Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[AndreaBingham]

How many autopsies have you performed to give you qualifications which go against what the medical examiner (who examined the body) (and has performed 6000 autopsies) states is unequivocally impossible?


Just curious.

 

[Sustained]

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



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



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




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



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



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

One could assume based on the hard line of your posts and arrogant tone that maybe you were there ? Possibly the female ninja ?

And are you are a ME ? Do you have unrefuted proof that MEs are 100% correct ALL THE TIME ?

Obviously you haven't watched a ton of trials or you would have seen conflicting opinions by MEs presented by the defense and prosecution.

And unlike you, I don't take a hard line on my opinion as it is just that, an opinion.

 

[AndreaBingham]

Was there a ME which refuted this ME's conclusion in this trial?

No? Why do you think that is?

This debate exists only on Websleuths by non medical examiners. I am still waiting for a medical examiner to stand up and say differently.

Until then, the people who believe they know more than the medical examiner are the arrogant ones, not me.

 

[Sustained]

Was there a ME which refuted this ME's conclusion in this trial?

No? Why do you think that is?

This debate exists only on Websleuths by non medical examiners. I am still waiting for a medical examiner to stand up and say differently.

Until then, the people who believe they know more than the medical examiner are the arrogant ones, not me.

Why do I think that is ? How about money and the lack of available funds for someone like Dr. Baden or Dr. Wecht to testify ? Do you even know if the defense would call another ME in this case and if it really matters to their case ?

And you're exactly right - these are only opinions of those on Websleuths and you can choose to believe whatever you like ...

 

[AndreaBingham]

Why do I think that is ? How about money and the lack of available funds for someone like Dr. Baden or Dr. Wecht to testify ? Do you even know if the defense would call another ME in this case and if it really matters to their case ?

And you're exactly right - these are only opinions of those on Websleuths and you can choose to believe whatever you like ...

Whether the victim was shot first or last is everything to the defense's case. If he was shot last (which he was, according to the medical examiner who has a great deal of credibility and experience) it completely defeats the self defense theory. . .why would you shoot someone who was already incapacitated by the other injuries you inflicted on him?

If he was shot first and still able to fight (which the medical examiner says is not a physical possibility) he could have continued attacking Jodi, allowing for her self defense theory.

Why do you think JW was so exasperated during cross examination? It's vital to their case and the medical examiner stated unequivocally that things didn't happen the way they wish it did.

 

[Madeleine74]

The defense wanted the shot to come first for a few reasons.

1. They wanted to argue that the crime was somehow less cruel to TA and hoped a judge would rule in their favor and take the DP out of the equation. That failed. A judge ruled the case is a DP one regardless of the order of the wounds.

2. The defense wanted to impeach Det. Flores against the M.E. since they had differing opinions. They wanted to suggest a mistrial was necessary because somehow the lead detective switched things around and lied. That failed. Only the M.E.'s opinion is the expert medical opinion. Flores' opinion on the order of the wounds doesn't count. And a judge ruled the order of wounds doesn't matter--the crime is cruel regardless.

3. The defense wants to try and explain why stabbing then had to occur (shot first, gun jammed, stab,stab,stab,stab). That too will fail because IF she did shoot first, TA was incapacitated enough where she could have escaped the bathroom, run out of the house and kept running for her life. The way this crime was carried out, with 29 stab wounds, does not a self-defense theory make. They'll try, they will fail.

THUS, the order of the wounds is ultimately a moot point. Why? Because in trying to float that theory the defense did not get what they wanted in trying to argue the point to a judge to get DP off the table, the defense did not get the M.E. to agree with their theory (and yes, they did try), the defense did not get a mistrial from trying to imply Flores lied, and the self-defense claim will fail and fail miserably because JA could indeed have escaped *IF* the shot came first. This murder was one of rage/passion/anger, not self-defense. Anyone can see that.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

I haven't read all the replies here so forgive me if I repeat something already posted.
The photo of Travis in the shower with his forearms crossed at the chest disturbs me, and I think he has already been stabbed in the chest at that point. I think while he was in shock from the stabbing in the chest that JA took that photo while holding him at gun point. I think also that she showed him the digital display of those photos before finishing him off. The look on his face in that photo speaks of sheer terror. JMHO!

 

[Madeleine74]

I haven't read all the replies here so forgive me if I repeat something already posted.
The photo of Travis in the shower with his forearms crossed at the chest disturbs me, and I think he has already been stabbed in the chest at that point. I think while he was in shock from the stabbing in the chest that JA took that photo while holding him at gun point. I think also that she showed him the digital display of those photos before finishing him off. The look on his face in that photo speaks of sheer terror. JMHO!

There is no blood apparent in the picture with Travis standing with his arms crossed in front of his chest. Plus he was standing up in that picture and there were other pictures taken after that one that further do not show any injuries to him. Based on the photos we've seen all injuries appear to have occurred after the picture of Travis looking out the shower door with the water droplets.

 

[sacrablue]

When did Travis receive the knife wound to his chest?

 

[danzn16]

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

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

The ME also spent time explaining why getting shot with a limb/nail/arrow like you see on the news sometimes is very different from a gun shot. The previous are very low velocity and only cause damage to wherever the projectile enters the brain. A gun shot is very high velocity and causes great concussive forces throughout the entire brain, injuring where the bullet hit the brain which causes rips of tissue and also the entire brain from the shockwave that is causes. Two very different events that cannot be compared.

 

[danzn16]

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

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

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

ALL he states is HIS medical opinion.

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

Because there would be blood evidence in the cranial cavity. Which btw can't be washed out in the shower since TA had a closed head wound. Even if the heart or neck wound followed very closely there would still be so much blood already reservoired in the vessels in the brain, neck, and face that there would still be major blood loss into the cranial cavity from a gunshot wound regardless of what injury came after it. It is really that simple. Science and nature only works that way. You can also use the crime scene if he was shot first, then he also crawled down a hallway and bled a lot during that period so he would have had to have bled a lot into his cranial cavity at that time. But yet he did not. So he was shot lost.

I've been in the medical field for 8 years now. And I'm currently in medical school and I agree 100% with the medical examiner. We also have a pathologist on this board that has posted on the JA thread that also agrees with the ME.

 

[danzn16]

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

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

Maybe best to wonder why we expect a psychopath to act rationally? Why we expect her actions to make sense and her to do as we would if we were planning something as such?

 

[danzn16]

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

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

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

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

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

You don't need the brain to see how much bleeding their was. He didn't say that. You need the cranial cavity which he had because that is where the blood from the brain leaks into. He needed the brain to see the trajectory in which the bullet took to see which parts of the brain the bullet went through but the brain was too decomposed. So the amount of bleeding cannot be disputed.

Also just because the bullet lodged in the check doesn't mean it "didn't have enough force" or that this gun was somehow weaker than other gun shots or something like that. I'm not sure if they specified what type of bullet this was but hollow point bullets are known to lodge in the body and not come out of the victim and cause the most damage and bleeding internally. So just because a bullet lodges inside someone doesn't mean less damage is done. Actually it's the opposite. If a bullet comes through cleanly less damage is usually done.

And are you a mental health professional to know that even psychos choose to do more intelligent things like choose a gun over a knife first like you are stating? Because we have seen cases where this is not the case. And illnesses where there is no rational thought or not even illnesses but where rage simply takes hold. I absolutely cannot say what another person would do in hatred. I think getting stabbed 27 times would be more horrible than a shot to the head. Who knows if JA wanted that? We can not assume anything in a persons mind. That is forbidden in court and for good reason.

 

[danzn16]

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

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

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

"Snicking" the anterior cerebral artery is no thing to scough at. That is a major blood vessel that supplies a large part of the brain and would bleed profusely and lack of blood flow to any area would cause major deficits to body function and thought function. It hit the brain there is no disputing that at. It doesn't matter how much it hit, it still tore through major vessels. And the shock damage you are speaking off is serious. It damages every neuron in the brain like a shockwave. Why are we discussing this like its no big deal?

 

[dgfred]

Since it doesn't matter to the defense case IMO- HOW IS SHOOTING LESS CRUEL THAN STABBING OR SLASHING? She admitted killing him and we are discussing sequence of events. When we discuss it in the normal thread we are told to come to THIS thread.

Is is not enjoyable posting/debating when the answer (usually in a slightly rude way) is stated as: Cause the ME said so.
Couldn't you just state your own reasons and give examples?
We all saw, and read the ME's statements and testimony... no need to insult.

ANY good defense lawyer would get another ME from somewhere to dispute this ME's findings. Have you not seen this before? What about in the CA case or the OJ case?
The reason they are not IMO is because that fact is not important to their case. Or he/they are not that good.

I don't understand why it makes some so angry with their post... most everyone posting about it still believes in her guilt, said it didn't really matter as far as her overkilling Travis, and on and on. No need to be so rude IMO.

Some post have been highly interesting and relevant IMO. Instead of because the ME said so, couldn't debates/refuting be done in a pleasant way? I don't understand.

 

[AndreaBingham]

Since it doesn't matter to the defense case IMO- HOW IS SHOOTING LESS CRUEL THAN STABBING OR SLASHING? She admitted killing him and we are discussing sequence of events. When we discuss it in the normal thread we are told to come to THIS thread.

It's not just the cruelty or lack there of that makes this completely vital to the defense's case. That is what is causing your confusion here. There are several reasons that the defense wishes he was shot first, which include:

1. Aforementioned "less cruel" theory.
2. If he was shot last, after he was already dead or incapacitated, it blows the self defense theory out of the water.
3. Shooting a dead or incapacitated person speaks of rage killing.
4. If you were really trying to defend yourself, you would go for the more powerful weapon first. . . not the more torturous one.

Is is not enjoyable posting/debating when the answer (usually in a slightly rude way) is stated as: Cause the ME said so.
Couldn't you just state your own reasons and give examples?

First of all, I'm not sure why this is a debate in the first place. The ME's evidence is the only evidence we have. When you make up some story that goes against the evidence we have, it doesn't make any sense. What's the point of making up a story when we have medical science telling us what really happened? For fun?

In this case, the ME's testimony is SO compelling that "because the ME said so" is categorically a pretty good response.

We all saw, and read the ME's statements and testimony... no need to insult.

Actually, I'm under the impression that the majority of people who are arguing for the "shot first" theory weren't aware of his testimony. The other people just ignore science.

ANY good defense lawyer would get another ME from somewhere to dispute this ME's findings. Have you not seen this before? What about in the CA case or the OJ case?

It didn't happen here because there is NO way to dispute his evidence. No medical examiner could make a compelling case against his findings because he was the only one to examine the body and he was a very credible witness.

The reason they are not IMO is because that fact is not important to their case. Or he/they are not that good.

It is vital to their defense. Read above. If it was not vital to their defense, why did JW cross examine him so aggressively about it?

I don't understand why it makes some so angry with their post... most everyone posting about it still believes in her guilt, said it didn't really matter as far as her overkilling Travis, and on and on. No need to be so rude IMO.

It makes people angry because we have science giving us a very clear story and some just ignore it in place of their own, nonsensical story which flies in the face of every evidentiary point.

But you are right. There is no need to be rude.

Some post have been highly interesting and relevant IMO. Instead of because the ME said so, couldn't debates/refuting be done in a pleasant way? I don't understand.

You seem determined to ignore the ME's testimony. I don't understand why??

 

[dgfred]

No, you... don't understand. I'm not ignoring anything. I choose to believe what I want to believe. Not any poster here or any ME could make me feel otherwise. That is the enjoyment of it IMO. Regardless of what is more important for you, me or what the ME feels... it is what the jurors decide. Some jurors are not 100% convinced by what a ME says (in fact many have been shown to be crooked or wrong- not my point tho).
Maybe another view could be important to view... instead of shooting them down in flames. What if one juror considers the gunshot first (as seen here it is possible)? Does that change the entire case in the opinion of the stab first group? What if the jurors think what the ME say is correct now... but the defense brings one on later that contradicts what he claimed? Would that change the jurors opinion? I don't know.

There are a couple of questions not really answered by the stab-first group:

1- Why steal a gun but chance a stab to the heart to take down a healthy male?

2- Why would anyone (psycho included) shoot him and chance being heard after stabbing him 29 times and cutting his throat? He is dead from at least the hall (throat cut) all the way to the shower. Why shoot him and basically miss a clean shot on an immobile body when she does???

3- Does the spray at the sink look like spray from one stab wound to the heart?
Could it possibly be spray from blood in the nasal passage and throat from the shot from above right eyebrow to the left jaw?

4- Would there be gun-shot residue anywhere in the house from the shot? If the residue was around the door to the shower... it would seem from the end position of the body that it may have been earlier. If it was somewhere else it would support the stab wounds first IMO.

IMO even if one juror or more feels like one or the other happened first... it was overkill on a defenseless (at some point) person. They will find her guilty IMO.

Neither weapon is more tortuous IMO.

Stabbing a live person, and cutting their throat from ear to ear shows PLENTY of rage IMO.

Shooting a person in the head/face shows plenty of rage too... defenseless or not IMO.

After all... it is only my opinion. Just thinking and passing time for the most part. Thanks.

 

[minor4th]

I think everyone should keep in mind that the jury does not have to take any testimony as completely true, even if there's no contradictory testimony. At the moment, the ME's testimony is the only evidence, but if the jurors have a hard time understanding or believing that Travis was stabbed first, as opposed to shot first, they can disregard that part of the ME's testimony.

There are arguments above that seem to suggest that we are obligated to accept the ME's testimony because it is the only evidence presented on the issue of the sequence of wounds. Even the jury is not required to accept any testimony as conclusive. In fact, the jury could very well engage in a similar discussion about the sequence of events - just like we are doing here.

 

[danzn16]

I am not angry about any discussion. I love discussion of cases hence the reason I am a member of WS. I don't just go with the ME just because that's what a ME said but because that is the only thing that makes any scientific sense. When I post I just state the reasons I think differently and I hope I don't come across differently than that. I have medical expertise behind my thought processes so this case is interesting to me

 

[minor4th]

I am not angry about any discussion. I love discussion of cases hence the reason I am a member of WS. I don't just go with the ME just because that's what a ME said but because that is the only thing that makes any scientific sense. When I post I just state the reasons I think differently and I hope I don't come across differently than that. I have medical expertise behind my thought processes so this case is interesting to me

I, for one, have appreciated your posts and your medical insights. I do not think you have ever come across as trying to limit the discussion FWIW