Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[Smelly Squirrel]

To a certain extent, we are all speculating because this is a circumstantial case.

Circumstantial???? That is stretching the meaning of the term. They have photographic proof of her at the scene and proof of when the murder took place and they have her bloody palm print at the scene. What is so circumstantial about this case?

 

[LambChop]

The Law of Arias. If it comes from Jodi's mouth and it seems to make sense, it's probably a lie.

 

[Paige SC]

Circumstantial???? That is stretching the meaning of the term. They have photographic proof of her at the scene and proof of when the murder took place and they have her bloody palm print at the scene. What is so circumstantial about this case?

I'm just speculating here but perhaps for some the word "circumstantial" means everything except in cases where there's a video tape of the crime? :waitasec:

 

[LambChop]

I'm just speculating here but perhaps for some the word "circumstantial" means everything except in cases where there's a video tape of the crime? :waitasec:

Jodi admitted she killed him. The circumstantial evidence is that she planned it. But as we can see some of what started out as circumstantial is now fact. The third gas can was a blow to her and it appears JM has things lined up for rebuttal. The case is not over yet so to claim evidence is "circumstantial" may be a bit premature. I loved it Thursday when JM nailed Jodi and a sidebar was called. She just sat there with a blank look on her face trying to regroup in her mind. jmo

 

[molly333]

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

There are some experts who will be coming up for the Defense who will probably say that Jodi was an abused woman and that explains her actions that day or that people often forget traumatic events or who knows what, but we know that it will favor the defense because they are defense experts.

So, given your position, is the Jury supposed to rely on the testimony of these experts rather than rely on their own experience or background?

How is that any different? And, don't tell me no, because these experts are paid by the defense-- because the ME is paid by the State.

 

[Captain86]

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

Many people have disagreed with their doctor on what their problem is. However, this is usually because you are trying to describe what you feel or how your body is reacting to a situation/condition, and the doc is having a hard time understanding your terminology or emphasis. More often than not, the doc is right and the patient is wrong, not always, but usually.

That situation is not what we have here. This situation would be more like a patient arguing the finding of the Radiologist on an MRI with his doc. Not many patients can accurately read an MRI. So, for a patient say or believe that they know more than the Radiologist is a little arrogant.

Yes, people do survive gunshots to the head, but they are never the same. The people who have without issues are the ones that the brain was not involved. The Frontal Lobe deals more with personality type things, so while it is not vital to survival, any TBI has significant impact. No one but him has seen the damage to the brain and the path of the bullet, so who would be more qualified to make a determination than him? Common sense should lead you to defer to the expert in the field and the guy who actualy got to see the brain and the damage inflicted on it.

 

[wenwe4]

I just wanted to make a Shout Out to all of the new members here and the ones that have been members for a long time but don't frequently post! Glad you are here!

 

[Captain86]

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.

This statement is the basis for the gunshot coming last and really doesn't leave any wiggle room. Since he did not have any evidence of bleeding into the Cranial Cavity, then one of two conditions had to be met: 1) blood could not get to the brain or 2) there was no blood to get to the brain. There is no other way around the fact that there is no signs of bleeding after the gunshot.

 

[molly333]

This statement is the basis for the gunshot coming last and really doesn't leave any wiggle room. Since he did not have any evidence of bleeding into the Cranial Cavity, then one of two conditions had to be met: 1) blood could not get to the brain or 2) there was no blood to get to the brain. There is no other way around the fact that there is no signs of bleeding after the gunshot.

I don't recall him saying there was zero bleeding, just not what he would expect. He said there were no hematomas, which would take time to form.

I also heard him admit that the bleeding and coughing blood at the sink could be the result of the gunshot wound--that wound could cause an injury that would allow for bleeding into the nose and mouth.

IMO

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

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

Whichever sequence you assume, it was overkill. Shooting someone in the head then stabbing someone 29 times is just as cruel as the other way around. What makes you think there is a difference?

In fact, the judge said the same in ruling on the defense's motion for mistrial regarding this issue.

 

[Captain86]

I don't recall him saying there was zero bleeding, just not what he would expect. He said there were no hematomas, which would take time to form.

I also heard him admit that the bleeding and coughing blood at the sink could be the result of the gunshot wound--that wound could cause an injury that would allow for bleeding into the nose and mouth.

IMO

If there was no hematomas formed by the time they found him, he was not going to have any. Which is an indication that there wasn't enough blood at that time of the injury to cause one, as no one can argue that the gunshot would not have damage the blood vessels. They can happen very rapidly if enough or a large enough vessel is injured.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

The ME did not find bleeding but, there is wiggle room there because he said the brain was too decomposed to say anything definitively.

 

[New1]

At first I thought the stabbing came first , but now, after reading other people's posts, I am not as sure as I first was. But think about it. Why would she steal a gun if she didn't plan to shoot him? She was meticulous in her plan to kill him, making sure no one could place her in Mesa or even in Arizona. By taking the gas cans full of gas, making sure she didn't have to gas up in Arizona, this took some well-thought out planning. Why would she risk having all that bloody mess from 29 stab wounds and slicing his throat if something didn't go horribly wrong with her plan?

I don't know if the ME is right in his assessment that the gunshot wound would have rendered TA incapacitated. The reason I think this is that I personally knew a man who shot himself in the mouth with a shotgun, ripping off one side of his face and blowing out most of his teeth, but he still made his way out of his bedroom and called 911 himself, giving them directions to his home, made his way out the front door and was sitting on the doorsteps bleeding profusely when the EMTs arrived. This would have taken 15 to 20 minutes, and he didn't die from this horrible wound. So TA could have very well not been incapacitated if she shot him first if the bullet didn't go through the brain.

In the picture of TA's face, he looks to me like he is in total disbelief. it could have been that JA was standing there with a gun or a knife, either one. So I just am not sure which one came first, the stabbing or the gunshot, and I guess we will never know unless JA decides to tell the truth, which is very doubtful.

 

[Mountaindreamer]

One thing that they say the experts are going to agree on is that like Jodi battered woman dont write things about the abuse or tell anyone. that may be true in some instances but lets not forget about Drew Peterson, remember his ex who he murdered wrote in a letter and hid it that if something happened it was him and Stacey also told people...as have a few others whose names i cant think of, so if that is what they are resting on i dont think it will hold

 

[danzn16]

: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.

Thank you joypath. I thought it would be very helpful to hear it from a pathologist herself.

 

[ShadyLadySleuth]

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 doesn't 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'm in total agreement with you. For one thing, if the gunshot sequence of events were critical in a trial, the defense would call their own forensic pathologist to testify. They have a limited amount of money for expert witnesses to testify. They use the money where most needed. In my own life experience, I have seen renown experts in forensic pathology diametrically oppose each other's theory in a trial. It was up to the jury to decide who to believe. I'm speaking of the Phil Spector trial. In that case, the gunshot to the mouth was either a suicide or a murder. Each pathologist had a different "expert" conclusion. It all boiled down to who the jury believed. So, I am not at all in awe of "experts" who testify in trials. The defense pathologist said he was paid $50,000 for his services in the Spector trial. Hmmm.....just something to ponder.

 

[alwaysonmymind]

Another possibility is the defense couldn't find a forensic pathologist with a different opinion from Dr. Horn.

moo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Captain86]

The ME did not find bleeding but, there is wiggle room there because he said the brain was too decomposed to say anything definitively.

There is very little wiggle room. Had there been blood in the vessels of any of the tissue the bullet passed through, there would have been evidence. There would have been blood along the path of the bullet. His testimony was that what he saw during the autopsy was not consistent with TA being alive when he was shot. That is hard information to get around.

It really doesn't matter which happened first, he is still dead however it went down in that bathroom. While I agree that using a gun would be the most logical approach for Jodi against Travis (due to the size difference), the only medical findings we have point to the knife being used first and the gun last after her was dead. Until some solid medical evidence is entered to counter the opinion of the ME, I see no reason to concoct a scenario that is not supported by the physical evidence. We have no evidence of gunpowder residue in the shower. We have no evidence of blood splatter in or above the shower. There is very little blood around the front of the shower that is not related to him being drug back into the shower. My opinion may change if there is solid evidence presented that shows/strongly implies the gun was used first, but if I have to pick between believing Jodi and a ME that freely admitted that it was difficult to be 100 accurate due to the state of the body, that isn't a hard choice for me as to who I believe. I can't come up with nor have I heard a good explanation as to why she switched from the gun to a knife she just happened to have with her.

 

[slinkpod]

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.)

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown discusses Jodi Arias on the Dr Drew show - YouTube

Jealousy and anger can certainly still exist in a blood atonement reasoning. She wants him dead (he's about to skip out to Cancun with a new love interest that he's pursuing enough to tone up his body for--remember that Mimi is adamant she will only be a friend to Travis. Jodi has hacked into Travis' mail and knows all this. Jealousy and rage are already going and the teachings of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith (reference postings 368 & 371, and 375) give her a holy mission to validate what she wants to do anyway.
This explains why there's a gun AND a knife involved AND why there is an extensive throat slashing that almost decapitates him AFTER a fatal chest/heart wound that already has him helpless on the ground. (Who knows if the gun jammed? I don't think so, and running downstairs for a knife --that may or may not be sharpened-- doesn't easily fit into the time scheme). Jodi's cool and emotionless demeanor on the stand and her comments on Travis' happiness in afterlife support that she sees herself as abiding by the ancient laws of Young and Smith; she is simply a vehicle for their commandments to be carried out.
Now here's why it ISN"T a Blood Atonement issue: as cool and calculating as Jodi is, she could have used this reasoning on the stand --adding tears, of course. There's certainly enough documentation to show that Blood Atonement existed in the 1840s and 1850s. She would be found insane and sent to an institution. However, she could get released in maybe 5 to 10 years due to good behavior and converting to a religion with no violence in their background -- well, that's really limited-- so maybe Jainism.

 

[Paige SC]

Whichever sequence you assume, it was overkill. Shooting someone in the head then stabbing someone 29 times is just as cruel as the other way around. What makes you think there is a difference?

In fact, the judge said the same in ruling on the defense's motion for mistrial regarding this issue.

Premeditation by itself doesn't rise to the level of an aggravating circumstance, neither does shooting and stabbing someone in a fashion not unusual to 'normal' stabbing and shooting someone. For what is considered rising to the level of an aggravating circumstance according to AZ law, read the below link from top to bottom. While shooting and stabbing someone is a heinous act, it's not 'unusual'. An act which is designed to cause suffering is one of depravity. If someone is shot first, they aren't going to suffer while being stabbed because they are already dead.

http://www.supreme.state.az.us/courtserv/CrtProj/capsentguid/F6.htm