient.

AGREE! This is maddening. Debating a non-issue. If I didn't know better I'd think this thread has been hijacked by members of the 'jodi is innocent' website. Are there any threads here which rely heavily on the evidence instead of far reaching personal bias? Point me in that direction please. :banghead:

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Premeditation by itself doesn't rise to the level of an aggravating circumstance, neither does shooting and stabbing someone in a fashion not unusual to 'normal' stabbing and shooting someone. For what is considered rising to the level of an aggravating circumstance according to AZ law, read the below link from top to bottom. While shooting and stabbing someone is a heinous act, it's not 'unusual'. An act which is designed to cause suffering is one of depravity. If someone is shot first, they aren't going to suffer while being stabbed because they are already dead.

http://www.supreme.state.az.us/courtserv/CrtProj/capsentguid/F6.htm

Sorry, but this has been ruled on already in court, and it was decided there was probable cause for the cruel aggravating factor whether he was shot first or not. The defense tried to remove the previous finding for probable cause because of the Horn/Flores discrepancy issue, but the judge denied it.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1301/10/ijvm.01.html

JUDGE SHERRY STEPHENS, OVERSEEING TRIAL: There is probable cause to believe that this offense was especially cruel, under the theory that it did involve both physical and mental suffering of the victim. So the motion for a mistrial is denied. The motion for a new finding of probable cause in the aggravators is denied.

 

[Paige SC]

Sorry, but this has been ruled on already in court, and it was decided there was probable cause for the cruel aggravating factor whether he was shot first or not. The defense tried to remove the previous finding for probably cause because of the Horn/Flores discrepancy issue, but the judge denied it.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1301/10/ijvm.01.html

And so are you disagreeing with me or what? Not sure I'm following Yes, there has to be probable cause in order for the charges to stand but the burden is still on the state to prove aggravating beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[RealityMan]

JM - and if brain was perforated, what would happen to this individual
ME - He'd be incapacitated
JM - He'd go down?
ME Yes
JM Immediately?
ME rapidly, yes

Notice that the ME says "rapidly," not "immediately." I think going down in 62 seconds would constitute going down rapidly, don't you?

JM and by rapdily fatal what are we talking about
ME Well, if you have a projectile going through the front part of the brain, the person may not die immediately but they probably lose the ability to function, normally, they'll lose consciousness and they'll be laying on the floor.
JM in very short order, shot and they go down?
ME Yes

Again, the ME says "the person may not die immediately." And the ME is specifically not ruling out the possibility that TA was alive and conscious for at least 62 seconds after the gunshot.

Also, you seem to be conveniently overlooking other parts of the ME's report and testimony, including:

Defense: Ok, so, let me back up for a second, so you are saying the gunshot wound is not immediately incapacitating?

ME: I would say not immediately fatal

. . .

Prosecutor (JM): And, is it your practice to write the sequencing of events in your report?

ME: No

Prosecutor (JM): Why not?

ME: It would be speculative, and I am simply providing information about the injuries that I see.

. . .

Prosecutor (JM): And...this gunshot wound, was there hemorrhaging that was associated with it on the path that it traveled?

Me: In the scalp and in the cheek area there is some hemorrhage, no hemorrhage detected in the skull itself.

Prosecutor (JM): And what does that mean to you in terms of the sequencing whether or not the person was alive or not alive

Me: If there is less blood it may mean that the other injuries preceded that and there was just less bleeding because there was less blood to come out of the body

And, see post #13 in the ME Report thread:

ME REPORT:
“No gross evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage or apparent cerebral injury (examination of brain tissue is somewhat limited by the decomposed nature of remains”).

We know there was some post mortem liquefaction necrosis. There was no apparent gross intraparenchymal hematoma in right frontal lobe. There is NO report of microscopic description of right frontal lobe white grey matter.
Indeed it is even possible that the .25 caliber bullet veered off course after traversing the right frontal bone and deflection.

ME REPORT:
“Projectile enters the facial skeleton near the midline. . “
This ME report is extraordinarily bereft of detail and is suboptimal with respect to the head injury.

The ME did not spend anytime analyzing the course of the bullet after exit from the anterior cranial fossa. We don’t even know exactly where the bullet exited the anterior cranial fossa. And we have NO idea how the bullet reached the left cheek. “The left cheek” is an improper anatomic description.

Possible locations include the left masticator space, the left parapharyngeal , deep lobe of parotid gland, the left infratemporal fossa, or the left pteryrigopalatine fossa.

Based on the above, and in view of the other circumstances in the case as laid out by minor4th, I believe it is more likely JA shot TA first.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

And so are you disagreeing with me or what? Not sure I'm following Yes, there has to be probable cause in order for the charges to stand but the burden is still on the state to prove aggravating beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm disagreeing with what you said here,

Shooting first would lessen the degree of depravity vs. slaughtering him like a pig and then shooting him.

I have said there is no good reason to say either order would be less of an aggravating factor, and the judge has the same.

 

[molly333]

Is it proper or reasonable for him to give us the order in which the wounds occurred?

The ME says it all himself:


ME: It would be speculative, and I am simply providing information about the injuries that I see.

 

[RealityMan]

Is it proper or reasonable for him to give us the order in which the wounds occurred? The ME says it all himself:


ME: It would be speculative, and I am simply providing information about the injuries that I see.

I think it's proper for the prosecutor to ask the ME for his opinion, but the ME has clearly stated that his opinion is merely speculation.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Furthermore, the ME doesn't even seem to want to take a position on the order in which the injuries were sustained.

Sure he did. He said the gunshot and neck cut would have to come after any defensive wounds since either of those would mean no purposeful activity from the victim. He also said the neck wound could not have been after death but the gunshot could have.

 

[Paige SC]

Notice that the ME says "rapidly," not "immediately." I think going down in 62 seconds would constitute going down rapidly, don't you?



Again, the ME says "the person may not die immediately." And the ME is specifically not ruling out the possibility that TA was alive and conscious for at least 62 seconds after the gunshot.

Also, you seem to be conveniently overlooking other parts of the ME's report and testimony, including:



And, see post #13 in the ME Report thread:



Based on the above, and in view of the other circumstances in the case as laid out by minor4th, I believe it is more likely JA shot TA first.

This is ridiculous banter. You are looking for someone to give a 100% guarantee as to the sequence, that's not ever going happen. If you need 100% please stick with your favorite CSI show. It doesn't work that way in real life. When comparing the 'could be' against 'likely was', it's a given that people with bullets to the brain aren't capable of functioning.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Is it proper or reasonable for him to give us the order in which the wounds occurred?

The ME says it all himself:


ME: It would be speculative, and I am simply providing information about the injuries that I see.

You quoted him out of context. He wast talking about the autopsy report only.

 

[RealityMan]

Sure he did. He said the gunshot and neck cut would have to come after any defensive wounds since either of those would mean no purposeful activity from the victim. He also said the neck wound could not have been after death but the gunshot could have.

Yes. However, the ME also stated that his job was simply to provide information about injuries that he saw and that his opinion as to the order of events was merely speculation.

 

[Paige SC]

I think it's proper for the prosecutor to ask the ME for his opinion, but the ME has clearly stated that his opinion is merely speculation.

You are misinterpreting his usage of the word 'speculative' - which is typical of those who chose to believe what they want in spite of overwhelming evidence and testimony to the contrary.