Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[Mountaindreamer]

oh this is where i heard it, it was on Nancy Grace at the end of her show where Jodis new friend that visits her said that actually it was the second scenario that really happened and that jodi was just a scape goat
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...in-lover-blood-atonement-plot-sexual-sin.html

 

[slinkpod]

Heck, I just typed Mormon Blood Atonement and found tons of information on the internet. Also Youtube shows the pre-1990 ritual of vowing not to divulge sacred secrets and there's a ear-to-ear slashing gesture used.

 

[Mountaindreamer]

i saw that too, i think its interestng that the guy who is visiting her in jail put that out there on national tv that the second story was the correct one

 

[joypath]

You are simply mistaken on Horn's competency. He is NOT a neuropathologist nor is he a neurosurgeon.No American doctor practicing in the 21st century has command of "vast medical knowledge". Typically a pathologist will spend some 4 + years in post graduate training. Pathology is like all other disciplines= sub specialized ie neuropathology, hemo/oncology pathology, forensics etc. His autopsy ( I think) report is of average quality at best. The account of GSW passing out of the skull into the left infratemporal fossa and masticator space is highly deficient.

If this case truly turned on "Gun shot first", the defense could find a trauma neurosurgeon to speak to the clinical outcomes of GSW to a single frontal lobe in which the bullet fragment enters the anterior aspect of frontal lobe ONLY.


Having said that though I agree that the casing on a pool of blood is powerful evidence.

BUT we know that JA spent a fair amount of time cleaning up, shoehorning a copse into the shower stall and altering the original crime scene. It is quite possible that the casing was disturbed either during the ensuing melee or during the "clean up" efforts.

BBM:

:twocents::twocents::twocents: IMHO, his report is written in the style of the regional norm, it is well within the standard of practice, IMHO. His "bench notes" and case file which are NOT included in the standardized document may contain more of the data that you desire to create a more verbose report. We as mere observers do not know if the entire case file was requested by the defense team nor do we know if said file has been evaluated by any other medical professional/expert.
On a second note, yes the field of pathology is blessed with folks who desire to expand his/her knowledge base within specific areas (think continuing education requirements & professional self-awareness) and btw, those folks are available for collegial professional consult without "making a big deal of it" (aka a paid commercial endeavor!). Additionally, many OCME/OMEs have "rounds" where cases are discussed prior to signing them out, again within a collegial & pseudo-academic atmosphere. Many pathologists with whom I've had the pleasure to meet/break bread with/share experiences throughout my life are thrilled to share knowledge by phone, electronic mean or even by the dated method of surface mail!


ALL above are my personal opinions based on my life experiences.

 

[raisincharlie]

Heck, I just typed Mormon Blood Atonement and found tons of information on the internet. Also Youtube shows the pre-1990 ritual of vowing not to divulge sacred secrets and there's a ear-to-ear slashing gesture used.

Thanks for clarifying which specific atonement you were looking at. Interesting that Brigham Young specifically talked of javelins to the heart and throat slashing. I suppose if one does not have a javelin, a knife would accomplish the same. Being as how Ms. Arias was no stranger to knives, given her upbringing and work history in the food service industry, I suspect she would be much more familiar and comfortable with a knife. However, as is typical with her, she is full of contradictions should she have decided on the blood atonement, given that it calls for one to be pure of heart and free of sin. If she managed to understand the blood atonement, it is hard to understand how she failed so miserably at understanding the Law of Chastity.

 

[Debbierio]

He would not have been able to function with the gunshot he got..

 

[wenwe4]

Thanks for clarifying which specific atonement you were looking at. Interesting that Brigham Young specifically talked of javelins to the heart and throat slashing. I suppose if one does not have a javelin, a knife would accomplish the same. Being as how Ms. Arias was no stranger to knives, given her upbringing and work history in the food service industry, I suspect she would be much more familiar and comfortable with a knife. However, as is typical with her, she is full of contradictions should she have decided on the blood atonement, given that it calls for one to be pure of heart and free of sin. If she managed to understand the blood atonement, it is hard to understand how she failed so miserably at understanding the Law of Chastity.

Remember JA made a statement about TA's knowledge of the Book of Mormon (he had read it 22 times or something like that) and his knowledge of the "deep doctrine" or something to that effect. I am just wondering if she was referring to some of the more secretive and shameful aspects of the early Mormon church (ie: blood of atonement, plural marriage, Mountain Massacre, multiple young brides married to much older men, etc.

Could the throat slashing have been a way for JA to put TA spiritually right and have the ability to seek the Celestial Kingdom in the afterlife? It would mean he could do this without having to go through all of the steps with his Bishop, Ward, Elders, possible disfellowship, or even (worst case scenario) ex-communication. All of the above would have significant consequences in TA's friendships, business associations, finances, living arrangements, stability, church, essentially his entire world. Furthermore, being a "motivational public speaker"?

 

[slinkpod]

Thanks for clarifying which specific atonement you were looking at. Interesting that Brigham Young specifically talked of javelins to the heart and throat slashing. I suppose if one does not have a javelin, a knife would accomplish the same. Being as how Ms. Arias was no stranger to knives, given her upbringing and work history in the food service industry, I suspect she would be much more familiar and comfortable with a knife. However, as is typical with her, she is full of contradictions should she have decided on the blood atonement, given that it calls for one to be pure of heart and free of sin. If she managed to understand the blood atonement, it is hard to understand how she failed so miserably at understanding the Law of Chastity.

You are most welcome for the specifics--"Mormon" was the key.

Brigham Young on Blood Atonement: “Now take a person in this congregation who has knowledge with regard to being saved in the kingdom . . . and suppose that he is overtaken in a gross fault, that he has committed a sin that he knows will deprive him of that exaltation which he desires, and he cannot attain to it without the shedding of his blood, and also knows that by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods, is there a man or woman in this house but what would say, “shed my blood that I may be saved and exalted with the Gods?” All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers or sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?” (Journal of Discourse, Volume 4, Page 219, 1857)

Jodi was the only one to know about Travis' continuous "unholy" lifestyle with her. While not pure and free of sin, she would see herself as the only one to perform the ritual to keep Travis from continuing to sin.

 

[joypath]

Joypath what is your explanation for little blood being in the cranial cavity from the gunshot? Do you agree with the medical examiner?

Interested in your opinion!

:twocents::twocents: Danzn: please forgive my tardiness in reply, RL is SOOOO interfering! :banghead::banghead:

Given the documentation available, I'm in agreement with the assessment of the AZ Medical Examine, Kevin Daniel Horn, M. D.!
Just to clarify a point: he IS a board certified physician in anatomical, clinical and forensic pathology and a graduate of a reputable academic institution (UMaryland). His background in forensic pathology is via the fellowship training at the UNew Mexico, OME and then found a home in Az.

FULL DISCLOSURE:
When I first reviewed the post report, I was a bit critical of it in terms of its depth and detail but it is complete and understandable, just not verbose as a typical "east coaster's" type report (yep, we are notorious for excessive verbiage 'cause "if it ain't written down, it didn't happen" as in shades of too many JCAHO/"Joint" inspections!) BUT this little reference clarified it even more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20120816maricopa-county-seeks-medical-examiners.html?nclick_check=1#reply25299212

N.B. check out Dr. Horn's quote within the article!

SO....long story short.....I'm of the opinion that the primary "attention getting" stab was deep to TA's torso, svc, and that the gun shot wound's lack of blood STAINING or residual clotting in the cranial cavity indicates that the victim was NOT perfusing adequately. I enjoy reading about those amazing cases where everything in the universe lines up to keep folks off our tables but those are the exceptions rather than the rule of the encounters of participants in the "gun & knife clubs" throughout society, the lucky ones receive rapid medical intervention NOT a stuffing within a shower.

 

[Mountaindreamer]

:twocents::twocents: Danzn: please forgive my tardiness in reply, RL is SOOOO interfering! :banghead::banghead:

Given the documentation available, I'm in agreement with the assessment of the AZ Medical Examine, Kevin Daniel Horn, M. D.!
Just to clarify a point: he IS a board certified physician in anatomical, clinical and forensic pathology and a graduate of a reputable academic institution (UMaryland). His background in forensic pathology is via the fellowship training at the UNew Mexico, OME and then found a home in Az.

FULL DISCLOSURE:
When I first reviewed the post report, I was a bit critical of it in terms of its depth and detail but it is complete and understandable, just not verbose as a typical "east coaster's" type report (yep, we are notorious for excessive verbiage 'cause "if it ain't written down, it didn't happen" as in shades of too many JCAHO/"Joint" inspections!) BUT this little reference clarified it even more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20120816maricopa-county-seeks-medical-examiners.html?nclick_check=1#reply25299212

N.B. check out Dr. Horn's quote within the article!

SO....long story short.....I'm of the opinion that the primary "attention getting" stab was deep to TA's torso, svc, and that the gun shot wound's lack of blood STAINING or residual clotting in the cranial cavity indicates that the victim was NOT perfusing adequately. I enjoy reading about those amazing cases where everything in the universe lines up to keep folks off our tables but those are the exceptions rather than the rule of the encounters of participants in the "gun & knife clubs" throughout society, the lucky ones receive rapid medical intervention NOT a stuffing within a shower.

Yes i saw a snipit of his testimony and they pointed out that he gave his testimony in January, hopefully the jury has not forgotten all that he said

 

[slinkpod]

Oh yea,-- AND achieve eternal exaltation.

 

[LambChop]

Yes i saw a snipit of his testimony and they pointed out that he gave his testimony in January, hopefully the jury has not forgotten all that he said

My guess is the ME could be called back for rebuttal because Jodi has now testified to how the gunshot occurred. Very important for the ME or discussion of the ME's report that the gunshot did not happen first and why. This means, again, Jodi is lying. Why would she lie??? Premeditation, plain and simple. It also means that if she could not remember anything AFTER the gunshot, she does remember the stabbing. jmo

 

[Mountaindreamer]

My guess is the ME could be called back for rebuttal because Jodi has now testified to how the gunshot occurred. Very important for the ME or discussion of the ME's report that the gunshot did not happen first and why. This means, again, Jodi is lying. Why would she lie??? Premeditation, plain and simple. It also means that if she could not remember anything AFTER the gunshot, she does remember the stabbing. jmo

yes today they said if she went to kill him why didnt she just shoot him and get it over with, the fact is she wanted him to suffer, to feel and see everything that was about to happen to him and that was happening to him. how awful for him when i think about it

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

This was not about blood atonement, it was jealousy and anger plain and simple.

Check out Pat Brown here giving the straight talk on what happened. It's a story that happens all the time. She also explains why she wouldn't kill him right away when she got there. She starts about at 2:00. (She was wrong about the photos but this is from last year when nobody knew what they were yet.)

[video=youtube;NaJhgLcXJ7o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaJhgLcXJ7o[/video]

 

[slinkpod]

If anyone wants further information on Blood Atonement, here's a good source:

http://www.mormonthink.com/QUOTES/bloodatonement.htm

Quotes of the founding fathers include spilling blood on the ground, chopping off heads, javelins, and more!

 

[khaki]

I have wondered about the whereabouts of her rental car while she was at Travis's. I believe she parked it around the corner at the community pool parking lot. (you can see this lot on googleearth maps and she had mentioned parking the U-Haul there before she moved back to Yreka in April of 2008). Anyway, that would explain why the roommate who left for work at 6 am didn't notice anything and also why the roommate that came home for an hour or two around 3-4 pm ish didn't notice anything.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

FINALLY someone got it right! We may be outnumbered 2:1 in the voting, but I think this is the only sensible scenario given all the information we have.

I'm assuming most readers here have listened carefully to the police interrogation tape? There is a very telling point when Jodi describes Travis after he was shot by the 'intruder'. She says: "He was still alive!". The way she says this sends chills up my spine. She expressed a combination of surprise and emotion that was clearly genuine. This was the emotion she felt when she shot him in the shower. She fully expected a head shot would be immediate death. But it wasn't. She was very surprised when Travis was far from dead or incapacitated.

Yes, that's possible, or maybe it was surprise that he survived the chest stab and all the other stabs for as long as he did. He survived so long that she had to shoot him to make sure he was dead.

She also indicated in the interrogation that the gun jammed. I think this was also an element of truth.

No, she didn't say that to police. She did say to 48 hours that the gun didn't go off when they tried to kill her.

Finally, if you'll recall, she describes that IF she were intending to kill Travis, she would do it humanely by shooting him until he was dead. She said this for two reasons: 1) this was her intent from the start when she brought the gun with her (which obviously she did); and 2) by describing this to the detective, she sets up a contrast with what the crime scene actually portrays. That is, why on god's green earth would she undertake to stab and butcher her ex when a gun would have been much cleaner and efficient?

I think that is totally missing the boat on this one. She said that because she knows he was stabbed continuously instead, and wanted to draw suspicion away from herself. That's probably one reason why she chose to stab him, because she thought people would doubt that she would be capable of it. And unfortunately, she was right, some people are falling for it.

So she expected Travis to die in the shower with a head shot while he was sitting down. The angle matches the bullet trajectory. But he doesn't die. She pulls the trigger again, and the gun jams. At that point she leaves the immediate scene to get the knife.

You mean she ran out of the room to get a knife? Remember, she only has 62 seconds till the body dragging photo. The time constraint makes this search for a knife unlikely. She would have had to have it in the room already. But why have a knife if you are intending to shoot the person? It's not as curious as why she would have a gun if she intended to stab him, since the gun could be for backup. She wouldn't need backup for the gun.

Travis, stunned, stumbles to the sink, not knowing quite what to do. His sinus has been penetrated by the bullet, spilling blood into his mouth and lungs (as he breaths in through his nose, he aspirates blood). He coughs, and blood projects onto the mirror. Jodi returns with the knife, and starts trying to finish him off. He sees her in the mirror and turns to defend himself, acquiring defensive wounds. Mortally wounded and unable to stop the attack, he attempts to flee down the hall, where he falls and succumbs to additional stabs in the back and finally the throat slash. She is ferocious in her attack because she really wants him dead quickly, as the whole thing has turned from a carefully planned execution into a brutal nightmare.

This would fit, but it goes with either theory.

And she probably doesn't want him to suffer unnecessarily (as she indicated to the detective). What appears to be over-kill in cases like this is really just an attempt to end the life of the victim quickly. Stabbing rarely results in immediate death.

But I don't buy this. She didn't care about being humane in the least. Otherwise she wouldn't have the knife in the first place. She had a knife because she wanted to make him suffer. She wanted to see his face as she's killing him. If you watch Dr. Horn's testimony describing the autopsy photos, you can see Jodi sitting there most of the time fake crying with here head turned away from the monitor, but occasionally you can see Jodi turn her head to take a peek. One time she noticeably turned to look was when they were showing the neck slice pictures, probably the most disturbing photos of all of them. She wanted to see her handiwork because she enjoyed it.

Go to 1:35:55 here.

[video=youtube;1tZKYBlfkxI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tZKYBlfkxI[/video]

Ok, so what about Horn's testimony? Like the poster above, I was not at all persuaded by his suggestion that Travis would have been immediately incapacitated by the head shot. On what basis does he believe this? People often get shot in the head and don't go down immediately. It depends on what part of the brain is injured, the caliber of bullet, etc. The medical literature is full of cases of people with brain injuries who don't seem to be terribly affected by the injury. Sadly, suicides by gunshot to the head often fail to achieve the objective. This is particularly true of gunshots from the side into the temple. Some of us also seem to have forgotten that Horn stated that brain tissue degrades quickly upon death, and it was not possible for him to determine the extent of hemorrhaging.

I agree it's possible to survive (if you get medical treatment), but unimpaired functioning is not as likely. Possible but not likely.

I'm frankly shocked that the defense let him get away with putting his scenario out there without vigorous cross examination and presenting an alternative scenario by expert witness. As this is a critical point in the trial, this mistake is huge.

The DT hasn't produced any experts at all yet, but they did question him on it. Wilmont brought up that we've all heard of people showing up walking into the er with brain injuries, like from an arrow. Horn said not so with firearms. Bullets do much more damage because of higher speed and movement and the "expansile cavity" the bullet creates. I think he is overstating because he is coming off as saying that nobody survives a gunshot to the head, but it does happen.

Wilmont also tried to argue that Horn can't know whether the bullet even went through the brain because of the decomp, but Horn was of course firm of that, because of where the bullet entered the skull.

For those who believe Jodi would have brought a gun as part of her plan, and yet bring upon herself all the mess, horror, and uncertainty of a knife attack as her first act of violence, I would recommend a careful re-listen to that police interrogation. There are haunting elements of truth to her story.

Where you see her "I think I would have to shoot him continuously until he was dead" as an element of truth, I see it as an obvious diversion away from her culpability, just as we can see she has attempted in many other instances. You got at least one fact wrong about the interrogations, so maybe you need to watch again.

Jodi was methodical. From the gas cans, to the staged robbery to get the gun, to all she did to try and cover her tracks. It makes absolutely no sense that she would have used a knife as the weapon of choice. She wanted a clean kill in the shower. Minimal mess, minimal DNA exposure to clean up. A scene of bloody mayhem is the last thing she would have wanted.

I agree she didn't want blood outside the shower, but I think she was planning on her attack being confined to the shower area to make cleanup easier. The shower served two purposes, to get him off guard and to make cleanup easier. It succeed in the former, but only partially for the latter. She dragged him back there, precisely because she was trying to stick to that plan.

I would agree it's possible she shot first, but I don't think it's as likely as the other way.

 

[Mountaindreamer]

Yes, that's possible, or maybe it was surprise that he survived the chest stab and all the other stabs for as long as he did. He survived so long that she had to shoot him to make sure he was dead.



No, she didn't say that to police. She did say to 48 hours that the gun didn't go off when they tried to kill her.



I think totally missing the boat on this one. She said that because she knows he was stabbed continuously instead, and wanted to draw suspicion away from herself. That's probably one reason why she chose to stab him, because she thought people would doubt that she would be capable of it. And unfortunately, she was right, some people are falling for it.



You mean she ran out of the room to get a knife? Remember, she only has 62 seconds till the body dragging photo. The time constraint makes this search for a knife unlikely. She would have had to have it in the room already. But why have a knife if you are intending to shoot the person?



This would fit, but it goes with either theory.



But I don't buy this. She didn't care about being humane in the least. Otherwise she wouldn't have the knife in the first place. She had a knife because she wanted to make him suffer. She wanted to see his face as she's killing him. If you watch Dr. Horn's testimony describing the autopsy photos, you can see Jodi sitting there most of the time fake crying with here head turned away from the monitor, but occasionally you can see Jodi turn her head to take a peek. One time she noticeably turned to look was when they were showing the neck slice pictures, probably the most disturbing photos of all of them. She wanted to see her handiwork because she enjoyed it.

Go to 1:35:55 here.

Jodi Arias Trial Day 3 (Full) - YouTube



I agree it's possible to survive (if you get medical treatment), but unimpaired functioning is not as likely. Possible but not likely.



The DT hasn't produced any experts at all yet, but they did question him on it. Wilmont brought up that we've all heard of people showing up walking into the er with brain injuries, like from an arrow. Horn said not so with firearms. Bullets do much more damage because of higher speed and movement and the "expansile cavity" the bullet creates. I think he is overstating because he is coming off as saying that nobody survives a gunshot to the head, but it does happen.

Wilmont also tried to argue that Horn can't know whether the bullet even went through the brain because of the decomp, but Horn was of course firm of that, because of where the bullet entered the skull.



Where you see her "I think I would have to shoot him continuously until he was dead" as an element of truth, I see it as an obvious diversion away from her culpability, just as we can see she has attempted in many other instances. You got at least one fact wrong about the interrogations, so maybe you need to watch again.



I agree she didn't want blood outside the shower, but I think she was planning on her attack being confined to the shower area to make cleanup easier. The shower served two purposes, to get him off guard and to make cleanup easier. It succeed in the former, but only partially for the latter. She dragged him back there, precisely because she was trying to stick to that plan.

I would agree it's possible she shot first, but I don't think it's as likely as the other way.

why do you think she did try to clean up his body, i dont understand that one...or i wonder if the shower was still on when she started attacking him and i think maybe she tried to put him back in there so his roommates would think he was taking a shower and give her more time to escape without anyone knowing she was there. the camera too, if she took the gun and the knife and her bloody clothes why would she leave the camera, that doesnt make sense why not take it as well and bury it with the other items

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

She washed him off because her blood was on the body. An interesting side note on this is that she used a glass to help wash him. In the police interview, she had mentioned how she would use a glass to wash Napoleon (which she says she broke as an excuse for why her blood was at the scene - she brakes more glasses than anyone ever). So she was washing him like she washed the dog.

She left the camera either by accident (she was rushed at the time, she made other mistakes - like blood on the washing machine), or because she didn't realize deleted files could be recovered (she's not very smart).

 

[Mountaindreamer]

that makes sense, yes she didnt want her blood on him. cant wait to see what transpires this week