Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[wasnt_me]

Not if there's a stolen gun a week earlier at her grandparents' house! She did care about getting caught, but she had no clue how to go about doing that. She cared more about killing him than about making a good plan.

I agree with you but I think the narcissistic Jodi DID think it was a good plan. Too bad she couldn't ask Matt to critic it for her. :facepalm:

 

[wasnt_me]

Wasn't me, all three of those look to me like impulsive killings. Yes, Seaman got first degree but the Judge lowered it to second degree. He believed she was an abused woman. She used an axe, which is a more powerful weapon, and that might have affected the Jury. She killed him with it the day she bought it, which didn't help, either. She also cleaned the crime scene and tried to get rid of the body.

I think it's more likely for a knife to be used in impulsive killing. That's what I'm saying. But, we are talking about premeditated murder as the charge we believe she deserves, and I'm afraid the impulsive looking nature of it with knife first will preclude that.

IMO

Yeah, I agree with you on these examples except for the one about Nancy. She got convicted of premeditated murder. I was searching for you smaller assailants with larger victims because it was just too cumbersome to go through and find small serial killers and then go through their numerous victims and modes of assault to prove my point about size.

But I agree with you on these examples. After I'd gone to bed, I realized that for 2/3 of them, the impulsiveness seemed to be there. I hope I helped you see that a smaller assailant can overcome a bigger one, though.

As far as the premeditation, for one person I listed previously ( correct me if I'm wrong) got caught buying the hatchet on tape at home depot before the episode occurred. She tried to say it wasn't for the murder, I believe.

I personally feel an axe is more cumbersome, takes more effort than a knife. We don't know even what kind of knife Jodi used. I would "think" they could go through the knives in the house and compare them to the striations on Travis' bone. Didn't someone say she cut with enough force to hit his bone? Then we'd at least find the likely knife or know for sure she took it with her.

In any event, I hear you on impulsive killings, but I just see this case has too many premeditative actions for the jury to ignore.

Molly, Since you have a hard time with premeditation, I'd be interested to know your reasoning with these pieces of circumstantial evidence:

How would the jury explain that .25 calibre gun is stolen from her grandparents' house two days after she and Travis had a vicious email fight, and a week later, Travis is killed by Jodi with the same kind of gun? Not to mention, she's claiming he had the exact same calibre of gun in his home as was "stolen" from her grandparents. However, Travis has no record of having a gun. At the very least, the jury would have to believe Travis illegally had the exact type of gun.

How can the jury reconcile that Jodi was found with another gun and knives in her car for a "camping trip" because she was leery of men she didn't know who would be on said trip, and yet, she did not have a gun with her (supposedly) to travel 2900 miles to see Ryan, a man she hardly knew? She seems to be more scared of running out of gas than meeting an uncertain fate on a super long road trip in which no one really knew where she was.

Especially if she had the bright idea of pulling off on highways to put gas in her car. She'd be a sitting duck for a highway abductor by doing that and by sleeping in parking lots. How will the jury explain that she didn't fear these things, yet she wanted to take a gun on a camping trip for fear of her fellow campers?

How can the jury explain away all the calls to Travis in the middle of the night prior to her trip, the calls during her trip, and the fact that he was one of the last calls made on her trip before leaving California, yet she only talked to him for like 2 minutes. But then she loses her charger and her battery dies conveniently before entering AZ. Somehow, in her fog, her charger or her battery resurfaces just on the border of AZ to leave that message for Travis.

How are they to believe that she couldn't find that charger while driving to AZ so that she could continue to call Travis and talk to him as she'd been doing on the previous legs of the trip? However, in her fog where she can't even remember disposing of evidence, she can have the presence of mind to find that charger, charge the phone, and make that alibi call?

There are more instances, as you know, that they jury will have to explain away. But when does the point come where there are just too many things to explain away and the answer becomes premeditation?

 

[wasnt_me]

I initially thought she shot him first before I saw this video. I think it happened just like this. The evidence fits it. I think she is actually telling the truth in this video. Her emotion sounds real. She is shocked about the amount of blood and the fact that he is screaming and still alive. I bet she still hears those screams. She shot him because he was still making noises and she thought he was still alive.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mXlwTZoMzQ

I agree with the scenerio. Looking at his hands, I can at the very least conclude that he actually grapped the knife, wrapped his hand around it, and that's how he got such deep cuts on his hands. That might also be part of the blood that is at the edge of the sink, and it might contribute to all the blood droplets on the left side of the sink. It appears his left hand got it bad.

She does not cry with Flores, but look at how she cries through the ME testimony. She remembers...

 

[danzn16]

I have never sat in a shower enclosure in 45 years of adulthood that I can remember.

Lol. Me neither! I thought it was strange that people do that especially on the drain. But I wouldn't sit in the shower to take sexy pics or if my ex told me too either. So I can't be sure JA lured him in that position.

 

[wasnt_me]

I think she wanted more than to just kill him, she wanted revenge. I think that's why she had a knife also.

I know he was larger than her, but how would it be if he had soap in his eyes and could not see or react immediately? It would not be that difficult to squirt a bottle of dish liquid at someone who is already busy showering.

There are no sudsy bubbles in the shower at all. I found it odd that he was taking a shower for 8 minutes and not a one bubble. This makes me think that he wasn't really taking a shower. The whole purpose was to take pictures, not shower.

 

[wasnt_me]

Lol. Me neither! I thought it was strange that people do that especially on the drain. But I wouldn't sit in the shower to take sexy pics or if my ex told me too either. So I can't be sure JA lured him in that position.

If your ex had a weapon in your face and ordered you to sit down, you might sit down.

 

[molly333]

But I agree with you on these examples. After I'd gone to bed, I realized that for 2/3 of them, the impulsiveness seemed to be there. I hope I helped you see that a smaller assailant can overcome a bigger one, though.

I never doubted that a smaller assailant could kill a larger victim with a knife. My point was that given a choice, as in premeditation, that would not be your choice if you had access to a better weapon like a gun. And, she did. In thinking about it, you can guarantee your success with a gun much more than with a knife.

In the examples you gave, they all looked impulsive, except for Seamans but I think even that murder was impulsive. She bought the axe the night before she killed him. So it looked premeditated to the Jury. But, without a long explanation why, I think that she just grabbed the axe to defend herself because it was there. Anyway, the Judge agreed, which is why he lowered her sentence to Second degree.

Did you notice the 'expert' today referenced the crime scene and how it looked messy and impulsive? He used that word, impulsive, to signal to the Jury that the crime scene does not look premeditated. I have no doubt that her next witness, the abuse expert, will expand on this. Wait for it.

The crime scene does weaken the case for premeditation, unless you consider it an organized crime [shoot him in the shower and leave no evidence] gone wrong.

Molly, Since you have a hard time with premeditation

No, I don't have a problem with premeditation since I'm a gun firster. Juan has proven to me that she stole the gun and shot him with it. My own analysis says she shot him with it first. That makes perfect sense to me and proves premeditation.

It's the Jury I'm worried about. Some will ask, why did she steal a gun to kill him with a knife if Juan stays with knife first. Those people might decide it was an impulsive act, and, therefore, not murder one. I consider this choice of the weapon the single biggest piece of the puzzle in proving premeditation. All the rest can be explained away.

One thing this case has going for it, though, is the brutal crime scene photos. It might be that this Jury will be too scared to set her loose ever again no matter what they think about anything else. She just looks too dangerous to be walking among us.

It used to be that those types of photos would not be allowed to be shown to the Jury for that very reason. They are too inflammatory.

IMO

 

[wasnt_me]

Juan Martinez



I just can't see this with him lying down. The most likely gunshot in that case would be a bullet through the head. This is more like a 'missed shot.' She wouldn't have made this shot on purpose. And, where, in that little space, is she going to get 3 or 4 feet away from him?



The reason we do think it started in the shower is that strange last picture of him, the picture before it where he looks horrified, the ceiling picture after it, and 62 seconds later the picture of him on his back on the floor.

Not often you have video and time stamps of murder.

IMO

I don't recall JM saying that it was gun first. He seemed to be trying to disprove that with the ME.

I don't see how she can get a shot like that off on him unless she's coming out of the closet while he's sitting in the shower but the sequence of photos do not match that.

I thought that last picture was not of his bottom on the shower floor, but a picture at least a minute later of the shower door and the ceiling? Which is where I think he charged her, coming out of the shower and she stabbed him in the chest, moved to the side (as she keeps explaining because she didn't want him on top of her) and he collided with the sinks.

 

[wasnt_me]

I never doubted that a smaller assailant could kill a larger victim with a knife. My point was that given a choice, as in premeditation, that would not be your choice if you had access to a better weapon like a gun. And, she did.

In the examples you gave, they all looked impulsive, except for Seamans but I think even that murder was impulsive. She bought the axe the night before she killed him. So it looked premeditated to the Jury. But, without a long explanation why, I think that she just grabbed the axe to defend herself because it was there. Anyway, the Judge agreed, which is why he lowered her sentence to Second degree.

Did you notice the 'expert' today referenced the crime scene and how it looked messy and impulsive? He used that word, impulsive, to signal to the Jury that the crime scene does not look premeditated. I have no doubt that her next witness, the abuse expert, will expand on this. Wait for it.

The crime scene does weaken the case for premeditation, unless you consider it an organized crime [shoot him in the shower and leave no evidence] gone wrong.





No, I don't have a problem with premeditation since I'm a gun firster. Juan has proven to me that she stole the gun and shot him with it. My own analysis says she shot him with it first. That makes perfect sense to me and proves premeditation.

It's the Jury I'm worried about. Some will ask, why did she steal a gun to kill him with a knife if Juan stays with knife first. Those people might decide it was an impulsive act, and, therefore, not murder one. I consider this choice of the weapon the single biggest piece of the puzzle in proving premeditation. All the rest can be explained away.

One thing this case has going for it, though, is the brutal crime scene photos. It might be that this Jury will be too scared to set her loose ever again no matter what they think about anything else. She just looks too dangerous to be walking among us.

It used to be that those types of photos would not be allowed to be shown to the Jury for that very reason. They are too inflammatory.

IMO

Let me remember the premise of our conversation. In my view, you said you couldn't go with premeditation if the knife was first. In that conversation, you said you couldn't buy that Jodi could overpower someone twice her size. That's how we got to talking about premeditation, serial killers who have probably killed people twice their size with knives, to illustrate that premeditation can happen with a knife.

That other case, if the jury came to a premeditation conclusion, but the judge changed it, proves that a jury CAN come to a premeditation conclusion on something that LOOKS impulsive to you.

So I was talking to you from a premeditation with the knife standpoint, since you were saying you could not possibly see it.

 

[molly333]

I don't recall JM saying that it was gun first. He seemed to be trying to disprove that with the ME.

I don't see how she can get a shot like that off on him unless she's coming out of the closet while he's sitting in the shower but the sequence of photos do not match that.

I thought that last picture was not of his bottom on the shower floor, but a picture at least a minute later of the shower door and the ceiling? Which is where I think he charged her, coming out of the shower and she stabbed him in the chest, moved to the side (as she keeps explaining because she didn't want him on top of her) and he collided with the sinks.

No, what I said was Juan proved that she premeditated murder with a gun. She stole the gun from her grandparents. It's the same gun she shot him with. Therefore, she carried it with her to Arizona to kill him.

The only problem is he then, like you said, seems to be trying to disprove that with the ME who says she shot him with it after he was dead. Juan turns around and proves she killed him with a knife

IMO

 

[molly333]

Let me remember the premise of our conversation. In my view, you said you couldn't go with premeditation if the knife was first. In that conversation, you said you couldn't buy that Jodi could overpower someone twice her size. That's how we got to talking about premeditation, serial killers who have probably killed people twice their size with knives, to illustrate that premeditation can happen with a knife.

That other case, if the jury came to a premeditation conclusion, but the judge changed it, proves that a jury CAN come to a premeditation conclusion on something that LOOKS impulsive to you.

So I was talking to you from a premeditation with the knife standpoint, since you were saying you could not possibly see it.

Just to try to clarify my position on this, even though I know that it is possible, I consider it very unlikely that Jodi could have won a knife fight with Travis. He was in top shape, a strong young man, unimpared by drugs, alcohol, or rope, and twice her size. Obviously, she could get lucky by getting in the vc blow first. He needs to be disabled quickly for her to win that fight. But, why would you premeditate a gun and then take the chance of losing the fight by attacking him with a knife, instead? That's what looks impulsive, the knife as the first weapon of choice.

Seamans case looked more premeditated than this one, imo, if you go with knife first in this case, simply because of her behavior around the axe. She also tried to make it look like her husband had just disappeared by completely cleaning the crime scene and putting his body in her car in preparation for dumping it somewhere. So I could see where you could conclude she planned it all out in advance, even though I do not think she did and neither did the Judge.

The Seaman case looked less impulsive than this one if you conclude Jodi attacked him with the knife first. But, Seaman with an axe looks the same as Jodi with the gun first. It's a shoe-in for murder one.

IMO

 

[wasnt_me]

Hey, Molly,

Thanks. I see that JM has proved premeditation. I didn't take any step further to decide what weapon he'd proved it with. I didn't think that once premeditation was established that it had to be qualified by the weapon.

I did take the step forward to believe that Jodi had brought both weapons with her, or things didn't go the way she'd wanted them to go and she'd wound up having to use one of Travis' knives.

 

[wasnt_me]

Just to try to clarify my position on this, even though I know that it is possible, I consider it very unlikely that Jodi could have won a knife fight with Travis. He was in top shape, a strong young man, unimpared by drugs, alcohol, or rope, and twice her size. Obviously, she could get lucky by getting in the vc blow first. He needs to be disabled quickly for her to win that fight. But, why would you premeditate a gun and then take the chance of losing the fight by attacking him with a knife, instead? That's what looks impulsive, the knife as the first weapon of choice.

Seamans case looked more premeditated than this one, imo, if you go with knife first in this case, simply because of her behavior around the axe. She also tried to make it look like her husband had just disappeared by completely cleaning the crime scene and putting his body in her car in preparation for dumping it somewhere. So I could see where you could conclude she planned it all out in advance, even though I do not think she did and neither did the Judge.

The Seaman case looked less impulsive than this one if you conclude Jodi attacked him with the knife first.

IMO

I think we're talking about two separate issues.

Can Jodi overpower Travis with only a knife?

Why would she choose to do so if she had a gun?


Is that true?

 

[RealityMan]

I thought that last picture was not of his bottom on the shower floor, but a picture at least a minute later of the shower door and the ceiling?

Nope. The second bleeding shot was the last photo. Here is the sequence:

http://m922.photobucket.com/albumvi.../shower_travis_murder_pics_xtralarge.jpg.html

 

[molly333]

I think we're talking about two separate issues.

Can Jodi overpower Travis with only a knife?

Why would she choose to do so if she had a gun?


Is that true?

Ok. We can treat them as two seperate issues. I'm willing to concede she could overpower him with a knife. I just think she would have had to get really lucky to do so.

Didn't you have the duct tape theory? I think you were also wondering how she could be so successful with a knife, right?

The fact that she would chose a knife over a gun is what looks impulsive to me. And, the messy crime scene confirms it. It's not like she stabbed him in his sleep or tied him up and then stabbed him. That was a fight, as shown by the crime scene. And, a fight looks impulsive. I'm not saying it is, but it looks it.

IMO

 

[wasnt_me]

Yeah, I do think she duct taped him. I do think she retrained him. But to me, that's all in the sequence of overcoming him. I wasn't separating the two. Upon seeing the other cases I showed you where a woman stabbed a man once in the heart like Jodi did Travis (of his many other stab wounds), I can see how she could do it without the tape, too. But the tape was at the scene for a reason. That's the reason I give it.

I still don't think a messy crime scene negates premeditation. I think all a messy crime scene proves is that things did NOT go according to her plan. So the theory I came up with accounted for things not going according to her plan.

There are plausible reasons that she brought the gun to use first but wound up using the knife. The main one being, he knocked it out of her hands before she could shoot. The second being she put the gun down to pick up the knife to taunt him and he charged her. I'm sure there's more scenarios. The fact that when she was about to flee, she had a gun and knives in her possession indicates that she's willing to bring both to a "fight."

some have theorized that she tried to tie him up during sex, which if true, would have meant that she'd planned to start the killing around 2pm in the bedroom. They said he didn't want to be tied up, so if that's also true, logically, Jodi changed her plan to lure him into the shower. Even that slight change in her plan could have made her uncertain and caused her to be nervous, thereby making the rest of the plan or awry. We just don't know if that's even true about the rope in the bedroom.

I'm unclear about whether premeditation is supposed to be negated because someone didn't commit the crime with the weapon they'd originally planned to commit it with? I don't even know that we can conclusively say she'd planned to commit it with the gun and not the knife.

Is it possible she wanted to use the gun to subdue him and get him to duct tape himself in the shower, but she full well planned to stab him to death IN said shower? But it didn't go as planned because Travis lunged at her to fight? Or even tie himself up with the "rope" she claims was there, if not the duct tape?

I think we've seen enough cases to know that a woman can knife to death an unhindered man. I don't think we truly know what shape or health Travis was in. How do we know? We can't say what happened to him after the first stab wound. Maybe he was in too much shock and pain to fight, and he was losing blood fast.

I remember once, I thought someone was hiding in my closet at my house. I felt my nerves turn to water. I couldn't move or think. A long time seemed to go by before I was able to lean forward and see what I thought was an arm in a grey sweat shirt was my deflated half yoga ball, propped up on my vacuum cleaner. So we don't know if after his first lunge, that shock set in and turned his veins to lead with adrenaline. We just don't know.

So to assume that nothing else could have gone on besides what our minds can imagine is a mistake. That's why we must rely on credible experts to give us the clues.

 

[Captain86]

No, what I said was Juan proved that she premeditated murder with a gun. She stole the gun from her grandparents. It's the same gun she shot him with. Therefore, she carried it with her to Arizona to kill him.

The only problem is he then, like you said, seems to be trying to disprove that with the ME who says she shot him with it after he was dead. Juan turns around and proves she killed him with a knife

IMO

Juan didn't prove she killed him with a knife. The knife was used to deliver the blow that killed him. There is no doubt that the throat injury killed him. You're hung up on the premeditated part has to be with the gun, but it doesn't. She went there to kill him and did, that is premeditated. She could have killed him in any number of ways, but for whatever reason she used a knife to deliver the killing injury. She did use the gun during the murder, so that only adds more weight to the murder being premeditated.

 

[RealityMan]

Captain, again thank you for another detailed and thoughtful response.

Actually, the reason I was pounding on lack of any direct evidence that Travis' brain was injured, as well as lack of any reference to brain injury in Horn's report, was not because I necessarily believe that Travis' brain was untouched by the bullet, but rather to draw attention to the lack of specifics around this point and Horn's lack of detail in his autopsy.

In fact, I do think it likely that the bullet penetrated Travis' right frontal lobe. Indeed, waaaay back in posts #258 and #269 (page 11 of this thread, my very first posts on Websleuths btw!), I argued the scenario in detail, as well as pulled some expert references to support the notion that Travis could very well have defended himself after sustaining a gunshot wound to a frontal lobe. I invite readers to go back to post #269 for more on gunshot wounds to the frontal lobes.

Now, the issue I continue to have is all this faith being heaped on select parts of Horn's testimony and autopsy report. I think we can all agree that his autopsy report did nothing to directly address whether Travis' brain had been penetrated by the bullet (and thus support his being incapacitated, a key point). As you've done above, the thoughtful reader has to go through gymnastics and arm-waving to support even this basic notion. There is also little to directly support a knife-first scenario. Indeed, I would suggest there is contradictory information which weakens the pillar that every gunfirster inevitably points to: lack of hemorrhaging in the brain cavity.

I return to Horn's autopsy report in describing Travis' lungs and the severe stab to the chest:

The lungs weigh 340 grams left and 280 grams right. The upper and lower airways are patent and of normal caliber. The pleural surfaces are smooth and glistening. The parenchyma is autolyzed dark re-purple, exuding moderate amount of blood and intermixed frothy decompositional fluid. There are no areas of induration, consolidation, hemorrhage, or gross scarring. The pulmonary are patent and of normal caliber.

and

A 1 1/2 inch oblique stab wound of the paramidline right chest, with penetration/perforation of the costochondral junction near the sternum at the level of the 3rd and 4th right ribs; the wound extends to a max depth of 3 1/2 inches with penetration of the superior vena cava near the base of the heart, with a small amount of surrounding hemorrhagic in the mediastinal soft tissues and the pericardial sac of the heart.

Doesn't sound like much blood in the lungs or chest cavity. We imagine a stab wound penetrating the vena cava and the right lung would have resulted in a large amount of blood. We would expect Travis' right lung would have had a substantial amount of blood.

Now, as danzin16 kindly pointed out, Horn was questioned about this on the stand (post 1390):

I guess you missed the part of the ME's testimony that said it was possible the lungs were punctured and he couldn't tell because of decomp. I guess you missed the part about how it was possible the knife stabs could have entered so deeply they entered the body cavities but decomp made it difficult to tell.

Based on Horn's testimony, five days of decomposition of Travis' body had a major impact on the level of detail and certainty Horn could ascertain around the wounds and the extent of hemorrhaging. However, everyone knows that this stab wound to the body's largest vein must have caused extensive hemorrhaging. And every knifefirster knows that Travis must have been coughing up blood at the sink.

Now, let's return to every knifefirster's favorite passage from Horn's report:

The wound track perforates the anterior frontal skull near the superior orbital bone and the traverses the right 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).

So in this famous line, Horn, to his credit, offers a caveat to the reader and to the court: here are my observations (one of which we already agree is inaccurate: lack of cerebral injury!), but understand that the area is extensively decomposed, limiting the certainty of my observations. This is the one time Horn feels compelled to comment on the extent of decomposition in his report. I would say we should probably take Horn at his word: the area was decomposed making it difficult to make an accurate assessment.

Now knifefirsters may parse this further in support of their theory, but the fact of the matter is that Horn himself is cautioning us not to put too much weight on these observations. Given the fact that Horn testifies similarly with respect to the chest injury, and given that the extent of hemorrhaging from the chest wound can't be accurately reported due to extent of decomposition, is it reasonable that we now pick out this one piece of Horn's report, the one piece that Horn himself cautions us about, as the key piece of support for a knife-first scenario?

I would suggest that this evidence, while consistent with a knife-first scenario, is insufficient to rule out a gun-first scenario.

In other words, if Horn were asked in court "Is is possible that the decomposition of the area made it difficult to ascertain with certainty whether Travis was alive when he was shot?"

How do we think Horn would answer?

Dave

Dave, thank you for this fantastic post.

Am I understanding correctly that, according to the autopsy report, there was no hemorrhage in the chest area? Are we to conclude, then, that TA had already bled out when the vena cava was sliced, and that this wound was therefore inflicted post mortem? (Sarcasm intended.)

 

[molly333]

Juan didn't prove she killed him with a knife. The knife was used to deliver the blow that killed him. There is no doubt that the throat injury killed him. You're hung up on the premeditated part has to be with the gun, but it doesn't. She went there to kill him and did, that is premeditated. She could have killed him in any number of ways, but for whatever reason she used a knife to deliver the killing injury. She did use the gun during the murder, so that only adds more weight to the murder being premeditated.

OK. Maybe I didn't state that clearly. Juan proved that she chose to attack him with the knife first. He proved this through the testimony of the ME who says she attacked him with the knife first. Does that make my position clearer?

She didn't use the gun for the murder if she shot him after he was dead.

So first Juan proves she premeditated murder with a gun, and then he proves she carried out the murder with a knife which cancels out the premeditation with a gun.

IMO

 

[molly333]

This is one thing the psychological expert said today:


"The attempts to clean up the crime scene appear to be rather frenzied, disorganized. You would predict if someone had planned this terrible deed, that plans would have included cleaning up the crime scene in order to get away and reduce the risk of apprehension."


This is one comment he made about how a disorganized and messy crime scene looks impulsive instead of premeditated.