Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[wilsodh]

I'll try this one more time. When he says that there is a small amount of blood in the Paracardial Sac, he is saying it was nicked with the knife and
there was a little bleeding. Then when referring to the lungs he writes: exuding moderate amount of blood and intermixed frothy decompositional fluid. This again indicates that while the lung did not suffer a significant puncture, there is new bleeding inside the lungs from a wound to the lungs. The next line that you quote: "There are no areas of induration, consolidation, hemorrhage, or gross scarring". These terms are all used when the lungs are being examined for disease processes such as Black Lung, the COPD family of diseases, Cystic Fibrosis, Asbestosis, and such lung injuries. I know you and your ilk won't accept this explanation, but I feel compelled to try to help you understand. You can look those four words up for yourself and see what they all relate to, if you want to, but whatever. If you look up hemorrhage of the lung by itself you will get information that supports your narrow view, but if you look the four terms up together you will actually get a better idea of what that line is actually saying, and it isn't what you are trying to make it say. The blood in the lungs from a disease process looks different than freshly spilled blood. Similar to signs of hemorrhage in the stomach gives the appearance of coffee grounds when it is vomited out.

After death, blood seeks the lowest point. I could not find it right now and I am not real concerned about finding it. But anyway, he did comment on the discoloration in gluteal and upper posterior thigh regions due to the blood settling there. Similar to what you see in the hands and feet, that blackish color. Anything in the torso (a realatively open area) area would settle to the Gluteal area that was in the bottom of the shower. Once he was placed in the shower, the blood started draining downward due to gravity. The same thing would have happened in the head, as his head was turned to the right and he was slumped that way. We can see it in the hands and feet, also.

I don't disagree that he could have written a more detailed report. But, the information is there, and it is not what you think it is or what you are trying to twist it to be. I can easily see why someone would read the report and think it says one thing, but be way of base with that assumption. In many places it seems his brain is going faster than his fingers and type, and he leaves out details that should be there and would make the report easier to read and understand.

I know you and your ilk...

...supports your narrow view...

<sigh> Alrighty then.

Well... 'reckon I'll try one more time also. With your textbook clarifications (yes, of course I checked the terms beforehand) you are missing the point of the argument: how strong, really, is the evidence of knife-first? We agree that Horn's autopsy report was skimpy, but you stop short of acknowledging that this weakens the reliability of the evidence, and instead attempt to fill in the gaps yourself in order to support your view of what happened. Further, you don't acknowledge the potential impact of decomposition on the reliability of the evidence, despite Horn's own warning about this.

So we are left with three factors that weaken the argument for knife-first based on intracranial hemorrhaging: 1) lack of thoroughness and detail in the autopsy report, 2) decomposition of the tissues, and 3) Horn's own acknowledgement (in testimony and in the autopsy report) that decomposition of the body limited the certainty of his observations. What many of our "ilk" are saying is the evidence is clearly not strong enough to rule out a gun-first scenario. I don't think we are saying a knife-first scenario is impossible. We have been trying to apply careful analysis of the evidence with a critical eye toward its reliability to see what scenario seems to fit best. I don't know about you, but this is the reason why I log on to Websleuths every day (a habit I wish I could break!).

On the other hand, many of those who ardently defend knife-first seem to be taking more of a dogmatic approach, generally assuming Horn is infallible, not deeply examining and questioning the evidence and testimony, and instead questioning (sometimes disrespectfully) those of us who question the state's scenario.

You may say I have a narrow view, but if you go back to my post (#1555), this is what I wrote:

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?

In my book, thinking for ourselves, questioning a prevailing view, deeply exploring the evidence, and trying to make the most sense of what the evidence presents us with is not an exercise in narrow thinking. It is opening up alternative possibilities. That's what keeps me logging on everyday.

So how do YOU think Horn would have answered the question above?

Dave

 

[Donnareit]

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

In the end there is a bullet in his head. She used the gun. The bloody scene shows there was a struggle where the person doing 99% of the bleeding (Travis) was conscious enough to try to escape in terror and in pain. And in the end a smaller and presumably weaker person inflicted this carnage with barely a scratch to her own person. Looks like 1st Degree to me.

 

[LambChop]

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

Why does JM have to prove why she changed weapons. She admits having the gun. She admits having the knife. It's up to the jury to decide if 9 stab wounds to the back and cutting his throat was premeditated. Seems pretty clear to me she had a choice to flee and continued to try to kill him and I'm on board with that.

Another thing that I find interesting and sad. Travis just has defensive wounds on his hands. I think after the initial blow he could have punched her out and he didn't go for it. It might have saved his life. jmo

 

[geevee]

<sigh> Alrighty then.

Well... 'reckon I'll try one more time also. With your textbook clarifications (yes, of course I checked the terms beforehand) you are missing the point of the argument: how strong, really, is the evidence of knife-first? We agree that Horn's autopsy report was skimpy, but you stop short of acknowledging that this weakens the reliability of the evidence, and instead attempt to fill in the gaps yourself in order to support your view of what happened. Further, you don't acknowledge the potential impact of decomposition on the reliability of the evidence, despite Horn's own warning about this.

So we are left with three factors that weaken the argument for knife-first based on intracranial hemorrhaging: 1) lack of thoroughness and detail in the autopsy report, 2) decomposition of the tissues, and 3) Horn's own acknowledgement (in testimony and in the autopsy report) that decomposition of the body limited the certainty of his observations. What many of our "ilk" are saying is the evidence is clearly not strong enough to rule out a gun-first scenario. I don't think we are saying a knife-first scenario is impossible. We have been trying to apply careful analysis of the evidence with a critical eye toward its reliability to see what scenario seems to fit best. I don't know about you, but this is the reason why I log on to Websleuths every day (a habit I wish I could break!).

On the other hand, many of those who ardently defend knife-first seem to be taking more of a dogmatic approach, generally assuming Horn is infallible, not deeply examining and questioning the evidence and testimony, and instead questioning (sometimes disrespectfully) those of us who question the state's scenario.

You may say I have a narrow view, but if you go back to my post (#1555), this is what I wrote:



In my book, thinking for ourselves, questioning a prevailing view, deeply exploring the evidence, and trying to make the most sense of what the evidence presents us with is not an exercise in narrow thinking. It is opening up alternative possibilities. That's what keeps me logging on everyday.

So how do YOU think Horn would have answered the question above?

Dave

Very well said.

 

[molly333]

JVM just said that Travis was originally going to take Jodi to Cancun and changed it to Mimi on his application in April around the time Jodi moved back to CA.

So, now we have more evidence for a motive of jealousy that the Jury has not heard.

The other evidence is her talk with the detective on video.

IMO

 

[LambChop]

JVM just said that Travis was originally going to take Jodi to Cancun and changed it to Mimi on his application in April around the time Jodi moved back to CA.

So, now we have more evidence for a motive of jealousy that the Jury has not heard.

The other evidence is her talk with the detective on video.

IMO

JM has not done his rebuttal. He can't anticipate what Jodi will say until she testified. She did say she was not jealous but yet she shows up looking like Mimi on June 4th right down to the car. Maybe Jodi was hoping Mimi would "stop" over while she was there. Maybe that is what Jodi was waiting for. That could be a motive for the two weapons she brought with her. Maybe Jodi was hoping to get two for one. I think there is a lot we still have to learn in this case.

 

[wasnt_me]

Another hung Jury on HLN After Dark!

Question: Did she bring the knife?

Jury: 7 yes to 5 no

:banghead:

I thought I read here that they tested the knives in Travis' house and none of them matched the striations? If this is the case and if no knives are missing from his house, then she used a knife that did not come from his house. So is it true that they tested the knives at his house? Is it true that none of the knives from his house were missing? I didn't hear testimony about it or I could have missed it.

 

[wasnt_me]

If she shot him first, and the gun jammed, as in the ninja story, and Travis screamed and then went to his knees holding his head with one hand, moaning for help, jodi had a few seconds to run somewhere and grab a knife. Even downstairs. I ran a stopwatch and timed myself running a distance similar to what I think Jodi could have run going to the kitchen and back. 31 seconds. Leaving 15-20 seconds to stab him to death. It's cutting it pretty close but it's possible.

In your scenario, has Travis already made it to the hallway? Are you saying it took 15 to 20 seconds to put all the blood all over the bathroom and the hallway and slit his throat in the hallway?

 

[wasnt_me]

Unless of course she was in a rush to get out before the room mates got back, and to carry on with her road trip (alibi), and felt she had cleaned up sufficiently to disconnect her from the crime and explain away anything else as her having "lived there for weeks" as she did in interrogation...

I have read here that Travis' roommates were in and out of the house that day one was home at 11am, one (perhaps the same one, I don't know) came home from 3-4pm. With them popping in and out, which Jodi might have considered abnormal, she probably didn't want to risk hanging around in the middle of cleaning in case they came back again.

Cleaning could have been an overwhelming task, given all the blood and Travis didn't have enough towels for her to use, wash, etc. Nor did she had time to be washing--as we can see. Maybe after she put that stuff in the dryer, she realized she didn't have time to be waiting on it and on another load, so she abandoned the clean up effort. We don't know, but I don't see how that precludes premeditation.

 

[wasnt_me]

And if his skin was wet (which we are pretty sure he was in the shower) the duct tape probably wouldn't stick well enough to leave much, if any, residue. This might also ave been where her plans went awry... maybe she taped his hands but because his skin was wet it didn't stick very well and he was able to break free from it and go after her....

Yeah. maybe. And same thing if it was this magical rope Jodi had instead of the duct tape we saw in evidence. It looks mashed down and folded like it wasn't sticking good. Or she could have cut if off him after death if he didn't break it. It's just a theory, but it helps me explain to myself why his defensive wounds are only inside his palms.

 

[wasnt_me]

Another coincidence is the remote in her car for a DVD player that she returned to Darryl when her grandfather reported his DVD player stolen. jmo

I didn't even connect the dots on this. Here I am wondering what she was doing walking out to her car and leaving with Darryl's remote for. Should have known it was just another lie. Which is why I can't understand why people believe her that the gun jammed. Any and everything Jodi said has to be suspect, not taken for granted as true.

 

[New1]

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.

In that split second it takes to decide to kill him, that's premeditated, whether she used a gun or a knife.

 

[Captain86]

It wasn't meant to be snarky. I honestly was confused by this back and forth about whether or not he was shot first or last because of the testimony that I did listen to where the ME said that TA would have been immediately incapacitated. In which case, that left me to wonder if people thought that he was incompetent or something. The contradiction between cross and direct doesn't help the matter. At least now I know something about this "debate" that I didn't know before, so I do thank Reality Man for taking the time to spell it out.

I'm new to this particular debate, btw, so I have no clue the history of it. lol.

There is no concrete fact that he would or would not be immediately incapacitated. There can't be much of an argument that the bullet passed through the brain. The questions are how much damage did it due and when did it go through the brain. I believe it was a .25 and may not have done enough to incapacitate him, so I think if he was shot first he very well could have fought back. I also believe that the lack of blood in the skull is a hard fact to get around. I read some of his statements differently than some others. Whether she shot him first or stabbed him first, you still have the problem of him getting through her to the sink and all the blood to the left of the shower (toward the toilet). If she has to leave the bathroom to get the knife, she wastes time.

It isn't like it really matters. She went there to kill him and she did. How the murder started doesn't matter, and unfortunately, we all know and agree on how it ended.

 

[Applejack]

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

Once again: sequence of events is irrelevant. Fact: it is not self defense because she killed him a few times over, ie at some point he was no longer a threat and she kept on going. Fact: she did so many things to cover up the fact that she was in Mesa both after AND BEFORE going there. Jury does NOT need to know the sequence of events, her preferred method of killing him, why her method may or may not have change, which would ultimately killed him, etc etc.

Premditation has been proven. Your argument makes no sense. You seem to think the jury needs to have written proof of a completely thought-through plan that went off EXACTLY as he intended, in order to convict her. This is simply false. The points you argue are *irrelevant to a 1st degree conviction*.

 

[wasnt_me]

Last night I was rewatching Trial Day 2 and s/s pics from it to look at more closely, apparently that crime scene was a bigger mess than first realized with the initial pictures. I noticed I'd always seen the area with the shell casing having that cabinet door open and/or the linen door covering that area left of the sink, I did find a pic where the cab door is closed and the linen door is somewhat away from the corner, allowing you to see some of the wall right next to the sink. There is a lot of blood on the part that faces the windows, and a large swipe of blood around the corner just above the baseboard which couldn't be seen before (at least by me), she was on his left at the sink, he was naked and only clothing could have made that blood swipe.

Also, on the wall where the towel hangs (that towel was shown in court with 'spots' on it), underneath the towel are what look like bloody hand prints a foot or so up from the baseboard (along with other blood spatters), and this too - in a later photo with that wall scaled off with marked tape, there's a chunk of drywall taken out of that wall (I'll add these pics to my PB album so you can take a look).

http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/g.../?page=1&_suid=136396106153108860287493313407

I knew Juan was driving at something when he brought out that blood was under the glass scale and it had been marked into evidence under an LB number (is that latent blood print?), some of the scuffle took place back in by the towel bar, maybe she tried to corner him back there after the sink and before getting down the hallway, but what I had thought was cast off blood on everything to the right of the sink appears to be part of the fight (with the prints on that back corner wall) and it looks like they had been near the ground as well, this just gets curiouser and curiouser.

To me, the swipes on the wall look like Jodi cleaned the wall with a towel, maybe to remove other hand prints. She missed one, though. In the picture of the bleed out on the carpet, if you look at it, you can see a body impression with the left arm (by the wall) flipped upward. The footprint by the bed, I imagine was jodi's right foot, her left knee was on the bed, and she was pulling off the sheets.

 

[Captain86]

Do you think she may have practiced with the gun before using it?

I would think she would have or should have. That may account for different bullets in the gun if in fact the grandfather had hollow points. She has an awful lot of unaccounted time on this trip and some of it before leaving for Travis' and she had the time between the "theft" and the trip. But then you would have to think she would be familiar with them jamming if she had fired it previously. I think it is a good possibility that she did.

If she had previous experience with handguns, she may not have fired the
.25. Any other handgun you would shoot would be more powerful, so a .25 would not be real intimidating.

 

[geevee]

Yeah. maybe. And same thing if it was this magical rope Jodi had instead of the duct tape we saw in evidence. It looks mashed down and folded like it wasn't sticking good. Or she could have cut if off him after death if he didn't break it. It's just a theory, but it helps me explain to myself why his defensive wounds are only inside his palms.

Seems to be that if his hands were bound, most of the defensive wounds would be along the baby finger side of the hands and on the forearms. I think there were relatively few as he was already half blind from either the gunshot and resulting blood flowing down over that eye and also why she was able to get in so many knife wounds.

 

[wasnt_me]

There are so many points to address here. Your definition of premeditation is just off, firstly. First degree murder doesn't just apply to people who have planned out every last detail of a murder and pulled it off precisely according to plan. All that is needed is an intent to murder. A person can be convicted of 1st degree without a body, without a weapon, without an expressed plan. The jury does not need to even know how she killed him, although it is helpful in sentencing in determining suffering and such.

1. Why would she care about a mess being made so long as it was contained to his locked bedroom?

2. Even if she explicitely thought "I do not intend to make a mess when I kill him," she had no idea what Travis' reaction would be. She had no idea how quickly he'd die or how much of a fight he'd put up. I suppose a mess in the hall was preferable in her mind to him making it out into the shared living area.

3. Her first response to Flores was that she "lived there for weeks" and her "DNA and fingerprints and hair would be all over the place." She thought she cleaned up sufficiently to be able to explain away any other small details as a result if her having lived there. Given the fact that the room mate was due home within half an hour (and did in fact arrive home then,) of course it was a quick clean up and who is really surprised that he made mistakes. Either she thought deleting the photos plus running it through the wash would destroy it, or she accidentally swept it up in the sheets and towels and didn't realize it. As for the handprint, maybe she didn't see it or thought it was Travis'. It WAS chaotic but that doesn't mean it wasnt premeditated at least to the extent of "Im going to give him one more chance, but if he uses me again i'll kill him, and i'll cover my tracks just in case." That's 1st degree. That's enough.

Great points. Especially by saying it was better than the mess spreading out of the room into the rest of house. That could be why she slashed his throat near the door--fear that he'd get out that door, creating a bigger scene to contain.

 

[wasnt_me]

Seems to be that if his hands were bound, most of the defensive wounds would be along the baby finger side of the hands and on the forearms. I think there were relatively few as he was already half blind from either the gunshot and resulting blood flowing down over that eye and also why she was able to get in so many knife wounds.

His left hand sustained more than his right. Looks like only the thumb was nicked on the right, which indicates to me at least that hands bound, he was raising his hands up to the left to defend while she was on his left hacking at his back or the back of his head. That would put wounds by the thumbs, not the pinkies. He doesn't have many wounds in the front, so to defend behind himself he has to reach that way.

The binding is just a theory to explain how she could overpower him, a way that the knife was upstairs (to cut rope or duct tape), and to explain minimal defensive wounds. He could have been unbound, and he could have grabbed the blade with his left hand.

I don't think he couldn't see from a gunshot wound. I still don't think the gun shot happened first.

 

[geevee]

To me, the swipes on the wall look like Jodi cleaned the wall with a towel, maybe to remove other hand prints. She missed one, though. In the picture of the bleed out on the carpet, if you look at it, you can see a body impression with the left arm (by the wall) flipped upward. The footprint by the bed, I imagine was jodi's right foot, her left knee was on the bed, and she was pulling off the sheets.

I might agree with you about the swipe but the bullet casing is right there in front of the swipe on a pool of blood (which one would think she'd remove along with weapons), and nothing in that sink area had been touched clean-up-wise, water on the floor is about the only thing she did and I think that started accidentally with water from the shower coming out (maybe even the sponge fell down and blocked the drain).

Something else about the sink pic, I found one that shows it with all other items removed (soap bottle, toiletries, etc.) but that thing that was on the right of the sink is still in the picture - what is that thing? In every shot, it gets moved around but it's always there in every pic I've seen but haven't seen an evidence number on it. Intriguing.