Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[RealityMan]

I read the the decomposition of the brain tissue being an issue for determining how much damage was done to the Cerebrum, and has nothing to do with his abity to determine whether there was intercranial bleeding. The linings on the interior of the skull would bleed and the vessels in the brain would bleed. The qualifier is about the cerebral injuries.

I don't think the ME is qualifying only part of his findings about the gunshot wound (e.g., the cerebral injury) with the statement that "the examination of the brain tissue is somewhat limited by the decomposed nature of the remains."

The full sentence is "The wound track perforates the anterior frontal skull near the superior orbital bone and traverses the right anterior foss, without gross evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage or apparent cerebral injury (although examination of brain tissue is somewhat limited by the decomposed nature of the remains)."

Thus, the report indicates it is not just his finding that there is no gross evidence of "cerebral injury," but also his finding that there is no gross evidence of "significant intracranial hemorrhage" that is limited by the decomposed nature of the remains.

 

[danzn16]

However, consider the opinion of pathologist Dr. Carol Terry, who said "If soon after receiving this gunshot wound, Mr. Alexander sustained a more significant injury that results in loss of blood, such as that cut across the neck or the stab wound of the heart, there might not be whole lot of blood flowing up to the head to allow more bleeding into those soft tissues." http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/01/22/what-really-killed-travis-alexander.

We know from the photos that there was a maximum of one minute and 46 seconds between the initial blow and the final knife slash across the neck.

I guess she just forgot about those dang vertebral arteries to the basilar artery that supplies approximately 1/3 of the blood to the head. I guess those just wouldn't supply blood to the brain during the time after a gunshot to his heart stopped beating. ??? Or the blood already in the brain. Makes absolutely no sense.

 

[RealityMan]

I guess she just forgot about those dang vertebral arteries to the basilar artery that supplies approximately 1/3 of the blood to the head. I guess those just wouldn't supply blood to the brain during the time after a gunshot to his heart stopped beating. ??? Or the blood already in the brain. Makes absolutely no sense.

Is it your position that the "decomposed nature of the remains" has no bearing on the ME's finding that there was no gross evidence of "significant intracranial hemorrhage?"

 

[wilsodh]

If you accept that he was shot first in the shower, then there would have been at least several seconds from the gunshot to the head to the slashing of the throat or the stab to the chest. That would allow plenty of time for the head wound to bleed. The stab to the heart was life threatening if he didn't get medical attention. So, if she shot him first, then stabbed him in the chest, he could still get to the hospital and survive. This implies that there would still be some blood flow to the brain as it would take a few minutes to lose consciousness, which is usually due to lack of oxygen getting to the brain. As more and more blood was lost through the Vena Cava, there would be less blood to be sent to the brain and eventually he would lose consciousness. The body's first priority is maintaining brain health, so as long as their is blood to send to the brain (and a path to get it there), the body will shunt blood to the brain. The throat cutting was a significant injury and would have lead to sudden and quick blood loss, but you had some where in the range of a minute between the two wounds. The head would would have bleed plenty.

I read the the decomposition of the brain tissue being an issue for determining how much damage was done to the Cerebrum, and has nothing to do with his abity to determine whether there was intercranial bleeding. The linings on the interior of the skull would bleed and the vessels in the brain would bleed. The qualifier is about the cerebral injuries. The path of the bullet made it impossible for it to miss the frontal lobe, but he could not determine how much damage was done secondary to the decomp of the brain. The blood vessels and blood would have been a different consistency and would not have decayed as quickly as the brain tissue. The blood vessels and blood from the other wounds had not decayed to the point that he could not determine if those wounds bled, why would the ones in the brain be different?

To my mind, you are putting more certainty into this evidence than actually exists. You and others keep citing the intercranial bleeding as the major evidence of a knife-first attack. However the report leaves doubt as to the ability to firmly ascertain the extent of bleeding or even if the brain was, in fact, penetrated by the bullet. For example, elsewhere it is stated that the dura was intact. I'm not sure how this is reconciled with a bullet piercing the frontal lobe(s). It was also impossible to confirm any bullet trajectory through the brain by examination of the decomposed brain tissue. So one is left to invoke anatomy and make a probabilistic inference on likelihood based on the bullet's apparent trajectory through Travis' face.

My read on this is that there is a lot of uncertainty around Horn's observations and opinions in general, as there would likely be with any ME given the nature of the wound and the decomposition of the body. Nothing here sounds black and white and iron clad with respect to the physical evidence to the exclusion of alternative possibilities. One would hope that he would have presented the uncertainty accurately to the jury, but I smell some bias toward the state's position. Just my olfactory sense! :beagle:

Dave

 

[danzn16]

Here's an interesting analysis of the knife wounds by Joseph Scott Morgan (posted yesterday):

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/03/...ressive-highlights?clusterId=1303#videoplayer

He says the gunshot wound came last. But I disagree, of course.

I just see a video about whether JM is too harsh as a prosecutor to JA or not?

 

[RealityMan]

I just see a video about whether JM is too harsh as a prosecutor to JA or not?

Darn, the content at that URL has changed. Here's the direct link to the video I was referring to:

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/03/18/jodi-arias-travis-alexander-autopsy-results

 

[molly333]

So, her changing her mind on how she intended to kill him suddenly nullifies her intent to murder?

For Muder I, all that has to be shown is that she went to AZ with the intent to kill Travis. All of the evidence stacks up to show that she tried to get into and out of AZ without anyone knowing she was going to or had been at his house when he was murdered. She took steps well before she left Pasadena to ensure as much secrecy as possible about her trip to Travis' home. It is the intent to take a life that matters, not how that life is taken. She has admitted to killing him. The only question that matters to the Murder I conviction is whether she went there with the intent to kill him. She did use a knife to kill him, but she also used the gun on him during the commission of his murder, so which came first is really a pointless debate (but is a rather enjoyable one as nobody is getting nasty about the differences of opinion). My guess is that we will not hear much more about with sequence of the injuries.

Why did she change methods? Maybe she did shoot him first and it didn't work like she thought it would. Maybe she got there in the bathroom and thought the element of surprise of using the knife would be a better plan. Maybe she had both options (as the knife wounds don't match his knives), available, but picked the knife to finish the job. Only she can tell you why she did what she did, if it isn't buried under too many lies for her to remember the truth at this point. Trying to figure her actions out will only give you a headache.

Circumstantial evidence is only as strong as its weakest link. I see you recognize this because when confronted with why did she steal a gun to use a knife you say, --maybe she didn't, maybe she used the gun first.

Isn't that my point? You have no circumstantial case if you insist on knife first.

Your 'knife is better for the element of surprise theory' needs work.

IMO

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Circumstantial evidence is only as strong as its weakest link.

You got that backwards. Circumstantial proof is about the totality of evidence, not a single piece.

 

[molly333]

You got that backwards. Circumstantial proof is about the totality of evidence, not a single piece.

No I don't think I have it backwards.

You are linking together pieces of evidence where each piece could be construed for guilt or innocence. You are supposed to always look for the innocent explanation, because we have the presumption of innocence in this country. However, as each piece adds to the next, pointing consistently to guilt, as they do here, then there becomes an overwhelming body of evidence that can only be read one way--guilty--unless the kingpin piece, the capstone, so to speak, points towards innocence. Then the whole thing crumbles.

That is why her using a knife first destroys all the circumstantial evidence that came before it pointing to premeditated murder with a gun. Now we can go back and look again at all the innocent explanations for each piece of circumstantial evidence, because, obviously, we were wrong.

It's like if you think your boyfriend is cheating on you and you find an unknown woman sending him text messages to meet with him, and you follow him, and you see them talking and laughing together, and he kisses her on the cheek and hugs her, and now you know! You have all this circumstantial evidence pointing to his being guilty of cheating on you. Until you find out she's his first cousin.

IMO

 

[zaza]

I agree this is a good point for the knife first theory.

However, consider the opinion of pathologist Dr. Carol Terry, who said "If soon after receiving this gunshot wound, Mr. Alexander sustained a more significant injury that results in loss of blood, such as that cut across the neck or the stab wound of the heart, there might not be whole lot of blood flowing up to the head to allow more bleeding into those soft tissues." http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/01/22/what-really-killed-travis-alexander.

We know from the photos that there was a maximum of one minute and 46 seconds between the initial blow and the final knife slash across the neck.

Also, according to Mark Fuhrman, Dr. Michael Baden, who presumably reviewed the autopsy report, believes the gun shot came first.

And, finally, there is the autopsy report itself, which states "without gross evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage or apparent cerebral injury (although examination of brain tissue is somewhat limited by the decomposed nature of the remains)."

It appears that the autopsy report suggests that the lack of evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage may be a result of the decomposed nature of the remains. The autopsy report appears to concede that more blood could have been there prior to decomposition.

I just read this in the Phoenix New Times: "First, a county medical examiner has testified that the gunshot almost certainly didn't come first -- because it was a fatal wound.
In other words, when the bullet blasted through Alexander's forehead, into his brain, turned, then lodged in his cheek, Alexander likely would have fallen to the floor, dead or nearly dead. With that sort of gunshot wound to the head, he simply could not have defended himself from the knife attack, as he clearly did judging by the numerous defensive wounds on his arms."

This is the first time I read that the gunshot wound would have been fatal. It means that he couldn't have fended for himself once this occurred. I have to admit that I'm quite surprised that a bullet could turn in the brain then move in another direction. Why would this happen?

 

[molly333]

I just read this in the Phoenix New Times: "First, a county medical examiner has testified that the gunshot almost certainly didn't come first -- because it was a fatal wound.
In other words, when the bullet blasted through Alexander's forehead, into his brain, turned, then lodged in his cheek, Alexander likely would have fallen to the floor, dead or nearly dead. With that sort of gunshot wound to the head, he simply could not have defended himself from the knife attack, as he clearly did judging by the numerous defensive wounds on his arms."

This is the first time I read that the gunshot wound would have been fatal. It means that he couldn't have fended for himself once this occurred. I have to admit that I'm quite surprised that a bullet could turn in the brain then move in another direction. Why would this happen?

It's what we've been talking about for the last 20 pages or so. The ME on the stand disagreed with his own autopsy report, imo. What you have reported there is what he said on the stand. He's calling this head wound fatal. He says Travis would not have been able to defend himself after receiving this shot to the head. Even though in his autopsy report he says Travis died of stab wounds and the brain was not injured.

He seemed to contradict his own autopsy report with his testimony on the stand.

IMO

 

[zaza]

It's what we've been talking about for the last 20 pages or so. The ME on the stand disagreed with his own autopsy report, imo. What you have reported there is what he said on the stand. He's calling this head wound fatal. He says Travis would not have been able to defend himself after receiving this shot to the head. Even though in his autopsy report he says Travis died of stab wounds and the brain was not injured.

He seemed to contradict his own autopsy report with his testimony on the stand.

IMO

Well, quoting the autopsy report verbatim: "“The wound track perforates the anterior frontal skull near the superior orbital bone and traverses the anterior fossa, without gross evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage or apparent cerebral injury (although examination of the brain tissue is somewhat limited by the decomposed nature of the remains). The projectile re-enters the facial skeleton near the midline and the wound track terminates in the left cheek.”
At one point I thought it possible that JA shot TA first. I don't see it now. I think she's adamant about her having shot him first because she doesn't want to discuss the stabbing as that would completely blow her self-defense case. I don't think the ME necessarily contradicted himself on the stand as he may have later learned about the bullet casing on the floor with no blood on it - he may have realized that it backs up the possibility that the bullet may have pierced or grazed the brain in the frontal lobe after she stabbed him. And then there is the lack of blood in the brain or face. He was a healthy man, there would have been a lot of clotting. I don't think that would have washed off in the shower.

 

[geevee]

HLN added more crime scene photos to their slide show, I hadn't looked at the slide show for days so I don't know when these were added (but the page said updated this morning, not sure if it means anything). Anyways, with the new pics, does that change (or help confirm) anyone's thinking about what happened?

http://www.hlntv.com/slideshow/2013/01/03/jodi-arias-evidence-photos-nancy-grace-mysteries-day-4

 

[molly333]

Well, quoting the autopsy report verbatim: "“The wound track perforates the anterior frontal skull near the superior orbital bone and traverses the anterior fossa, without gross evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage or apparent cerebral injury (although examination of the brain tissue is somewhat limited by the decomposed nature of the remains). The projectile re-enters the facial skeleton near the midline and the wound track terminates in the left cheek.”
At one point I thought it possible that JA shot TA first. I don't see it now. I think she's adamant about her having shot him first because she doesn't want to discuss the stabbing as that would completely blow her self-defense case. I don't think the ME necessarily contradicted himself on the stand as he may have later learned about the bullet casing on the floor with no blood on it - he may have realized that it backs up the possibility that the bullet may have pierced or grazed the brain in the frontal lobe after she stabbed him. And then there is the lack of blood in the brain or face. He was a healthy man, there would have been a lot of clotting. I don't think that would have washed off in the shower.

Where's the blood spatter from the gunshot to the head?

There would still be spatter even if he is dead when shot.

IMO

 

[zaza]

No I don't think I have it backwards.

You are linking together pieces of evidence where each piece could be construed for guilt or innocence. You are supposed to always look for the innocent explanation, because we have the presumption of innocence in this country. However, as each piece adds to the next, pointing consistently to guilt, as they do here, then there becomes an overwhelming body of evidence that can only be read one way--guilty--unless the kingpin piece, the capstone, so to speak, points towards innocence. Then the whole thing crumbles.

That is why her using a knife first destroys all the circumstantial evidence that came before it pointing to premeditated murder with a gun. Now we can go back and look again at all the innocent explanations for each piece of circumstantial evidence, because, obviously, we were wrong.

It's like if you think your boyfriend is cheating on you and you find an unknown woman sending him text messages to meet with him, and you follow him, and you see them talking and laughing together, and he kisses her on the cheek and hugs her, and now you know! You have all this circumstantial evidence pointing to his being guilty of cheating on you. Until you find out she's his first cousin.

IMO

The thing is, the knife is the biggest mystery regarding the killing. We don't know anything about it other than a knife was used. I wonder if there had only been a knife involved in the killing where this case would stand considering it hasn't been found? The conjecture on this forum among those who think she shot first is that the gun jammed the second time she pulled the trigger and that's why she then used a knife. JA says she remembers that the gun went off, then she dropped it and then enters the fog. She won't admit that she intentionally pulled the trigger so of course she won't admit that she stabbed him to death - lots of intention there. I'm going back to my original thought: I think she intended to cut him first. I think she fantasized about it all the way to Arizona and took the gun for back up. I think when she arrived she was packing the knife and the gun but intended to stab him and slit his throat.

 

[zaza]

Where's the blood spatter from the gunshot to the head?

There would still be spatter even if he is dead when shot.

IMO

That's a no brainer because JA put him in the shower and rinsed him off. The body was pretty clean except for a pool of fluids under him that had congealed when they found him.

 

[molly333]

The thing is, the knife is the biggest mystery regarding the killing. We don't know anything about it other than a knife was used. I wonder if there had only been a knife involved in the killing where this case would stand considering it hasn't been found? The conjecture on this forum among those who think she shot first is that the gun jammed the second time she pulled the trigger and that's why she then used a knife. JA says she remembers that the gun went off, then she dropped it and then enters the fog. She won't admit that she intentionally pulled the trigger so of course she won't admit that she stabbed him to death - lots of intention there. I'm going back to my original thought: I think she intended to cut him first. I think she fantasized about it all the way to Arizona and took the gun for back up. I think when she arrived she was packing the knife and the gun but intended to stab him and slit his throat.

When you're answering that question about the blood spatter from the gun, how did she get that head shot trajectory from top to bottom and right to left if he is lying on the ground dying or dead from the slit throat when she shoots him?

You might think she always intended to use the knife first, but you cannot prove it.

IMO

 

[molly333]

That's a no brainer because JA put him in the shower and rinsed him off. The body was pretty clean except for a pool of fluids under him that had congealed when they found him.

No. I mean the blood spatter on the wall or other close by objects to where he was located when he was shot.

IMO

 

[zaza]

No. I mean the blood spatter on the wall or other close by objects to where he was located when he was shot.

IMO

Well, we don't know where she shot him, that's true. She could have shot him in the shower after she cut his throat and dragged him there, then rinsed the shower stall. Here is the final summary from the ME's official autopsy:

", “Based on the autopsy findings and investigative history, as available to me, it is my opinion that Travis Victor Alexander, a 30-year-old Caucasion male, died as a result of sharp force trauma of the neck and torso."

 

[danzn16]

I just read this in the Phoenix New Times: "First, a county medical examiner has testified that the gunshot almost certainly didn't come first -- because it was a fatal wound.
In other words, when the bullet blasted through Alexander's forehead, into his brain, turned, then lodged in his cheek, Alexander likely would have fallen to the floor, dead or nearly dead. With that sort of gunshot wound to the head, he simply could not have defended himself from the knife attack, as he clearly did judging by the numerous defensive wounds on his arms."

This is the first time I read that the gunshot wound would have been fatal. It means that he couldn't have fended for himself once this occurred. I have to admit that I'm quite surprised that a bullet could turn in the brain then move in another direction. Why would this happen?

Small caliber bullets like .22 and .25 have little mass and change direction more easily than larger calibers. All it takes it a change in tissue density inside the body to make it change direction and go in another trajectory. This is one reason why .22s are responsible for the most firearm deaths as well as how common they are. My dad is a first responder and he has told me many times about gunshot wounds with small calibers that had an entrance wound on one body part and an exit wound elsewhere. One example is that the bullet entered near the femur and spiraled up it into the abdomen. Larger caliber bullets would have blasted through he leg and exited from the leg. So these small caliber bullets can be extremely deadly because of that fact. And that's one reason why the ME can't rule out just how damaging this shot was because of this calibers tendency to go in different direction and that he could not examine the brain due to decomposition. It may have went through other lobes of the brain for all we know. People that aren't well versed in guns and ammo totally dismiss .22 and say they aren't deadly but these people don't know what they are talking about. Yes you do want a more reliable bullet with stopping power for self defense but don't underestimate a .22 or .25. They're just not good for self defense if you have something better because they are so small the person attacking you can continue coming after you if no vital structures are hit because the bullet is small and has little stopping power when a larger calibers force can stop someone in their tracks even if shot is not fatal. But obviously the small calibers death rate stands for itself.