Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

[RealityMan]

:seeya:

I know there was one doctor on HLN that agreed with gun first. There are posts in the beginning of this thread how her thought process on the topic makes absolutely no scientific sense and is just not possible. Actually go read her words. People slammed this theory that actually know anything about medicine, anatomy, and physiology. And I don't know if the name is dr Baden because when I google that with TA the only thing that comes up is posts from this thread. You won't believe the doc that actually saw TAs body and examined him, you say he is not an expert on brain damage so he shouldn't be talking about anything but yet you're with another pathologist who also isn't a brain damage expect that didn't even see TAs body at all? Well okay then. And I'm the one grasping at straws. Lmao

Check out Dr. Michael Baden on Wikipedia. You will see that he is a very well-respected physician and forensic pathologist who once served as Chief Medical Examiner of the city of New York.

According to Mark Fuhrman's interview, which is embedded in post #591, Dr. Baden believes JA fired the gun first before retrieving the knife to finish TA off.

He presumably made this determination in view of the ME's final report.

So now there is at least one well-respected, well-qualified, former ME who disagrees with Dr. Horn, not to mention detectives Flores and Fuhrman and crime scene reconstruction expert Beasley.

 

[danzn16]

:seeya:

Check out Dr. Michael Baden on Wikipedia. You will see that he is a very respected physician and forensic pathologist who once served as Chief Medical Examiner of the city of New York.

According to Mark Fuhrman's interview, which is embedded in post #591, Dr. Baden believes JA fired the gun first before retrieving the knife to finish TA off.

He presumably made this determination in view of the ME's final report.

So now there is at least one well-respected, well-qualified, former ME who disagrees with Dr. Horn, not to mention detectives Flores and Fuhrman, and crime scene reconstruction expert Beasley.

He also got paid to be on TV and only under the circumstances to dispute the ME of the trial. His theory made no sense whatsoever if you understand even basic anatomy and physiology. So he is a very biased source. But he fits with you guys theory so you guys choose to cling to that. He also never saw inside TA's skull or even viewed the body, which if he is being honest about his opinion, I'm sure his opinion would change if he did see the body. It's actually kind of ridiculous for a ME to state a claim when they didn't examine the body at all. That is their job and anything said before an exam is merely speculative. Reading a report does not make him an expert or give him the ability to know what happened. That's like a doctor telling you your medical diagnosis over the phone without seeing you or doing lab work if it was medical condition that takes workup, like an autopsy requires!

 

[LambChop]

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

The wound to the SVC would not have stopped him immediately, so she would not know the seriousness of the wound. Cutting his throat could be construed as coming from terror, panic, and just trying to stop him rather than from a logical, premeditated thought to kill him.

If he is attacking her, she is just trying to defend herself.

There was a similar case a while ago. Two guys jump one guy and have him on the ground, one punching him and one kicking him in the head. He pulls out a knife and stabs the one over him creating a wound to the heart which the guy will later die from. They run away in the car when he's stabbed and he is dead by the time they get him to the hospital.

The guy who stabbed him walked home, threw the knife away, hid his clothes. I think he may have called 911 anonymously before he left the scene but everyone was gone by the time the police got there.

State asked for murder one. The jury came in with a lessor charge. It was overturned on appeal. Second jury was hung. State finally pleaded out to manslaughter, I think.

Cutting of the throat has never been considered a defensive act. The fact is he was already down (she already stated so in her statement to Flores) in the hallway mortally wounded. She had an escape route through the closet from the bathroom. The minute he started down the hall from the bathroom she had an out. She had no visible wounds other than her hand which Flores told her was common from someone who has blood on their hand while stabbing at someone and their hand slips.

Jodi was doing handstands in the interrogation room which is not consistent with injuries she would have suffered had she been body slammed on a tile floor. You get to murder one but stabbing someone 27 to 29 times, shooting them in the head and lastly cutting their throat. The Grand Jury decided that and the District Attorney agreed it was over-the-top. No other case is comparable to this one. TH's will agree to that one point.

None of the computer records, none of the evidence gathered, the pictures, witness reports, not even her story supports what happened. This is what the jury has in front of them to consider.

I worried about the Drew Peterson case while the jury deliberated. They got it. They understood that the State's evidence and there was very little that pointed to him. JM can only presents what he has and what he has presented so far is compelling. The only way the jury would let her walk is if they threw out everything the State presented. That just is not likely to happen. Not saying there isn't a juror who does not have sympathy for Jodi for what they feel she endured but that facts are the facts and that is what they have to consider. The jury has shown by their questions that they do not believe her, that they get it. Jodi is just not credible no matter how well she tried to present herself. jmo

 

[danzn16]

Also if you google Dr. Baden with TA there is nothing on the internet about it and no links. So how do we even know he said anything or what pathologist you are talking about? Word of mouth is such a good way to determine something lol.

I thought the HLN thing was a female?

 

[danzn16]

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.

snipped by me and BBM

Maybe because the forensic evidence of the body, the ME, and the blood splatter analysis all said shot lost? I can't make any sense of that either!!! :facepalm:

 

[pip]

snipped by me and BBM

Maybe because the forensic evidence of the body, the ME, and the blood splatter analysis all said shot lost? I can't make any sense of that either!!! :facepalm:

The only place the 'knife first' campers can hang their hats is on the ME's SECOND version of events.. His verbal testimony. He disputes himself if you read his written report. There is no other supporting evidence that the knife came first.

 

[molly333]

Also if you google Dr. Baden with TA there is nothing on the internet about it and no links. So how do we even know he said anything or what pathologist you are talking about? Word of mouth is such a good way to determine something lol.

I thought the HLN thing was a female?

Scroll back to the link I posted on Greta's interview with Mark Fuhrman. Mark quotes Dr. Baden as saying gun first and gun jammed.

 

[RealityMan]

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.

I believe JM is going with the knife first theory because, in that scenario, he can get the death penalty for JA even if the jury does not think she premeditated the murder.

I think he may have realized that the evidence can be interpreted either way, so he decided to go with the interpretation that was the best for his case, regardless of any inconsistencies with opinions of other witnesses or crime scene reconstruction. He may have even chosen this particular theory simply to argue opposite to JA, who is obviously lying about almost everything. By simply opposing JA's case, he has bolstered his.

The problem with this approach is JM may lose credibility with jurors who can't get around the fact that the gun first theory makes more sense given the photographic evidence, crime scene reconstruction, and other circumstantial evidence.

If JM is being unreasonable in arguing the sequence events as necessarily excluding the gun first theory, what else is he being unreasonable about? Maybe he is being unreasonable about the gas receipts, JA's assertion that she returned the gas can, and so on. A juror might go down a slippery slope.

 

[LambChop]

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.

It would have been easy for the ME to clarify his report since it does not focus on the gunshot wound. There is no incentive for the ME to lie. Based on his observations, pictures, report, notes he determined that the gunshot was not first. He has no reason to say it if it's not his belief and I doubt he would lie and chance a mistrial. He could have easily stated the body was in a state he was not able to determine if the shot was first. Dr. Horn did not do that and seems aggravated that defense wants to put words in his mouth. If I were sure of an issue I guess I would be too if pressed to change my answer.

As far as JM he is locked into whatever the ME reports. Defense has had plenty of time to dispute the ME. They still have time to do that. So if there is no other ME to testify the State will go with the ME's report and opinion. I do not think any ME will argue with Dr. Horn with 100% certainty which would be required.

I think this was a particularly disturbing crime for everyone who was responsible for investigating this case. Defense is upset over the State switching gears in their belief of what the order of the inflicted wounds were. It hurts their defense that they worked hard in putting together and it's too late to go back and change it. If it was the truth there is no need for them to change and the facts would support what Jodi testified to. We all know she is lying about the closet. Just not enough time. Because she is lying even if the shot did come first the jury will throw it out and go with what the State presents because Jodi's testimony is not truthful. They will be aware they cannot speculate. jmo

 

[molly333]

Cutting of the throat has never been considered a defensive act. The fact is he was already down (she already stated so in her statement to Flores) in the hallway mortally wounded. She had an escape route through the closet from the bathroom. The minute he started down the hall from the bathroom she had an out. She had no visible wounds other than her hand which Flores told her was common from someone who has blood on their hand while stabbing at someone and their hand slips.

But, look where we are now. We are now arguing over whether the knife wounds can bring us to the conclusion of murder one. I can guarantee that I can argue they don't, because, for me, they don't.
Now we are talking about a smaller opponent trying to win a fight against a stronger opponent that he started. Even with a knife, he should have won that fight.

Is this really where the State wants the Jury? I don't think so.

IMO

 

[pip]

I believe JM is going with the knife first theory because, in that scenario, he can get the death penalty for JA even if the jury does not think she premeditated the murder.

I think he may have realized that the evidence can be interpreted either way, so he decided to go with the interpretation that was the best for his case, regardless of any inconsistencies with opinions of other witnesses or crime scene reconstruction. He may have even chosen this particular theory simply to argue opposite to JA, who is obviously lying about almost everything. By simply opposing JA's case, he has bolstered his.

The problem with this approach is JM may lose credibility with jurors who can't get around the fact that the gun first theory makes more sense given the photographic evidence, crime scene reconstruction, and other circumstantial evidence.

If JM is being unreasonable in arguing the sequence events as necessarily excluding the gun first theory, what else is he being unreasonable about? Maybe he is being unreasonable about the gas receipts, JA's assertion that she returned the gas can, and so on. A juror might go down a slippery slope.

It just makes more sense to me that if Juan went with how it really happened...GSW first...it was premeditated because she stole Grandpas gun, drove there with a plan, held him at gunpoint and shot him, then finished him off like a butcher with a knife....it would still be a DP punishable crime. Let the defense say it was Travis' gun, out of the shower, in self defense. The jury could have gotten the two versions sorted out for the truth, no problem.
The knife first just throws a wrench in his case, IMO.

 

[RealityMan]

He also got paid to be on TV and only under the circumstances to dispute the ME of the trial. His theory made no sense whatsoever if you understand even basic anatomy and physiology. So he is a very biased source. But he fits with you guys theory so you guys choose to cling to that. He also never saw inside TA's skull or even viewed the body, which if he is being honest about his opinion, I'm sure his opinion would change if he did see the body. It's actually kind of ridiculous for a ME to state a claim when they didn't examine the body at all. That is their job and anything said before an exam is merely speculative. Reading a report does not make him an expert or give him the ability to know what happened. That's like a doctor telling you your medical diagnosis over the phone without seeing you or doing lab work if it was medical condition that takes workup, like an autopsy requires!

There are a lot of ridiculous statements in your post, but let me try to work through them.

It is clear that you did not watch the Furhman interview that is embedded in post #591. Dr. Baden did not appear in the interview. Instead, Fuhrman was just quoting his findings.

Furthermore, even if Dr. Baden is being paid in his capacity as a consultant for Fox, that in no way undermines his credibility. He has appeared in many television shows in the past and made unbiased determinations, even solving previously unsolved crimes.

Dr. Baden did not examine the body, but he certainly reviewed the ME's final report in this case. Are you saying that the ME's report was not complete? In other words, is the ME basing his testimony on facts that were not contained in the final report? If so, the ME is being inconsistent with his final report. If not, then Dr. Baden is at least as qualified, if not more qualified, than the ME to weigh in on what he views to be the sequence of events in this case.

Dr. Baden is looking at the same facts as the ME, but he disagrees with the ME as to the sequence of events. He thinks JA shot TA first and then retrieved the knife to finish him off.

 

[LambChop]

I believe JM is going with the knife first theory because, in that scenario, he can get the death penalty for JA even if the jury does not think she premeditated the murder.

I think he may have realized that the evidence can be interpreted either way, so he decided to go with the interpretation that was the best for his case, regardless of any inconsistencies with opinions of other witnesses or crime scene reconstruction. He may have even chosen this particular theory simply to argue opposite to JA, who is obviously lying about almost everything. By simply opposing JA's case, he has bolstered his.

The problem with this approach is JM may lose credibility with jurors who can't get around the fact that the gun first theory makes more sense given the photographic evidence, crime scene reconstruction, and other circumstantial evidence.

If JM is being unreasonable in arguing the sequence events as necessarily excluding the gun first theory, what else is he being unreasonable about? Maybe he is being unreasonable about the gas receipts, JA's assertion that she returned the gas can, and so on. A juror might go down a slippery slope.

But JM is not arguing the gun came first. That was the statement from the ME. What he is doing is trying to prove that if Jodi did shoot Travis first she had to make the decision to get the knife to finish killing him. He is poking holes in her story to the jury that after she initially shot him she had an opportunity to get away because Travis did not have the knife and she admits to not knowing where it was. From her own testimony she is saying she had to LOOK for the knife in order to finish killing him. Whether she admits it or not because of a fog. It is a fact. Premeditation. Plain and simple. Does not matter to JM if she shot him first or stabbed him. At some point she changed weapons and that is premeditation. Slam dunk. jmo

 

[Dmacky]

MOVIE COMING about the trial

http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=796451

 

[pip]

Aha. The bottom line is that Juan was dealt a freak circumstance that he had to deal with. It could be a confusing jury splitter.
The bullet casing on the blood.
Blows away the 'shot in the shower first' scenario if he cannot convince the jurors that it landed there during the melee or clean up efforts. (Which I 100% believe it obviously did). He decided to take the low road and go with the knife first scenario because of that damn bullet casing. He picked his battle upon weighing the odds.
The bullet casing on the blood... an unfortunate freak event that it secondarily came to rest there. It screwed Juan from going with the actual sequence of events.

 

[RealityMan]

Yes, premeditation should be in the bag for the prosecution. That's why it is risky for JM to go after the alternative murder charge with aggravating factors as a backup strategy. I believe he selected the knife first theory so that JA would be put to death under that alternative theory even if the jury did not agree JA premeditated the murder.

 

[LambChop]

There are a lot of ridiculous statements in your post, but let me try to work through them.

It is clear that you did not watch the Furhman interview that is embedded in post #591. Dr. Baden did not appear in the interview. Instead, Fuhrman was just quoting his findings.

Furthermore, even if Dr. Baden is being paid in his capacity as a consultant for Fox, that in no way undermines his credibility. He has appeared in many television shows in the past and made unbiased determinations, even solving previously unsolved crimes.

Dr. Baden did not examine the body, but he certainly reviewed the ME'a final report in this case. Are you saying that the ME's report was not complete? In other words, is the ME basing his testimony on facts that were not contained in the final report? If so, the ME is being inconsistent with his final report. If not, then Dr. Baden is at least as qualified, if not more qualified, than the ME to weigh in on what he views to be the sequence of events in this case.

Dr. Baden is looking at the same facts as the ME, but he disagrees with the ME as to the sequence of events. He thinks JA shot TA first and then retrieved the knife to finish him off.

The ME's autopsy report just states how the body was found and what the results of his autopsy combining his exam plus reports back from testing sent out. His report is not reflective of what he feels happened and in what order. In his testimony in court Dr. Horn addresses his finds and answers questions directed to him as to how he feels the wounds happened based on his finds. After five years he is testifying on what is in his report and the notes taken during the autopsy which are probably more in depth than the report itself. They go over all these notes, reports and pictures before court to refresh their memory. He admits he could have talked to Flores but has no memory of it.

We do not know what Dr. Baden looked at in terms of information. If he just used the autopsy report there is nothing in that report that indicates how the wounds were carried out. It's speculation at that point for anyone. The only person who would know for sure would be the ME. He may have speculated himself or there is something in his notes he testified to that he knows for sure the shot did not come first. There is no argument so far from defense so that may be fruit from the poisonous tree for them to make an issue of it. Bottom line is there is nothing in the report that states what the chain of events were, just the cause of death. jmo

 

[LambChop]

Yes, premeditation should be in the bag for the prosecution. That's why it is risky for JM to go after the alternative murder charge with aggravating factors as a backup strategy. I believe he selected the knife first theory so that JA would be put to death under that alternative theory even if the jury did not agree JA premeditated the murder.

JM did not select it. The ME did.

 

[danzn16]

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

Here is the post about why the HLN pathologists theory makes no sense whatsoever physiologically, and the link to site.

Forensic pathologist are only supposed to give medical opinions after they have examined the body. This person never did that and it seems like she didn't even read the autopsy report either. She states that she thinks that TA was shot first because that's what makes sense to her. She said it's doesn't make sense to her for the shot to come after the other injuries. Again, all based on feelings! She also states that she thinks that TA was unconscious or dead after the shot. So doesn't fit you guys theory there. And she thinks he was dead when he was stabbed in the back because she thinks that if a person was being stabbed in the back that they would do something about it and try to prevent it. Again all based on feelings and what she would do or would think would be rational if she was in that situation. That is not the job of a medical examiner! You don't report based on feelings, you use physical evidence and scientific rational. It's the same thing if a doctor diagnoses you over the phone instead of seeing you in the office, examining you, and undergoing lab tests for a disease that needs work-up, just like an autopsy and murder case needs workup physically. It's actually absolutely ridiculous to give a personal opinion and ignore evidence. It's absolutely not allowed in court and for good reason. The only thing I can think of is this doc went on TV for payment to make an interesting story. Biased. But I know for most of you gun firsters this will just further justify your theory because another person believes what you believe and will still ignore evidence. So I really don't even know why I'm writing all this.

 

[danzn16]

But, look where we are now. We are now arguing over whether the knife wounds can bring us to the conclusion of murder one. I can guarantee that I can argue they don't, because, for me, they don't.
Now we are talking about a smaller opponent trying to win a fight against a stronger opponent that he started. Even with a knife, he should have won that fight.

Is this really where the State wants the Jury? I don't think so.

IMO

So a former LAPD crime scene detective says a NY pathologist for a crime that happened in Arizona?? But there is no evidence anywhere of the NY pathologist opinion? I don't believe anything second hand. Too many ways for misinterpreting.