Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[molly333]

Yeah, but the judge ruled against them on that. Gun shot first would NOT, IMO, jeopardize the death penalty. No way.

Judge ruled against them but it's on appeal to a higher court.

Plus, this came before the Jury. It just looks strange.

IMO

 

[LambChop]

I see what you're saying, I think. You're saying that even if she may have planned to kill him, if she used a knife instead of doing what she planned to, with a gun, that's evidence that despite her plan, she abandoned it for some reason, suddenly became frenzied and thus committed second degree murder. It doesn't work that way, though. The killing is too close in time to the plan and the plan itself, even if abandoned, would sustain first degree murder, IMO, if she suddenly decided to kill him in another manner.



I hear this argument a lot in various cases - that we can't use logic because criminals like this are illogical. IMO it's a bogus argument. If it were true, profiling, homicide investigations, etc., would be impossible.

But aside from that, I'm not saying it would be illogical for her to have done all of that planning and then for it to end up being second degree murder. I;m saying that it would be illogical for us to discount all of that planning in finding the crime was not premeditated, simply because she ended up using a different method. That is illogical. And that doesn't change just because jodi is odd.


The fact is she planned this murder, that's pretty clear, and even if not executed according to plan, it should be very easy for any juror to find her guilty of first degree murder.

Jodi is a very strong person, personality wise. I don't get how Mr. Samuels can sit there and believe she is just some meek, childlike figure with low self esteem. Of course he could not see her on the stand if he listened to the court telling him not read papers, tv, etc. about this case but she likes to have control of everything and when she feels she got one over on JM, she is absolutely delighted. Fighting for her life takes second fiddle to getting one up on JM. She loves it until he verbally smacks her down catching her in a lie that she can't get out of. jmo

 

[SMK]

Yes, detective Flores stated in his report that the ME told him after the autopsy that the gunshot wound was delivered first. The ME stated he did not remember this conversation. Flores then testified that he must've been mistaken in what the ME told him.

Flores does not strike me as the type of seasoned detective who would make such a mistake. He never seemed to miss a beat in the interrogation- he seemed sharp as a tack.

I think the ME forgot or changed his mind.

 

[gitana1]

LOL. Oh, I know how far 2 foot is. But the doctor said from at least 2 feet, maybe more. I did not do the experiment. One of our other posters here did it and Dr. Horn described the shot has coming from slightly behind and downward which that poster agreed with. That would mean unless Travis moved from that sitting position in the shower he was not shot there. The glass door was in her way so getting slightly behind him would be difficult (unless he moved forward in the shower to get up). But Jodi insists that she did not shoot him in the shower because this would not go along with self-defense. It's possible she dropped the camera on purpose and he leaned over out of the shower and she shot him. I don't think she stabbed him in the shower or shot him there but I think it's possible it happened while he was getting out. jmo

That's a small bathroom. She wasn;t that far from him. She was taking pictures, put the camera down and grabbed a gun from her purse, IMO. Feet from where he sat. No way would the trajectory be that straight as you suggest. It's not like she was down the hall!

Also, I recall nothing stated by the ME in any report or via testimony that the shot came from behind. Can you point me in the right direction? It looks like it came from top right forehead down through the left of his face.

The ME is also not a ballistics expert. He said it had to be at least 2 feet away to not cause stippling. But I have read reports that indicate that may not be true. It also depends on the caliber of gun.

 

[gitana1]

Jodi is a very strong person, personality wise. I don't get how Mr. Samuels can sit there and believe she is just some meek, childlike figure with low self esteem. Of course he could not see her on the stand if he listened to the court telling him not read papers, tv, etc. about this case but she likes to have control of everything and when she feels she got one over on JM, she is absolutely delighted. Fighting for her life takes second fiddle to getting one up on JM. She loves it until he verbally smacks her down catching her in a lie that she can't get out of. jmo

I 100% agree.

 

[molly333]

Jodi is a very strong person, personality wise. I don't get how Mr. Samuels can sit there and believe she is just some meek, childlike figure with low self esteem. Of course he could not see her on the stand if he listened to the court telling him not read papers, tv, etc. about this case but she likes to have control of everything and when she feels she got one over on JM, she is absolutely delighted. Fighting for her life takes second fiddle to getting one up on JM. She loves it until he verbally smacks her down catching her in a lie that she can't get out of. jmo

I assume the abuse expert will tell the Jury that it makes no difference if the woman is not meek or showing low self esteem. There are women who are CEO's who are in abusive relationships.

It's more complicated than that.

IMO

 

[teledude]

Flores does not strike me as the type of seasoned detective who would make such a mistake. He never seemed to miss a beat in the interrogation- he seemed sharp as a tack.

I think the ME forgot or changed his mind.

I've actually wondered if the ME floated this theory (gun shot last) to see if Jodi would change her story again. Kind of a trap... although I know they wouldn't play games like that.

I think in closing Juan can argue it really makes no difference, there is ample evidence of pre-meditation and there is NO WAY the crime could have unfolded as Jodi has testified.(self defense)

The reality is, there is no medical or scientific way to know if the gunshot would have been instantly debilitating. There are too many variables and the brain was too decomposed to get an accurate assessment of damage done by the bullet (if any)

I do believe the physical evidence supports the gun shot first and that makes the most "sense" to me, but in the end I do not think it matters to the verdict of first degree murder.

 

[SMK]

I assume the abuse expert will tell the Jury that it makes no difference if the woman is not meek or showing low self esteem. There are women who are CEO's who are in abusive relationships.

It's more complicated than that.

IMO

I have to agree with you there. Which is why I brought up the abuse of power charges. If JA had gone to an attorney with a complaint that TA had misused his power as a spiritual leader (in terms of anal sex on the day of her baptism, in which he was acting in the capacity of spiritual advisor) I believe the Church of the Latter Day Saints would have settled in pre-trail litigation. In a sense, she had a strong case.

That said, I do not believe TA deserved this fate and I can also see her as a competent woman and thus deserving of the death penalty. It is a two-edged sword, and our society also has long tried to play it both ways (I was actually involved in a case where a minor was taken advantage of by a teacher but was still dealt with harshly for his crime.)

I am of two minds about it all, can see both sides and still do not know where I should firmly stand.

 

[DeAnnaMisrahi]

I have posted the entire exchange many times in my previous posts and was not attempting to take his quote out of context. There is a difference between "incapacitating" and "immediately incapacitating."
<snipped for length.>

I am not saying you did it intentionally, but it does seem that you are taking a comment out of context to state that he testified that it wouldn't be immediately incapacitating, but he corrected himself (in that same exchange) to say that it would be immediately incapacitating because the bullet passed through the brain. The quote on cross, alone, does make it seem as if he testified that it wouldn't be immediately incapacitated, but ultimately, when you consider the entirety of his testimony, that's not what his conclusion was. In the end, he does say it would be immediately incapacitating.

I do agree with you, though, that his testimony doesn't sound confident on this point. So, it gives the "gun firsters" the window needed to just disregard his testimony and draw their own conclusions.

RE: Det Flores, Mistakes happen. It's certainly not ideal. If the ME didn't put it in writing, however, I don't know how they will be able to pin him to stating that the gunshot first when there is no proof that he did.

 

[wilsodh]

Knife firsters often assert that gun-firsters have no basis for challenging the ME's testimony and autopsy report because, for example, gun-firsters are not medical examiners who have reviewed TA's body for themselves. In fact, some knife-firsters have even gone so far as to hurl insults at gun-firsters, accusing them of being "arrogant," "irrational," or whatever else for even suggesting that JA could've used the gun first in view of the ME's autopsy report and testimony.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I believe most knife-firsters who make such statements have not even listened to the ME's testimony from start to finish or read his autopsy report.

I have listened to all of the ME's testimony from start to finish, and I have read the transcript of his testimony many times.

I do not have to be a medical examiner or have reviewed TA's body to see that the ME does not rule out the gun-first theory. He is merely playing the odds and stating that it is more likely that TA sustained the gunshot wound after he suffered the defensive wounds to his hands.

He does not ever rule out other possibilities. And the reliance of the knife-firsters on such evidence as the lack of bleeding in the brain is misplaced. The ME states early on in his testimony that, unlike with her tissues of the body, hemorrhaging cannot be detected after five days of decomposition in organs, such as the brain. And he clearly states in his autopsy report that the lack of evidence of hemorrhaging in the brain may have been a result of decomposition.

Furthermore, despite having many opportunities to do so, the ME never states that TA would have been immediately incapacitated by the gunshot wound. In fact, under cross-examination, the ME states exactly the opposite. His exact quote: "I think I've said it here in court that I don't think it [the gunshot wound] would immediately incapacitate him or kill him."

Throw in the fact that the ME told detective Flores after the autopsy that TA sustained the gunshot wound first, as evidenced by detective Flores's investigative report, and it is even more obvious why gun-firsters have a valid case.

Splendid post. Thank you. Good to have a reality check once in a while!

I've added emphasis on a key point. Knife-firsters invariably knee-jerk back to the intracranial hemorrhaging as the main basis for holding on to their theory, ignoring the limitations of certainty posed by examination of a decomposed body. Even Horn cautions us on this. We should all listen to the ME on this point.

With a discussion thread that moves as fast as this one, really good posts like this one are easily missed.

Dave

 

[RealityMan]

I do agree with you, though, that his testimony doesn't sound confident on this point. So, it gives the "gun firsters" the window needed to just disregard his testimony and draw their own conclusions.

Thank you for acknowledging what most knife-firsters refuse to acknowledge!

 

[gitana1]

Judge ruled against them but it's on appeal to a higher court.

Plus, this came before the Jury. It just looks strange.

IMO

Of course it;s on appeal. That means nothing. Everything will be appealed in this case as in most death penalty cases.

They don't have a leg to stand on. Seriously. Whether he was shot first or stabbed first, he was still stabbed 29 times while alive and had his throat slit from ear to ear, while alive. Either way, it is a heinous, depraved and cruel act.

But I'm not going around in circles on this anymore. They are going to find her guilty, IMO of first degree murder if they find she planned to kill him, regardless of whether or not she used the gun first as planned, or suddenly decided to stab him. She is going to appeal and she will lose on this, if they vote for the death penalty. That's my opinion as an attorney.

 

[DeAnnaMisrahi]

Thank you for acknowledging what most knife-firsters refuse to acknowledge!

I've never been much of a "right-fighter." lol Ultimately, I was just trying to figure out why people thought that the gun came first and were disregarding the ME. Now I know, so the mission has been accomplished on that front.

 

[SMK]

Judge ruled against them but it's on appeal to a higher court.

Plus, this came before the Jury. It just looks strange.

IMO

I think Arias had a responsibility to herself to have sought some sort of counsel about what had actually transpired between her and TA; how it had gone wrong; what the boundary issues were regarding his initial role and capacity as spiritual advisor, etc.

Litigation in such cases where a minister or advisor has been sued along with the church he represents usually come down in favor of the victim, and usually are settled pre-trial. As I said in prior posts, Arias at that point might have made a strong case and won some sort of settlement.

As things stand, TA was brutally murdered and she is claiming some sort of self defense, which does not square really with the actual evidence. I think her defense team should have gone with some kind of diminished capacity according to the idea set forth above regarding TA's position of authority.

At this juncture she does stand in danger of being found guilty of premeditated capital murder and receiving the death penalty. Had she only shot him once and had a defense team which could have set forth more of what I have been talking about, (having been taken advantage of, diminished capacity) she would have fared better. As it is, the crime scene photos are so horrific, and do not speak loudly of self-defense. The amnesia thing is just not feasible and is doing her no favors, either. That is, in my opinion.

 

[gitana1]

That's not what I was saying, although that could work for me, too. I'm trying to look at it the way a Jury would, not a lawyer.

What I'm saying is that if you try to prove a circumstantial case with the use of a gun and she doesn't use a gun to kill him, than you have not proved her plan at all.

The fact that she kills him with a knife proves she never planned to kill him with a gun, --so there goes your circumstantial case down the toilet.

Otherwise, you have to prove or at least give strong evidence why she would have changed weapons.

How to you think a profiler would characterize that crime scene? Probably say--a disorganized perpetrator? Hard to say it was even premeditated by the looks of it. It looks more impulsive.


I don't consider it illogical at all. Jodi is doing strange things around stealing the gun, her hair, the license plates, her phone battery. But Jodi did lots of strange things all the time. Maybe you could even prove from that that she was sneaking into Arizona to see Travis. But, so what? She often sneaked over to Travis house, and often at his insistence. Remember how she said he would call her at midnight and say everyone's in bed, come on over?


I don't see where it is clear if she used a knife to kill him.

If she used the gun, then it's very clear, I agree.

You can't see this weakness in the Prosecution case?

IMO

BBM.

No, you do not have to prove why she didn't use the gun as planned to still show premeditation. That's simply flat false. It is not an element of premeditated murder. Period.

No, I do not see a weakness in the prosecution's case in this regard.

I do not believe the arguments in your posts are logical ones. I'm sorry. We are all certainly entitled to our opinions but the opinions in your posts make little sense to me. No offense intended!!!

But I cannot continue to argue in circles.

I am not saying you did it intentionally, but it does seem that you are taking a comment out of context to state that he testified that it wouldn't be immediately incapacitating, but he corrected himself (in that same exchange) to say that it would be immediately incapacitating because the bullet passed through the brain. The quote on cross, alone, does make it seem as if he testified that it wouldn't be immediately incapacitated, but ultimately, when you consider the entirety of his testimony, that's not what his conclusion was. In the end, he does say it would be immediately incapacitating.

I do agree with you, though, that his testimony doesn't sound confident on this point. So, it gives the "gun firsters" the window needed to just disregard his testimony and draw their own conclusions.

RE: Det Flores, Mistakes happen. It's certainly not ideal. If the ME didn't put it in writing, however, I don't know how they will be able to pin him to stating that the gunshot first when there is no proof that he did.

Well, you asked why some people believe that she used the gun first, despite the ME's testimony. Reality gave clear cut explanations as to why. I think the ME contradicts himself several times, on the stand and off, as to whether such a gun shot wound would be immediately fatal or incapacitating.

It's not just giving us a "window" to come to our own conclusions, as if those conclusions are randomly pulled out of thin air. Frankly, the knife first theory is ONLY bolstered by the ME's ultimate conclusion and the bullet casing on top of dried blood.

The gun first theory is bolstered by everything else - her premeditated plan, the eerie second story she gave, the way his body was positioned when found, the trajectory, his ability to stay alive for a few moments, the ME's initial statements, gun shot wound experts who disagree with the ME's final conclusion, the ME's contradictions while on the stand, the ME's statement allowing for a possibility that she shot him first, the probability that a woman who had a gun would use a knife against a larger man first, instead of the gun, the probability of a .25 caliber jamming after a first shot, etc., etc.

I'm just using logic here. :angel:

 

[SMK]

Originally Posted by molly333


...What I'm saying is that if you try to prove a circumstantial case with the use of a gun and she doesn't use a gun to kill him, than you have not proved her plan at all.

The fact that she kills him with a knife proves she never planned to kill him with a gun, --so there goes your circumstantial case down the toilet.

Otherwise, you have to prove or at least give strong evidence why she would have changed weapons.

How to you think a profiler would characterize that crime scene? Probably say--a disorganized perpetrator? Hard to say it was even premeditated by the looks of it. It looks more impulsive.


I don't consider it illogical at all. Jodi is doing strange things around stealing the gun, her hair, the license plates, her phone battery. But Jodi did lots of strange things all the time. Maybe you could even prove from that that she was sneaking into Arizona to see Travis. But, so what? She often sneaked over to Travis house, and often at his insistence. Remember how she said he would call her at midnight and say everyone's in bed, come on over?


I don't see where it is clear if she used a knife to kill him.

If she used the gun, then it's very clear, I agree.

You can't see this weakness in the Prosecution case?

IMO

Of course there is some weakness there. Just as there was weakness in the Casey Anthony prosecution.

It does seem though that Arias rented a car. Why?
Dyed her hair. why?
Mysterious robbery of 25 cal handgun. why?
Turned off cell phones. why?
Brought gas cans. why?

Alone, they mean nothing - clustered together at a specific time, they would appear to speak volumes.

And yet, these types of activities (turning off cell phone, changing plans) were said about Amanda Knox - and her conviction was overturned.

The truth is, we don't know which way ALL of the jury are really tending. Even their questions which point to a guilty verdict could simply be their dotting their i s and crossing their ts......As the Casey Anthony and Amanda Knox trials show, juries are impossible to read pre-verdict. We shall have to wait and see....

 

[molly333]

No, you do not have to prove why she didn;t use the gun as planned to still show premeditation. That's simply flat false. It is not en element of premeditated murder. Period.

No, I do not see a weakness in the prosecution's case in this regard.

I do not believe the arguments in your posts are logical ones. I'm sorry. We are all certainly entitled to our opinions but the opinions in your posts make little sense to me. No offense intended!!!

But I cannot continue to argue in circles.

Let me put it this way, then. Juries like simple stories that make sense and that are proven. They are not going to take leaps of faith. They normally don't care whether they like the defendant or not. They are not going to spend weeks pouring over the evidence like we have, either.

If you tell them she premeditated murder with a gun, then you better prove she killed him with a gun or tell them why she changed midstream.

I don't know what they'll do. Without those pictures I would say murder two. But, with them, maybe murder one. Depends how dangerous they think she is, I think.

You don't have to argue with me. I'm just the messenger.

IMO

 

[SMK]

HLN is hawking this as "big Breaking News":

Jodi Arias was originally booked for the Cancun trip until TA switched the name to Mimi Hall.

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/03/22/was-jodi-booked-cancun-trip-travis

So this plays into the jealousy issue. Not really good for Arias. (doesn't really seem much like new info, really)

 

[RealityMan]

I think this may have been posted already, but I found this quote from the book "Gunshot Wounds" to be particularly interesting:

"Just as in the case of gunshot wounds of the heart or major blood vessels, individuals can perform tasks or even survive gunshot wounds of the brain, especially if the injury involves only the frontal lobes. Numerous individuals have survived perforating gunshot wounds of the frontal lobes though there may be associated personality changes and/or blindness . . ."

"In one case, an elderly individual shot himself in the temple with a .32-caliber revolver. The bullet perforated both cerebral hemispheres injuring the tips of the caudate lobes. Following this, he was conscious for at least two hours during which time he spoke to his wife, a visiting nurse, and EMS personnel."

There is a reason why ME was reluctant to say that the small-caliber bullet that perforated TA's frontal lobe was necessarily immediately incapacitating.

Additionally, there is this report called "Penetrating gunshots to the head and lack of immediate incapacitation. II. Review of case report." It would be interesting to know whether TA's gunshot wound falls under the category of the types of gunshot wounds that were found not to be immediately incapacitating.

 

[SMK]

I think this may have been posted already, but I found this quote from the book "Gunshot Wounds" to be particularly interesting:

"Just as in the case of gunshot wounds of the heart or major blood vessels, individuals can perform tasks or even survive gunshot wounds of the brain, especially if the injury involves only the frontal lobes. Numerous individuals have survived perforating gunshot wounds of the frontal lobes though there may be associated personality changes and/or blindness . . ."

"In one case, an elderly individual shot himself in the temple with a .32-caliber revolver. The bullet perforated both cerebral hemispheres injuring the tips of the caudate lobes. Following this, he was conscious for at least two hours during which time he spoke to his wife, a visiting nurse, and EMS personnel."

There is a reason why ME was reluctant to say that the small-caliber bullet that perforated TA's frontal lobe was necessarily immediately incapaciting.

Thank you - superb and illuminating. :what: