Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[khaki]

I am leaning toward Travis being shot first. Despite all te ME testimony, experts, logic, etc, it makes more sense to me. Why bother to steal a gun, or have MM steal it for you, and then not use it first. I think her defiance and arrogance and snarkiness on the stand is fueled by the "you got it wrong" mentality, as twisted as that may sound. Part of me thinks her smirks come from that arrogance because she knows exactly how things happened and she feels superior because the experts are getting the order wrong (not that it matters at all in terms of the charges)

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I am leaning toward Travis being shot first. Despite all te ME testimony, experts, logic, etc, it makes more sense to me. Why bother to steal a gun, or have MM steal it for you, and then not use it first. I think her defiance and arrogance and snarkiness on the stand is fueled by the "you got it wrong" mentality, as twisted as that may sound. Part of me thinks her smirks come from that arrogance because she knows exactly how things happened and she feels superior because the experts are getting the order wrong (not that it matters at all in terms of the charges)

Why would she have a knife ready if she already had a gun?

 

[khaki]

Good point, I hear what you're saying about the knife issue. I keep going back and forth about the order.:fence: again

 

[Paige SC]

well, let me put it this way--if him being shot first meant acquittal for Jodi, I would vote for acquittal.

Since it doesn't matter when he was shot in this case, imo, I don't think you have to be afraid.

And, though Nurmi didn't do a great job of bringing it out, shot first was the position of the State in the first hearing.

It matters that many folks simply ignore/discredit the pathological findings of the ME and conclude their own facts regarding sequencing separate of anything but their own perceived ideas of what must have happened.

The state's case regarding the heinousness of the murder is largely contingent upon the degree to which he suffered during the commission of the crime. Shooting first would lessen the degree of depravity vs. slaughtering him like a pig and then shooting him. It was my understanding that Detective Flores misunderstood the ME's opinion regarding sequence but the state never built this case around the fact she shot him first. Dr. Horn doesn't even list a gunshot as a contributing factor to his death in his autopsy report.

 

[Paige SC]

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 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.



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.



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.

Since the ME's report regarding the fact there was no pathological evidence of blood flow to the brain isn't compelling enough for you to think he had already bled out from the slash to his neck, how would you explain the very clean bullet casing on top of the pooling of blood?

 

[Paige SC]

: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.

I am unable to access the report by clicking on the link. I have tried to enable the cookies but no avail. Any ideas how I might be able to gain access? Thanks

 

[molly333]

It matters that many folks simply ignore/discredit the pathological findings of the ME and conclude their own facts regarding sequencing separate of anything but their own perceived ideas of what must have happened.

The state's case regarding the heinousness of the murder is largely contingent upon the degree to which he suffered during the commission of the crime. Shooting first would lessen the degree of depravity vs. slaughtering him like a pig and then shooting him. It was my understanding that Detective Flores misunderstood the ME's opinion regarding sequence but the state never built this case around the fact she shot him first. Dr. Horn doesn't even list a gunshot as a contributing factor to his death in his autopsy report.

You know, you say, 'conclude their own facts.' Well, the Jury is the finder of fact, not the ME, not the Prosecutor, not any other individual player in this trial. If I think the ME has made an incorrect finding, that's my call. I would like to hear from someone who is an expert in this field of gun shot wounds to the brain, but it doesnt look like I will have that luxury. So, like the Jury, I have to rely on my own background, experience, and common sense to come to a conclusion, which I would do even if it were my own healthcare we were discussing. Have none of you disagreed with a doctor about your own healthcare? You act like this is unheard of--to disagree with a doctor, because you are invested in an outcome. But, I'm not looking at an outcome and working backwards; I'm interested in the truth. Hopefully, any Jury would be, too.

IMO

 

[RealityMan]

. . . how would you explain the very clean bullet casing on top of the pooling of blood?

In my opinion, the fact that the casing was on top of the blood in that photo is not compelling evidence that JA stabbed TA before shooting him. I would be surprised if the jury thinks that is compelling evidence, and I don't think the prosecution should be making the final resting spot of the casing an important point.

The casing could've ended up in that position in any of a number of ways that do not include blood having already been on the floor when JA shot TA.

For example, JA herself might have accidentally kicked the casing onto the blood before she left the crime scene. Or some of TA's friends, who entered the murder scene before any investigators arrived, might've accidentally kicked the casing. Or the investigators themselves may have unknowingly kicked the casing.

I believe the casing did not land in blood when it left the gun. Rather, the casing somehow ended up there after having originally landed on clean floor space. Or, alternatively, the blood pooled around the casing after it landed on the floor.

 

[Paige SC]

You know, you say, 'conclude their own facts.' Well, the Jury is the finder of fact, not the ME, not the Prosecutor, not any other individual player in this trial. If I think the ME has made an incorrect finding, that's my call. I would like to hear from someone who is an expert in this field of gun shot wounds to the brain, but it doesnt look like I will have that luxury. So, like the Jury, I have to rely on my own background, experience, and common sense to come to a conclusion, which I would do even if it were my own healthcare we were discussing. Have none of you disagreed with a doctor about your own healthcare? You act like this is unheard of--to disagree with a doctor, because you are invested in an outcome. But, I'm not looking at an outcome and working backwards; I'm interested in the truth. Hopefully, any Jury would be, too.

IMO

I guess if common sense tells you a person with a gunshot to the brain doesn't really hemorrhage, can still walk, talk and attempt to defend themselves - despite the overwhelming statistics to the contrary, then have at it. I question anyone who disagrees with an opinion based solely on the merits of what could happen in a one in one million chance - instead of the probability supported by the forensics and pathological findings. FWIW, I play an active role in my healthcare but if I were to be stricken with cancer of a high mortality rate, I won't discount the use of chemo in favor of a holistic approach simply because a handful cured themselves with herbs. I won't ignore the statistics of the published chemo report in favor of the study that hasn't been done yet on the herbs.

 

[Paige SC]

In my opinion, the fact that the casing was on top of the blood in that photo is not compelling evidence that JA stabbed TA before shooting him. I would be surprised if the jury thinks that is compelling evidence, and I don't think the prosecution should be making the final resting spot of the casing an important point.

The casing could've ended up in that position in any of a number of ways that do not include blood having already been on the floor when JA shot TA.

For example, JA herself might have accidentally kicked the casing onto the blood before she left the crime scene. Or some of TA's friends, who entered the murder scene before any investigators arrived, might've accidentally kicked the casing. Or the investigators themselves may have unknowingly kicked the casing.

I believe the casing did not land in blood. Rather, the casing somehow ended up there after having originally landed on clean floor space. Or, alternatively, the blood pooled around the casing after it landed on the floor.

The blood was dried and the casing was stuck to it. Furthermore, if she shot him where she claimed she shot him, the bullet would have landed in the bathtub or in that area of the bathroom. But I can see some of us prefer to speculate about the infinite possibilities as opposed to the likely probabilities.

 

[Paige SC]

You know, you say, 'conclude their own facts.' Well, the Jury is the finder of fact, not the ME, not the Prosecutor, not any other individual player in this trial. If I think the ME has made an incorrect finding, that's my call. I would like to hear from someone who is an expert in this field of gun shot wounds to the brain, but it doesnt look like I will have that luxury. So, like the Jury, I have to rely on my own background, experience, and common sense to come to a conclusion, which I would do even if it were my own healthcare we were discussing. Have none of you disagreed with a doctor about your own healthcare? You act like this is unheard of--to disagree with a doctor, because you are invested in an outcome. But, I'm not looking at an outcome and working backwards; I'm interested in the truth. Hopefully, any Jury would be, too.

IMO

If the jury does their job as outlined by the court, they will indeed consider- without bias -the facts and evidence presented, instead of speculating based on what wasn't. When jurors speculate outside the scope, the Casey Anthonys of the world walk free.

 

[molly333]

If the jury does their job as outlined by the court, they will indeed consider- without bias -the facts and evidence presented, instead of speculating based on what wasn't. When jurors speculate outside the scope, the Casey Anthonys of the world walk free.

To a certain extent, we are all speculating because this is a circumstantial case. But, I think the more consistent one's speculations with known facts, the better.

We can sit around in our armchairs and speculate until the cows come home, but for this Jury and the CA Jury this is real life. Their decisions will have a huge outcome on the defendant and many other people, as well. They are going to want to feel very comfortable with their decision. The Prosecution's job is to make them feel comfortable and the Defense's job is to make them feel uncomfortable.

I've come to my conclusion of gunshot first based on a lot of thinking about the known facts. But, some things stand out for me. You said above,

"The state's case regarding the heinousness of the murder is largely contingent upon the degree to which he suffered during the commission of the crime. Shooting first would lessen the degree of depravity vs. slaughtering him like a pig and then shooting him."

But, I disagree with this. All you have to do is look at Travis injuries to know how much he suffered. Also, I could see maybe crime of passion or self defense, but I can't think of anything more depraved than to plot premeditated murder in cold blood, to plan, to carry out those plans, and then walk away and go on with your life.

To me, that is as depraved as it gets.

My fear is that the State is clouding the issue by sticking to the knife first theory. The Jury is going to wonder--well, if she had this well thought out plan, and stole the gun, and carried it hundreds of miles to kill him, why did she then get into a knife fight with him? At this point, they have two choices, imo--either it wasn't as premeditated as we thought OR the ME is wrong and she did shoot him first.

I would rather they didn't have to be burdened with this choice, especially since I believe the ME could have gone with either gun or knife first or just declined to comment on it.

So we will see if this is a problem for the Jury. I have worked this out for myself, will they do the same? Or maybe the Prosecutor could stop being stubborn about it and help them out, because today a Defense atty said there would be lessor includeds when it is sent to the Jury and knife first might lead to a finding of second degree or manslaughter.

IMO

 

[Paige SC]

To a certain extent, we are all speculating because this is a circumstantial case. But, I think the more consistent one's speculations with known facts, the better.

We can sit around in our armchairs and speculate until the cows come home, but for this Jury and the CA Jury this is real life. Their decisions will have a huge outcome on the defendent and many other people, as well. They are going to want to feel very comfortable with their decision. The Prosecution's job is to make them feel comfortable and the Defense's job is to make them feel uncomfortable.

I've come to my conclusion of gunshot first based on a lot of thinking about the known facts. But, some things stand out for me. You said above,

"The state's case regarding the heinousness of the murder is largely contingent upon the degree to which he suffered during the commission of the crime. Shooting first would lessen the degree of depravity vs. slaughtering him like a pig and then shooting him."

But, I disagree with this. All you have to do is look at Travis injuries to know how much he suffered. Also, I could see maybe crime of passion or self defense, but I can't think of anything more depraved than to plot premeditated murder in cold blood, to plan, to carry out those plans, and then walk away and go on with your life.

To me, that is as depraved as it gets.

My fear is that the State is clouding the issue by sticking to the knife first theory. The Jury is going to wonder--well, if she had this well thought out plan, and stole the gun, and carried it hundreds of miles to kill him, why did she then get into a knife fight with him? At this point, they have two choices, imo--either it wasn't as premeditated as we thought OR the ME is wrong and she did shoot him first.

I would rather they didn't have to be burdened with this choice, especially since I believe the ME could have gone with either gun or knife first or just declined to comment on it.

So we will see if this is a problem for the Jury. I have worked this out for myself, will they do the same? Or maybe the Prosecutor could stop being stubborn about it and help them out, because today a Defense atty said there would be lessor includeds when it is sent to the Jury and knife first might lead to a finding of second degree or manslaughter.

IMO

I think you are underestimating the state. They aren't hung up on the knife to the exclusion of all other evidence but it is critical for the jury to know how he died and the sequence (as best determined by the forensics/pathological findings) in which he died. The ME didn't even list the gunshot as a contributing factor in his death which is pretty compelling in the absence of an actual witness to the crime. He is obligated to do his job to the best of his ability and without bias. I'm not going to speculate or wonder as to whether or not he is 'qualified' (as it pertains to my personal standard of what 'qualified' means). The court considers him to be an expert in the field so the jury is obligated to do the same until such a time where he purgers himself on the stand. From a legal perspective, the evidence of premeditation is simply overwhelming and not contingent on the sequence of events that killed him. First degree murder is- in and of itself- 'premeditation'. The depravity of the crime is established by the degree in which the victim suffered and is considered an 'aggravating factor'. If you are shot in the head, obviously you aren't going to "suffer" as badly as you would if you are slaughtered alive and then shot in the head. So while I understand why you feel the way you do, in the legal sense of the word, how you feel is of zero consequence. Aggravating factors have to meet certain criteria to be considered 'aggravating' in a court of law. From an armchair general's perspective, you can feel however you like but don't be surprised if your feelings are questioned on a sleuthing website because most sleuthing minds rely on evidence/experts/forensics as opposed to beliefs not really supported by much other than personal bias.

 

[molly333]

I think you are underestimating the state. They aren't hung up on the knife to the exclusion of all other evidence but it is critical for the jury to know how he died and the sequence (as best determined by the forensics/pathological findings) in which he died. The ME didn't even list the gunshot as a contributing factor in his death which is pretty compelling in the absence of an actual witness to the crime. He is obligated to do his job to the best of his ability and without bias. I'm not going to speculate or wonder as to whether or not he is 'qualified' (as it pertains to my personal standard of what 'qualified' means). The court considers him to be an expert in the field so the jury is obligated to do the same until such a time where he purgers himself on the stand. From a legal perspective, the evidence of premeditation is simply overwhelming and not contingent on the sequence of events that killed him. First degree murder is- in and of itself- 'premeditation'. The depravity of the crime is established by the degree in which the victim suffered and is considered an 'aggravating factor'. If you are shot in the head, obviously you aren't going to "suffer" as badly as you would if you are slaughtered alive and then shot in the head. So while I understand why you feel the way you do, in the legal sense of the word, how you feel is of zero consequence. Aggravating factors have to meet certain criteria to be considered 'aggravating' in a court of law. From an armchair general's perspective, you can feel however you like but don't be surprised if your feelings are questioned on a sleuthing website because most sleuthing minds rely on evidence/experts/forensics as opposed to beliefs not really supported by much other than personal bias.

Obviously, we disagree. For some reason, you feel compelled to say I'm wrong about everything, but, of course, I do not feel that way, myself. I'm sure the ME is qualified, but he is more like a general practitioner. I don't think he will be doing brain surgery on anyone any time soon. He claims Travis would be unconscious from that head wound even though it is superficial as brain wounds go. I disagree. I know there are even doctors who disagree with him, so you don't have to take my word for it. Gabby Giffords never lost consciousness and she had some kind of head wound.

Don't forget, Travis was exsanguinated within minutes or even seconds of that head wound. This all happened very fast.

Jodi has an excuse for everything that we are considering evidence of premeditation. It is feasible that someone could take her word for it that she colored her hair earlier, that she had the gas cans so she wouldn't run out of gas in the desert on the I15, that she made the decision to see Travis at the last minute, that she lost her phone charger, that she didn't steal the gun, that Travis owned a gun and kept it in the closet. No one is required to take the State's word for any of that.

Especially when she shows up and gets into a knife fight with him, which by its very nature looks like a spur of the moment happening.

 

[Paige SC]

Obviously, we disagree. For some reason, you feel compelled to say I'm wrong about everything, but, of course, I do not feel that way, myself. I'm sure the ME is qualified, but he is more like a general practitioner. I don't think he will be doing brain surgery on anyone any time soon. He claims Travis would be unconscious from that head wound even though it is superficial as brain wounds go. I disagree. I know there are even doctors who disagree with him, so you don't have to take my word for it. Gabby Giffords never lost consciousness and she had some kind of head wound.

Don't forget, Travis was exsanguinated within minutes or even seconds of that head wound. This all happened very fast.

Jodi has an excuse for everything that we are considering evidence of premeditation. It is feasible that someone could take her word for it that she colored her hair earlier, that she had the gas cans so she wouldn't run out of gas in the desert on the I15, that she made the decision to see Travis at the last minute, that she lost her phone charger, that she didn't steal lhe gun, that Travis owned a gun and kegt it in the closet. No one is required to take the State's word for any of that.

Especially when she shows up and gets into a knife fight with him, which by its nature looks like a spur of the moment happening.

We will agree to disagree. I am just thankful you are sleuthing online as opposed to inside the Maracopa County courthouse.

 

[LambChop]

You know, you say, 'conclude their own facts.' Well, the Jury is the finder of fact, not the ME, not the Prosecutor, not any other individual player in this trial. If I think the ME has made an incorrect finding, that's my call. I would like to hear from someone who is an expert in this field of gun shot wounds to the brain, but it doesnt look like I will have that luxury. So, like the Jury, I have to rely on my own background, experience, and common sense to come to a conclusion, which I would do even if it were my own healthcare we were discussing. Have none of you disagreed with a doctor about your own healthcare? You act like this is unheard of--to disagree with a doctor, because you are invested in an outcome. But, I'm not looking at an outcome and working backwards; I'm interested in the truth. Hopefully, any Jury would be, too.

IMO

Jury instructions are quite clear. As a juror you are to consider all the evidence. You are not suppose to rely on your own background or experience as you are not permitted to be a witness for the other juror. You have to put aside your personal feelings and just go by the evidence that is presented by both sides to come to your conclusion. Common sense helps, too. But if someone is planning on disregarding jury instructions there is a good chance they will never be picked for a jury.

If someone closes their mind thinking they know better and believe he was shot first they have missed key evidence which was presented by the ME about how he came to his conclusions that Travis was not shot first. This is why the majority of us here believe Travis was not shot first. The ME's report proves otherwise. jmo

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Since the ME's report regarding the fact there was no pathological evidence of blood flow to the brain isn't compelling enough for you to think he had already bled out from the slash to his neck, how would you explain the very clean bullet casing on top of the pooling of blood?

Are you asking me? I'm with the ME on the sequence.

But I can answer for the other position. It's possible the casing got kicked there later, but it would have to make it there without getting any other blood on it, which is why I don't see that as likely as simply landing there when it was first ejected.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Shooting first would lessen the degree of depravity vs. slaughtering him like a pig and then shooting him.

Either way is depraved. Either way wouldn't change the charges.

 

[Paige SC]

Either way is depraved. Either way wouldn't change the charges.

Why do you seem to think your definition (of what you consider to be an aggravating circumstance) meets the legal definition of it?

 

[LambChop]

I would think if Jodi made the statement that if she had a gun she would shoot him until he was dead. So are we to take from that, that she would intentionally stabbed him until he was dead. It's ironic because that is exactly what she did. jmo