Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[danzn16]

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/neurobotics/private/124.asp

http://www.msichicago.org/scrapbook/scrapbook_exhibits/bodyworlds/gallery.html

Not out of the medical books but basically how the brain sits inside the skull

Thanks for the anatomical pictures, I think they help a lot. The only thing is that we do not know the ages of these people and ones a model. I posted my own MRI earlier in the thread because I am very close in age to TA and I felt that would be more representative. So ill post it again. Remember the shot was above the brow so it is above the bump that is above my eye socket. This area is even more flush with the skull. The area less flush is where my eyes are and where my brow is. This isn't where TA was shot.

 

[danzn16]

Also the dura mater is attached to the skull. It was such a pain removing it from our cadavers in anatomy lab. And the dark areas between the skull and the brain is the dural sinus where major venous supplies lie. So all important structures. Just making everyone aware that its not just air there or a space with nothing.

 

[Whisperer]

He says it in the autopsy report under the general section, NERVOUS SYSTEM.

http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/redactedtravisautopsy.pdf


dura mater and falx cerebri are intact.

There is good preservation of cerebral symmetry with diffuse green-gray softening of parenchyma due to decomposition.

Multiple sections of autolyzed brain do not reveal the presence of grossly apparent trauma, foreign bodies, or previously existing natural disease.

"The wound track perforates the anterior frontal skull near the superior orbital bone and tranverses the right anterior fossa, without gross evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage or apparent cerebral injury...
"without...apparent cerebral injury.."
IMO

The reason is that there was no blood to see any injury. If it went through the skull, it hit the brain. Dura matter was intact. The brain was inact. He is saying he doesn't see the trauma.

He could not see the injury to the brain because there was no blood at the site. The brain is very soft tissue... It did pass through on its way to the cheek. through because they have the trajectory. The brain is very squiggley, almost mushy. No gross trauma seen because there was no hemorrhage...due to lack of blood circulating.

 

[danzn16]

Goodness I was relooking at autopsy photos to see TAs face and if there was a picture of the GSW. The site I looked at had pics of the stab wounds that I had not seen before. They are monstrous! Left gaping holes!! My god poor baby! I hope Jodi BURNS!

 

[LambChop]

Goodness I was relooking at autopsy photos to see TAs face and if there was a picture of the GSW. The site I looked at had pics of the stab wounds that I had not seen before. They are monstrous! Left gaping holes!! My god poor baby! I hope Jodi BURNS!

I know. I the general scheme of things gunshot/stab wound after the first there is no reason for Jodi to have gone further. She could have gotten away from him easily. Those injuries are horrific. jmo

 

[wasnt_me]

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

The answer I have for you is because she duct taped his hands while he was sitting in the shower. She went in to cut the duct tape with a knife, just like she said they did with the "rope," and Travis charged her. That left her only option being stabbing him.

I personally believe she had him turn his back during pictures. She pulled out the gun. He turned around and saw it and got the "Oh, crap" look on his face. She made him sit down, wrap the tape around his wrist, but to cut the roll off, she had to switch the gun for the knife. That's when I think Travis charged her like a linebacker. She stabbed him, he fell into the sink area, maybe the gun got kicked somewhere.

But this is my theory on why the piece of duct tape was there and why she resorted to stabbing, even though she had premeditated bringing the gun.

I think no crime is perfectly planned. Her resorting to a knife when she brought a gun does NOT mean she didn't premeditate a killing. It just means she had to change her pre-planned strategy.

 

[LambChop]

The answer I have for you is because she duct taped his hands while he was sitting in the shower. She went in to cut the duct tape with a knife, just like she said they did with the "rope," and Travis charged her. That left her only option being stabbing him.

I personally believe she had him turn his back during pictures. She pulled out the gun. He turned around and saw it and got the "Oh, crap" look on his face. She made him sit down, wrap the tape around his wrist, but to cut the roll off, she had to switch the gun for the knife. That's when I think Travis charged her like a linebacker. She stabbed him, he fell into the sink area, maybe the gun got kicked somewhere.

But this is my theory on why the piece of duct tape was there and why she resorted to stabbing, even though she had premeditated bringing the gun.

I think no crime is perfectly planned. Her resorting to a knife when she brought a gun does NOT mean she didn't premeditate a killing. It just means she had to change her pre-planned strategy.

The duct tape was never introduced into evidence, was it????

 

[wasnt_me]

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

So, Because a knife was used first, you then believe they suddenly started fighting in the shower and a knife "just happened" to be there unplanned and she used it to stab him? Then she went and got a gun from "somewhere" and over killed him?

I disbelieve that just because she brought a gun but had to, out of whatever necessity of the moment, use the knife first means that she didn't premeditate it. I Believe the evidence shows she brought her grandparents' gun.

She would have gotten off better not to have stolen it and said she was carrying said gun for safety on such a long trip. Then, premeditation might be harder to prove. But instead, this gun was reported stolen. She's trying to say Travis had a .25 gun, too, which she defended herself with. These lies seem transparent, and they seem like first degree murder.

 

[molly333]

The reason is that there was no blood to see any injury. If it went through the skull, it hit the brain. Dura matter was intact. The brain was inact. He is saying he doesn't see the trauma.

He could not see the injury to the brain because there was no blood at the site. The brain is very soft tissue... It did pass through on its way to the cheek. through because they have the trajectory. The brain is very squiggley, almost mushy. No gross trauma seen because there was no hemorrhage...due to lack of blood circulating.

In the autopsy report he says no injury can be seen with either the eye or under the microscope with the slides, no trauma, no apparent injury, cerebrum are intact and symmetrical, dura mater intact.

On the stand he says [my words] it went through the right frontal lobe, it had to have gone through the right frontal lobe, he tells the defense the brain is liquified and then oh, right, I made slides, well, as best I could, yes I sliced through brain to make slides, and he could not have had defensive wounds after the brain injury, it is fatal, well, less fatal than the wound to the neck and the wound to the chest, well, he would have been unconscious, or quickly unconscious, it would be speculation to say what order the injuries came in, yes the brain injury could be last.

WTH?! If the bullet went through the right frontal lobe and he is so sure of it. why is it he doesn't mention the frontal lobe on the autopsy? Why does he say no injury to the brain that can be seen by eye or slide? Why does he say dura mater is intact?

Maybe he can't remember because it was ten years ago?

Does anyone [medical professional] here think that head wound, frontal lobe or no frontal lobe, would have been fatal all by itself?

IMO

 

[wasnt_me]

The duct tape was never introduced into evidence, was it????

I dont know but it was sure in their pictures. What is another explanation for it? and one that would also explain how the knife got into play?

I personally see no reason for her to set out to use two weapons. So the fact that two came into play, a knife in the bathroom no less, means that the knife had to get up there somehow. She had to choose to use both weapons for some reason. I believe the choice came out of necessity. And I don't believe she could have controlled Travis without binding him. She probably already knew how he said he'd react if he had another gun in his face, too, so maybe that helped in formulating her plan.

I'm just speculating, but I can't get the duct tape out of my mind, and I believe she tried to bind him and cut the tape, which led to the first stab in his chest and the spray on the mirror and sink.

 

[wilsodh]

I listened to Dr. Horn's testimony again. He said the bullet went through the frontal lobe (brain). He would have immediately been knocked unconscious. There was no blood hemmorhage from the entry point indicating all blood had been drained from the head prior to shooting.

The frontal lobe is located at your forehead. It is above your eyes. When they do lobe surgery, they remove the eye to get to that location. So it is very close. He could not have been walking around after a GSW in the forehead.

:facepalm:

Jeez. We keep going around and around on this. Frontal lobes are not critical for sustaining life, and small caliber damage to the frontal lobes (if there WAS any damage... I think there is some reasonable doubt about this) is the mildest gunshot injury to the brain. If you would like to read some proof sources on this, please see post #269. We even have one member of Websleuths who worked in ER in South Miami who offered some perspective on this some pages back in this tread. Yes, you CAN sustain a GSW to the frontal lobes and continue to walk around. Depending on the severity and location of the injury, the survivor will likely have some long term disabilities (language, communication, emotions).

Gunshot wounds to the brain are generally a serious and deadly injury, but clearly we can't rule out that Travis was able to function in the minutes following the such a wound at the outset of the attack. Horn is a ME and was out of his expertise speculating about this.

As for the hemorrhaging, this is going to depend on numerous variables, and frankly I don't have a great deal of confidence in Horn's assessment. I don't think anyone, including Horn, has said his observations are definitive.

Dave

 

[molly333]

So, Because a knife was used first, you then believe they suddenly started fighting in the shower and a knife "just happened" to be there unplanned and she used it to stab him? Then she went and got a gun from "somewhere" and over killed him?

I disbelieve that just because she brought a gun but had to, out of whatever necessity of the moment, use the knife first means that she didn't premeditate it. I Believe the evidence shows she brought her grandparents' gun.

She would have gotten off better not to have stolen it and said she was carrying said gun for safety on such a long trip. Then, premeditation might be harder to prove. But instead, this gun was reported stolen. She's trying to say Travis had a .25 gun, too, which she defended herself with. These lies seem transparent, and they seem like first degree murder.

First, I don't believe anything she said. But, you have a much tighter case for premeditation if she uses the gun first to kill him. And, then the gun jams. The State wants us to believe he was already dead when she shot him.

So, yes, the gun could be for safety. She did her typical lying thing about it. They got into a fight and she grabbed the knife [used to cut the rope] to protect herself [this should have been her defense if you ask me]. Then takes the gun out of her purse to put him out of his misery when it is all over.

If you say knife first, that is certainly plausible.

I feel sorry for this Jury.

IMO

 

[wilsodh]

If you look in the sink, there are these huge drops of blood just falling into the sink and the edge of the sink. You can almost see his head bent over the sink and blood pouring out of his mouth and nose.

That's coming from a seriously bleeding wound [the head wound], it's not coughed up blood..

The coughed blood is the mist behind the sink and on the mirror.

IMO

I agree. Looking at the drops of blood on the sink, I could easily imagine this coming from a bleeding head wound or out of his nose from a busted sinus as he props himself up and is somewhat bent over. I have a harder time imaging these drops coming from a chest wound. Blood might enter the lungs and be coughed up, but I'm not sure I see the rapid dripping from this type of wound that is seen around the sink.

Dave

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

The answer I have for you is because she duct taped his hands while he was sitting in the shower. She went in to cut the duct tape with a knife, just like she said they did with the "rope," and Travis charged her. That left her only option being stabbing him.

I personally believe she had him turn his back during pictures. She pulled out the gun. He turned around and saw it and got the "Oh, crap" look on his face. She made him sit down, wrap the tape around his wrist, but to cut the roll off, she had to switch the gun for the knife. That's when I think Travis charged her like a linebacker. She stabbed him, he fell into the sink area, maybe the gun got kicked somewhere.

But this is my theory on why the piece of duct tape was there and why she resorted to stabbing, even though she had premeditated bringing the gun.

I think no crime is perfectly planned. Her resorting to a knife when she brought a gun does NOT mean she didn't premeditate a killing. It just means she had to change her pre-planned strategy.

You got all that out a piece of duct tape? Quite the imagination.

 

[wasnt_me]

First, I don't believe anything she said. But, you have a much tighter case for premeditation if she uses the gun first to kill him. And, then the gun jams. The State wants us to believe he was already dead when she shot him.

So, yes, the gun could be for safety. She did her typical lying thing about it. They got into a fight and she grabbed the knife [used to cut the rope] to protect herself [this should have been her defense if you ask me]. Then takes the gun out of her purse to put him out of his misery when it is all over.

If you say knife first, that is certainly plausible.

I feel sorry for this Jury.

IMO

At times, I have to remind myself not to believe her, but it's so hard when her narrative is the only one we know. We do know it's not true, but I can't help using it to base my theories of the truth upon. Some people on WS don't even believe they had sex. Some don't even believe she arrive at 4am. These might be small details I take for granted as true.

Jodi is the type of person who would say, "Depends upon what the definition of "is" is," so we really can't trust her to be truthful or even have a truthful perception of events if she happened to be trying to tell the truth.

I see that clearly when she refused to say she "enjoyed" the pigtails and candy sex, though she clearly sounds as if she had in the sex tape. She wanted to word play as if she had a secret synonym in her head for "enjoy."

Anyway, talking about her is getting me off track.

For me, looking at the gun stolen story, the bizarre trip through California, the gas cans, upside down license plate, roommates not seeing her rental, all the calls to Travis the night before her trip and up till Pasadena, the gas cans, and the fact that she is unseen in AZ, unseen by Travis' roommates, all lead me to premeditation whether it was knife or gun. We really can't get into her mind to know that she didn't plan to use both weapons and didn't bring both.

If she lied about using Travis' gun, she can lie about using his knife or even his toilet as far as I'm concerned. I do feel sorry for this jury, too.

 

[wasnt_me]

You got all that out a piece of duct tape? Quite the imagination.

Okay, that sounded like an insult. I'm really not trying to be insulted. Just trying to join in and talk like everyone else.

 

[geevee]

If anyone knew how nutso she was, Travis did, I doubt he'd ever let her bind his hands, esp. if she has a gun, he'd make the first defensive move he could to keep from being bound and at her lunatic mercy.

I never saw the duct tape being entered into evidence either and that surprised me, maybe the prosec. couldn't find a logical way it fit with any evidence to prove it.

 

[danzn16]

Was it just the one piece of duct tape on TAs arm in the bed pic? Or was it larger than that duct tape arm cuff thing? I haven't seen a photo of it or can't remember it

 

[Applejack]

First, I don't believe anything she said. But, you have a much tighter case for premeditation if she uses the gun first to kill him. And, then the gun jams. The State wants us to believe he was already dead when she shot him.

So, yes, the gun could be for safety. She did her typical lying thing about it. They got into a fight and she grabbed the knife [used to cut the rope] to protect herself [this should have been her defense if you ask me]. Then takes the gun out of her purse to put him out of his misery when it is all over.

If you say knife first, that is certainly plausible.

I feel sorry for this Jury.

IMO

Let's be clear.

The jury does not need to know the exact sequence of events in order to find her guilty of 1st degree.

Either way, she killed him 3 times over, no matter which order all the wounds were inflicted. Self defense is absurd.

The state only needs to prove premeditation, which they have done.

A defense of "I stabbed him 29 times and slit his throat in self defense then shot him to put him out of his misery" is even more ridiculous than her current story. Firstly it's still overkill, second she has not described a reasonable fear for her life, and third you don't get to decide to "put someone out of their misery" instead of calling 911.

This case is very simple no matter how much irrelevant crap she tries to throw into the mix.

 

[Applejack]

The duct tape was small. He had it around his bicep (i believe for a step-counter or something?) in one of the photos recovered from the camera. In the shower you can see the mark from it still, after he removed it. It wasn't admitted because it likely had nothing to do with the crime.