Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[AndreaBingham]

Well, maybe a few medical examiners giving their opinion have been wrong before. Have you ever seen someone with a limb/nail/spike/arrow/etc that snicks their brain but they are able to move at least?

The lead investigator sure believed the shot was first... he said so.

For reference, everything I'm about to explain can be found here:

Jodi Arias murder trial day 3. Please be warned, very graphic photos. Medical examiner on stand. - YouTube

1. In the above link, you will find the ME's very clear, concise, easy to understand explanation of why the bullet wound is different from an injury from an arrow.

Furthermore, whether TA could move or not after the bullet injury is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with why the ME is so positive that the bullet wound could not have occurred first.

I'm not sure if I can put it more simply than the ME did, but I'll try.

1. Bullet wounds like TA's cause X amount of bleeding.
2. If bullet wounds like TA's DON'T cause X amount of bleeding, it is for one of two reasons.
3. Possibility one: TA was dead at the time of the shooting. (TA was shot last)
4. Possibility two: TA had lost too much blood from his other injuries to lose X amount of blood from the bullet wound. (TA was shot last)
5. Possibility three: TA was shot first does not exist.

If this is not compelling enough for you, the medical examiner also explains:

1. Defensive wounds cause X amount of bleeding, which is less than the X amount of bleeding caused by bullet wounds.
2. If the defensive wounds bleed MORE than the bullet wound, then the defensive wounds had to come BEFORE the bullet wounds. (TA was shot
last)

Because this is not rocket science, I'm not sure why this is even a debate.

 

[dgfred]

Thanks for trying... but it must be rocket science to me.

How is he going to know how much blood came from that head wound... if the heart or neck wound followed shortly thereafter and the body was washed in the shower for a period of time? IMO he doesn't.

How is he going to know what percentage of the blood on the sink, in the hall or bathroom is from one certain wound. IMO he doesn't.

ALL he states is HIS medical opinion.

Wonder why the lead investigator thinks he was shot first? Don't you?

 

[dgfred]

Debates are what message boards are all about... and opinions.

 

[dgfred]

Maybe best thing would be to describe how a female would think that a stab to the heart would work better to kill/disable a healthy male instead of a gunshot to the head.

Next would be to explain why she would take a gun... but use a knife.

 

[Ammonitida]

I've started going over the medical examiner's testimony again and in particular the cross examination of him to piece together the details that could form Jodi's current version of the murder. I've found some interesting details that others may not have caught.

1. Jodi is going to claim on the stand that the bullet came first in the sequence of events (and from a far distance) or at the very least she is going to directly contradict the state's contention that it came last. I say this because on cross, Wilmot tried but failed to get the ME to concede that the gunshot would not have been immediately incapacitating. She acted very desperate during this line of questioning but the ME was adamant in his opinion that the gunshot came after the defensive wounds and would have induced either immediate death or unconsciousness. He would not budge.

2. The gunshot did not render him unconscious. She will likely claim that Travis pinned her on the floor after this event, choking her, and during this time somehow obtained a knife and stabbed him in the back repeatedly by swinging her arm over his side area and into his back. In other words, the back wounds were made while she was facing Travis from the front. Wilmot makes this very clear in her cross examination. I'm still not sure about the stab wound to the heart and how it plays in yet.

3. The most disturbing part -- the throat slashing. During cross, almost nothing about this injury was mentioned, except for Wilmot's attempt to push back the time of this event to after that photo of Travis bleeding on the floor.
But Juan Martinez, however, said something very bizarre during direct, asking the ME (real handsome man by the way, just had to say) about "hesitation marks" to the neck. This led to a discussion about attempted suicides by throat cutting. This made me recall a discussion at the Jodi support forum about a theory of the crime involving the Mormon act of Endowment. This act requires a throat slashed from ear to ear. We know that Juan has access to defense documents that the public doesn't, like her statements made to the DV expert. Did she tell him or her that Travis cut his own throat? And did Juan ask these questions about hesitation marks to counter Jodi's upcoming testimony about the throat injury?

 

[littlemisslegal]

Did they say how big the knife was? just curious. Thanks

in the email letters she wrote him she used the words double edged sword or something to that effect. ironic she alluded to to his death before it happened . it was creepy reading this knowing a knife was used to end his life. also i was surprised to read how intelligent her wording sounded. she is a good writer and i suppose her play of sex would sell if she was to write it before all this happened. you can bet she will write a story and be a millionare if shes not convicted! she could have gone to a shelter if abused and no where to go - she was not married needed no divorce needed. did she never consider an injunction if this was true abuse? no- she leaves and comes back - she then has sex and take pics and stab him.

 

[Pink Panther]

Does anyone have any theories as to why the clear plastic cup was there?

 

[Softail]

For reference, everything I'm about to explain can be found here:

Because this is not rocket science, I'm not sure why this is even a debate.

** snipped for space

Thanks for posting this. I missed this portion when the ME testified. :seeya:

 

[Sustained]

I'm of the opinion that JA shot Travis first while sitting in the shower, wounding him but not fatally. When looking at the shower from the front, the door opens to the left. I believe JA is left-handed if her court scribblings are any indication. For her to stab TA with the knife in her left hand would require a backhanded type motion and a lot of luck with the location unless she waited for Travis to leave the shower. But I do firmly believe that JA planned the shower attack to limit TA's escape route and defensive abilities.

I believe after the shot that Travis, still alive but bleeding, crawled out of the shower and collapsed in an attempt to escape and the knife attacks ensued to his back and head. In fact the dragging pic shows blood streaming down his right neck area possibly indicated blood from the gunshot. Travis got up and kept trying to get down the hall to the sink and at that point she thrust the knife into his chest, slicing the vena cava. Travis got up near the sink and was spurting blood, explaining the spatter on and around the sink. JA was still stabbing away at this point and Travis was getting weaker. IMO, he spent his last breath crawling back toward the shower area where JA rolled him over and cut his throat causing the massive blood stain in the hall.

She then waits for a sign of life, sees none, and then drags him into the shower for cleanup.

I'm not sure how the bullet casing fell on top of some of the blood spatter, unless the gun jammed and it fell out as JA was following him toward the sink.

 

[Softail]

Based on this video (at about 27:30), and thinking there is a little bit of truth in everything she says - I tend to think he was shot first.

Jodi Arias Documentary-(In her own words) 48 Hours - YouTube

 

[danzn16]

For all those that believe JA shot TA'S first because you believe their are truths she tells (lol) or because it makes sense because that's what a rational person would do to take out someone larger (remember she's a psycho), how do you explain the little blood in his cranial cavity?

 

[lil_buddy]

So has anyone given consideration to stab, gun shot, stab, throat slash?

 

[AndreaBingham]

Thanks for trying... but it must be rocket science to me.

How is he going to know how much blood came from that head wound... if the heart or neck wound followed shortly thereafter and the body was washed in the shower for a period of time? IMO he doesn't.

The short answer: Because he is a medical examiner who has performed 6000 autopsies.

The more complicated, more graphic answer: He opened up TA's head and looked inside his brain, where he should have found X amount of bleeding but did not.

How is he going to know what percentage of the blood on the sink, in the hall or bathroom is from one certain wound. IMO he doesn't.

He doesn't have to know this. He isn't a crime scene analyst, he is a medical examiner. He didn't come to his conclusion by looking at the crime scene, he came to it by literally investigating the body.

Even without being an experienced medical examiner, we can all see that his defensive wounds were bleeding X amount. Since that amount exceeds the amount of bleeding the ME observed in the brain, TA was shot last.

ALL he states is HIS medical opinion.

Don't you believe that if there was a DIFFERENT medical "opinion" to be had, the defense would have brought their own expert to testify? This is my point. This is so black and white, there is no room for argument.

Wonder why the lead investigator thinks he was shot first? Don't you?

Not really. The lead investigator is not a medical examiner.

Debates are what message boards are all about... and opinions.

But this just isn't a topic that's open for "opinions". The other "theory" is a physical impossibility.

Maybe best thing would be to describe how a female would think that a stab to the heart would work better to kill/disable a healthy male instead of a gunshot to the head.

Next would be to explain why she would take a gun... but use a knife.

These are irrelevant questions because they are merely speculation as opposed to the compelling science provided by the ME. But, generally, I'd say JA stabbed TA to cause him more pain. Stabbings are usually more "personal" and more typically used in rage killings when the murderer believes the victim has wronged them. The gun may have been used for back up. Also, she may have feared the noise from the gunshot.

 

[AndreaBingham]

I'm of the opinion that JA shot Travis first while
sitting in the shower, wounding him but not fatally.

Then how do you explain away the minimal bleeding from the bullet wound and the defensive wounds to his hands? (The ME testifies he would have been incapacitated after the gunshot wound)

I believe after the shot that Travis, still alive but bleeding, crawled out of the shower and collapsed in an attempt to escape and the knife attacks ensued to his back and head.

Are you a medical examiner who can dispute what the ME who examined the body claims, which is that TA would have been unable to move around after the bullet wound?

In fact the dragging pic shows blood streaming down his right neck area possibly indicated blood from the gunshot.

No. Blood from the gunshot did not exist to this extent, because TA was shot LAST and there wasn't enough blood to provide to the injury. But in this picture, you are seeing the gash to his neck which is bleeding profusely.

Travis got up and kept trying to get down the hall to the sink and at that point she thrust the knife into his chest, slicing the vena cava. Travis got up near the sink and was spurting blood, explaining the spatter on and around the sink.

So how're you explaining TA moving around despite the gunshot wound that would have incapacitated him, based on the opinion of someone who actually knows what they're talking about like the ME?

JA was still stabbing away at this point and Travis was getting weaker. IMO, he spent his last breath crawling back toward the shower area where JA rolled him over and cut his throat causing the massive blood stain in the hall.

In 6000 autosopies, TA must have been the first to put up such a fight after a gunshot wound which should have rendered him motionless! :what:

I'm not sure how the bullet casing fell on top of some of the blood spatter, unless the gun jammed and it fell out as JA was following him toward the sink.

I have to wonder, if you have this many things to "explain away", you might consider dropping the absurd notion that TA was shot first?

 

[AndreaBingham]

After re-watching the video I posted, I realized it did not contain the cross examination. I'm posting it here as a source to my posts as to not leave them un-sourced. In other words, I was paraphrasing the ME's testimony as opposed to offering my own "opinion". . .and I want everyone to know where I got it from. My posts reflect both the direct and cross examination, not just the direct.

Jodi Arias Murder Trial day 3 part 3. Please be warned, very graphic photos. ME on stand. - YouTube

 

[dgfred]

I don't agree, but I will agree to disagree with no hard feelings

How much (X) blood is going to be in the cranium anyway from a bullet that barely penetrates it? There was no way for him to know exactly (he said himself) due to decomposition. That shot went from just above his EYEBROW to his LEFT Jaw. It didn't even have enough power to exit the face. It doesn't matter to me anyway regarding her guilt. I just like to think about it. What would a normal person do, or even a psycho... bring a gun and shoot their victim? Or just bring it just in case? It makes more sense to me that even a psycho would chose a gun to take out a healthy male (in the shower or not) over a stab to the chest.

I think there wasn't so much blood in the skull, and possibly the spray at the sink is from the wound thru the sinus and the bullet stuck in the jaw. It looked like that from the moment I saw it. It goes from the edge to the mirror. IMO spray from a chest wound would not do that. If the ME considered the blood spray at the scene... would that change his opinion at all?

Another thing is the defense may WANT for him to have been shot last... I don't know.

They don't have to argue it too much anyway IMO... she admitted killing him. They can already show the difference between the ME and the lead investigator.

 

[dgfred]

There are many examples of bullets (even ones of much higher caliber)/arrows/spikes/tree limbs/etc and on and on that have penetrated the brain WAY more than that bullet did and the person was not incapacitated to the extent that they couldn't stagger to the sink from that range.
Are links necessary or do you just want everyone to think they are stupid for even considering it?

 

[AndreaBingham]

I don't agree, but I will agree to disagree with no hard feelings

How much (X) blood is going to be in the cranium anyway from a bullet that barely penetrates it?

I agree, no hard feelings.

I'm not sure what X amount of blood is, which is why I described it as X amount of blood. The medical examiner has performed 6000 autopsies, however, and should know what X amount of blood is.

In the second video I posted (sorry for not posting it with my original post) you can hear the ME discuss it with JW. But he states with confidence that the bullet HAD to have passed through the frontal lobe because it DID pass through a part of the skull containing this part of the brain.

Please observe JW asking the same sort of questions that you are asking and his responses. (Again, sorry for not posting sooner)

It doesn't matter to me anyway regarding her guilt. I just like to think about it. What would a normal person do, or even a psycho... bring a gun and shoot their victim? Or just bring it just in case? It makes more sense to me that even a psycho would chose a gun to take out a healthy male (in the shower or not) over a stab to the chest.

It just so happens that, in this case, your theory is a physical impossibility.

I think there wasn't so much blood in the skull, and possibly the spray at the sink is from the wound thru the sinus and the bullet stuck in the jaw. It looked like that from the moment I saw it. It goes from the edge to the mirror. IMO spray from a chest wound would not do that. If the ME considered the blood spray at the scene... would that change his opinion at all?

He is a MEDICAL EXAMINER not a crime scene investigator. He is testifying to what is and what is not a physical impossibility, nothing else.

Another thing is the defense may WANT for him to have been shot last... I don't know.

No, they want him to be shot first.

They don't have to argue it too much anyway IMO... she admitted killing him. They can already show the difference between the ME and the lead investigator.

It makes a big difference, actually. If he was shot first, then continued to attack her, she can justify the "overkill" like this. But it was a physical impossibility for this to happen.

There are many examples of bullets (even ones of much higher caliber)/arrows/spikes/tree limbs/etc and on and on that have penetrated the brain WAY more than that bullet did and the person was not incapacitated to the extent that they couldn't stagger to the sink from that range.
Are links necessary or do you just want everyone to think they are stupid for even considering it?

Please refer to the second video I posted where JW raises this possibility.

The ME states unequivocally that it is not a possibility.

Paraphrasing, it is an impossibility because of the part of the brain through which the bullet passed and the expanding gases associated, etc.

 

[dgfred]

I listened to it all. I got the impression from him (decomposition) and the photos of the trajectory he could not be positively sure how much blood was in the brain. He could also not tell exactly because of decomposition how much of the brain was damaged.

IMO I do not see him completely incapacitated by that wound... in fact if the gun would not fire again I think she would have HAD to find another way to kill him (which she was entirely prepared for).

There is ENTIRELY no reason to shoot him (noise) if he has already been stabbed 29 times and had his throat slit. Not even a psychopath is gonna do that IMO.

Why bring a gun in the first place in your opinion?

 

[dgfred]

If you line up the eybrow/forehead wound to the left jaw where the bullet ended up it is easy to see that not much of the brain would have been struck IMO. At most it would have 'snicked' the brain and most of the damage would have been due to shock IMO.

If I was a juror... that would have been where I asked some more questions of the ME.
Not for guilt purposes... only because I am curious.

I like to question things even the experts state. That is why I am here. Seeking.