grayhuze
Gray Hughes
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 310
- Reaction score
- 166
yeah..that's not a bare foot. did you not see the photo that I attached above?
Crime Scene Animation by Websleuths Member grayhuze
- Thread starter Tricia
- Start date
yeah..that's not a bare foot. did you not see the photo that I attached above?
grayhuze
Gray Hughes
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 310
- Reaction score
- 166
I agree! It was one of the Jury members who noticed it. The report above showing the 2009 hearing proves to me that Flores' memory was accurate of the conversation. Case closed on that.
You're assuming that Flores heard correctly.
As he is not a medical examiner, mishearing/misunderstanding/misinterpreting is a distinct possibility, and Flores concedes that this was in fact the case.
Thank You for your opinions and the amazing animations.
grayhuze
Gray Hughes
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 310
- Reaction score
- 166
I am not assuming he heard correctly. The theory of the prosecution at the time was that the gunshot was first and that he would not have been immediately incapacitated.
Did you not read that document?
grayhuze
Gray Hughes
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 310
- Reaction score
- 166
"The State presented evidence" Not Flores, the State...so that was the prosecution's theory at the time. This supports the notion that Flores did have a conversation with Horn and that he was told the gunshot was first and that Travis would not be immediately incapacitating. <modsnip>
You said: "...[Flores] said plainly that Horn told him the gunshot was first and that the gunshot would not be immediately incapacitating. He was told that 3 times... How do you mistake hearing something 3 times?..."
And just as I thought, (being familair with the testimony), you have no evidence to support your assertion that Dr. Horn spoke with Flores "3 times", let alone "plainly".
There was one brief "small conversation" back in August 2009, which Flores misunderstood/misheard, and Dr. Horn doesn't remember.
Are you saying that we have to assume that Det. Flores just made up the gunshot first, that he didn't talk to the MA about what the autopsy results were. They should fire him, if that is the case. In the beginning I wondered why they didn't.
So do you think it was Juan he was talking to? I'm not understanding I guess. We have to consider Det. Flores is taking the blame, poop rolls downhill. MOO is he took the fall. Someone didn't realize the importance of the dura mata being intact in the report, so then Dr. Horn came up with a "typo" when it was discovered. Why they changed from gunshot first, I don't understand exactly, but my guess is the they wanted that death penalty. JMOO, respectfully.
geevee
Well-Known Stickie
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 17,463
- Reaction score
- 15,005
I have seen the over-saturated and dark photo many times, you cannot see nearly as much in detail as you can in the pic when shown on the monitors - how can you not see what I've circled and pointed an arrow to? On the bottom left are clearly toes in motion, moving to the right, you can even make out the division of the toes on the right above the arrow.
grayhuze
Gray Hughes
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 310
- Reaction score
- 166
so you are denying that even with the evidence from that august 2009 hearing? You think Flores just misheard Horn even thought what he is claiming he heard is exactly what the state's theory was? wow, now I have heard it all.
grayhuze
Gray Hughes
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 310
- Reaction score
- 166
because it is not there, what you are saying you see.
grayhuze
Gray Hughes
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 310
- Reaction score
- 166
so, knowing what the prosecution's theory was in the 2009 hearing, do you still believe that Flores, who in testimony at the guilt phase said, regarding that hearing, that he spoke to horn and was told the gunshot was first and he wouldn't have been immediately incapacitated? Of course he was told that. That was the prosecutions theory based on the evidence of the crime scene and autopsy. Listen to this, knowing now that document exists. http://youtu.be/oxLZC31zsI4
Just posting my answer to the question of whether or not I believe Dr. Horn & Flores, but (warning) it will be long b/c there a lot of comments and/or accusations. Should take less time to read though than watching several videos to get an answer to a question that isnt there (the 3 times question). Or waiting for an answer several times to a question but never getting an answer.
JA: I think the idea that the state changed its story to match her self-defense is backwards. From the first meetings with Flores she told that ninja story and repeated it to anyone that would listen, especially media. For two years and how many interviews? No one believed it, and eventually sometime prior to Aug. 2010 her DT was able to convince her it wouldnt sell. So they came up with the new self-defense story, knowing & using the evidence and the states then stated theory of sequencing to make it work. Ironically, by the time the state realized their error and corrected their theory, she was locked in to hers. I mean, who would ever believe yet another story from her in the media or in court? I imagine Nurmi was beside himself, but thats on his habitual liar for a client who loves the media attention, not the fault of the state developing a case based on known evidence and expert opinion.
Flores: I believe Flores had it firmly in his mind from his original interrogation w/JA that the gunshot was first. Interrogators are trained to listen for truths told in false stories, because the guilty party knows what happened and what story the evidence might tell, but those truths are surrounded by lies too. He believed that part of her story, but didn't fully understand the medical terms/issue that made it false. I think he believed Horn was indicating sequence of the gunshot indirectly when Flores was asking questions about certain details or issues, but without a good understanding of what Horn was saying. Horn said that he would not have formulated an opinion of it during or immediately following the autopsy. Flores testified that his own opinion was formed from: 1. observing the autopsy through the window, with a few questions to Horn. 2. A short phone call with Horn prior to the Chronis hearing, and 3. the defendant. AFAIK, Flores has never said exactly what he heard that he misinterpreted. He mentions asking about which wounds would be fatal and talks about the aspirated blood on the sink but whatever it was, he heard something that he misunderstood, possibly because he was subconsciously re-enforcing his own belief or maybe it was simply a term or phrase used that he didn't understand as well as he thought. Flores does say the short 2009 phone call was almost all about pain & suffering, which was the focus of his testimony and what proved the aggravator.
Why did they change it and how did they find out? Flores testified that it was after Nurmi interviewed Horn that he realized he had it wrong I have a date of May 2011 for that in my notes but dont remember the source. At the time, there was an evidentiary hearing in June, and the trial scheduled for 8/2/2011. Horn testified to that Nurmi interview as well. Judge Stephens also mentions in one of her rulings that both of them testified about it in court Jan. 2012, so the court & the defense were well aware of this by the time of the trial. It had been addressed twice in their presence well before the trial began. Nurmis feigned outrage about this issue in 2013 is like a lot of his motions & witnesses, more talk than merit (and hes being paid quite a bit to do it). He could have appealed this issue well before trial, but didnt. He waited until trial to use it to paint his client as a victim of the state, to plant seeds of doubt on the prosecutor & his witnesses and to maximize public opinion in the media. Pure court theatre, IMO, and apparently it was effective for some people. But not for those whose opinion ultimately mattered - the jury.
JM: A prosecutors job is to prepare and argue cases for the state - several cases at any given time in differing stages and differing complexities of crimes. TV or movie law is not how it works in real life and JM was one of their top prosecutors so he was a busy man handling some of the countys worst cases. Prosecutors use LE & other agency investigations/reports for information, they dont typically interview a witness until prepping testimony just prior to trial. Familiar local experts that are used to testifying would not have been a priority to prep. Juan had the autopsy report and info from Flores If he had had a question, he probably would have called or emailed the lead investigator but I dont know that JM had a reason to question anything prior to Horns interview. It was asked why he didnt correct this once it changed. His job doesnt include worrying about what the media reports, and unless he had new evidence subject to discovery rules, he had no reason to inform the defense either - why would he? Theyre the ones that heard Horns theory first.
Horn: He never said he didnt talk to Flores, he said he didnt remember and only knew Flores was at the autopsy b/c it was in the record. There are articles dating back to these years that talk about how understaffed and overworked that MEs office was for the caseloads. His job is to perform autopsies, prepare the reports, testify in court and answer LE or victims questions when possible and time permits. Do I believe that he might not remember one or two questions during one autopsy of hundreds that year, or a short phone call from one person out of thousands he probably talked to within several years? Yes. Was it an important case, as was suggested as a reason he would remember? Hopefully for an ME they all are, but at the time of the autopsy it was a murder. A horrible one, yes, but this man has seen some pretty horrible stuff. By 2009 the case was known in the media, but all we know is that the short phone call was essentially about pain & suffering with some little mention of something else that Flores misinterpreted. Flores mentions the aspirated blood in the sink area, but nothing specific that says exactly what it was. Horn would answer questions the same way whether or not the case was in the media, so that has nothing to do w/him. He said the first time anyone asked him questions related specifically to sequencing was during Nurmis interview. He said he told them he didnt know which wounds came first (what Flores said in 2009), but that the gunshot would have had to come after the defensive wounds b/c that the gunshot would have incapacitated. There is nothing in any record that Ive seen that indicates Horn ever changed his opinion. And even though my question here re: the bullet having to have been in the cranial cavity remains ignored, it also addresses the fact that the dura mater line in the autopsy report had to have been a typo. Just as Horn said it was. IMO, he appeared very puzzled when that juror question was asked, reaching for his report to see what they were talking about. Because it remaining intact was so out of the question, he knew it was a typo and a typo that was apparently missed by all (including the defense), except for that one juror.
Chronis This issue didnt affect the aggravator JSS, the COA and the AZ Supreme Court all agreed on that. The aggravator was proved because TA suffered all those knife wounds while conscious, and the court even acknowledged the defendants own statements to that fact in the ruling. That does not change with the timing of the gunshot. Actually, they may have been able to go back and argue an additional aggravator once they understood the medical issue, but they didnt. What they did do is to adjust their case to match the known facts as they are required to do, and to present those facts at trial. So IMO, there was no motive at all for them to change this theory. They changed it because they had been wrong and needed to present the true facts once they became known. But again, Nurmi knew all of this and purposely made an issue of it at trial to benefit his client, and in appeals to higher courts to get the DP off the table. Didnt work.
JA: I think the idea that the state changed its story to match her self-defense is backwards. From the first meetings with Flores she told that ninja story and repeated it to anyone that would listen, especially media. For two years and how many interviews? No one believed it, and eventually sometime prior to Aug. 2010 her DT was able to convince her it wouldnt sell. So they came up with the new self-defense story, knowing & using the evidence and the states then stated theory of sequencing to make it work. Ironically, by the time the state realized their error and corrected their theory, she was locked in to hers. I mean, who would ever believe yet another story from her in the media or in court? I imagine Nurmi was beside himself, but thats on his habitual liar for a client who loves the media attention, not the fault of the state developing a case based on known evidence and expert opinion.
Flores: I believe Flores had it firmly in his mind from his original interrogation w/JA that the gunshot was first. Interrogators are trained to listen for truths told in false stories, because the guilty party knows what happened and what story the evidence might tell, but those truths are surrounded by lies too. He believed that part of her story, but didn't fully understand the medical terms/issue that made it false. I think he believed Horn was indicating sequence of the gunshot indirectly when Flores was asking questions about certain details or issues, but without a good understanding of what Horn was saying. Horn said that he would not have formulated an opinion of it during or immediately following the autopsy. Flores testified that his own opinion was formed from: 1. observing the autopsy through the window, with a few questions to Horn. 2. A short phone call with Horn prior to the Chronis hearing, and 3. the defendant. AFAIK, Flores has never said exactly what he heard that he misinterpreted. He mentions asking about which wounds would be fatal and talks about the aspirated blood on the sink but whatever it was, he heard something that he misunderstood, possibly because he was subconsciously re-enforcing his own belief or maybe it was simply a term or phrase used that he didn't understand as well as he thought. Flores does say the short 2009 phone call was almost all about pain & suffering, which was the focus of his testimony and what proved the aggravator.
Why did they change it and how did they find out? Flores testified that it was after Nurmi interviewed Horn that he realized he had it wrong I have a date of May 2011 for that in my notes but dont remember the source. At the time, there was an evidentiary hearing in June, and the trial scheduled for 8/2/2011. Horn testified to that Nurmi interview as well. Judge Stephens also mentions in one of her rulings that both of them testified about it in court Jan. 2012, so the court & the defense were well aware of this by the time of the trial. It had been addressed twice in their presence well before the trial began. Nurmis feigned outrage about this issue in 2013 is like a lot of his motions & witnesses, more talk than merit (and hes being paid quite a bit to do it). He could have appealed this issue well before trial, but didnt. He waited until trial to use it to paint his client as a victim of the state, to plant seeds of doubt on the prosecutor & his witnesses and to maximize public opinion in the media. Pure court theatre, IMO, and apparently it was effective for some people. But not for those whose opinion ultimately mattered - the jury.
JM: A prosecutors job is to prepare and argue cases for the state - several cases at any given time in differing stages and differing complexities of crimes. TV or movie law is not how it works in real life and JM was one of their top prosecutors so he was a busy man handling some of the countys worst cases. Prosecutors use LE & other agency investigations/reports for information, they dont typically interview a witness until prepping testimony just prior to trial. Familiar local experts that are used to testifying would not have been a priority to prep. Juan had the autopsy report and info from Flores If he had had a question, he probably would have called or emailed the lead investigator but I dont know that JM had a reason to question anything prior to Horns interview. It was asked why he didnt correct this once it changed. His job doesnt include worrying about what the media reports, and unless he had new evidence subject to discovery rules, he had no reason to inform the defense either - why would he? Theyre the ones that heard Horns theory first.
Horn: He never said he didnt talk to Flores, he said he didnt remember and only knew Flores was at the autopsy b/c it was in the record. There are articles dating back to these years that talk about how understaffed and overworked that MEs office was for the caseloads. His job is to perform autopsies, prepare the reports, testify in court and answer LE or victims questions when possible and time permits. Do I believe that he might not remember one or two questions during one autopsy of hundreds that year, or a short phone call from one person out of thousands he probably talked to within several years? Yes. Was it an important case, as was suggested as a reason he would remember? Hopefully for an ME they all are, but at the time of the autopsy it was a murder. A horrible one, yes, but this man has seen some pretty horrible stuff. By 2009 the case was known in the media, but all we know is that the short phone call was essentially about pain & suffering with some little mention of something else that Flores misinterpreted. Flores mentions the aspirated blood in the sink area, but nothing specific that says exactly what it was. Horn would answer questions the same way whether or not the case was in the media, so that has nothing to do w/him. He said the first time anyone asked him questions related specifically to sequencing was during Nurmis interview. He said he told them he didnt know which wounds came first (what Flores said in 2009), but that the gunshot would have had to come after the defensive wounds b/c that the gunshot would have incapacitated. There is nothing in any record that Ive seen that indicates Horn ever changed his opinion. And even though my question here re: the bullet having to have been in the cranial cavity remains ignored, it also addresses the fact that the dura mater line in the autopsy report had to have been a typo. Just as Horn said it was. IMO, he appeared very puzzled when that juror question was asked, reaching for his report to see what they were talking about. Because it remaining intact was so out of the question, he knew it was a typo and a typo that was apparently missed by all (including the defense), except for that one juror.
Chronis This issue didnt affect the aggravator JSS, the COA and the AZ Supreme Court all agreed on that. The aggravator was proved because TA suffered all those knife wounds while conscious, and the court even acknowledged the defendants own statements to that fact in the ruling. That does not change with the timing of the gunshot. Actually, they may have been able to go back and argue an additional aggravator once they understood the medical issue, but they didnt. What they did do is to adjust their case to match the known facts as they are required to do, and to present those facts at trial. So IMO, there was no motive at all for them to change this theory. They changed it because they had been wrong and needed to present the true facts once they became known. But again, Nurmi knew all of this and purposely made an issue of it at trial to benefit his client, and in appeals to higher courts to get the DP off the table. Didnt work.
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,747
- Reaction score
- 23,415
No, that's just it. You CANNOT sustain a gunshot wound to the brain and have the Dura Mater be intact. It's not anatomically possible. It covers the brain. The only possible explanation is that Dr. Horn didn't edit his report and catch that the word "not" was left out.
SevenSins
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2012
- Messages
- 62
- Reaction score
- 56
"Someone popular on the internet agreed with me" is not a particularly convincing supporting argument.
grayhuze
Gray Hughes
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 310
- Reaction score
- 166
right, but the one I made the other day was. The august 2009 hearing shows that the state's position was gun first based on the blood spatter and he would not have been immediately incapacitated. Flores states horn told him exactly that just prior to that hearing. Flores isn't solely responsible. Juan was there as well. So, at trail Flores was not inaccurate but accurate, but stated he was inaccurate because he had to to preserve Horn's reputation. Horn just has to say..."I don't recall" What is funny though is that Flores says he was mistaken but can't be. Horn would have told him that because that was the state's position. See what I mean?
BK is a former attorney who has no more information than anyone else about what led to the original theory error, other than Flores and JM. She's not medically trained and has shown to be uninformed or has misinterpreted other issues of this case. Flores is the only one that really knows and has admitted it under oath - once he realized his error they corrected it, that's all he could do. Whether you or anyone believes him is another matter, but medical facts support gunshot last and I see nothing that indicates Horn ever changed his opinion. Flores absolutely did not say specifically what Horn told him that led to his misunderstanding and said his testimony @ Chronis mistakenly and unknowingly included opinion he reached based on what he thought Horn indicated (in some way). He believed he was testifying to Horn's opinion, plain and simple. He was wrong but that doesn't make him guilty of perjury @ Chronis, nor did it affect the aggravator ruling. Unfortunately, this (IMO) probably did affect his career as a detective because any defense attorney would throw this in his face in other trials. The state would not take having to correct this error lightly, but they did it because it was based on sound medical fact and opinion.
Accusing these people of a criminal conspiracy during the trial though, is serious. I know we're just forum members talking here, and voicing our thoughts about the case. But let's please at least make efforts to not distort or misstate what we use for our reasons. If there are facts beyond "I think" opinion that prove gunshot first, I have yet to hear any. I have not heard a motive for the state to engage in this conspiracy either. If there was ever anything to be gained by gunshot first or for the implications made at trial that these people were lying, as I said earlier, it would be for the defense. It was important to their case, not the state's. Yet they called no MD or ME to dispute/testify for them. Wonder why?
Accusing these people of a criminal conspiracy during the trial though, is serious. I know we're just forum members talking here, and voicing our thoughts about the case. But let's please at least make efforts to not distort or misstate what we use for our reasons. If there are facts beyond "I think" opinion that prove gunshot first, I have yet to hear any. I have not heard a motive for the state to engage in this conspiracy either. If there was ever anything to be gained by gunshot first or for the implications made at trial that these people were lying, as I said earlier, it would be for the defense. It was important to their case, not the state's. Yet they called no MD or ME to dispute/testify for them. Wonder why?