Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[Smelly Squirrel]

Any men ever just sit down in the shower?

My thoughts are JA had the gun pointed at him and she instructed him to sit down in the shower - thus the look in TA's eyes in the picture.

He does not look like there's a gun pointed at him in any picture. If you saw that picture not knowing he was killed, you'd never say a gun was pointed a him. And for what possible reason would she be making him do that and then taking a picture of him????? She didn't want the pictures. She had to delete them. The picture taking was only to get him in a vulnerable position so she could kill him. Once she pulled out a gun or knife, the picture taking would have ended.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I know! Right? This is the most mind boggling part of this case. You would think the defense would say that poor little Jodi had to act in self defense with a mere knife against BIG Travis (because she didn't have Grandpa's stolen .25 caliber) ...and the prosecutor would say gun first! She was in total control of him and had premeditated his demise when she stole Grandpas .25 caliber.

You and Molly are implying that the stolen gun is the only evidence of premeditation. Whether or not she ever stole or used the gun, there is still an overabundance of evidence of premeditation.

 

[pip]

You and Molly are implying that the stolen gun is the only evidence of premeditation. Whether or not she ever stole or used the gun, there is still an overabundance of evidence of premeditation.

No. That's not what I am saying. There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence, which includes the gun. It has not been proven that she in fact stole the gun, which has not been recovered. It is all circumstantial.
The only thing that is concrete is her admission to killing him.

 

[getReal]

No. That's not what I am saying. There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence, which includes the gun. It has not been proven that she in fact stole the gun, which has not been recovered. It is all circumstantial.
The only thing that is concrete is her admission to killing him.

... and photos of her on the camera, and her brown hair in the blood, and her bloody palm print with a mixture of her blood and his ...

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

And the GSW was not to his right temple. It was just above his right eyebrow. Frontal bone, not temporal bone. With a downward trajectory just above the right orbit with the bullet lodging into the left maxillary, it is actually hard to believe the bullet could have even come close to the brain.

There's a hole in the skull. It's not hard to imagine, unless you believe it did an abrupt u-turn right before hitting the brain. In any case, even if some don't believe the autopsy is clear, on the stand Horn made it clear the bullet had to go through the brain.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

No. That's not what I am saying. There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence, which includes the gun. It has not been proven that she in fact stole the gun, which has not been recovered. It is all circumstantial.

Circumstantial evidence can be proof, and in this case it is.

Pretty much any evidence can be called circumstantial, even the kind people think of as direct evidence. Having DNA that matches DNA at the scene only proves the person left DNA there at one time, not that they did anything else.

We can use logic to figure out the the most reasonable explanation for the evidence, whether you call it circumstantial or not.

The only thing that is concrete is her admission to killing him.

A confession is not concrete! It's also circumstantial.

 

[pip]

... and photos of her on the camera, and her brown hair in the blood, and her bloody palm print with a mixture of her blood and his ...

Yes. But she has already admitted to being there, killing him, taking photos.. that is not in question. The only question is whether it was premeditated, self defense or somewhere in between. The circumstantial evidence tells the story.

 

[pip]

Circumstantial evidence can be proof, and in this case it is.

Pretty much any evidence can be called circumstantial, even the kind people think of as direct evidence. Having DNA that matches DNA at the scene only proves the person left DNA there at one time, not that they did anything else.

We can use logic to figure out the the most reasonable explanation for the evidence, whether you call it circumstantial or not.



A confession is not concrete! It's also circumstantial.[/QUOTE
Of course circumstantial evidence can be deemed as proof! Most cases ARE circumstantial. She has confessed and her blood is at the scene. Her palm print is at the scene. There are pictures.
So to me, her confession that she killed him is concrete, not circumstantial. Now whether it was murder or self defense is circumstantial. It is pretty obvious it was premeditated with the mountain of circumstantial evidence that exists.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

She decides to go for the knife, which she probably had with her (the tire slasher) not a kitchen knife. By the time she turns around with a knife Travis has made it to the sink.

Why did she have the knife if she was going to shoot him?

That's a question no gun-firster has answered.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

This is what I keep saying ad nauseum--I am on the side of the State but with the gun first. And, what's more, that's the only way I can get to premeditated murder.

Yeah, yeah, you've said this many times, but still answer to why 29 stab wounds would not make it premeditated, even if a gun was never used.

In fact, by your logic, it's only attempted murder if the gun was used first, because the gun did not kill him.

You don't necessarily get to murder one from the knife wounds. Most of those wounds were superficial. Only two were fatal.

The gunshot was not fatal.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Love your posts too! I am so confused as to why Juan has to go with the knife first theory. Why why why? It just doesn't make any sense that I can put an Oh! AHA! I get it! to. It just seems bass ackwards. I can see this becoming a sticky point. I bet you are right that lessers will be brought in.

In the ME testimony on the stand when defense is questioning him about the GSW...this is what I am seeing:
He looks afraid/nervous.
He looks sullen.
Not at all confident.
He looks irritated.
He acts defensive.
He uses the "I don't recall, can't remember" line a bit too much.
He gives a completely different version of the original written report.

He acts like he has a pony in this race instead of an unbiased forensic data collector, which he should be.

Meanwhile, pan to Flores, no expression..sort of a gameface look.

The defense seems to know another truth that she can't draw out of him or pin him to.

I think the ME is uncomfortable, worried and resentful about the position he finds himself in.

I believe he did tell Flores the GSW came first.

JMO.

You're arguing by body language? Do you think anybody should be the least convinced by your subjective impressions?

Do you also think you don't look like you "have a pony in this race?"

Let's stick to the actual evidence, not to tea leaves.

 

[LaneGirl]

Why did she have the knife if she was going to shoot him?

That's a question no gun-firster has answered.

I'm a gun firster and before this was a thread some of us discussed this...

.25 jam easily as I'm told by gun owners. Also I think she wanted to make it look like two intruders thus the two weapons. I believe she fully intended to use both.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

He probably went to the ME and said you have no business concluding that the GSW came first because of the casing found on the blood at the scene... Juan decided to go with the knife first theory because of that damn (displaced) casing so he made the ME take back his gun first statement based on that evidence at the scene. So... ME took it back. Knife first. I think ME knows it was gun first but has to say knife first because of the casing being found on blood.

Great, now you're accusing the man of perjury. How much lower can you sink to the defend your "pony"?

 

[pip]

You're arguing by body language? Do you think anybody should be the least convinced by your subjective impressions?

Do you also think you don't look like you "have a pony in this race?"

Let's stick to the actual evidence, not to tea leaves.

I don't need to convince anyone of anything. Just my impression of what I saw. Tea leaves? haha. His entire presentation had my alarms ringing.

 

[AlwaysOnTheCase]

Can someone please look at the photo taken from the chest down, the one where Travis is sitting, can't see his face in the shower. In the lower right corner there is a metal object. If I knew how to post it, I would.

 

[LaneGirl]

Can someone please look at the photo taken from the chest down, the one where Travis is sitting, can't see his face in the shower. In the lower left corner there is a metal object. If I knew how to post it, I would.

Drain?

 

[KandyKane]

The simplest reasons that the gun shot came last is because of the ME and forensics. The ME testified that once he was shot he would either have died or been rendered incopacitated. We know he wasn't incopacitated during the attack because of the fact that he left the shower and got himself almost all the way down the hall, and he also had defensive cuts on his hands (and I believe one or more on an arm). We also know that he could not have been shot first because the shell casing fell into a pool of blood and there was no other blood dripped or sprayed on top of it. He HAD to have been stabbed first for these reasons.

For reference: medical examiner's testimony (starts about about a minute and a half into the video)...
[video=youtube;4h0fje33320]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4h0fje33320[/video]

Jodi is so adament that the shot came first otherwise she couldn't have claimed self-defense. She can't claim that he attacked her so she ran down to the kitchen, grabbed a knife, and ran BACK to the bathroom to defend herself since if she was able to get down to the kitchen (and we know he didn't follow her there) it isn't self-defense but murder since there is no reason she could not have kept running out of the house and get away from him, and there wouldn't be any reason for a knife to be in the immediate vacinity that she knew about and could immediately protect herself with. She MUST insist that the gun shot came first because any other scenerio makes it murder, not self-defense.

Personally, I think that she intended to kill him with the knife and only had the gun as back-up. I don't think she wanted to use the gun because of the fear that someone would hear it fire, and she might get caught in the house by police or a neighbor. I also believe that she imagined she could stab him once or twice and he'd die neatly in the shower with all the blood evidence being washed away. I think she freaked out after she stabbed him and he fought back, got out of the shower and was able to not only get out of the bathroom but all the way down the hall, and she went into a frenzy of stabbing because he wasn't conveniently dying right away. I also believe that the throat slitting and subsequent gun shot to the head was that she wanted to make sure he was REALLY dead, but also because she was pissed off at him for not dying neatly and quickly in the shower and made a bloody mess of the place which was not at all what she had invisioned.

 

[AlwaysOnTheCase]

I'm sorry, the right lower corner. I'm trying to post it, but it says enter the URL- I have no clue- "Fog"

 

[pip]

Great, now you're accusing the man of perjury. How much lower can you sink to the defend your "pony"?

Perjury? No one mentioned perjury. He just redefined his testimony in a different direction and I happened to take notice.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Can someone please look at the photo taken from the chest down, the one where Travis is sitting, can't see his face in the shower. In the lower left corner there is a metal object. If I knew how to post it, I would.

It's the attorney's pen in the courtroom pointing to the picture, it's not from the camera.