Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[molly333]

I can tell that you're probably the smartest person on this board. IMO

No. I just try to put myself in the shoes of the Jury.

That Jury in Fla. was not stupid like everyone here says.

They did the right thing with the evidence they were given.


IMO

 

[RealityMan]

And here's the quote I found, "the gunshot wound could have been a fatal wound, but there is a chance that Alexander was shot in the head after he had already died, because there was a lack of hemorrhaging in the brain."

Look at the defense cross-examination. That's where the ME states the exact quote I referenced.

Defense: Ok so what your testimony is, I just want to be clear is that you never told Detective Flores that the gunshot wound was the first wound

ME: I don't believe I ever said that, no

Defense: And do you remember telling Detective Flores that you knew this because the gunshot wound would not have completely incapacitated somebody

ME: I don't recall saying that either

Defense: Is that something you think you would have never said to Detective Flores?

ME: I think I've said it here in court that I don't think it would immediately incapacitate him or kill him. But it would be a serious injury, but I don't recall telling Detective Flores that, no.

Defense: Ok, so, let me back up for a second, so you are saying the gunshot wound is not immediately incapacitating?

ME: I would say not immediately fatal

Defense: I'm not talking about fatal, I'm just talking about incapacitating

ME: I think...yes, it would be incapacitating, passing through his brain, so yes

Defense: So...and that's assuming it was passing through his brain, you would say it is incapacitating.

ME: I'm saying it did pass through his brain

Defense: And so. Um, so you wouldn't have told Det Flores that that wound would not have completely incapacitated someone? Right? I guess you wouldn't have said that?

ME: I don't recall saying...I don't recall having a conversation with the Detective about anything

It is important to note that the ME states that the gunshot wound was not "immediately incapacitating." Yes, he states it was "incapacitating." But he also states that it was not "immediately incapacitating." There is a difference between "incapacitating" and "immediately incapaciting."

If the gunshot wound was not "immediately incapacitating," then I believe the ME has left open the possibility that TA could've been ambulatory for 1 minute and 46 seconds after suffering the gunshot wound.

Other parts of the ME's testimony support my position that the ME is not ruling out the possibility that the gunshot wound occurred first.

Also, I think it's clear from detective Flores's report that the ME did tell detective Flores at one point that the gunshot wound came first. Sure, the ME said he didn't remember telling detective Flores that. But detective Flores did remember and even wrote up what he learned from the ME in his investigative report.

 

[molly333]

They are doing a Jury exercise every night on HLN After Dark.

And every single Jury so far has been hung.

 

[molly333]

Well, she stabbed him in his head, his chest, his upper torso, his back, lots of spitting up to do from knife wounds. Also, there was evidence that she attempted to clean up in the bathroom. She could have wiped any blood spatter from the gun away or smeared it. Also, we know she broke a glass, and there was water on the floor in the bathroom, which could mean she attempted to wash something away.
And on the contrary, the ME said that there was decay in the brain - not well preserved.

'well preserved' were the ME"s words in the autopsy.

All the knife wounds were fairly superficial except for two.

Doubtful she could have washed away all of the blood spatter from the gun if he was shot in the bathroom. There is blood spatter from the impact wounds [knife] in the bathroom.

No one's told me yet how she gets that trajectory if he's lying down when shot.

IMO

 

[zaza]

Look at the defense cross-examination. That's where the ME states the exact quote I referenced.



It is important to note that the ME states that the gunshot wound was not "immediately incapacitating." Yes, he states it was "incapacitating." But he also states that it was not "immediately incapacitating." There is a difference between "incapacitating" and "immediately incapaciting."

If the gunshot wound was not "immediately incapacitating," then I believe the ME has left open the possibility that TA could've been ambulatory for 1 minute and 46 seconds after suffering the gunshot wound.

Other parts of the ME's testimony support my position that the ME is not ruling out the possibility that the gunshot wound occurred first.

Also, I think it's clear from detective Flores's report that the ME did tell detective Flores at one point that the gunshot wound came first. Sure, the ME said he didn't remember telling detective Flores that. But detective Flores did remember and even wrote up what he learned from the ME in his investigative report.

I think this says it all:

"Defense: Ok, so, let me back up for a second, so you are saying the gunshot wound is not immediately incapacitating?

ME: I would say not immediately fatal

Defense: I'm not talking about fatal, I'm just talking about incapacitating

ME: I think...yes, it would be incapacitating, passing through his brain, so yes

Defense: So...and that's assuming it was passing through his brain, you would say it is incapacitating.

ME: I'm saying it did pass through his brain"

But let me say something about a bullet to the brain. I've had some experience with people who were shot in the brain. In one instance a man was shot in the right temple while sitting down, immediately rose and walked a few feet then collapsed, unconscious - this took seconds. In another instance a man who was shot in the forehead immediately fell to the floor unconscious.
I don't think the ME contradicted himself. I think he was clarifying himself.

 

[molly333]

I think this says it all:

"Defense: Ok, so, let me back up for a second, so you are saying the gunshot wound is not immediately incapacitating?

ME: I would say not immediately fatal

Defense: I'm not talking about fatal, I'm just talking about incapacitating

ME: I think...yes, it would be incapacitating, passing through his brain, so yes

Defense: So...and that's assuming it was passing through his brain, you would say it is incapacitating.

ME: I'm saying it did pass through his brain"

But let me say something about a bullet to the brain. I've had some experience with people who were shot in the brain. In one instance a man was shot in the right temple while sitting down, immediately rose and walked a few feet then collapsed, unconscious - this took seconds. In another instance a man who was shot in the forehead immediately fell to the floor unconscious.
I don't think the ME contradicted himself. I think he was clarifying himself.

Where does the autopsy report say there was any bullet wound to the brain?

"Bullet wound through right frontal lobe"--I want to read that in the autopsy report. Show me where it is.

IMO

 

[zaza]

'well preserved' were the ME"s words in the autopsy.

All the knife wounds were fairly superficial except for two.

Doubtful she could have washed away all of the blood spatter from the gun if he was shot in the bathroom. There is blood spatter from the impact wounds [knife] in the bathroom.

No one's told me yet how she gets that trajectory if he's lying down when shot.

IMO

This is directly from the autopsy: “The wound track perforates the anterior frontal skull near the superior orbital bone and traverses the anterior fossa, without gross evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage or apparent cerebral injury (although examination of the brain tissue is somewhat limited by the decomposed nature of the remains). The projectile re-enters the facial skeleton near the midline and the wound track terminates in the left cheek.”
"decomposed" implies not well preserved.

 

[molly333]

This is directly from the autopsy: “The wound track perforates the anterior frontal skull near the superior orbital bone and traverses the anterior fossa, without gross evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage or apparent cerebral injury (although examination of the brain tissue is somewhat limited by the decomposed nature of the remains). The projectile re-enters the facial skeleton near the midline and the wound track terminates in the left cheek.”
"decomposed" implies not well preserved.

That doesn't answer my trajectory question so what is it you want me to see there?

The brain wasn't so decomposed that he couldn't do slides--he did. Nor was it so decomposed that he couldn't call it well preserved, symmetrical, and intact--he did.

IMO

 

[wasnt_me]

I think Jody was squatting by Travis when the last pics were taken. He's sitting in the shower and the picture of his face appears to be at camera level. She appears to be in the same position when the lower part of his body was snapped while he was still sitting.

As for trajectory of the bullet, since he could have been shot at any time after the initial attack that gets him out of the shower, one can't say what position he could have been in when it happened. The trajectory is a good question, though. They said he had no burn marks or stippling around the wound, so I think that could preclude him from shooting him in the head like that at close range, standing beside the shower stall.

So the questions are how does she get that trajectory with the few feet of distance required for the lack of stippling and also achieve minimal to no hemorrhaging? Figuring out that puzzle might help people to come up with the likelihood of events.

It's too bad we don't know the true trajectory, or do we?

 

[wilsodh]

And here's the quote I found, "the gunshot wound could have been a fatal wound, but there is a chance that Alexander was shot in the head after he had already died, because there was a lack of hemorrhaging in the brain."

I think this kind of makes our point about the fuzziness of the forensic evidence. "There is a chance" hardly sounds conclusive!

Dave

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

No I don't think I have it backwards.

You are linking together pieces of evidence where each piece could be construed for guilt or innocence. You are supposed to always look for the innocent explanation, because we have the presumption of innocence in this country. However, as each piece adds to the next, pointing consistently to guilt, as they do here, then there becomes an overwhelming body of evidence that can only be read one way--guilty--unless the kingpin piece, the capstone, so to speak, points towards innocence. Then the whole thing crumbles.

I don't understand what you're saying and I don't see what any of that has to do with "Circumstantial evidence is only as strong as its weakest link."

Looking at this case, there are multiple pieces of evidence that she planned the murder. A few examples,
1. The senseless, convoluted road trip when she said she had money problems.
2. The car rental outside of town instead of using her own car (which was driveable that far), when she had money problems.
3. The turned off phone only between Pasadena and after Mesa.

Note that none of those pieces are dependent on using a gun.

Let's say number 2 is the weakest of those 3. It should be obvious that doesn't make the circumstantial case as weak as that one piece of evidence.

With circumstantial evidence, the point is deciding whether it's a coincidence or not that these set of facts exists. The more incriminating facts there are, the less the chance of innocence. Each one on their own may not be convincing, but with enough of them, it can be conclusive for guilt. The strength of such of case depends on all of them together, and is not limited by the weakest part. It depends on the number of pieces and the strength of each. One weak piece does not discount the stronger pieces.

An informal mathematical way to look at it is that for each circumstantial fact, you can imagine a probability that such fact is an innocent coincidence. Then you can multiply all those separate probabilities to get the total probability of innocence. Let's say for 1, 2 and 3 above, it was (conservatively) 0.7, 0.8, and 0.5 probability for innocence relative to those facts. Each one by itself looks pretty good for innocence, but that they occurred together makes it a 0.3 probability of innocence. Each piece of incriminating evidence available makes the probability for innocence lower, even if it's a weak piece.

That is why her using a knife first destroys all the circumstantial evidence that came before it pointing to premeditated murder with a gun.

We've been over this many times. Tell me again how using a knife first means the phone was turned off because of an innocent reason.

The last time I asked you, your answer was that she was always sneaking to Arizona, which would only be a good answer if she also always lost her phone charger on the way, rented a white car, used gas cans, etc. (I don't even think she was ever "sneaking" to Arizona, as in trying to cover her tracks, other than that last trip.)

So try again, how does using the knife first mean that the phone was turned off because of an innocent reason?

 

[sacrablue]

Oh but it was hemorrhagic, just not in the brain. The brain was apparently uninjured with well preserved and symmetrical cerebrum and the dura mater intact. The brain slides showed no signs of trauma.

But, he bled profusely through the frontal sinus wound into his nose and mouth. We can see it in the sink and the floor in front of the sink.

IMO

How else are you going to get the blood spray in and on the vanity? Why would you go to vanity? To look in mirror, the only way to see damage to face. Blood had to be discharged from nose, mouth and possibly wound. Travis is not standing at vanity with throat cut. Gun first.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

There's no evidence the sinus was bleeding or wounded.

 

[sacrablue]

There's no evidence the sinus was bleeding or wounded.

Throat cut, no blood supply to wound, put in shower, blood expectorated while alive...... I wouldn't expect to see blood.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Uh, there was a stab wound to the heart before that.

 

[sacrablue]

So where did the blood spray on the vanity/mirror come from?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

The blood filled the chest cavity and exited through the bronchus.

 

[wilsodh]

The blood filled the chest cavity and exited through the bronchus.

I think a bit more than that might be helpful.

I've not yet heard a good reconstruction of the death sequence by the knife-firsters. Gun-firsters have offered up detailed analyses of both the minute-by-minute timeline that fits the photographic evidence, as well as the sink blood. I'd like to hear the same from knife-firsters.

The sink blood is very compelling, at least to my eyes. The blood appears to be dripping down from a primary source, as well as being expelled.

Two questions about the sink blood:

1) How do you see a chest wound reasonably contributing to this blood pattern?

2) What death sequence do you see that would have Travis reasonably turning his back to his attacker?

Please note that the number of droplets would suggest he spent a fair amount of time facing the mirror, at least in terms of the overall timeline of the attack.

Dave

 

[Captain86]

I just can't see how his right eye would not have been damaged with the point of entry and the tragectory of the bullet. The bullet also traveled more towards the front of his facial skeleton than towards the back, meaning even less chance of hitting the brain. It entered above the right eyebrow and moved away from the brain and thru the sinus cavity, as opposed to towards or into the brain. A facial injury. Explains why the dura mater was intact.

Your interpretation of the the trajectory and anatomy is off a little. The bullet path is a very steep angle. It passed through the Frontal Bone and into the R Anteriotr Fossa (no way it did not hit the Frontal Lobe as the Frontal Lobe takes up all of the area behind the forehead and above the eyes). It then re-enters the facial skeleton at midline, which would be the Ethmoid Bone and continues until it lodges in the left cheek. It only traveled through the facial skeleton upon exiting the R Anterior Fossa. It did not travel through the R Frontal Sinus, that is a different structure than the R Fossa. The path is down and back into the skull a bit. I don't know where you get that it moved away from the brain and through the Frontal Sinus Cavity. You are trying to use one statement about the Dura Mater to totally twist what was said about the gunshot. It is physically impossible for the bullet to travel the path he describes and not pass through the Dura Mater and the Brain. The report is sectioned into two parts: the description of the injuries and the General Examination. If you will look at the section concerning the Nervous System the very first sentence separates the previously described injuries from the rest of the examination.

 

[Captain86]

Superficial wound. Crashes through the frontal sinus cavity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nnh_front.svg


IMO

Not possible. The path would have been straight down and would have exited into the mouth. He says R Anterior Fossa, a different structure than the Frontal Sinus. It re-enters the facial skeleton at mid-line. According to your path it never left the facial skeleton. That is not what is described.