Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[RealityMan]

When comparing the 'could be' against 'likely was', it's a given that people with bullets to the brain aren't capable of functioning.

To say that "people with bullets to the brain aren't capable of functioning" is not a true statement and is irrelevant to the ME's testimony and report regarding the particular wound sustained by TA in this case.

In reaching your conclusion that it is more likely that JA stabbed TA first, you are ignoring significant evidence to the contrary.

It is perfectly reasonable for a person to conclude, given all of the evidence, that it is more likely that JA shot TA first. I think the prosecution should adapt to this fact and not rely on establishing that the stabbing must have occurred first. Otherwise, the jury may start to have questions about the prosecution's case.

 

[RealityMan]

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.

LOL. Please tell me how I am misinterpreting his usage of the word "speculative."

Also, please tell me how it is me that is believing what I want to believe and not you believing what you want to believe.

 

[Paige SC]

I'm disagreeing with what you said here,



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.

The order is necessary to show she intended for him to suffer for she could have simply shot him as soon as she entered his house. I have to defer to one of the legal experts here and agree with them in that stabbing ads an element of depravity that shooting doesn't. It's also important to know the truth.

In other news unrelated to this specific post...

--------------- !!!!!!! NEWSFLASH !!!!!!!----------

She just admitted on the witness stand she shot him AFTER the photo of him bleeding in the hallway was taken. It's at the 16.37 min mark. Tawnidilly has this mornings court session uploaded on youtube. :rocker:

 

[Paige SC]

LOL. Please tell me how I am misinterpreting his usage of the word "speculative."

Also, please tell me how it is me that is believing what I want to believe and not you believing what you want to believe.

She just admitted on the witness stand she shot him AFTER the photo of him bleeding in the hallway was taken. It's at the 16.37 min mark. Tawnidilly has this mornings court session uploaded on youtube. :rocker:
But let me guess, you are going to assume she didn't understand what she was saying right? :waitasec:

 

[RealityMan]

She just admitted on the witness stand she shot him AFTER the photo of him bleeding in the hallway was taken. It's at the 16.37 min mark. Tawnidilly has this mornings court session uploaded on youtube. :rocker:
But let me guess, you are going to assume she didn't understand what she was saying right? :waitasec:

I watched her testimony this morning and I suspect that she will be correcting herself about that issue later today. I think even you know that JA clearly did not mean to say she shot TA after stabbing him. And I'm not saying we can believe anything she says in the first place. Notice I'm giving very little weight to anything JA says in reaching my conclusion that it is more likely JA shot TA first.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

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.

Sorry, but he was clear that there was uncertainty about it.

Go to 1:51 in

[video=youtube;1tZKYBlfkxI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tZKYBlfkxI[/video]

JM: Can you tell with regard to the gunshot wound to right temple whether he was alive or not at that point?
KH: Again there was a wound going through the head and I don't see hemorrhage in the brain, I can't see a wound track through the brain, so all I know is there is a bullet going through the brain, so i cant say with certainty.
JM: If we don't see hemorrhaging or bleeding as you talked about, is that an indication the person was already dead?
KH: THey may have been, yes.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

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.

No, he didn't. He said his autopsy report did not include sequence, it just included injuries. He didn't say he can't give an opinion now nor that it would be speculation. If you still think so, go find the exact quote where he says it.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

" 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.

That's not what he said. Look at the testimony I just posted above.

 

[Paige SC]

Sorry, but he was clear that there was uncertainty about it.

Go to 1:51 in

Jodi Arias Trial Day 3 (Full) - YouTube

JM: Can you tell with regard to the gunshot wound to right temple whether he was alive or not at that point?
KH: Again there was a wound going through the head and I don't see hemorrhage in the brain, I can't see a wound track through the brain, so all I know is there is a bullet going through the brain, so i cant say with certainty.
JM: If we don't see hemorrhaging or bleeding as you talked about, is that an indication the person was already dead?
KH: THey may have been, yes.

There will never be 100% certainty other than the fact the man is dead. Picking out one sentence and discrediting the totality of his testimony is cherry picking in order to fit a preconceived bias.

 

[Paige SC]

That's not what he said. Look at the testimony I just posted above.

Nah, I don't need to. I took the totality of his testimony and weighed it against the absence of his absolutes.

 

[ButForFortune]

Ha Ha - Juan sure schooled her on adding her "extra" snotty testimony re the gripping. That sure bit her!

 

[ButForFortune]

I am amazed that her attorneys do not put a stop to her behaviour. This cannot possibly be helping her - she does not come across as any battered little sweet girl.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

There will never be 100% certainty other than the fact the man is dead. Picking out one sentence and discrediting the totality of his testimony is cherry picking in order to fit a preconceived bias.

Sigh. I agree that the gunshot was last. I am not trying to discredit him, I am trying to accurately report what he said. He said there was uncertainty. That is why the "gunshot first" theory does have a chance. I believe that theory is not as likely as the other way, but there is a possibility for it.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Nah, I don't need to. I took the totality of his testimony and weighed it against the absence of his absolutes.

What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

 

[ButForFortune]

If I were her attorneys I would be screaming at her during their breaks and weekend and evening meetings to stop the behaviour on the stand and start acting demure with little simple "yes", "no" or "I don't remember" answers. Nothing more and nothing less. She is a nightmare.

 

[RealityMan]

No, he didn't. He said his autopsy report did not include sequence, it just included injuries. He didn't say he can't give an opinion now nor that it would be speculation. If you still think so, go find the exact quote where he says it.

Of course the ME can and did give an opinion as to the sequence of events during his testimony. It's just a question of how much weight the jury will give his opinion in view of all of the evidence. I give a lot of weight to the ME's description of the injuries as specified in the report. I give less weight to the ME's opinion as to the order in which the injuries were sustained. I do not think it is unreasonable for a person to conclude that it is more likely that JA shot TA first, despite the ME's opinion to the contrary. That is why I believe the prosecution should not be placing so much importance on the sequence necessarily requiring the stabbing to have occurred first.

 

[Paige SC]

Sigh. I agree that the gunshot was last. I am not trying to discredit him, I am trying to accurately report what he said. He said there was uncertainty. That is why the "gunshot first" theory does have a chance. I believe that theory is not as likely as the other way, but there is a possibility for it.

I know what you're saying. I'm just saying there never is 100% absolutes in a case like this and it's unreasonable for anyone to assume there should be. It would be alarming if he were to say "I am certain the sequence of attack was x,y or z." I have listened to the ME's testimony at least 10 times and it's apparent to me - even in the state of decomposition - pathological indicators of blood flow to the brain are clearly lacking. Otherwise, he wouldn't have "speculated" about it at all. He was offering an expert medical opinion regarding the pathological findings (or lack thereof) but some are concluding just because his brain was in a state of decomp, that the ME couldn't rule ''either way'' on whether there was adequate blood flow to his head at the time of the gunshot, when in fact he did (minus a 100% absolute, of course).

 

[Paige SC]

What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

I'm not even sure what you're talking about anymore.. I can't keep up.anic:

 

[Mountaindreamer]

I agree, she sure remembers every single phrase that she has said, she is so rude

 

[Mountaindreamer]

i think she has a photographic memory...the way she did know what book Martinez was talking about...in the Morman Book.