Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[DeAnnaMisrahi]

(snipped for length)

Thank you for your excellent response. I'm getting annoyed with being scolded for being stupid and arrogantly thinking I know more than a medical expert. I listened to him carefully and what you say is right on. He did not rule out the gun shot first.

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

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

 

[Captain86]

Captain 86,

What I do not understand is why one would chose to use a knife first . Knives are not as quick as a gun, and with someone of TA size she would risk in hurting only before he got her.

The only way that would make sense to me would be if she began stabbing him when he was most vulnerable--that would be sitting on the floor of the shower....and I also believe she Made him do that. If one is going to sit in a tiny shower, why not use the bathtub?

The element of surprise is vastly underrated. He would have been completely at easy and relaxed in his own home with her. All it would really take to turn the tide in her favor would be one or two good, quick, solid stab wound(s), like the one to the left chest. How long would that take on an unsuspecting victim? Especially, if you distract them with something else and/or get their hands occupied. The wound to the Vena Cava was a very hard blow. It would have hurt and really stunned him.

See how close you can get to unsuspecting family members this weekend. Can you get close enough to stab them in the chest without them expecting it? How long does it take to get your hand from your back pocket to their chest? When you poke them in the chest solidly, what is their reaction?

Why you would pick one over the other may come down to which one you could hide easier. My first choice certainly would not be a .25. I'd be scared that it would not have the power to finish the job, and obviously it didn't if you are a gun first supporter.

If she made him sit, then you have to think he would have to would wonder why she wanted him there and his guard would be up. It would not be normal, or at least I don't think so.

We are dealing with a woman who asked the cop to let her see the scene, the house, and the photos that were on the camera. I don't believe many of us on here can really explain her.

 

[LambChop]

"You don't have to prove she brought them to prove she tried to kill him..."

Yes, but there are different types of murder--one, two, manslaughter one and two, self defense.

So you do have to prove the type of murder.

"Cutting his throat and 9 wounds in the back" could be her in the throws of a flooded hippocampus, out of her mind in terror and panic.

IMO

And covering up would not fall under terror and panic. Terror and panic would mean she was screaming for help and we know that never happened and would have run out the door. She wouldn't have finished him off and then drug him back to the shower. The shower was were it started. That was her original plan. If she were in a panic there would be no reason to drag him back. She would have just left him lying there. Jodi has spent 4 years in jail with hardened criminals so she thinks her ducks are in a row. There is only one choice for the jury and that is murder 1, LWOP and DP. If the jury finds it was self defense, she'll walk and probably kill again.

She claims Travis had cut the rope with a knife and when asked where the rest of the rope was she did not know. But yet there was no rope found at all. She does not remember picking it up in the closet before she fired the gun. And she hadn't gone back into the closet after killing him. No blood prints in the closet at all. So what happened to the extra rope? She grabbed the other rope which had fallen behind the bed but somehow remember to go search for that. This is not someone who is terrified. She knew exactly what she was doing. Easy for her to say it. But it is a lot harder to prove and Samuels is not looking too good right now. Seems Jodi may have slipped some Love Potion #9 into Samuels' Gatorade. jmo

 

[DeAnnaMisrahi]

OK, before I went calling the ME's statement a contradiction, I should have done a little research, first.

Reality Man didn't include the entire exchange.

This is how it unfolded on further questioning:

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

You can read more of the exchange here:

ME report: Discuss it here - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

I will say that the ME doesn't sound confident on this cross, and I wonder about him not remembering having a conversation with Flores about the gunshot wound. Did Flores say that the ME said that the gunshot came first? I guess I need to search for that too. lol.

 

[LambChop]

The element of surprise is vastly underrated. He would have been completely at easy and relaxed in his own home with her. All it would really take to turn the tide in her favor would be one or two good, quick, solid stab wound(s), like the one to the left chest. How long would that take on an unsuspecting victim? Especially, if you distract them with something else and/or get their hands occupied. The wound to the Vena Cava was a very hard blow. It would have hurt and really stunned him.

See how close you can get to unsuspecting family members this weekend. Can you get close enough to stab them in the chest without them expecting it? How long does it take to get your hand from your back pocket to their chest? When you poke them in the chest solidly, what is their reaction?

Why you would pick one over the other may come down to which one you could hide easier. My first choice certainly would not be a .25. I'd be scared that it would not have the power to finish the job, and obviously it didn't if you are a gun first supporter.

If she made him sit, then you have to think he would have to would wonder why she wanted him there and his guard would be up. It would not be normal, or at least I don't think so.

We are dealing with a woman who asked the cop to let her see the scene, the house, and the photos that were on the camera. I don't believe many of us on here can really explain her.

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

 

[sacrablue]

Wow, I am surprised this seems to get glossed over, I think it is very important what type of round Travis was shot with, hollow point or standard and then the rest above! TIA

We are multitasking here, we are on it. If that ammo box was brought in from grandpa's as evidence and put in front of 'Napoleon' and asked if this was the same bullet found in the jaw of Travis....yes or no and he said no, the people in court would gulp.

 

[geevee]

Just a few quick questions:

• Was Jodi likely surprised that the crime went undetected for 5 days? (just pondering what she must have been thinking 6/4/08 PM - 6/8/08.)
• In the pics below:
• I had never seen these 2 on the original sites which had the crime scene photos.
• who/what the heck is the first one?
• In the second, is that Jodi's hand? Looked at first glance like male fingers.

I can't see either photo.

 

[SMK]

Just a side note which is not exactly tied in with the idea of premeditation, but with self-defense. One of the most favorable areas to the defense - and thus dangerous to the prosecution - is the testimony that TA had all sorts of anal and oral sex with JA on the day of Jodi's baptism into the Mormon church.

TA was acting as a representative of the Church and as a spiritual advisor. Although Jodi was far from being a minor (she was 28) we all have seen the news stories: For example here in my state of New Jersey there was a female social worker age 33 arrested for raping her client, a 48 year old male drug addict - who actually seduced her : But because she represented the agency and abused her authority over him - he could not give consent in this situation and thus she became a felon.

Travis was also seen as a leader and motivational speaker who had formidable power of persuasion over anyone spiritually or psychologically needy.

Put this together with the audio heard by the jury of Jodi telling TA, "You made me feel like a goddess" and his immediate response of, "I want to zip-tie you to a tree and _____ you up the _____". I am in no way trying to disrespect Travis, but I DO feel there may be members of the jury who feel Arias may have become seriously mentally unstrung due to his morally dubious actions. It is a worry of some import for the prosecution, I would think.

 

[molly333]

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

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

It has a long history. Sixty pages lol.

Det Flores told at least two tv interviews I saw, plus the newspapers obviously, and wrote it in his report that Travis was shot first. More importantly, he said that under oath in the probable cause hearing based on what the ME told him.

There is an on going appeal from the defense about this testimony in the probable cause hearing that might jeopardize the death penalty.

IMO

 

[DeAnnaMisrahi]

Just a side note which is not exactly tied in with the idea of premeditation, but with self-defense. One of the most favorable areas to the defense - and thus dangerous to the prosecution - is the testimony that TA had all sorts of anal and oral sex with JA on the day of Jodi's baptism into the Mormon church.

TA was acting as a representative of the Church and as a spiritual advisor. Although Jodi was far from being a minor (she was 28) we all have seen the news stories: For example here in my state of New Jersey there was a female social worker age 33 arrested for raping her client, a 48 year old male drug addict - who actually seduced her : But because she represented the agency and abused her authority over him - he could not give consent in this situation and thus she became a felon.

Travis was also seen as a leader and motivational speaker who had formidable power of persuasion over anyone spiritually or psychologically needy.

Put this together with the audio heard by the jury of Jodi telling TA, "You made me feel like a goddess" and his immediate response of, "I want to zip-tie you to a tree and _____ you up the _____". I am in no way trying to disrespect Travis, but I DO feel there may be members of the jury who feel Arias may have become seriously mentally unstrung due to his morally dubious actions. It is a worry of some import for the prosecution, I would think.

Wouldn't you need to know the jurors to think that they may feel this way?

 

[DeAnnaMisrahi]

It has a long history. Sixty pages lol.

Det Flores told at least two tv interviews I saw, plus the newspapers obviously, and wrote it in his report that Travis was shot first. More importantly, he said that under oath in the probable cause hearing based on what the ME told him.

There is an on going appeal from the defense about this testimony in the probable cause hearing that might jeopardize the death penalty.

IMO

He said, specifically, that the ME told him that TA was shot first under oath?

 

[molly333]

He said, specifically, that the ME told him that TA was shot first under oath?

And, said it was what the ME told him.

That's what I read in the Defense Appeal based on this.

Can somebody else back me up?

IMO

 

[gitana1]

"You don't have to prove she brought them to prove she tried to kill him..."

Yes, but there are different types of murder--one, two, manslaughter one and two, self defense.

So you do have to prove the type of murder.

"Cutting his throat and 9 wounds in the back" could be her in the throws of a flooded hippocampus, out of her mind in terror and panic.

IMO

I see what you're saying, I think. You're saying that even if she may have planned to kill him, if she used a knife instead of doing what she planned to, with a gun, that's evidence that despite her plan, she abandoned it for some reason, suddenly became frenzied and thus committed second degree murder. It doesn't work that way, though. The killing is too close in time to the plan and the plan itself, even if abandoned, would sustain first degree murder, IMO, if she suddenly decided to kill him in another manner.

We are dealing with Jodi Arias here.

If I did all those things, it might be illogical to ignore them.

Jodi Arias, not so much.

We're talking about someone who does headstands in police interrogation rooms and smiles on her booking photo like it's a class picture.

IMO

I hear this argument a lot in various cases - that we can't use logic because criminals like this are illogical. IMO it's a bogus argument. If it were true, profiling, homicide investigations, etc., would be impossible.

But aside from that, I'm not saying it would be illogical for her to have done all of that planning and then for it to end up being second degree murder. I;m saying that it would be illogical for us to discount all of that planning in finding the crime was not premeditated, simply because she ended up using a different method. That is illogical. And that doesn't change just because jodi is odd.


The fact is she planned this murder, that's pretty clear, and even if not executed according to plan, it should be very easy for any juror to find her guilty of first degree murder.

 

[LambChop]

OK, before I went calling the ME's statement a contradiction, I should have done a little research, first.

Reality Man didn't include the entire exchange.

This is how it unfolded on further questioning:



You can read more of the exchange here:

ME report: Discuss it here - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

I will say that the ME doesn't sound confident on this cross, and I wonder about him not remembering having a conversation with Flores about the gunshot wound. Did Flores say that the ME said that the gunshot came first? I guess I need to search for that too. lol.

Incapacitate means to weaken, disable. So I believe what the ME was saying was that this wound was not fatal at the point he was shot but he would not be functioning at a normal level. Travis very likely was dazed and confused if he were shot first making the stab to the heart area of the chest easy for Jodi if that is what she did.

I also think JM was trying to point out to the jury that there were only 62 seconds from the ceiling shot until we see Travis with his throat cut so that tells us Jodi had no time to look for a knife if she spent all that time in the closet grabbing the gun.

Dr. Samuels is of the opinion that somehow there was an exit for Jodi from the closet. This was not true. Jodi was headed back into the bathroom and could have just as easily run down the hallway with the gun then run back into the bathroom and turn around and aim at Travis. If she had time to do that she had time to run down the hallway because after all, she had the gun. Getting away should have been her primary concern. It's not as if she did not know the way out of the bedroom. Running down the hallway to begin with and turning seem untrue because she really could have run out the door and down the steps. She claims to have had time to shut the closet door and grab the knife before Travis opened the door. That would have been plenty of time to open the bedroom door and get out. He wasn't going to chase her, he had no clothes.

Jodi said she had her computer with her. I believe she may have copied those pictures from the camera onto her computer before she deleted them. I think it is strange that JM kept asking her did Travis delete those pictures or did you and she said Travis. Her computer was destroyed when LE found it. Another coincidence?????

Hey, I did not put Mr. Grummy face up there in the corner. Not sure how he got there. jmo

 

[gitana1]

OK, before I went calling the ME's statement a contradiction, I should have done a little research, first.

Reality Man didn't include the entire exchange.

This is how it unfolded on further questioning:



You can read more of the exchange here:

ME report: Discuss it here - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

I will say that the ME doesn't sound confident on this cross, and I wonder about him not remembering having a conversation with Flores about the gunshot wound. Did Flores say that the ME said that the gunshot came first? I guess I need to search for that too. lol.

It sure looks like a contradiction to me. Just what you quoted.

Also, in the initial police report, Flores states that according to the ME, and the autopsy, Travis would have only been temporarily incapacitated by such a gun shot. I linked it on this thread so if you click on my name and look at my posts, you should be able to find the report.

It has a long history. Sixty pages lol.

Det Flores told at least two tv interviews I saw, plus the newspapers obviously, and wrote it in his report that Travis was shot first. More importantly, he said that under oath in the probable cause hearing based on what the ME told him.

There is an on going appeal from the defense about this testimony in the probable cause hearing that might jeopardize the death penalty.

IMO

Yeah, but the judge ruled against them on that. Gun shot first would NOT, IMO, jeopardize the death penalty. No way.

 

[SMK]

I can't see either photo.

Here they are:

as compared with Jodi's quite feminine fingers:

Thankfully, I found out the first was a Websleuther's re-enactment; the man fingers are the prosecutor pointing to the slide!

Thought Jodi had a male accomplice :facepalm:

 

[molly333]

I see what you're saying, I think. You're saying that even if she may have planned to kill him, if she used a knife instead of doing what she planned to, with a gun, that's evidence that despite her plan, she abandoned it for some reason, suddenly became frenzied and thus committed second degree murder. It doesn't work that way, though. The killing is too close in time to the plan and the plan itself, even if abandoned, would sustain first degree murder, IMO, if she suddenly decided to kill him in another manner.

That's not what I was saying, although that could work for me, too. I'm trying to look at it the way a Jury would, not a lawyer.

What I'm saying is that if you try to prove a circumstantial case with the use of a gun and she doesn't use a gun to kill him, than you have not proved her plan at all.

The fact that she kills him with a knife proves she never planned to kill him with a gun, --so there goes your circumstantial case down the toilet.

Otherwise, you have to prove or at least give strong evidence why she would have changed weapons.

I hear this argument a lot in various cases - that we can't use logic because criminals like this are illogical. IMO it's a bogus argument. If it were true, profiling, homicide investigations, etc., would be impossible.

How to you think a profiler would characterize that crime scene? Probably say--a disorganized perpetrator? Hard to say it was even premeditated by the looks of it. It looks more impulsive.

But aside from that, I'm not saying it would be illogical for her to have done all of that planning and then for it to end up being second degree murder. I;m saying that it would be illogical for us to discount all of that planning in finding the crime was not premeditated, simply because she ended up using a different method. That is illogical. And that doesn't change just because jodi is odd.

I don't consider it illogical at all. Jodi is doing strange things around stealing the gun, her hair, the license plates, her phone battery. But Jodi did lots of strange things all the time. Maybe you could even prove from that that she was sneaking into Arizona to see Travis. But, so what? She often sneaked over to Travis house, and often at his insistence. Remember how she said he would call her at midnight and say everyone's in bed, come on over?

The fact is she planned this murder, that's pretty clear, and even if not executed according to plan, it should be very easy for any juror to find her guilty of first degree murder.

I don't see where it is clear if she used a knife to kill him.

If she used the gun, then it's very clear, I agree.

You can't see this weakness in the Prosecution case?

IMO

 

[SMK]

Wouldn't you need to know the jurors to think that they may feel this way?

No, because we live in an era where abuse of power is a recognized issue-- far more, say, than in the 1960s or 70s. And there are all sorts of training seminars where this sort of thing is discussed: In academia, in the corporate setting, in churches, in the medical and therapeutic settings. I myself was part of such human resource service seminars within the University setting.

It is a recognized /sociological/psychological concept now with actual litigation protocol and legal implications.

You yourself must surely know this..... maybe you are just pulling my leg

 

[geevee]

The Vena Cava is a large vein. Blood exiting veins is passive. Arteries shoot blood across the room. Blood out of a vein oozes and runs. So if he was bent over the sink, those drops could be consistent with blood exiting the Vena Cava wound or the other left chest stab wound or (if you are a gun first) the passive drip from the bullet entering the Maxillary Sinus or from his mouth because he just coughed up a significant amount of blood. Blood from the Vena Cava wound be darker (as compared to blood in an artery) also, due to the lower oxygen content, but I see no way of determining that from the pictures, or if that would even hold up for blood that has congealed over the last 5 days before it was found.

The sensation that you are drowning is strong. He would have a similar sensation with blood in the lungs. He could have knocked her down during the scuffle and had a 2 second respite. How long does it take to cough once or twice?

How (or can you) account for the angle of the heart knife wound? She pretty much had to stab him with the same general motion she's now using to drink water in court (elbow outward and in line with her wrist) and the knife in her left hand and blade turned sideways, as it entered nearly horizontally betweem two ribs (at least i think it did, might have to see if I can find a pic of the wound itself).

That's my main reason for why she couldn't stab him there when he was in the shower. But the wall directly behind the shower door has blood on it, and the inside door edge itself is damaged by what looks like a metal implement, so at the least scuffling (or activity) occurred right in front of the shower stall with the door open as well as closed.

 

[RealityMan]

OK, before I went calling the ME's statement a contradiction, I should have done a little research, first.

Reality Man didn't include the entire exchange.

This is how it unfolded on further questioning:



You can read more of the exchange here:

ME report: Discuss it here - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

I have posted the entire exchange many times in my previous posts and was not attempting to take his quote out of context. There is a difference between "incapacitating" and "immediately incapacitating."

Even on direct, the ME seemed uncomfortable with characterizing the gunshot wound as "immediately incapaciting." The ME first addresses the issue of whether the gunshot wound was immediately incapaciting under direct examination. See this video, starting at 1:04:06:

http://youtu.be/4h0fje33320?t=1h4m6s

Here's my own transcript of this exchange:

JM: "And if the brain is perforated, what would happen to this individual once he was shot."

ME: "He'd be incapacitated."

JM: "Went down."

ME: "Yes."

JM: "Immediately."

ME: (brief hesitation) "Rapidly, yes."

So... even from the first time he is asked this question of how soon TA would be incapacitated, the ME is only willing to say TA would go down "rapidly." He does not simply respond "Yes" when the prosecutor suggests that TA would go down "immediately."

---------------------------

Later on direct, starting at 1:07:07, the ME addresses the issue again of how quickly TA would've died from the gunshot wound:

JM: "With regard to the shot to head, would that have been rapidly fatal?"

ME: "It likely would have been, yes."

JM: "And by rapidly fatal, what are we talking about?"

ME: "Well, if you have a projectile going through the front part of the brain, a person may not die immediately, but they'll probably lose the ability to function normally, they'll lose consciousness and they'll be laying on the floor."

JM: "In very short order."

ME: "Yes."

JM: "In other words, shot and they go down."

ME: "Yes."

Again, the ME uses the words "probably" and "in very short order" and so on. The ME is simply playing the odds.

----------------------------------------

Later, the ME addresses the issue again at 1:08:24 in the video:

JM: "From what I hear you say, of the three that we've talked about, two of them --the one to the neck and the gunshot to the head -- those appear from what I hear you saying, that those would cause unconsciousness quickly."

ME: "Immediately."

JM: "And the one to the chest would not."

ME: "Less likely."

Here, the ME makes his strongest statement with regard to the gunshot wound causing unconsciousness "immediately." But he contradicts himself later under cross-examination, when he says the gunshot wound would not be immediately incapacitating or fatal. (See his direct quote above). And, still, the ME uses the words "less likely," when describing the wound to the chest. In other words, his determination is based on the odds and is not absolute certainty.

There is no doubt the gunshot wound would be incapacitating. That's not the issue. The issue is whether the gunshot wound was immediately incapacitating.

I will say that the ME doesn't sound confident on this cross, and I wonder about him not remembering having a conversation with Flores about the gunshot wound. Did Flores say that the ME said that the gunshot came first? I guess I need to search for that too. lol.

Yes, detective Flores stated in his report that the ME told him after the autopsy that the gunshot wound was delivered first. The ME stated he did not remember this conversation. Flores then testified that he must've been mistaken in what the ME told him.