Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[Smelly Squirrel]

Perjury? No one mentioned perjury. He just redefined his testimony in a different direction and I happened to take notice.

You just said, "I think ME knows it was gun first but has to say knife first because of the casing being found on blood." You accused him of lying, saying something he knows to be untrue.

"Redefine his testimony" is a Jodiesque obfuscating answer, like talking about gripping vs. holding a knife.

 

[AlwaysOnTheCase]

The drain is under his but, look past his ankle all the way in the right corner, I thought at first it was duct tape. It looks like a gun, it appears to be metal.

 

[LambChop]

I'm sorry, the right lower corner. I'm trying to post it, but it says enter the URL- I have no clue- "Fog"

It's the drain for the shower that he is sitting on and we can see part of it in the picture.

 

[LambChop]

The drain is under his but, look past his ankle all the way in the right corner, I thought at first it was duct tape. It looks like a gun, it appears to be metal.

JM's pen. These were taken from slides during court.

 

[AlwaysOnTheCase]

Omg, squirrel ...thanks that has been bothering me!!

 

[vikvaliant]

I agree with the folks who speculate that he was shot first and then attacked with the knife after the gun jammed. Shooting him at the end just doesn't make sense to me after all the planning JA put into it. This would be after she already cut his throat which the ME says is clearly the most significant wound. According to the ME the victim could no longer scream as his windpipe was cut below the voice box.

So now we have quiet for the first time since the attack began. And we have the photo of her standing above TA's lifeless body-- and another accidental photo of him still in the hallway more than a minute later. JA is now in complete control and she drags the body back into the bathroom.

Her knife attack is successful. So why would she escalate to a more powerful weapon and introduce the stolen gun at this point? And why risk attracting attention by firing a gun after a prolonged period of silence? TA has been incapacitated for minutes at this point. The prosecutor proved she wasn't in a fog as she claims and that she put a significant amount of time and effort into covering her tracks before she left.

I believe JA was already in coverup mode when she dragged TA back into the bathroom. She certainly had the presence of mind to collect all the items involved, delete photos, and run laundry before she left. And if she did fire the gun at the end she could have taken her time and got as close as she needed. It's less likely to be an angled shot like it was.

The testimony of the blood splatter expert about the blood on the sink and mirror led me to believe he was standing there after the gunshot.

Just my opinion. Morbid stuff.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Personally, I think that she intended to kill him with the knife and only had the gun as back-up. I don't think she wanted to use the gun because of the fear that someone would hear it fire, and she might get caught in the house by police or a neighbor. I also believe that she imagined she could stab him once or twice and he'd die neatly in the shower with all the blood evidence being washed away. I think she freaked out after she stabbed him and he fought back, got out of the shower and was able to not only get out of the bathroom but all the way down the hall, and she went into a frenzy of stabbing because he wasn't conveniently dying right away. I also believe that the throat slitting and subsequent gun shot to the head was that she wanted to make sure he was REALLY dead, but also because she was pissed off at him for not dying neatly and quickly in the shower and made a bloody mess of the place which was not at all what she had invisioned.

I agree about the reason for all the fatal wounds. Travis didn't die fast enough for her. Also, agree that she wanted to keep it clean to the shower area. She even tried to clean up the hallway because of trying to stick to that plan.

 

[molly333]

I agree about the reason for all the fatal wounds. Travis didn't die fast enough for her. Also, agree that she wanted to keep it clean to the shower area. She even tried to clean up the hallway because of trying to stick to that plan.

I just realized you folks probably never fought with older brothers when you were growing up. That would be the only reason you would think a woman would attack an unimpaired man with a knife or be successful at it.
:twocents:

JMO

 

[LambChop]

You just said, "I think ME knows it was gun first but has to say knife first because of the casing being found on blood." You accused him of lying, saying something he knows to be untrue.

"Redefine his testimony" is a Jodiesque obfuscating answer, like talking about gripping vs. holding a knife.

From the ME's testimony he seemed to have taken all the information he had available to him and came to his conclusion. He certainly did not redefine his testimony because it was the State who believed Jodi shot Travis first for a number of years. It wasn't until defense asked the ME to give a deposition that the ME disagreed with the shot being first. That threw defense into a tizzy. Defense practically accused the State of tampering with a witness and asked for a mistrial.

And others wonder why the ME is aggravated??? Defense basically accused the ME of misconduct by changing his testimony when he never testified nor reported the sequence of events. I would guess Dr. Horn has a good enough reason to feel like he has a bur under his saddle. jmo

 

[pip]

You just said, "I think ME knows it was gun first but has to say knife first because of the casing being found on blood." You accused him of lying, saying something he knows to be untrue.

"Redefine his testimony" is a Jodiesque obfuscating answer, like talking about gripping vs. holding a knife.

He is not committing perjury by stating he would only be speculating if he tried to sequence the events... he has obviously changed his opinion though. Perjury? No. A change in report? Yup. He can interpret his findings any way he chooses to. Do I have to agree? No. Do I think it has changed? Yes.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I just realized you folks probably never fought with older brothers when you were growing up. That would be the only reason you would think a woman would attack an unimpaired man with a knife or be successful at it.
:twocents:

JMO

Was your brother naked in a shower, while you were striking at him with a knife?

 

[molly333]

Well, I have never fought off any woman striking me with a knife while I'm naked in a shower. Have you?

Let's put it this way. If her premeditated plan was to kill Travis with a knife when he was not sleeping, drugged, or tied up--she's an idiot. Even sleeping is iffy if she doesn't have medical training.

And, that has not been proven.

IMO

 

[LambChop]

I just realized you folks probably never fought with older brothers when you were growing up. That would be the only reason you would think a woman would attack an unimpaired man with a knife or be successful at it.
:twocents:

JMO

No, unlike other posters I prefer to listen to the testimony of the ME and if it sounds logical I accept his conclusion. What the ME stated makes sense to me. If someone on board is an expert in a certain field I respectfully read their post and apply what they have said to the situation. They, too, are often correct in what they post. It's not some illogical statement from Jodi that makes me think the gun came first. I am relying on the ME and what makes sense when he explains why he came to those conclusions. I'd never base my opinion 100% on something where there is no forensic evidence to support it. But that is just me.

 

[LambChop]

He is not committing perjury by stating he would only be speculating if he tried to sequence the events... he has obviously changed his opinion though. Perjury? No. A change in report? Yup. He can interpret his findings any way he chooses to. Do I have to agree? No. Do I think it has changed? Yes.

Where do you see he changed his report????? Where is there evidence he changed his opinion???? There is none. There is Det. Flores who admits he may have misunderstood the conversation he had with the doctor. ME did not change his testimony because the first time he had a deposition under oath is when he spoke of the gunshot not coming first. This is why defense is upset. The State at the time thought the gunshot was first because Flores misunderstood his conversation with the ME. It seems with the news articles on the AZ news site someone is always being shot. The ME's office must be very, very busy. It's possible the ME misspoke at the autopsy, it's possible Flores misunderstood. We will never know. But when an ME takes an oath he will have gone over his notes careful so he can give an accurate accounting because it is on the record. It's not the same as having an informal conversation with someone you can't even remember talking to. The ME basically has no reason to change his opinion because neither the State nor the defense knew he felt the stabbing came first. jmo

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Let's put it this way. If her premeditated plan was to kill Travis with a knife when he was not sleeping, drugged, or tied up--she's an idiot. Even sleeping is iffy if she doesn't have medical training.

And, that has not been proven.

IMO

That logic also goes against why she waited to shoot him.

But it's bad logic, because the roommates were home when she got there and he was never tied up. Plus, it's likely she was giving him one last chance to do what she wanted, take her to Cancun, etc. But he failed her test, so she did she what she did.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

He is not committing perjury by stating he would only be speculating if he tried to sequence the events... he has obviously changed his opinion though. Perjury? No. A change in report? Yup. He can interpret his findings any way he chooses to. Do I have to agree? No. Do I think it has changed? Yes.

Where does it say in the report that a gunshot was first?

 

[pip]

Where do you see he changed his report????? Where is there evidence he changed his opinion???? There is none. There is Det. Flores who admits he may have misunderstood the conversation he had with the doctor. ME did not change his testimony because the first time he had a deposition under oath is when he spoke of the gunshot not coming first. This is why defense is upset. The State at the time thought the gunshot was first because Flores misunderstood his conversation with the ME. It seems with the news articles on the AZ news site someone is always being shot. The ME's office must be very, very busy. It's possible the ME misspoke at the autopsy, it's possible Flores misunderstood. We will never know. But when an ME takes an oath he will have gone over his notes careful so he can give an accurate accounting because it is on the record. It's not the same as having an informal conversation with someone you can't even remember talking to. The ME basically has no reason to change his opinion because neither the State nor the defense knew he felt the stabbing came first. jmo

Asked and answered. His original written report and his verbal testimony. Two different versions.

 

[danzn16]

Not necessarily if knife is used first. At the end, she could have come to her senses after she slit his throat and thought, OMG he's suffering and shot him to end his suffering, with the gun that she didn't use first because it was not premeditated murder.

IMO

Yeah I don't think so. Maybe after 10 stabs she would think oh he's suffering if she was ever going to. Not after 27 and a slit throat. There is no compassion possible at all here.

 

[danzn16]

He probably went to the ME and said you have no business concluding that the GSW came first because of the casing found on the blood at the scene... Juan decided to go with the knife first theory because of that damn (displaced) casing so he made the ME take back his gun first statement based on that evidence at the scene. So... ME took it back. Knife first. I think ME knows it was gun first but has to say knife first because of the casing being found on blood.

The ME only goes by evidence of the body. The casing would not factor in here. Changing his medical opinion based on what the lawyer told him could cause him to loose his license.

 

[danzn16]

What's your point? Are you saying a man stabbed him?

Yes I'm wondering the same question. Also where did you get info about that women typically stab downward and men stab upward? Can we get a link?