Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[Smelly Squirrel]

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.

So she ran downstairs and came back up and did all that stabbing within the 62 seconds? Sorry, but that's more ludicrous than her current version of bodyslam and chase through the bedroom.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I refer you again to the ME's testimony:



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?

Sigh, go watch the rest of that testimony. He explained the autopsy is solely about the injuries, and that he determines sequence when he has more information (eg "investigative reports back, get toxicology, histology) and puts it in his final 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.

No, you're just misreading or refusing to see what he said.

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.

Sure, the jury can decide however they want, but let's not misrepresent the man's testimony or job, please.

 

[RealityMan]

Sigh, go watch the rest of that testimony. He explained the autopsy is solely about the injuries, and that he determines sequence when he has more information (eg "investigative reports back, get toxicology, histology) and puts it in his final report.

Sigh, I have reread the transcript of the ME's testimony many times. Perhaps you should review it again yourself. The ME did NOT write about the sequencing of the injuries in his final report. And, according to his testimony, the ME wrote the final report AFTER he had "the opportunity to look at the whole case, get investigative reports back, get toxicology, histology and come to a final report." The reason he did not write about the sequencing of the injuries is because such writing would've been speculative. The first time he speculated as to the order of the injuries is when he was questioned by the defense before he appeared in court. The second time he speculated as to the order of the injuries was during his testimony. He is speculating in both instances.

No, you're just misreading or refusing to see what he said.

Quite the contrary.

Sure, the jury can decide however they want, but let's not misrepresent the man's testimony or job, please.

I don't think I am.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Sigh, I have reread the transcript of the ME's testimony many times. Perhaps you should review it again yourself.

OK, to settle it I'll post from the same transcript you used

ME report: Discuss it here - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Prosecutor (JM): And as you're conducting this examination, is it your practice to immediately form an opinion as to which inury is first, which is second and which is third if there is three of them

ME: No

Prosecutor (JM): Why NOT? why wouldn't you immediately tell the, I know this is is first, I know this is second, I know this is the third one. Why wouldn't you do it that way?

ME: well, often we can never establish that, but I want the opportunity to look at the whole case, get investigative reports back, get toxicology, histology and come to a final report

Prosecutor (JM): And this report that you prepare, when is it due, In other words, how long does it take you to prepare this report with your impressions.

ME: Varies, minimum of a month, maximum four to five months

Prosecutor (JM): In this case I think you conducted the autopsy ..what..June 16th I think?

ME: June 12th

Prosecutor (JM): June 12th. And what date is your report dated?

ME: July 15th

Prosecutor (JM): And...how many... So roughly that's what, a month?

ME: 5 weeks

Prosecutor (JM): And how many pages is your report?

ME: 8 pages

Prosecutor (JM): and in that report, is there any place that indicates that the gunshot wound ... or which, um, which injury was first or last? Anywhere does it indicate that?

ME: No

Prosecutor (JM): In terms of you being asked about the sequence of events
in terms of these fatal injuries, when, according to your records was the first
time that you were asked about the sequencing of events?

ME: According to my recollection, it would have been at the Defense interview (pointing to Nurmi)

Prosecutor (JM): And...before that, you didn't write it in your report right?

ME: That's right

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, then, once you've had a chance to have all this information before you, that's when you make your determination right?

Me: yes

Notice, especially the last bolded part which you omitted from your quote, although it was the very next line.

 

[RealityMan]

I think you are misunderstanding the bolded part. Do you think there is some other determination that the ME made that was not included in his final report? Can you point us to that determination? The final determination he is talking about is his final report. He made that final report over a month after he conducted the autopsy and after he had gathered all of the information that he felt he needed.

 

[seeker78]

Guys, we don't even need the ME's testimony. Jodi Arias confessed today that she shot Travis last and that's what killed him today on the stand, proving, at least in her words that everything else had to come first. Did you catch what Mr. Martinez did?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjRGTEBtKlg - fast forward to 1:31:20.

"And so you fired the gun, you shot him in the head, and you killed him, right?" "Yeah."

It's very subtle, but he was very clearly asking about one sequence of events. I think he finally caught her off guard and she slipped up. I think she was remembering the final gunshot when she said yes.

 

[RealityMan]

Guys, we don't even need the ME's testimony. Jodi Arias confessed today that she shot Travis last and that's what killed him today on the stand, proving, at least in her words that everything else had to come first.

She misspoke. And neither the prosecution nor the defense seemed to have noticed, not to mention the TV commentators.

 

[molly333]

Guys, we don't even need the ME's testimony. Jodi Arias confessed today that she shot Travis last and that's what killed him today on the stand, proving, at least in her words that everything else had to come first. Did you catch what Mr. Martinez did?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjRGTEBtKlg - fast forward to 1:31:20.

"And so you fired the gun, you shot him in the head, and you killed him, right?" "Yeah."

It's very subtle, but he was very clearly asking about one sequence of events. I think he finally caught her off guard and she slipped up. I think she was remembering the final gunshot when she said yes.

Yes, I heard that but I thought it was odd. It doesn't support either scenario because the ME's speculation from the stand was that he was already dead from the throat slashing and VC stab wound by the time he was shot. In that case, she didn't kill him with the gun. She killed him with the knife.

We know that whether it was first or last, the gun wound did not kill him in either event.


Here's the problem for me. If knife first, I would have to go with a lessor included myself--second degree or manslaughter. There is no evidence she brought a knife, the knife would have been readily available in his house, and she testified the knife was already in the master suite from the rope cutting. So she could have picked up the knife when a fight started, and the fight got out of hand with her killing him. But, there may not have been an intent to kill when she picked up the knife.



If, on the other hand, she forms the intent to kill him, and towards that end steals a gun, drives with it hundreds of miles, and shoots him in the shower, that is clearly premeditated murder, murder one, and the fact that she follows a jammed gun with a brutal knife slashing, makes it dp worthy.

I cannot get to murder one if it is knife first and she killed him with the knife.

IMO

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I think you are misunderstanding the bolded part. Do you think there is some other determination that the ME made that was not included in his final report? Can you point us to that determination? The final determination he is talking about is his final report. He made that final report over a month after he conducted the autopsy and after he had gathered all of the information that he felt he needed.

Yes, he did later make a determination about sequence. It's mentioned there in the quote.

Prosecutor (JM): In terms of you being asked about the sequence of events in terms of these fatal injuries, when, according to your records was the first time that you were asked about the sequencing of events?

ME: According to my recollection, it would have been at the Defense interview (pointing to Nurmi)

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Yes, I heard that but I thought it was odd. It doesn't support either scenario because the ME's speculation from the stand was that he was already dead from the throat slashing and VC stab wound by the time he was shot. In that case, she didn't kill him with the gun.

Not what he said. He said he may have been dead.

Here's the problem for me. If knife first, I would have to go with a lessor included myself--second degree or manslaughter. There is no evidence she brought a knife,

Logic says she brought the knife. Because of the time constraint, the knife would have to be very close by, not downstairs, and probably not even in the bedroom. It would have to be in the same room with her. It was most likely on her already.

the knife would have been readily available in his house, and she testified the knife was already in the master suite from the rope cutting.

Yes, she gave a ridiculous story about how the rope was measured out to the bathroom to be cut. It's an obvious lie. If the knife was already innocently in the room, she wouldn't have to invent a story about it. Ergo, she brought the knife.

So she could have picked up the knife when a fight started, and the fight got out of hand with her killing him. But, there may not have been an intent to kill when she picked up the knife.

Playing along with this story, premeditation can happen at any moment. And certainly when she sliced his neck in half when he's on the ground, that was an intent to kill him. And also when she would have shot him.

But it's moot since she brought the knife.

If, on the other hand, she forms the intent to kill him, and towards that end steals a gun, drives with it hundreds of miles, and shoots him in the shower, that is clearly premeditated murder, murder one, and the fact that she follows a jammed gun with a brutal knife slashing, makes it dp worthy.

I cannot get to murder one if it is knife first and she killed him with the knife,

Seriously? Stabbing him 28 times, slicing his neck in half and shooting him in the head doesn't qualify for murder one? Hm.

To be less than murder 1 there would have to be some precipitating event compelling her to attack. Assuming you are not buying her story of self-defense, what evidence is there that anything happened in that minute of brutal killing that could lessen the charge to anything other than murder 1?

 

[molly333]

Not what he said. He said he may have been dead

You really cannot have it both ways. If you say you know he was shot last because the lack of bleeding into the head proves he was already dead when shot, then you can't turn around and say he wasn't already dead when shot but he was shot last.

The point is--the ME did NOT give a sequence of events in his written autopsy report, so who cares what he says when he's opining on the stand. That is not his job to speculate.

It is, however, the job of a crime scene reconstruction expert to determine the most likely sequence of events based on all the evidence, including the autopsy report.

You cannot prove she brought the knife with her.

Unintended things can happen in a knife fight, and fear and adrenaline take over. I think you will find that a lot of deaths by knife fights lead to murder 2 or manslaughter convictions.

I cannot see a woman premeditating murder of a strong man and then choosing a knife to kill him. It just does not work for me. In normal circumstances, it would be crazy.

IMO

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

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?

He was too busy bleeding out from the stab to his heart.

Why does he only show defensive wounds? Why not one offensive move on his part?

He was too busy bleeding out from the stab to his heart.

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.

Easy. She was posing him. She could have said, "close your eyes" and then started stabbing away.

And why did she use a knife on a bigger, stronger oponent

One reason may be that she hoped that people would assume that she wouldn't do that (and unfortunately she is right). She told Flores that, "I don't think I could stab him. I think I would have to shoot him continuously." That statement alone is a good reason to believe she stabbed him first. She may have actually been worried about being able to pull it off, which is why she brought the gun for backup.

Another reason may be simply that a knife is more personal and hands on than a gun. And this was a very personal act.

In any case, we don't have to imagine her state of mind, since the medical evidence supports stabbing first.

when the prosecution goes to great lengths to prove she brought a gun with her?

Irrelevant to what she did.

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.

What makes you think the stolen gun is the only evidence for premeditation?

Regardless, the stolen gun is consistent with the stabbing. She brought both weapons and it's more plausible she had the gun for backup rather than the knife for backup. If she meant to shoot him, there would be no point in the stabbing. She could have kept shooting him. The gun jam scenario is pure conjecture. The one gunshot obviously fired cleanly, there is a clean casing on the floor. But even if it did jam, there is no way there was a knife up there unless she brought it. But she wouldn't have had a knife if the plan was to shoot him. (I'm not buying a blood atonement scenario. She didn't care about Mormonism, she cared about vengeance.)

 

[molly333]

Again, you cannot prove she brought a knife with her to the scene.


He can and did prove she brought a gun circumstantially. But if she only goes and gets the gun to shoot him after he is dead from a knife fight [the gun wound did not kill him according to the ME], then the gun is just a coup de gras and not premeditated murder.

So, you prove she brought a gun with her but try to prove she killed him with a knife on purpose?

Do you really want to confuse the Jury or what?

A confused Jury will not give you murder one.

IMO

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

You really cannot have it both ways. If you say you know he was shot last because the lack of bleeding into the head proves he was already dead when shot, then you can't turn around and say he wasn't already dead when shot but he was shot last.

I'm having it the accurate way. Regardless of what I'm saying about the sequence, the fact is that is not what he said. He said TA "may have" been dead. That's a simple fact. He's saying it's possible he was still alive. The lack of bleeding meant he had already lost a lot of blood, it didn't mean he was dead at that point. He was either dead or close to dead.

The point is--the ME did NOT give a sequence of events in his written autopsy report, so who cares what he says when he's opining on the stand. That is not his job to speculate.

Expert opinion is not the same as random conjecture, except when they say it is. You're saying he's speculating, he never said he was. Do you think he's on the stand to speculate? No report has every possible opinion. Why would they even need to call him, instead of just reading from the report?

It is, however, the job of a crime scene reconstruction expert to determine the most likely sequence of events based on all the evidence, including the autopsy report.

You cannot prove she brought the knife with her.

What do you mean by "prove?" Do you think it was proved she brought a gun?

Unintended things can happen in a knife fight, and fear and adrenaline take over. I think you will find that a lot of deaths by knife fights lead to murder 2 or manslaughter convictions.

Show me one manslaughter conviction that involved 29 knife wounds, including a near decapitation and a stab to the heart, plus a gunshot to the head. With no signs of self-defense or other mitigating factors.

I cannot see a woman premeditating murder of a strong man and then choosing a knife to kill him. It just does not work for me. In normal circumstances, it would be crazy.

It is atypical, but JA is not exactly typical.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Again, you cannot prove she brought a knife with her to the scene.

He can and did prove she brought a gun circumstantially.

Well then I have also proved circumstantially that she brought a knife.

But if she only goes and gets the gun to shoot him after he is dead from a knife fight [the gun wound did not kill him according to the ME], then the gun is just a coup de gras and not premeditated murder.

???? A murder by knife can't be premeditated?

And regardless of what she used first, the gunshot didn't cause death. So by your logic, it can't be premeditated for either sequence.

So, you prove she brought a gun with her but try to prove she killed him with a knife on purpose?

Do you really want to confuse the Jury or what?

A confused Jury will not give you murder one.

This thread is about what we believe the sequence was, not about prosecution strategy.

Whatever strategy is best is irrelevant to what actually happened.

 

[Mountaindreamer]

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

Very good, I hope they can tie that up not sure that can come in about the slashing of the tires but of course she probaby had a knife in her purse

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Very good, I hope they can tie that up not sure that can come in about the slashing of the tires but of course she probaby had a knife in her purse

The jury will not hear about the tire slashing. JM is worried about cause for appeal on prejudice.

 

[Mountaindreamer]

The jury will not hear about the tire slashing. JM is worried about cause for appeal on prejudice.

yea thats what i thought, but at least they did get the one ex girlfriends testimony who said Travis told her "someone" had slashed his tires and another girls tires so hopefully the jury will put that together with the fact that it was Jodi

 

[Applejack]

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.

Part of (like, the main part) an ME's job is to determine cause of death and that in turn paints a picture of the sequence of events. It's his expert opinion, based on pathological evidence that other crime scene evidence supports. It's important because 1. It proves she made up another lie in her defense claim and 2. It shows how absolutely brutally violent and dangerous she is and how much Travis suffered, which is relevant to conviction and sentancing.

What is your evidence she shot him first, if you don't think it's unreasonable to conclude?

 

[danzn16]

I refer you again to the ME's testimony:



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.

The ME report had no speculation. It is his job to determine which injuries were pre mortem or post mortem. He did just that. He said he wasn't going to speculate on the events because that wasn't his job and you're not allowed to do that in court. If there was anything speculative in his testimony or In his report you bet JA's lawyers would have jumped all over it. I think you're confusing the ME's job and duty with what he specifically said he would not do.