True but the title of this thread is sequence of events. We are trying to put the puzzle together with the evidence given.
Jodi Arias; the sequence of events
- Thread starter nursebeeme
- Start date
- Status
True but the title of this thread is sequence of events. We are trying to put the puzzle together with the evidence given.
Like I said, without gun first, all the so called sneaking around and even stealing of the gun becomes meaningless to me. So there goes premeditation.
As to the cutting of his throat, that could be second degree, or even less if the Jury were to decide she was out of her mind on flight or fight chemicals at that point. But, unlike Nancy Grace, I don't see that as premeditated necessarily if it arose out of a spontaneous fight where she grabbed the knife to protect herself.
I'm just saying, anything but gun first leaves the door open to lessor includeds.
If you don't agree, fine. But don't cry foul on the Jury if they come back with a lessor included.
IMO
SunDawnn
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2013
- Messages
- 592
- Reaction score
- 0
Jury info:
Juror No. 1
She is a white female in her 60s and sits closest to the witness stand. She doesn't look at Arias often during her testimony. People in the gallery observed her yawning once during an emotional part of Arias' testimony.
Juror No. 2
He is a white male in his 50s. He takes few notes and usually has his head cupped in his hands as he listens to testimony.
Juror No. 3
She is a white female in her 40s. She takes a lot of notes and often watches prosecutor Juan Martinez as he moves around the courtroom. She has been seen submitting questions.
Juror No. 4
He is a white male in his 60s, and he takes few notes.
Juror No. 5
She is a married, white female in her 30s. She sits on the edge of her seat and is the most visible juror from the gallery because she has a unique hair style.
Juror No. 6
She is a white female in her 60s and is also seen taking many notes.
Juror No. 7
He is a white male in his 30s, and he is married. He takes notes and often bites his nails.
Juror No. 8
He is a white male in his 50s and is married. He also takes notes and has been observed submitting questions.
Juror No. 9
He is a white male in his 60s. He wears denim on most days and sits at the end of the jury box. He sits close to the first row of the gallery where Alexander's family sits.
Juror No. 10
He is a white male in his 70s and is married. He has a tattoo on his right arm. He rarely is seen taking notes. He sits the furthest away from the witness.
Juror No. 11
She is a married, white female in her 30s. She takes a lot of notes. She does not look at Arias during testimony. She tends to look straight ahead or down at her notes.
Juror No. 12
She is a white female in her 40s and also takes lots of notes. She swiveled her chair toward Arias during her testimony.
Juror No. 13
He is a white male in his late 60s to early 70s. He wears an audio-enhancing headset provided by the court. He does takes notes.
Juror No. 14
He is a white male in his early 60s who often swivels in his chair. He does not appear to be taking notes.
Juror No. 15
He is a white male in his late 20s or early 30s. He appears to be the youngest member of the jury and takes very few notes. He smiled when Martinez asked Arias if she could predict the future.
Juror No. 16
He is a white male in his 40s.
Juror No. 17
He is a Hispanic male in his late 20s to early 30s. He dresses casually and sometimes slouches so far down in his chair that he is hardly visible to the gallery. He does not appear to be taking notes.
Juror No. 18
She is a white female in her 40s. She is an occasional note taker and she often looks at the gallery during sidebars.
Juror No. 1
She is a white female in her 60s and sits closest to the witness stand. She doesn't look at Arias often during her testimony. People in the gallery observed her yawning once during an emotional part of Arias' testimony.
Juror No. 2
He is a white male in his 50s. He takes few notes and usually has his head cupped in his hands as he listens to testimony.
Juror No. 3
She is a white female in her 40s. She takes a lot of notes and often watches prosecutor Juan Martinez as he moves around the courtroom. She has been seen submitting questions.
Juror No. 4
He is a white male in his 60s, and he takes few notes.
Juror No. 5
She is a married, white female in her 30s. She sits on the edge of her seat and is the most visible juror from the gallery because she has a unique hair style.
Juror No. 6
She is a white female in her 60s and is also seen taking many notes.
Juror No. 7
He is a white male in his 30s, and he is married. He takes notes and often bites his nails.
Juror No. 8
He is a white male in his 50s and is married. He also takes notes and has been observed submitting questions.
Juror No. 9
He is a white male in his 60s. He wears denim on most days and sits at the end of the jury box. He sits close to the first row of the gallery where Alexander's family sits.
Juror No. 10
He is a white male in his 70s and is married. He has a tattoo on his right arm. He rarely is seen taking notes. He sits the furthest away from the witness.
Juror No. 11
She is a married, white female in her 30s. She takes a lot of notes. She does not look at Arias during testimony. She tends to look straight ahead or down at her notes.
Juror No. 12
She is a white female in her 40s and also takes lots of notes. She swiveled her chair toward Arias during her testimony.
Juror No. 13
He is a white male in his late 60s to early 70s. He wears an audio-enhancing headset provided by the court. He does takes notes.
Juror No. 14
He is a white male in his early 60s who often swivels in his chair. He does not appear to be taking notes.
Juror No. 15
He is a white male in his late 20s or early 30s. He appears to be the youngest member of the jury and takes very few notes. He smiled when Martinez asked Arias if she could predict the future.
Juror No. 16
He is a white male in his 40s.
Juror No. 17
He is a Hispanic male in his late 20s to early 30s. He dresses casually and sometimes slouches so far down in his chair that he is hardly visible to the gallery. He does not appear to be taking notes.
Juror No. 18
She is a white female in her 40s. She is an occasional note taker and she often looks at the gallery during sidebars.
danzn16
For the missing
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2012
- Messages
- 3,667
- Reaction score
- 1,392
I don't think agreeing with a medical examiner and thinking anatomically makes you sheep. Why insult people instead of discuss? It's differing opinions. Knife firsters may think you guys are arrogant for thinking you know more than a ME and you didn't even view the body and choosing to go against evidence. I'm sure you don't want to hear about that, etc. (not saying I feel this way but that that has been the consensus. Lets just stick to the discussion instead of hurling insults I mean really).
Captain86
I think all one has to do is look at the blood at the sink to determine if TA was a threat anymore. I visualize him with his torso bent over the sink with his back toward the killer. This would give her time to escape but the punishment continued. The sink is what the jury should focus on.
Thanks to everone in this thread...a good discussion by all
What he testified to in court carries as much weight as what he writes in his report. Did the defense challenge him on the bullet passing through the brain?
He did testify that it passed through the Frontal Lobe. The bullet entered near the Superior Orbital Bone transversed throught the R Anrterior Fossa (that is not the Frontal Sinus, it is the anterior cavity of the skull that houses the Frontal Lobe). The bullet then re-enters the facial skeleton at mid-line. The entire area from the eyebrows up behind the frontal is where the Frontal Lobe is housed. A projectile could not travel through this area without hitting the Frontal Lobe. The entrance into the Fossa and the exit through the Ethmoid Bone clearly indicates that the bullet passed through the Frontal Lobe, but because the brain was decomposing, he could not verify the path it took. There was no gunshot wound to the face.
The important point of all of that is that there was not bleeding in the Cranial Vault (or intercranial hemorrhage). This means that there was no blood or very little blood to leak out of the injured vessels, very similar to post mortem injuries. If he had been stabbed in the leg, how would they have determined if that wound was pre- or post- mortem?
Why is it that it is ok for him to be disoriented by the gunshot, but not for him to be disoriented by being stabbed once or twice? It fails every level of reasoning that he would accept help or think that the woman who just maneuvered him around in the shower at gun point so she could shoot him would be going to get him help. She just tried to kill him. She also would have just re-enacted his most traumatic experience.
The gun jamming wouldn't have hurt her finger. The slide goes back, the bullet does not enter the chamber correctly, and the slide does not return to the ready to fire position. The trigger won't pull because the firing mechanisim is off. It isn't anything painful, and often you don't realize the gun is jammed until you try to fire again and the trigger won't move. You then look at it and realize that the slide is still back. Usually, the slide injuries occur to the stabilizing hand. The injury is normally to the thumb area on the non-shooting hand as you get the hand too high in an attempt to steady the gun. The slide comes back and hits around the back of the Thumb or the web area between the 1st and 2nd digits (usually).
joypath
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,667
- Reaction score
- 858
BBM/U
This point is accurate in as far as it is stated, however the actual blood pooling/"clotting"/coagulation & physical presence per se at a FRESH, RECENT crime scene CAN BE effected by the intermixing of other body or ANY fluids! THEN the clotting time would be changed significantly (think clinical laboratory techniques utilized to measure prothrombin times back in the day (tilt-tubes!).
SO......crime scene folks would NOT venture an absolute opinion regarding the blood source, IMHO.
RealityMan
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2013
- Messages
- 343
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't think TA saw the gun before he was shot.
But, I agree with you that he would have been disoriented by the initial blows, whether they were struck with a gun or a knife.
I just can't believe JA would've used a knife instead of a gun when she moved in for the kill for all of the reasons that have been specified, such as . . .
The trajectory of the bullet described in the ME's report closely matches the last known position of JA relative to TA prior to the killing. A gun would be easier to conceal until the last moment. A gun would be easier to draw from a pocket. A gun would be more likely to deliver a completely incapacitating blow. A gun would require less effort to deliver a completely incapacitating blow. A gun could be fired from a range of two feet (e.g., from outside of the shower door).
pip
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
- Messages
- 2,332
- Reaction score
- 10
True, but in this instance we were comparing head wound blood to chest wound blood. It would be different if we had abdominal wound and gastric contents mixing and diluting the blood, or say bladder wound with urine diluting blood to make a probable difference in coagulation. I don't think the chest wound and head wound blood would be intermixed with other body fluids to the point of altering coag times differently. They should be about the same.
The simplist reason I have come with for him being at the sink is that he was either already at the sink when the attack started or getting very close to the sink when it started. I cannot come up with a good reason for him to have went to the sink if he had been shot or stabbed in the shower. It also pushes the edges of possibility that she shot him then went somewhere to get the knife. She didn't have much time from the last picture of him alive in the shower until we see her dragging him back to the shower. The time constrant is what makes her story unbelievable. If she had to leave to get either weapon, then time becomes a big factor.
There is not a lot of physical evidence in the photos that have been entered into evidence that the initial attack occurred in the shower. If he had been sitting in the shower, do you think he could have held off coughing until he got up and over to the sink? Or would it be likely that he would have coughed either in the shower or on his way to the sink and there would have been a picture taken that showed this coughed up splatter of blood similar to what we see at the sink? I think there would have been something and a picture to go with it.
The lack of intercranial bleeding is the biggest issue I have with him being shot first. Had he been shot first, he would bleed a lot (relatively) from the wound to the forehead and also inside the skull. This does not occur. Head wounds bleed a lot, why doesn't his? There is significant blood supply inside the Cranial Vault, but he gets shot, the first of his injuries, and there is no evidence of bleeding from where the bullet passes through the skull and throught the cavity that houses the Frontal Lobe, but there is clear evidence of bleeding from all of the wounds after the gunshot? I cannot get my brain to accept that. That is not how the human body physically works.
RealityMan
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2013
- Messages
- 343
- Reaction score
- 0
I hear you. But I just don't think JA would let TA get up from the vulnerable position she had so obviously carefully choreographed for TA before striking her initial blow. She wanted to keep all of the evidence contained to the shower area.
In my opinion, it's likely that JA washed away any evidence in the shower while she was washing off TA's body. It wouldn't have been hard for her to use that cup that was found by the shower to wash the shower walls.
Other forensic pathologists, including Dr. Michael Baden, have apparently reviewed the autopsy report and have concluded that, despite the lack of hemorrhaging in the brain, the gunshot wound could've been delivered first.
Even the ME leaves open that possibility in his testimony. The ME stated although the gunshot wound was a "serious injury," "it would not immediately incapacitate or kill him."
The sink and the shower are very close. That bathroom is small. It would take him about 2 seconds to get to the sink from the shower.
There are big splotches of blood on the floor. That bullet casing is on one of them.
If he was shot anywhere but in the shower, where is the gunshot spatter? There is none. And, even if he were dead when shot, there would still be gunshot spatter. None anywhere to be seen.
Plus, I ask you to consider--how does she create the trajectory of that bullet on a man who is lying down? Did she lie down behind him and shoot across his face?
IMO
There are big splotches of blood on the floor. That bullet casing is on one of them.
If he was shot anywhere but in the shower, where is the gunshot spatter? There is none. And, even if he were dead when shot, there would still be gunshot spatter. None anywhere to be seen.
Plus, I ask you to consider--how does she create the trajectory of that bullet on a man who is lying down? Did she lie down behind him and shoot across his face?
IMO
RealityMan
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2013
- Messages
- 343
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree this is a good point for the knife first theory.
However, consider the opinion of pathologist Dr. Carol Terry, who said "If soon after receiving this gunshot wound, Mr. Alexander sustained a more significant injury that results in loss of blood, such as that cut across the neck or the stab wound of the heart, there might not be whole lot of blood flowing up to the head to allow more bleeding into those soft tissues." http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/01/22/what-really-killed-travis-alexander.
We know from the photos that there was a maximum of one minute and 46 seconds between the initial blow and the final knife slash across the neck.
Also, according to Mark Fuhrman, Dr. Michael Baden, who presumably reviewed the autopsy report, believes the gun shot came first.
And, finally, there is the autopsy report itself, which states "without gross evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage or apparent cerebral injury (although examination of brain tissue is somewhat limited by the decomposed nature of the remains)."
It appears that the autopsy report suggests that the lack of evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage may be a result of the decomposed nature of the remains. The autopsy report appears to concede that more blood could have been there prior to decomposition.
Well, once his throat is cut and either he bleeds out from his throat being cut or his heart stops beating because it has died because of the lack of blood flow to the heart, then we can use this information to determine the sequence of events. The stab wounds would have had to have occurred prior to him dying. There was blood in them and around them. Since the cutting of the throat was the wound that killed him, it had to come after the stab wounds. That leaves us with the gunshot wound. There are a lot of "I think" and "I believe" statements with this wound. Travis' body tells us when it occurred. He was shot in the head, an area of high vascularization, but there is no evidence of significant bleeding from the entrance wound or inside the Cranial Vault. Situations like this are usually seen in wounds delivered after the heart has stopped beating as blood is no longer being pushed through the vessels.
The Jury wil ask this question--Do not think they won't.
Why would she take a gun to Arizona to kill him and then, instead, use a knife?
Juan better give them an answer if he intends to close with knife first.
IMO
RealityMan
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2013
- Messages
- 343
- Reaction score
- 0
Here's an interesting analysis of the knife wounds by Joseph Scott Morgan (posted yesterday):
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/03/18/jodi-arias-travis-alexander-autopsy-results
He says the gunshot wound came last. But I disagree, of course.
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/03/18/jodi-arias-travis-alexander-autopsy-results
He says the gunshot wound came last. But I disagree, of course.
If you accept that he was shot first in the shower, then there would have been at least several seconds from the gunshot to the head to the slashing of the throat or the stab to the chest. That would allow plenty of time for the head wound to bleed. The stab to the heart was life threatening if he didn't get medical attention. So, if she shot him first, then stabbed him in the chest, he could still get to the hospital and survive. This implies that there would still be some blood flow to the brain as it would take a few minutes to lose consciousness, which is usually due to lack of oxygen getting to the brain. As more and more blood was lost through the Vena Cava, there would be less blood to be sent to the brain and eventually he would lose consciousness. The body's first priority is maintaining brain health, so as long as their is blood to send to the brain (and a path to get it there), the body will shunt blood to the brain. The throat cutting was a significant injury and would have lead to sudden and quick blood loss, but you had some where in the range of a minute between the two wounds. The head would would have bleed plenty.
I read the the decomposition of the brain tissue being an issue for determining how much damage was done to the Cerebrum, and has nothing to do with his abity to determine whether there was intercranial bleeding. The linings on the interior of the skull would bleed and the vessels in the brain would bleed. The qualifier is about the cerebral injuries. The path of the bullet made it impossible for it to miss the frontal lobe, but he could not determine how much damage was done secondary to the decomp of the brain. The blood vessels and blood would have been a different consistency and would not have decayed as quickly as the brain tissue. The blood vessels and blood from the other wounds had not decayed to the point that he could not determine if those wounds bled, why would the ones in the brain be different?
So, her changing her mind on how she intended to kill him suddenly nullifies her intent to murder?
For Muder I, all that has to be shown is that she went to AZ with the intent to kill Travis. All of the evidence stacks up to show that she tried to get into and out of AZ without anyone knowing she was going to or had been at his house when he was murdered. She took steps well before she left Pasadena to ensure as much secrecy as possible about her trip to Travis' home. It is the intent to take a life that matters, not how that life is taken. She has admitted to killing him. The only question that matters to the Murder I conviction is whether she went there with the intent to kill him. She did use a knife to kill him, but she also used the gun on him during the commission of his murder, so which came first is really a pointless debate (but is a rather enjoyable one as nobody is getting nasty about the differences of opinion). My guess is that we will not hear much more about with sequence of the injuries.
Why did she change methods? Maybe she did shoot him first and it didn't work like she thought it would. Maybe she got there in the bathroom and thought the element of surprise of using the knife would be a better plan. Maybe she had both options (as the knife wounds don't match his knives), available, but picked the knife to finish the job. Only she can tell you why she did what she did, if it isn't buried under too many lies for her to remember the truth at this point. Trying to figure her actions out will only give you a headache.
- Status