Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[slinkpod]

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.

A shot to the head will fall almost anyone--agreed? They may not be dead, though; we've had a lot of discussion on that. Travis was already down. He was sitting in the shower. He was stunned long enough for Jodi to think he was dead or soon to be. She traded out the gun for the knife she brought and started cutting; there's that preliminary stab wound just below his ear. He reacts to that. He starts crawling out of the shower. Jodi is amazed--"He is still alive!" is a comment she gives to Flores. He is still slow to react and respond to the further stab wounds Jodi inflicts as he's crawling on the floor (she's got the knife in hand, not the gun anymore), but he can raise a left hand in defense and a right hand to grab the counter and try to rise. Chest wound comes next.
Travis is not fully functional after the shot, but getting this far is entirely possible. What is really odd about the scenario is why Jodi sees the need to almost decapitate him while he's fallen following the fatal stab to the heart area. Deeply cutting his throat open in the ear-to-ear fashion would take a fair amount of time, energy, and effort on an already dying man --AND THEN hauling him off to the shower when she could be leaving the scene. It is in the hauling part that she leaves her palm print, foot print, and hair DNA. That makes no sense unless she's accomplishing a higher mission. Yeah, I'm still thinking Blood Atonement.

 

[slinkpod]

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.

A shot to the head will fall almost anyone--agreed? They may not be dead, though; we've had a lot of discussion on that. Travis was already down. He was sitting in the shower. He was stunned long enough for Jodi to think he was dead or soon to be. She traded out the gun for the knife she brought and started cutting; there's that preliminary stab wound just below his ear. He reacts to that. He starts crawling out of the shower. Jodi is amazed--"He is still alive!" is a comment she gives to Flores. He is still slow to react and respond to the further stab wounds Jodi inflicts as he's crawling on the floor (she's got the knife in hand, not the gun anymore), but he can raise a left hand in defense and a right hand to grab the counter and try to rise. Chest wound comes next.
Travis is not fully functional after the shot, but getting this far is entirely possible. What is really odd about the scenario is why Jodi sees the need to almost decapitate him while he's fallen following the fatal stab to the heart area. Deeply cutting his throat open in the ear-to-ear fashion would take a fair amount of time, energy, and effort on an already dying man --AND THEN hauling him off to the shower when she could be leaving the scene. It is in the hauling part that she leaves her palm print, foot print, and hair DNA. That makes no sense unless she's accomplishing a higher mission. Yeah, I'm still thinking Blood Atonement.

 

[slinkpod]

Opps, sorry for the double publishing---I'm a newbie. Sorry

 

[Maxwell's Hammer]

Did anyone notice that the shower is NOT running in the last pic of Travis in the shower. The shower IS raining down in all other photos. Jodi said that this photo (sitting) was accidental/inadvertant. Why would anyone sit in a shower that is not running. Was Travis, under gunpoint, negotiating for his life?

 

[molly333]

Did anyone notice that the shower is NOT running in the last pic of Travis in the shower. The shower IS raining down in all other photos. Jodi said that this photo (sitting) was accidental/inadvertant. Why would anyone sit in a shower that is not running. Was Travis, under gunpoint, negotiating for his life?

It's very odd. I agree.

I feel so sorry for this Jury if they try to go down this road of figuring out sequence of events. But, human nature being what it is, I think they will at least try.

 

[molly333]

Whoohoo. Crime scene expert on Dr. Drew agrees with gunshot first. He says Jodi brought the gun with her to shoot Travis. She did not bring the knife. She shot him in the shower. It's a face shot, he is still talking, moving. She goes to shoot him again and the gun jams. Then she goes and gets the knife. She puts him back in the shower because she sees she has cut herself and is bleeding on him, so she needs to wash away her blood DNA.

She shoots him either when he is sitting in the shower or with his head down. When she goes for the knife, he stands at the sink bleeding from the head wound and coughing blood into the sink. She gets the knife and finishes him off.

He says to look at page 4 of the autopsy report. It was not a fatal shot. It was a shot in the face, so he has blood in his nose and mouth.

The prosecution really should bring this guy on the stand or someone like him, imo.

 

[danzn16]

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

Poster was quoting our WS pathologist's statement earlier in the thread. Not the ME. That's where the confusion is coming in.

 

[molly333]

More from Randolph Beasley crime scene expert on Dr. Drew.

Look at page 4 of autopsy report--the pathologist clearly states that there was no major damage to the brain because of the wound path. Read what it says. It says the wound path of the bullet did not do major damage to the brain. That's what it says. And, so, he doesn't even list the bullet as one of the causes of death. It's a shock force injury. The stabbing did the cause of death, not the bullet. Look at the details on that report.

The bullet ended up near the jaw. The reason you take a gun to kill someone in a premeditated game of attack is because that's what you're going to use. So when the gun jammed--she even used that scenario in a story with the two ninja intruders. Why? Because a suspect will typically take part of the truth and then they'll fabricate this story, which is what she did. The scenario of the gunshot first makes more sense in a crime scene reconstruction.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Whoohoo. Crime scene expert on Dr. Drew agrees with gunshot first. He says Jodi brought the gun with her to shoot Travis. She did not bring the knife. She shot him in the shower. It's a face shot, he is still talking, moving. She goes to shoot him again and the gun jams. Then she goes and gets the knife. She puts him back in the shower because she sees she has cut herself and is bleeding on him, so she needs to wash away her blood DNA.

She shoots him either when he is sitting in the shower or with his head down. When she goes for the knife, he stands at the sink bleeding from the head wound and coughing blood into the sink. She gets the knife and finishes him off.

He says to look at page 4 of the autopsy report. It was not a fatal shot. It was a shot in the face, so he has blood in his nose and mouth.

The prosecution really should bring this guy on the stand or someone like him, imo.

I'll go with the ME, the dude that actually saw, touched and examined the body.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[molly333]

I'll go with the ME, the dude that actually saw, touched and examined the body.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Beasley is going with the ME. Read page 4 of the autopsy report.

Guess what? In the autopsy report the ME did not give a sequence of wound events. Why not?

Because it's speculation--it's not his job.

A doctor is not a crime scene reconstruction expert.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Beasley is going with the ME. Read page 4 of the autopsy report.

Guess what? In the autopsy report the ME did not give a sequence of wound events. Why not?

Because it's speculation--it's not his job.

A doctor is not a crime scene reconstruction expert.

It's speculation based on his medical findings and the fact that he had defensive wounds. The ME felt Travis would have been unable to receive them after being shot and unable after throat slash. That leaves the stab to the heart. That's what he said, and I believe him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[molly333]

It's speculation based on his medical findings and the fact that he had defensive wounds. The ME felt Travis would have been unable to receive them after being shot and unable after throat slash. That leaves the stab to the heart. That's what he said, and I believe him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The ME also said that only the slashing of the throat would prevent Travis from fighting back [of the stab wounds]. So, did she slash his throat first? He said Travis would be able to move about for a time aftar the wound to the SVC. And, what's more, his brain would be intact if the gunshot is last so he can think correctly to outwit his attacker.

So, tell me please, why didn't he disarm her and with his last piece of strength thrust the knife into her? Why does he only show defensive wounds? Why not one offensive move on his part? And, how did she get so lucky with the first blow to the VC because any other blow would not have harmed him enough to stop him. And why did she use a knife on a bigger, stronger oponent, when the prosecution goes to great lengths to prove she brought a gun with her?

The only explanation can be that the first blow disoriented him. Only the gunshot would have done that. After the first wound--gunshot--he was no longer able to think properly to defend himself in an offensive manner. All his efforts to save himself are passive.

Not only that--you've just killed your premeditation with a gun case.

IMO

 

[danzn16]

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:

Can anyone link to this or tell me where to find it?

 

[RealityMan]

So, tell me please, why didn't he disarm her and with his last piece of strength thrust the knife into her? Why does he only show defensive wounds? Why not one offensive move on his part? And, how did she get so lucky with the first blow to the VC because any other blow would not have harmed him enough to stop him. And why did she use a knife on a bigger, stronger oponent, when the prosecution goes to great lengths to prove she brought a gun with her?

The only explanation can be that the first blow disoriented him. Only the gunshot would have done that. After the first wound--gunshot--he was no longer able to think properly to defend himself in an offensive manner. All his efforts to save himself are passive.

Those are my thoughts too.

 

[Maxwell's Hammer]

Pathological liars often sprinkle their lies with some truth to make their story sound believable. Jodi's 48 hr interview may have revealed the exact sequence as to how she killed Travis.
In the ridiculous interview she claimed that the (ninja) put the gun to her head, pulled the trigger but the gun didn't go off (Jammed). She further said that the gunman left the room for a minute and she tackled the f/m ninja.
I believe she shot Travis first while he was seated in the shower (see her photo).
On the second shot, the gun jammed, (as she noted in interview) Seeing that he was still alive, she freaked out and ran downstairs to get knife (gunman left room as noted in interview). She had to kill Travis to shut him up, she could NOT leave him merely wounded.
She returned to bathroom to find travis reeling through room and spitting blood over the sink, where she furiously stabs him (1st accidental photo).
Travis falls and attempts to crawl through hall when Jodi repeatedly stabs him in the back and slices his throat (2nd accidental photo).
Jodi drags him back to shower to wash away her blood DNA (cut hand) mixed with Travis’s blood. (3rd accidental photo).
The bullet casing could have easliy rolled on top of bloodstain during struggle.
She planned this murder in advance (gas cans, white car, stolen gun, fake itinerary etc)
I don't believe she would have tried to overpower Travis (much bigger than her) with a knife. It would have to be one stab - one kill and she is far too calculating to risk that.
I believe she planned to shoot him to death, thus shot him first.
It’s possible he was able to flail, struggle and hobble to the sink after he was shot in head.
Id like to see the medical examiner revisit this scenario.

 

[Linda7NJ]

If she wanted to shoot him first why have a knife nearby and why not shoot him when his back is facing her?

The girl was quite familiar with using a knife, she practiced by slicing tires three separate times! She rolled with a knife.

She stated if she were to kill him, she'd do it humanely? She said that.... And like so much else she says... I believe it's a complete fabrication !

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

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.

You're dodging the issue of whether he said his opinion was speculation. He never said that. You're also totally misstating the job of the ME. Part of his job is to give expert opinion on cause of death and the relevant details thereof, including when injuries occurred.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

More from Randolph Beasley crime scene expert on Dr. Drew.

Look at page 4 of autopsy report--the pathologist clearly states that there was no major damage to the brain because of the wound path. Read what it says. It says the wound path of the bullet did not do major damage to the brain. That's what it says.

This "expert" doesn't know what he's talking about, if you're retelling him right. The report says there is no EVIDENCE "of significant intracranial
hemorrhage or apparent cerebral Injury (although examination of brain tissue is somewhat limited by the decomposed nature of the remains)."

And as he made clear on the stand, because the extent of decomposition, he could not see a wound track even though there had to have been one. The brain was largely liquified at that point.

And, so, he doesn't even list the bullet as one of the causes of death.

That's irrelevant to the issue of sequence, since he's saying it would have felled him not killed him.

The bullet ended up near the jaw. The reason you take a gun to kill someone in a premeditated game of attack is because that's what you're going to use. So when the gun jammed--she even used that scenario in a story with the two ninja intruders. Why?

Because she's seen too many movies.

Because a suspect will typically take part of the truth and then they'll fabricate this story, which is what she did. The scenario of the gunshot first makes more sense in a crime scene reconstruction.

So, where does the knife come from?

 

[RealityMan]

You're dodging the issue of whether he said his opinion was speculation. He never said that. You're also totally misstating the job of the ME. Part of his job is to give expert opinion on cause of death and the relevant details thereof, including when injuries occurred.

I refer you again to the ME's testimony:

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.

So . . . the ME said writing the sequencing of events in his report would be speculative. How is his testifying about the sequencing of the events any less speculative than his writing about the sequencing of the events in his report?

The ME did not say his testimony was speculative. But his testimony clearly IS speculative. If the ME denied he was speculating with his testimony, he would be inconsistent with what he said about his writing (or lack thereof) about the sequencing of events in his report.

Yes, he probably is more qualified to speculate than your average Joe. But that doesn't mean the jury will blindly believe everything he says, especially when significant circumstantial evidence points to an alternative theory and the ME does not rule out that alternative theory.

 

[Captain86]

The ME also said that only the slashing of the throat would prevent Travis from fighting back [of the stab wounds]. So, did she slash his throat first? He said Travis would be able to move about for a time aftar the wound to the SVC. And, what's more, his brain would be intact if the gunshot is last so he can think correctly to outwit his attacker.

So, tell me please, why didn't he disarm her and with his last piece of strength thrust the knife into her? Why does he only show defensive wounds? Why not one offensive move on his part? And, how did she get so lucky with the first blow to the VC because any other blow would not have harmed him enough to stop him. And why did she use a knife on a bigger, stronger oponent, when the prosecution goes to great lengths to prove she brought a gun with her?

The only explanation can be that the first blow disoriented him. Only the gunshot would have done that. After the first wound--gunshot--he was no longer able to think properly to defend himself in an offensive manner. All his efforts to save himself are passive.

Not only that--you've just killed your premeditation with a gun case.

IMO

Surprise and pain will render most people incapable of fighting back. Really any of the wounds he received would have been shocking and painful enough to make getting out of the bathroom/house and away from her his first instinct. You are sadly mistaken if you think only the gunshot would have disoriented him.