Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[Applejack]

More from Randolph Beasley crime scene expert on Dr. Drew.

Look at page 4 of autopsy report--the pathologist clearly states that there was no major damage to the brain because of the wound path. Read what it says. It says the wound path of the bullet did not do major damage to the brain. That's what it says. And, so, he doesn't even list the bullet as one of the causes of death. It's a shock force injury. The stabbing did the cause of death, not the bullet. Look at the details on that report.

The bullet ended up near the jaw. The reason you take a gun to kill someone in a premeditated game of attack is because that's what you're going to use. So when the gun jammed--she even used that scenario in a story with the two ninja intruders. Why? Because a suspect will typically take part of the truth and then they'll fabricate this story, which is what she did. The scenario of the gunshot first makes more sense in a crime scene reconstruction.

The report says there is no "GROSS evidence" and explains that due to the state of decomp, examination was limited. It also describes the physical evidence of the path of the bullet, from which we can determine that it had to have hit the brain. If this is not clear from his report, he clearly wxplained it on the stand.

No one said the gunshot came last and therefore caused his death. This is a straw man. The fact that there was little to no bleeding from the bullet, and the stabbing/slashing killed him, only helps prove the gunshot wasn't first. :/

How does it make more sense? Please explain.

 

[Applejack]

Quote:
The point is--the ME did NOT give a sequence of events in his written autopsy report, so who cares what he says when he's opining on the stand. That is not his job to speculate.

He effectively did. He gave a cause of death. He explained a lack of hemorrhage to the brain. An autopsy report doesn't explain the way the cardiovascular system works and why there woul or would not be blood here or there. But if asked, as he was at trial, he can of course explain and expound upon his findings.

 

[danzn16]

Sigh, I have reread the transcript of the ME's testimony many times. Perhaps you should review it again yourself. The ME did NOT write about the sequencing of the injuries in his final report. And, according to his testimony, the ME wrote the final report AFTER he had "the opportunity to look at the whole case, get investigative reports back, get toxicology, histology and come to a final report." The reason he did not write about the sequencing of the injuries is because such writing would've been speculative. The first time he speculated as to the order of the injuries is when he was questioned by the defense before he appeared in court. The second time he speculated as to the order of the injuries was during his testimony. He is speculating in both instances.



Quite the contrary.



I don't think I am.

The initial report is only an autopsy and discovery of findings. All forensic pathologist wait until whole case can be looked at, tox screens, and histology before they make a final decision. This doesn't sway his findings and is common.

 

[danzn16]

Yes, I heard that but I thought it was odd. It doesn't support either scenario because the ME's speculation from the stand was that he was already dead from the throat slashing and VC stab wound by the time he was shot. In that case, she didn't kill him with the gun. She killed him with the knife.

We know that whether it was first or last, the gun wound did not kill him in either event.


Here's the problem for me. If knife first, I would have to go with a lessor included myself--second degree or manslaughter. There is no evidence she brought a knife, the knife would have been readily available in his house, and she testified the knife was already in the master suite from the rope cutting. So she could have picked up the knife when a fight started, and the fight got out of hand with her killing him. But, there may not have been an intent to kill when she picked up the knife.



If, on the other hand, she forms the intent to kill him, and towards that end steals a gun, drives with it hundreds of miles, and shoots him in the shower, that is clearly premeditated murder, murder one, and the fact that she follows a jammed gun with a brutal knife slashing, makes it dp worthy.

I cannot get to murder one if it is knife first and she killed him with the knife.

IMO

What??? You wouldn't give her the death penalty or even a murder conviction if the knife was first? Call me crazy but I would rather be shot in the head and die versus stabbed 29 times and suffer throughout every awful stab wound. Wow. And the knife was not in the bathroom so she had to go get it from another room and then carry what she did, that is still premeditation. Or shes lying and she already had it with her, also premeditated. That is extremely more heinous. And the fact that she used a knife and a gun is even worse. Goodness I truly hope no member of the jury thinks that way or we may have a sociopath murderer out on our streets and TA turning over in his grave!!!

 

[Applejack]

Here's the problem for me. If knife first, I would have to go with a lessor included myself--second degree or manslaughter. There is no evidence she brought a knife, the knife would have been readily available in his house, and she testified the knife was already in the master suite from the rope cutting. So she could have picked up the knife when a fight started, and the fight got out of hand with her killing him. But, there may not have been an intent to kill when she picked up the knife.

1. Premeditation can happen in a heartbeat. Let's say your proposed scenario is true (which even Jodi says it's not), then the premeditation aspect certainly occurred at the point she began killing him *three times over*. The idea of trying to prove Jodi innocent by a scenario completely contradictory to the one she described is just bizarre. I mean, sure, I GUESS a flying purple invisible unicorn may have swept in the window and killed Travis, but...wait, no I dont.

2. Why bring a knife if you can get Travis up into bed with one of his own. Perhaps she didnt bring the knife. And perhaps she didnt because she knew she didn't have to. Still premeditation.

3. The case for premeditation is based on much more than bringing the weapons along. The rental car, the hair (what? Neighbours saw me there?! But they last saw me with platinum blonde hair and a different car!!), the gas cans, the cover up, cell phone, the camera, the alibi... Need I go on? Oh, and the gun, which you admit was brought along and therefore likely stolen a week before... Again, premed.

 

[danzn16]

Again, you cannot prove she brought a knife with her to the scene.


He can and did prove she brought a gun circumstantially. But if she only goes and gets the gun to shoot him after he is dead from a knife fight [the gun wound did not kill him according to the ME], then the gun is just a coup de gras and not premeditated murder.

So, you prove she brought a gun with her but try to prove she killed him with a knife on purpose?

Do you really want to confuse the Jury or what?

A confused Jury will not give you murder one.

IMO

I always have a gun with me when I'm in my house. And I have a concealed carry permit. Simply having a gun on you is not premeditation. Now if she set up a stolen scenario that leans toward planning, but since you say no proof she had the knife with her than I can also say there is no proof it wasn't stolen regardless of what we believe. ( not that I believe her for one second). But she could simply say she had it with her for her long drive through CA. Also isn't she saying it was TAs gun? I don't know why merely having a gun is premeditation. A large amount of people have guns and bring them with them. Not many carry a butcher knife or kitchen knife though.

 

[danzn16]

You really cannot have it both ways. If you say you know he was shot last because the lack of bleeding into the head proves he was already dead when shot, then you can't turn around and say he wasn't already dead when shot but he was shot last.

IMO

Snipped by me.

We are not having it both ways. As in my earlier posts he could have either already been dead or he was in late stages of hemorrhagic shock from blood loss of which is impossible to come back from with that much blood loss. So yes he can either be dead or his heart is still beating but he is within seconds to minutes of unavoidable death due to shock. The result is the same and would lead to the same evidence in the cranial cavity. But still does not change the sequence of events. Both ways he would have been shot last because he would have had to bleed out in order for their to be little blood in the cranial cavity. Not sure how this is confusing or having it both ways...

 

[danzn16]

I cannot see a woman premeditating murder of a strong man and then choosing a knife to kill him. It just does not work for me. In normal circumstances, it would be crazy.

IMO

You don't determine events by what you see or cannot see or what you feel you would personally do. There are multiple cases of women stabbing men to death. It isn't actually that rare at all. You have to look at crime scene and physical evidence on the body.

"in normal circumstances, it would be crazy" Are you saying that JA is not crazy? That a sane person could drive that far to visit someone they loved, have sex, and then stab your loved one 29 times, slit their throat from ear to ear so deep it almost decapitates him, and shoot him in the head with a gun? Yes totally sounds like a normal circumstance and someone that's totally sane.

 

[pip]

Snipped by me.

We are not having it both ways. As in my earlier posts he could have either already been dead or he was in late stages of hemorrhagic shock from blood loss of which is impossible to come back from with that much blood loss. So yes he can either be dead or his heart is still beating but he is within seconds to minutes of unavoidable death due to shock. The result is the same and would lead to the same evidence in the cranial cavity. But still does not change the sequence of events. Both ways he would have been shot last because he would have had to bleed out in order for their to be little blood in the cranial cavity. Not sure how this is confusing or having it both ways...

Unless you believe, as I do, that the GSW only grazed thru the skull, missed the brain and caused damage to the vessels in the sinus cavity which bled ALOT. He still would have been disoriented from the shock to the skull and swelling would quickly ensue. I think he got out of the shower and made it to the sink to see the damage. Why would he go to the sink to inspect a chest wound? He wouldn't need a mirror for that.. He would have been trying to get out of the house instead, no stop at the mirror. JMO.

 

[danzn16]

He effectively did. He gave a cause of death. He explained a lack of hemorrhage to the brain. An autopsy report doesn't explain the way the cardiovascular system works and why there woul or would not be blood here or there. But if asked, as he was at trial, he can of course explain and expound upon his findings.

I think this is important. A report is written by a physician in medical jargon. It is not meant to be read and understood in lay man's terms. If you aren't the medical field just because what you read doesn't make sense to you or you interpret it one way doesn't mean at all that you understand what is being read.

 

[pip]

I think she was caught by surprise that he was able to get up and get out of the shower after she shot him in the head. That wasn't part of her plan. In a panic, she was unable to shoot round 2, either d/t mechanical failure or that she was just too freaked out to use the gun correctly, and she went for the knife. She stabbed him in the back at the sink, he tried making his way out of the bathroom, she stabs him in the heart, he makes it to the end of the hall, collapses and she slashes his throat at the end.

 

[cecybeans]

I've thought a lot about this one and what makes sense to me given what we know. I have no doubt she planned it all - there is too much cover up from the get-go to hide that single portion of her trip (one she couldn't afford so she borrowed money and that was completely unnecessary otherwise). If she had simply needed a gun for this trip, she could have asked her grandparents to borrow one. This chick is all into contingencies too, as evidenced by her silly stories to explain the license plate she reversed so that she couldn't be identified on camera easily.

I liked the guy last night on Dr. Drew who said the gun may have jammed. But I think she knew right where the knife was already because she was the one who cut the rope -the scene she describes with Travis in the bathroom at the other end was her instead. In fact, I'll bet she suggested she tie him up first and when he declined, she volunteered to be the one tied (she kept the ropes loose so she could get out). I'd bet her first thought was to tie him up and shoot him and make it look like he was killed during slightly kinky sex. We've all seen that one on TV. That would teach him to call her names and take somebody else to Cancun. That would ruin the religious reputation he tried hard to maintain when she was his dirty little secret. But since he had recently called her a sociopath, I'm sure he didn't really trust her as much as he did previously and probably passed on that activity. So she offered to let him tie her up to show she was "trustworthy" and had to wait until the next day.

The next most vulnerable place she could get him would be the shower - naked, slippery feet, water in his face. She needed some kind of physical advantage so he couldn't come after her. The big ruse would be to take those pictures. It would allow her access to him during his shower (I can't imagine he would invite her in the bathroom any more like a regular couple who shower together) and make it difficult for him to see exactly what she was doing. I cannot imagine she would have brought a gun and not thought of using it first - much easier than killing a person with a knife and potentially less messy. Perhaps she tried and the gun did jam so she picked up the knife. I tend to think so because he had defensive wounds on the front and back of his hands. Defensive wounds on the front would indicate someone putting their hands in front of themselves to ward off an attacker (which would probably happen first). Defensive wounds on the back might occur if someone covers his face because the advance is now close and they instinctively cover that part of their body. If this happened while he was still in the shower, then she could have stabbed him in the chest the minute his face was covered with his hands. I see him staggering out of the shower to the sink to spit up blood because we've heard that is what would have happened after the chest wound. There she may have delivered the stabs in the back. Then he tried to flee down the hall with her chasing and stabbing him. I can imagine he was screaming and perhaps fell to his hands and knees. That might explain the leg and feet wounds. If she wanted to silence him at that point she could have straddled him, grabbed his hair and cut his throat from behind. It would give her greater leverage to make the wound that deep as well if she were bringing the knife toward her.
At that point it was almost over, so she drags him back into the bathroom (I also liked the fact the cop on Dr. Drew said she may have injured her finger and wanted to wash off her blood). There is no way she delivered that many stabs and wasn't practically covered in blood - not just the bit on her hands she told the jury. If he was in front of the shower he may have convulsed. She didn't want to take any chances so maybe she shot him in the head (this time the gun fired) before she got in the shower to rinse off, then dragged him the rest of the way and arranged him in the shower. The bullet angle suggests she did it from a position higher than he was and I think there has been some mention made of the fact the strippling/burn evidence shows it was not at too close a range, not to mention where the casing fell.

I don't think she was ever in the closet at all and just threw that into the story to explain the fictitious gun and the fact Travis was "chasing" her and she was "afraid". I doubt he even got to body slam her but she also had to throw something in to make it look like it was self-defense (since she has no corroborative physical proof of defensive wounds). Never mind the fact she doesn't have the personality or body language of an abused woman (in fact her demeanor in court toward JM would indicate the opposite).
She was a documented stalker and there is a lot of evidence to show that behavior escalates to violence. Her adeptness as a liar shows she is always thinking of explanations or contingencies that will explain the facts, as do her elaborate planning skills both before the murder to hide the trip and after the murder to avoid suspicion, both proof, imo of the kind of behavior intrinsic to classic "premeditated" murders. Never mind that 29 knife wounds (especially ones in the back) is technically premeditated by legal definition.

I think she had not planned on doing this so late the next afternoon or it being quite so messy so her attempts to clean up had to do with throwing things in a washing machine (after deleting the pics off the camera - and perhaps that knife in the dishwasher - I'd be interested to know if LE found the dishwasher at the end of a cycle with clean dishes in it, otherwise she may have brought her own). She may have been worried that a roommate would come home or that others might see her leaving. I think her bogus "fog" is that she was in a panic to leave quickly and acted hastily without time to arrange the scene perfectly.

This mendacious chick makes Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction look like a Girl Scout so I'm hoping they wrap this up and send her far, far away.

 

[Captain86]

Yes, I heard that but I thought it was odd. It doesn't support either scenario because the ME's speculation from the stand was that he was already dead from the throat slashing and VC stab wound by the time he was shot. In that case, she didn't kill him with the gun. She killed him with the knife.

We know that whether it was first or last, the gun wound did not kill him in either event.


Here's the problem for me. If knife first, I would have to go with a lessor included myself--second degree or manslaughter. There is no evidence she brought a knife, the knife would have been readily available in his house, and she testified the knife was already in the master suite from the rope cutting. So she could have picked up the knife when a fight started, and the fight got out of hand with her killing him. But, there may not have been an intent to kill when she picked up the knife.



If, on the other hand, she forms the intent to kill him, and towards that end steals a gun, drives with it hundreds of miles, and shoots him in the shower, that is clearly premeditated murder, murder one, and the fact that she follows a jammed gun with a brutal knife slashing, makes it dp worthy.

I cannot get to murder one if it is knife first and she killed him with the knife.

IMO

Yes there is evidence that she brought the knife. No knives were missing from the house and the wound don't match any of the knives in the house. So, the knife had to come from outside the house. She didn't leave herself any room for the scenario you suggest. Just because she brought the gun to kill him doesn't mean she has to murder him with it to be Murder I. She could change her mind at anytime. The fact that she stole the gun with that intent and then used it during his murder makes it Murder I regardless of what injury lead to his death. Her intent was to murder him. Everything she did prior to her arriving at his house points to it. The weapon and method matter not. She went there with the intent to kill him and did kill him, that is Murder I.

 

[pip]

Although I firmly believe the GSW came first, imo, it would be 1st degree premeditated to me whether it was gun or knife first.

 

[Captain86]

You really cannot have it both ways. If you say you know he was shot last because the lack of bleeding into the head proves he was already dead when shot, then you can't turn around and say he wasn't already dead when shot but he was shot last.

The point is--the ME did NOT give a sequence of events in his written autopsy report, so who cares what he says when he's opining on the stand. That is not his job to speculate.

It is, however, the job of a crime scene reconstruction expert to determine the most likely sequence of events based on all the evidence, including the autopsy report.

You cannot prove she brought the knife with her.

Unintended things can happen in a knife fight, and fear and adrenaline take over. I think you will find that a lot of deaths by knife fights lead to murder 2 or manslaughter convictions.

I cannot see a woman premeditating murder of a strong man and then choosing a knife to kill him. It just does not work for me. In normal circumstances, it would be crazy.

IMO

It isn't real complicated. The largest supply lines to the brain had been cut, so there really wasn't much blood getting to the brain. Getting your throat cut is not an instant death, it takes a few minutes for the organs to start shutting down from lack of blood and oxygen. In that time period between getting his throat cut and his organs shutting down (the heart to quit beating), he was technically still alive. If she shots him at this point, he would still be alive, but there would be very litle if any bleeding in the Cranial Vault.

There was no knife fight. That implies both parties had a knife to attack and defend with. She had a knife. He did not. If the first stab was quick and surprising, he would react to that and his brain would take a second to process that she had just stabbed him (possibly one of the abdominal wounds). She wouldn't even have to have him close his eyes. She could make one quick movement from her waist his stomach. He would register the pain, llok down realize he is bleeding, and try to cover the wound with his hands. She has the upper hand because of the surprise nature of the attack. His hands are down to the first wound, so she stabs to the chest, once maybe twice. The instinct at that time is to get away. First, get your vital organs away from the knife, which would explain him turning his back on her.

The ME is perfectly able to give his opinion of the sequence when asked. His report is only about fact. What did he observe and what is the evidence he gathered from the body. He can use that information to form an opinion than is well within his scope of practice and when asked has every right to give it. Neither his report nor his formation of a theory from the facts gathered during his part of the investigation is less important than the other or less valid than the other.

As an aside, everything said by anyone on the stand is important. Where do you think this crime scene reconstruction expert would get his/her's information to make a determination. Since they have not touched the body, they would have to use the ME's report. So, how could their opinion of something that they have never seen been more valid than the man who actually gathered the facts that they are using and had hands on with the body to see things that pictures cannot convey?

 

[geevee]

I would love to post a total of my thoughts and theories (with photo links from the scene) but I don't think we have seen everything yet, photo #152 has not been shown yet, also in Det. Flores report he states that Det. Melendez said there were other pictures in the unallocated space of the camera memory stick that he would have to work on to retrieve, we haven't heard anything about more photos yet but we still have rebuttal.

We haven't heard if there was any brain material found at the scene, it seems like there should have been some, somewhere, if that is brought out we'd likely know when the shot was fired, or at least where.

I do think the stabbing occurred before the shooting and I will use this pic to illustrate my reasoning (screen shot from trial):

http://s1287.beta.photobucket.com/u...t=3&o=0&_suid=1363278259859014995400994739477

And the prosecution diagram showing blood spots in front of the closet doorway and near the TV cabinet:

http://s1287.beta.photobucket.com/u...t=3&o=16&_suid=136327832506207633322990832621

There is also a what appears to be something marked inside the closet behind the door, I do not know if this was also blood or something else entirely, haven't heard anything mentioning that.

JA told JM (when being questioned about when she packed her things to leave TA's that day) that she had her purse on 'the dresser', I think the TV cabinet is the dresser she was referring to and the blood spots leading there were created by her going for the gun in her purse and leaving blood in those locations.

Does anyone know if blood was found on the painted shower walls (above the tile)?

One other thing and I apologize if this has been brought up already, I noticed the ME said there was little or no rigor mortis when examining him, that seems strange given he wasn't found until the 5th day post mortem (and wasn't the autopsy 2 days after that?), any thoughts on this?

 

[ERRN1313]

I can argue both ways for which came first, and I think I have. One of the things that bothers me is that Detective Flores (who most of us seem to really like) originally said that the ME told him that the shot came first. Then the ME (who I'm not real crazy about, reminds me of some of the cocky Docs I've worked with), denies ever telling him that or even having a conversation with him, selective memory me thinks. Flores has to take the fall saying I must have misunderstood so as not to dispute the ME's testimony.

I DO understand medical terminology and I still hold fast that the autopsy report does not say what Horn testified to. Furthermore, I HAVE seen gunshot wounds to the head where the patient literally walks in the door of the ER, especially with a small caliber. (I worked ER in South Miami). We even had one guy we didn't know was shot until the x-ray. He was talking away with a bullet lodged mid forehead. Whichever came first, she still deserves 1st degree.

The other thing I thought I read or heard, and can't find now, is that the stab to the L chest was in an upward direction. I only took note of this because women generally stab in a downward direction (think shower scene in Psycho) and men usually stab in an upward direction. Downward gives women more force. I always joked if I was going to stab someone I'd have to remember to stab "upward". None if this means anything, just thought it was interesting.

 

[ERRN1313]

I would love to post a total of my thoughts and theories (with photo links from the scene) but I don't think we have seen everything yet, photo #152 has not been shown yet, also in Det. Flores report he states that Det. Melendez said there were other pictures in the unallocated space of the camera memory stick that he would have to work on to retrieve, we haven't heard anything about more photos yet but we still have rebuttal.

We haven't heard if there was any brain material found at the scene, it seems like there should have been some, somewhere, if that is brought out we'd likely know when the shot was fired, or at least where.

I do think the stabbing occurred before the shooting and I will use this pic to illustrate my reasoning (screen shot from trial):

http://s1287.beta.photobucket.com/u...t=3&o=0&_suid=1363278259859014995400994739477

And the prosecution diagram showing blood spots in front of the closet doorway and near the TV cabinet:

http://s1287.beta.photobucket.com/u...t=3&o=16&_suid=136327832506207633322990832621

There is also a what appears to be something marked inside the closet behind the door, I do not know if this was also blood or something else entirely, haven't heard anything mentioning that.

JA told JM (when being questioned about when she packed her things to leave TA's that day) that she had her purse on 'the dresser', I think the TV cabinet is the dresser she was referring to and the blood spots leading there were created by her going for the gun in her purse and leaving blood in those locations.

Does anyone know if blood was found on the painted shower walls (above the tile)?

One other thing and I apologize if this has been brought up already, I noticed the ME said there was little or no rigor mortis when examining him, that seems strange given he wasn't found until the 5th day post mortem (and wasn't the autopsy 2 days after that?), any thoughts on this?

Rigor mortis disappears after 48-72 hours

 

[Captain86]

Unless you believe, as I do, that the GSW only grazed thru the skull, missed the brain and caused damage to the vessels in the sinus cavity which bled ALOT. He still would have been disoriented from the shock to the skull and swelling would quickly ensue. I think he got out of the shower and made it to the sink to see the damage. Why would he go to the sink to inspect a chest wound? He wouldn't need a mirror for that.. He would have been trying to get out of the house instead, no stop at the mirror. JMO.

I think he was already at the sink or going that way. She gets him to turn then stabs him (stomach then chest). The pain and realization of what just happened hits him and he turned back toward the sink, not to inspect himself, but to just to get away from her. She is off center to his left so he turns right which would mean that he would turn facing the sink. The chest wound causes him to cough and could spray blood all over the sink area. She begins stabbing as he is facing the sink, then he starts down the hall. I think it started near the sink because this is the first big area of blood we see. Most of the blood around the shower is from him being drug back to it. The sink, the hall, and the carpet are the big areas where significant blood loss is evident. I think the first couple of stabs were surprises and his instinct was turn away from her which placed him facing the sink when he coughed blood all over the sink. Now, I'm not totally invested in this being exact, but I think something similar happened. He may not have made it out of the shower had she attacked him there first, not would he have any reason to go to the sink if he did make it out of the shower.

 

[Mountaindreamer]

I dont want to sound morbid but wouldnt it take a lot of strength to actually cut someones throat the way she did