Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[Softail]

Just stumbled on this video re-enactment from HLN:

http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/01/09/jodi-arias-murder-trial-crime-scene-animation

 

[suspicious1]

I haven't read all the replies here so forgive me if I repeat something already posted.
The photo of Travis in the shower with his forearms crossed at the chest disturbs me, and I think he has already been stabbed in the chest at that point. I think while he was in shock from the stabbing in the chest that JA took that photo while holding him at gun point. I think also that she showed him the digital display of those photos before finishing him off. The look on his face in that photo speaks of sheer terror. JMHO!

In the photo of him holding his chest I think he was praying. I've seen many people in the church put their hands over their heart while praying and when I first saw the pic I immediately thought that's what he was doing. JMO

 

[Vresia]

Gunshot wounds: practical aspects of firearms, ballistics, and forensic techniques
Vincent J. M. Di Maio http://bit.ly/XIYnlM
"Numerous individuals have survived perforating gunshots wounds of the frontal lobes though there may be associated personality changes and/or blindness."

Forensic Pathology: Principles and Practice
By David Dolinak, et al... http://bit.ly/15pPAME
"The prognosis depends on the caliber and muzzle velocity of the weapon and the location of the injury...Small-caliber, low-velocity wounds of the anterior frontal lobes or tangential wounds are likely to be better tolerated."

 

[neesaki]

Posted this in another thread, but this one is more appropriate..

The only way I can make sense of the totality of the wounds is if the ME is off on his opinion that the gunshot wound would have immediately rendered Travis unconscious and unable to defend himself. Even the ME says he does not have complete information because he can't track the bullet through the brain. There's no testimony about what functions are controlled in that part of the brain or why it would necessarily have immediately incapacitated Travis completely.

The other factors that support the gunshot being first are:

1. The shot was downward traveling from Travis' right brow down to his left cheek from at least 2-3 feet away. (ME testimony and pics). This was exactly the relative positions of Travis and Jodi in the last "alive" picture of Travis in the shower 44 seconds before the camera dropped.

2. At no time after the throat wound would Travis have been in a sitting up position that could have led to the path of the projectile from right brow to left cheek unless Jodi was laying on the floor shooting him...an outlandish scenario.

3. The shot could not have been made in the position Travis was found in the shower, so if he was shot after death in the bathroom/shower, Jodi would have had to again reposition his body in the shower after she shot him.

4. Jodi brought the gun with her and all the evidence indicates that she went with the intention of shooting Travis. Reason and logic say that shooting him would have been her first attempt to kill him. In one of her interviews she said that if she killed Travis she would have kept shooting him til he was dead -- and I think that was her intention, but the gun jammed and she had to resort to other "less humane" means. She worked the gun jam into her story during her 48 Hours interview, claiming the gun man tried to shoot her but the gun jammed so she could escape. IMO she was drawing on her actual experiences and observations when coming up with these stories so as to try to make them believable.

5. ME testified that the trajectory of the bullet could have caused blood to enter mouth and nose. This fits the blood spray and patterns around the sink which cannot really be explained any other way -- stabbing in the heart would not cause that kind of spray and would not cause blood in mouth and nose. Although I do think there was some testimony that the patterns could have been caused by Travis being stabbed while he was positioned at the sink.

6. Finally, although we cannot take any of Jodi's statements as the truth, I believe that her account of the intruders was her way to telling pretty accurately what happened to Travis. She wanted to make it believable so she gave an account that she actually believed could have happened -- i.e. Travis being shot and still surviving and able to lift himself up on all fours. To make it as believable as possible, I think she relied on what she actually observed as reality ..Travis was shot and was badly injured but did not die or lose consciousness. She left out the stabbing to the heart and throat slice because she wanted to claim he was still alive when she left.

The only thing that was holding me back from believing in this sequence was the ME's testimony. But there are so many other factors that support him being shot first, and after listening to the ME testimony again, it's not as conclusive as I thought. In fact, he first says that the head would would have "likely" been incapacitating "rapidly" (not immediately). So I conclude that the ME made a mistake with his opinion about the sequence. The fact that the shell casing had no blood does not bother me at all -- Jodi poured water over stuff, and it could have been kicked around or cleared from the gun after the fact.

This scenario makes the most sense to me as well. I would like to agree with the ME, but thus far he has not provided enough to back up his opinion. imo

I can't believe that anyone would argue about the sequence of events and go against the medical examiner. Unless you are. . .another medical examiner. . .how are you even qualified to state an opinion on this?

I'm watching JW cross examine the medical examiner and she looks like an idiot. He knows what he's talking about and she doesn't. (She's using the wrong terminology, stating things are possible that aren't, etc.) The medical examiner says he was shot last, so he was shot last. . .unless someone with some credibility says otherwise. Which, uh, hasn't happened.

With all due respect, I have worked with physicians a big part of my life, and I have been on the other side as a patient as well. One thing I have learned, some from first hand experience, is that doctors do, and not infrequently, make mistakes and sometimes very serious ones. If I had believed everything I had heard and/or been told by doctors, I could be dead today. And some of my patients already are. Please, they are not gods, though some people sadly believe they are and enable them by putting them up there on a pedestal. Not only are we entitled to question them, it is our responsibility to do so. Doctors are human beings, and human beings make mistakes. They are not always right. Though there is not enough validation for me to be comfortable with the ME's opinion at this point, I look forward to any additional evidence that may be introduced that may support it. jmo

 

[Madeleine74]

Kind of ironic that the patient being argued about is, in fact, very dead and the doctor being questioned is a doctor that cannot kill his patients. Dr. Horn is not on a pedestal and no one, incuding him, is saying he's infallable.

But, he is the M.E. who conducted the autopsy, his opinion holds more weight than any other person, especially speculators who are not qualified to render a medical opinion in this or any case. Whether that is acceptable or unacceptable, Horn's opinion is the legally valid one, his signature is on the official report, he's considered the expert witness (at least so far), and his opinion on the condition of the body and the analysis conducted on that body is one a jury will be expected to consider with greater weight than, say, Flores or anyone else.

Of course anyone can believe anything, including a theory that aliens flew down in their spaceship and committed part of the murder, but they're not sitting on the witness stand, under oath. Their opinion means nothing, legally, and has no bearing on the case.

In other words, it's neither here nor there. There's only one expert legal medical opinion in this case (so far) and he rendered his expert opinion and that's what the court is going with.

 

[neesaki]

This opinion has already been made quite clear, multiple times IIRC, but thanks anyway.

 

[Hopeful One]

I have always believed he was stabbed, throat slit, and then shot. But reading many of these posts, I'm beginning to think the shot came first.

The one thing I cannot get around is the fact that the bullet wound was on the right side, facing the wall of the shower. How on earth would she shoot him at that angle??

For some reason, everything in me believes he was stabbed first, but then with this bit of information, I know that can't be right.

 

[dgfred]

Kind of ironic that the patient being argued about is, in fact, very dead and the doctor being questioned is a doctor that cannot kill his patients. Dr. Horn is not on a pedestal and no one, incuding him, is saying he's infallable.

But, he is the M.E. who conducted the autopsy, his opinion holds more weight than any other person, especially speculators who are not qualified to render a medical opinion in this or any case. Whether that is acceptable or unacceptable, Horn's opinion is the legally valid one, his signature is on the official report, he's considered the expert witness (at least so far), and his opinion on the condition of the body and the analysis conducted on that body is one a jury will be expected to consider with greater weight than, say, Flores or anyone else.

Of course anyone can believe anything, including a theory that aliens flew down in their spaceship and committed part of the murder, but they're not sitting on the witness stand, under oath. Their opinion means nothing, legally, and has no bearing on the case.

In other words, it's neither here nor there. There's only one expert legal medical opinion in this case (so far) and he rendered his expert opinion and that's what the court is going with.

The court may go with it. The ME may say it. You may say it and go with it. Others may say it. Others may not agree. You are right tho because:

None of that matters... it is what the jurors decide to believe.

 

[Madeleine74]

This opinion has already been made quite clear, multiple times IIRC, but thanks anyway.

And yet only a micro-fraction of the number of times the opinion the shot came first, since metrics are being noted. The Department of Redundancy Department is amused.

 

[neesaki]

And yet only a micro-fraction of the number of times the opinion the shot came first, since metrics are being noted. The Department of Redundancy Department is amused.

Department of Redundancy Deptartment :floorlaugh: ... I love that, you made me laugh Madeleine :wave:

 

[dgfred]

That is what this particular thread is for... to discuss the sequence IN OUR OPINIONS.

Some are going to say shot first... some are going to say stabbed first. Like the jurors IMO.

 

[Madeleine74]

How will we know who's right?

 

[dgfred]

We will not really... but we can later know what the jurors decided upon.

 

[danzn16]

Gunshot wounds: practical aspects of firearms, ballistics, and forensic techniques
Vincent J. M. Di Maio http://bit.ly/XIYnlM
"Numerous individuals have survived perforating gunshots wounds of the frontal lobes though there may be associated personality changes and/or blindness."

Forensic Pathology: Principles and Practice
By David Dolinak, et al... http://bit.ly/15pPAME
"The prognosis depends on the caliber and muzzle velocity of the weapon and the location of the injury...Small-caliber, low-velocity wounds of the anterior frontal lobes or tangential wounds are likely to be better tolerated."

It is true that people have lived from gun shot wounds to the frontal lobes. However almost ever case report that I can find from these events, the patient was unconscious and required very extensive stays in hospitals and rehabilitation before that were able to walk and function normally. Survival is not what we are discussing in this case since unfortunately TA did not survive. It is the immediate impact on what a gun shot wound would do to a person, whether it was survivable or not. If someone could find a case report of a gun shot to the frontal lobe and that person was able to continue moving around, trying to escape, crawling a distance, etc, that would be helpful. But it would still not explain the no perfuse bleeding that TA did not experience like every other gun shot victim does.

 

[Madeleine74]

If someone could find a case report of a gun shot to the frontal lobe and that person was able to continue moving around, trying to escape, crawling a distance, etc, that would be helpful. But it would still not explain the no perfuse bleeding that TA did not experience like every other gun shot victim does.

While it's interesting to read about or hear about people who have survived and done well after a gun shot to the head, no one else's case can tell us anything about Travis' specific injuries and Travis' brain physiology. The trajectory was seen on the xray. The M.E. talked about the structures involved and noted that Travis would have been incapacitated to some degree with such an injury. He might have lived; the gun shot wound wasn't necessarily fatal, but the shock to his system at least momentarily, if not longer, would have rendered him unable to lunge at/attack/fight his attacker.

And that to me is an important point because *if* Travis was shot first, he would have fallen down and it would be long enough for the person holding the gun to get the heck out of dodge to save her own life. Someone who was dressed, was wearing shoes of some kind, had the advantage of a weapon and wasn't injured at all, could have escaped her "lunging attacker" if he had sustained that particular head injury. He might have eventually gotten up, but he would have been in no condition to be a threat to her.

 

[dgfred]

Same deal with a knife to the heart. No need to shoot him after that... and having his neck cut open. Is she able to escape her 'lunging attacker' with a fatal blow to the heart?

We have a view where an attacker completely slaughters a human being... then basically misses a straight on shot on an immobile body.

That isn't even mentioning bringing a gun in the first place.
That isn't even mentioning the noise of shooting someone already past dead.

It is very interesting to me... sorry some don't feel that way.

I just hope it doesn't effect the jury in any way if they feel undecided on this subject.

 

[minor4th]

It is true that people have lived from gun shot wounds to the frontal lobes. However almost ever case report that I can find from these events, the patient was unconscious and required very extensive stays in hospitals and rehabilitation before that were able to walk and function normally. Survival is not what we are discussing in this case since unfortunately TA did not survive. It is the immediate impact on what a gun shot wound would do to a person, whether it was survivable or not. If someone could find a case report of a gun shot to the frontal lobe and that person was able to continue moving around, trying to escape, crawling a distance, etc, that would be helpful. But it would still not explain the no perfuse bleeding that TA did not experience like every other gun shot victim does.

You are really making me question my shot-first theory

 

[neesaki]

You don't need the brain to see how much bleeding their was. He didn't say that. You need the cranial cavity which he had because that is where the blood from the brain leaks into. He needed the brain to see the trajectory in which the bullet took to see which parts of the brain the bullet went through but the brain was too decomposed. So the amount of bleeding cannot be disputed.

Also just because the bullet lodged in the check doesn't mean it "didn't have enough force" or that this gun was somehow weaker than other gun shots or something like that. I'm not sure if they specified what type of bullet this was but hollow point bullets are known to lodge in the body and not come out of the victim and cause the most damage and bleeding internally. So just because a bullet lodges inside someone doesn't mean less damage is done. Actually it's the opposite. If a bullet comes through cleanly less damage is usually done.

And are you a mental health professional to know that even psychos choose to do more intelligent things like choose a gun over a knife first like you are stating? Because we have seen cases where this is not the case. And illnesses where there is no rational thought or not even illnesses but where rage simply takes hold. I absolutely cannot say what another person would do in hatred. I think getting stabbed 27 times would be more horrible than a shot to the head. Who knows if JA wanted that? We can not assume anything in a persons mind. That is forbidden in court and for good reason.

I just finished reading your post and am wishing I had done so before. I appreciate your thoughtful and concise explanation of some of the physiology involved, which helps me to better get a grasp and understanding of the ME's opinion that the gunshot was not the first wound inflicted. I really have held the impression that he was ambivalent or unsure of his findings, primarily due to his statements regarding the degree of brain decomposition.

However, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the brain decomposition is irrelevant in determining the amount of bleeding that resulted from the gunshot wound. This is because any blood from the brain would have accumulated in the cranial cavity, which was as you say, still intact, and would not be affected by decomposition of the brain matter. BTW, is this accumulation of blood in the cranial cavity something that occurs almost immediately, or over a longer period of time, such as several hours, or in this case over several days? Not that this would make any difference, just curious.

Thank you, danzn for helping making sense out of something that has made no sense to me. If I have all of this straight, then I think I can understand how the ME came to his conclusion, which means of course I'll have to put all of my previous "logical" assumptions aside. Not that it will be the first time by a long shot, lol. :seeya:

 

[minor4th]

I changed my mind. I now believe he was stabbed first.

 

[dgfred]

I haven't.