Jodi Arias; the sequence of events

What do you believe were the sequence of events?

  • Travis was stabbed, his throat slashed, and then he was shot

    Votes: 464 71.2%
  • Travis was shot and then he was stabbed and his throat was slashed

    Votes: 180 27.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 8 1.2%

  • Total voters
    652
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know where else to ask this question.
After Jody stabbed and shot Travis (not sure in what order due that he couldn't/didn't overtake her - so, shot him first?), she answered 'yes' that she made an attempt to clean up the scene.

Has this been discussed or are there theories/thoughts as to why she would leave blood behind in the sink - the picture shows a pretty dirty sink but even stranger, why did she leave the camera containing direct evidence behind in the washing machine? I know she was asked about this but didn't have/provide an answer. One would think she'd take the camera, gun and the knife away with her to the desert or dumpster. Does the fact that she didn't provide an explanation give credence to her claims of being in a fog testimony? To me, the fact that she left the camera behind is so crazy when considering the other attempts she made to cover her crime. :waitasec:
 
I voted shot him first. She had the gun with her since that was her plan to shoot him. Like others have said when he did not die from the gunshot wound and staggered to the sink that was when she got a knife maybe from the bedroom and started stabbing him. I also think she slit his throat to make it look like a much stronger person would have done it adding credibility to her ninja story.

While listening to her ninja story, I tried to imagine her telling the story as it happened between Travis and herself. She said there were two intruders, a man and a woman, but she was actually describing the scenario that she and Travis had while she was killing him. I believe she said the gun misfired when held to her head but she altered that and it really quit working when she tried to shoot him a second time as someone else has pointed out in their response.
 
The "shoot firsters" in this thread concern me in regards to the jury. I cannot fathom ignoring actual evidence and expert testimony in order to substitute my own theory. . .and I hope no one on the jury thinks that way.

"Well, I know the medical examiner who has done 6000 autopsies says one thing. . .but I've done 0 autoposies and I believe another."

"Well, I know the bullet casing was found in blood with no blood on top of it (only under it). . .but I'm just going to ignore that evidence because it doesn't fit the story I want to believe."

If this woman doesn't get convicted, I'm going to lose faith in our justice system. Maybe randoms off the street aren't qualified to determine guilt or innocence.
 
I voted shot him first. She had the gun with her since that was her plan to shoot him. Like others have said when he did not die from the gunshot wound and staggered to the sink that was when she got a knife maybe from the bedroom and started stabbing him. I also think she slit his throat to make it look like a much stronger person would have done it adding credibility to her ninja story.

In the picture immediately following the one TA is looking directly at the camera what is the object at the bottom right hand corner. Could it be the gun?
Here is the link to that pic.
http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/273021/slide_273021_1985293_free.jpg?1358207900401
 
The "shoot firsters" in this thread concern me in regards to the jury. I cannot fathom ignoring actual evidence and expert testimony in order to substitute my own theory. . .and I hope no one on the jury thinks that way.

"Well, I know the medical examiner who has done 6000 autopsies says one thing. . .but I've done 0 autoposies and I believe another."

"Well, I know the bullet casing was found in blood with no blood on top of it (only under it). . .but I'm just going to ignore that evidence because it doesn't fit the story I want to believe."

If this woman doesn't get convicted, I'm going to lose faith in our justice system. Maybe randoms off the street aren't qualified to determine guilt or innocence.

I'm surprised at this poll myself. It doesn't match the forensics or other evidence at all. It seems the biggest sticking point is, "Oh, she had the gun. Of course she would use THAT."

But remember her statement to Det. Flores: "I would have to shoot him, I think." My thoughts: Jodi DID NOT WANT to HAVE to shoot Travis. She did not want to use that gun. It was a last resort. She KNEW it would "suggest" a female killer and she KNEW the .25 theft at her grandparents' could point back to her eventually. She only took it to use if the knife didn't work.

It was harder to kill him than she thought. I believe she thought one crazed stab to the chest would do it. (She'd watched one too many movies.) The defensive wounds to the hands don't suggest to me that he had been shot and couldn't see or was incapacitated in any way (except being stabbed and losing blood.) On the contrary, they suggest he was grabbing AT THE KNIFE. He could see it. He had not yet been shot in the head.

But my main reason for saying the gunshot did NOT come first (apart from all the physical evidence and experts): Jodi Arias said it DID. And I don't believe a SINGLE word she says.
 
In the picture immediately following the one TA is looking directly at the camera what is the object at the bottom right hand corner. Could it be the gun?
Here is the link to that pic.
http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/273021/slide_273021_1985293_free.jpg?1358207900401

Lol. . .this has been a repeat occurrence in this case, to the point where there have been many jokes here on WS about it. The bottom right and corner is very likely Juan's pen as he had the picture on the overhead projector. This happens all the time. :floorlaugh:
 
Thanks for this thread.

I am a gun firster and I thought I was pretty much alone, but I see at least a third agree.

I spent a lot of time thinking of various scenarios. I hope the Jury doesn't feel they have to do this, but they probably will. If I understand correctly, Travis had two fatal wounds, the stab to the vena cava and the cut to the jugular vein. Was the carotid cut too in that throat slash? Anyway, none of the other wounds would have killed him, at least not quickly.

The head wound was 'superficial' to the brain. The ME felt it had entered the right frontal lobe because there was a hole in the skull and he said in young people the brain abuts the skull. He felt the brain had to be hit, even though the bullet then lodges in the left cheek. There was not enough brain material left due to decomposition to follow any track the bullet might have taken causing damage to the brain. I think decomposition interfered with him adequately examining this wound.

At first, I thought the head wound would incapacitate him. After all, a gunshot wound to the brain cannot be a good thing to quickly recover from. But, later I realized the small caliber of the bullet and the superficiality of the wound, maybe running along the inside of the skull into the nasal passages may have rendered it more like a blow to the head which would stun him but not incapacitate. I remember Jodi saying in her ninja story that Travis was on his knees on the ground saying, my head hurts.

Usually two weapons means two killers. Or, it means that one weapon fails so the killer goes for the second weapon. I don't believe Jodi brought a knife with her to Travis house. I think she used one of the knives from the house when the gun jammed.

A knife is not an ideal weapon for a small woman to use against a big man. Jodi had no medical or combat training. If she were confronting him with a knife, she would have one chance to get it right. If she didn't, he would disarm her, and the game would be over. Really the only blow that would count would be the two fatal knife wounds. So did she slash the jugular first? That would give him about two minutes to live. But how easy is that. He can move and she misses it. Or if she doesn't slash deep enough, she misses it. Then the game is over. What about the vena cava? It is not so easy to hit the heart. The heart is well protected by the rib cage. There is also cartilege between the ribs which is not that easy to penetrate. So it would have to be a forceful and accurate blow to work on the first try. One miss and the game is up. In the case of this wound, I think it came from the front and under the ribs and up. But, even so, the vena cava is almost at the back near the spine. This was a deep wound. Again, not deep enough and the game is over. None of the other knife wounds would have stopped him. But even with the vena cava wound, the ME said, since it is a vein he would have been able to continue and be mobile for some period of time. That means he still might have been able to overcome her, even with that serious wound.

We know Jodi brought grandpa's gun with her; That's been proven with circumstantial evidence. Therefore, this would have been her weapon of choice and the first one she would have used. Why use a knife against a big man if you have a gun? Especially if you brought the gun. It would make no sense.

I think her intent was to get him into the shower and shoot him there--no mess. I think she was holding the gun on him while he was in the shower and ordering him to pose while she took pictures. I think the last head picture of him --he is looking down the barrel of a gun and she is the one saying one of her pet phrases, 'F-ing kill you b###'
That look on his face has haunted me since I first saw it. It is the look of a man staring into death and recognizing the monster behind the gun for the first time.

I think she shot him while he was sitting in the shower, from above and from the right side. I think he is shot in the last shower picture before she drops the camera. I think he is still alive when the gun jams. And, then she goes for the knife.

He did a minimal amount of defending himself. It was all passive, thus the defensive wounds. He managed to get up to the sink. He is bleeding heavily there, and the ME says the misted blood at the sink is him coughing. But, once he is shot in the head, he is no longer able to think his way out of the situation to defend himself against her.

I pretty much agree with your theory of the sequence of events. Gun shot first. It makes the most sense to me too. Since the sequence of events has not been a huge issue in her trial, we've only heard from one ME. We trial watchers all know that there are frequently two ME in a trial; one for the state and one for the defense. They usually disagree on their conclusions. So there is room for disagreement on what happened first.
 
The "shoot firsters" in this thread concern me in regards to the jury. I cannot fathom ignoring actual evidence and expert testimony in order to substitute my own theory. . .and I hope no one on the jury thinks that way.

"Well, I know the medical examiner who has done 6000 autopsies says one thing. . .but I've done 0 autoposies and I believe another."

"Well, I know the bullet casing was found in blood with no blood on top of it (only under it). . .but I'm just going to ignore that evidence because it doesn't fit the story I want to believe."

If this woman doesn't get convicted, I'm going to lose faith in our justice system. Maybe randoms off the street aren't qualified to determine guilt or innocence.

now, now lol. The Jury is the finder of fact. Not the ME. Not the Prosecutor. Not the defense team. The Jury is the most powerful group of people in that courtroom.

The ME is only giving his opinion. Twelve Jurors will determine the facts of the case. Yes, there will be some gun firsters on that Jury. This board shows it. They will believe Jodi brought the gun with her to kill him. So why didn't she just shoot him? Why try the difficult task of killing a strong, awake man with a knife first? They will ask the same questions I have asked.

I think the prosecution went with the knife first for legal reasons instead of medical reasons. I think they felt that gun first might bolster her claims of self defense. Really, they could have medically and forensically chosen either position. The bullet casing might be compelling were it not for the fact that Jodi flooded the bathroom with water so that she could more easily move Travis. Chances are good the bullet casing did not start out in that position.

I think the Prosecution has proven their case of premeditated murder. I don't think it matters any longer whether Jurors think gun first or knife first, even though they might want to hash this out. I hope the Prosecutor makes it clear to them that no matter what steps Jody took in killing Travis, or in what order, it was still premeditated murder. She meant to kill him when she left Yreka. And, she succeeded.
 
The "shoot firsters" in this thread concern me in regards to the jury. I cannot fathom ignoring actual evidence and expert testimony in order to substitute my own theory. . .and I hope no one on the jury thinks that way.

"Well, I know the medical examiner who has done 6000 autopsies says one thing. . .but I've done 0 autoposies and I believe another."

"Well, I know the bullet casing was found in blood with no blood on top of it (only under it). . .but I'm just going to ignore that evidence because it doesn't fit the story I want to believe."

If this woman doesn't get convicted, I'm going to lose faith in our justice system. Maybe randoms off the street aren't qualified to determine guilt or innocence.

If I were on the jury, I'd ask myself first whether I believe ANYTHING out of the mouth of a pathological liar, including her ridiculous story about the events of the murder. The answer is obviously 'NO'.

With that being said, it is irrelevant whether she shot first, last, or in the middle somewhere. Why ? The savagery of the crime, premeditation of the crime, and post-murder acts of deceit are enough to not only convict her of 1st degree murder, but to sentence her to death.

No one will ever really know what went in that bathroom ... what matters more is what went on before and after the murder.

Now if anyone on the Arias jury can't see the premeditation involved or cover up afterwards, we have a problem. Also, I hope they take into account the total lack of remorse by the monster.
 
Lol. . .this has been a repeat occurrence in this case, to the point where there have been many jokes here on WS about it. The bottom right and corner is very likely Juan's pen as he had the picture on the overhead projector. This happens all the time. :floorlaugh:

Well, I am happy I was able to keep the joke going!:blushing:
 
The Christopher Sutton case in Florida. Not sure exactly where in the head father was shot but he called 911 and even tho blinded he walked out to ambulance unassisted..He is an amazing man.

Haven't been able to find that he was shot in the frontal lobe. Just in the face and lost eyesight. That could be from getting shot in the eye or the optic nerve. Otherwise the occipital lobe is what controls vision, which is on the back of the head.

But regardless if he was shot in the frontal lobe there would still be major bleeding in the cranial cavity. This is the one fact that no one can give an explanation for. I have seen someone say there isn't a lot of bleeding externally with gun shot wounds, which I have never heard to be the case ever since the face is such a vascular area. But even If this was so in some case, it is a closed head injury, all the damage and injuries are internal. That's where the bleeding is mostly. Still can't say why there was little bleeding inside TAs cranial cavity. Any explanations for that? Sure maybe it was an odd experience the brain didn't get rattled enough to effect motion and consciousness, anything's possible. But the science of bleeding and injuries? I just don't see how that can be overlooked
 
now, now lol. The Jury is the finder of fact. Not the ME. Not the Prosecutor. Not the defense team. The Jury is the most powerful group of people in that courtroom.

The ME is only giving his opinion. Twelve Jurors will determine the facts of the case. Yes, there will be some gun firsters on that Jury. This board shows it. They will believe Jodi brought the gun with her to kill him. So why didn't she just shoot him? Why try the difficult task of killing a strong, awake man with a knife first? They will ask the same questions I have asked.

I think the prosecution went with the knife first for legal reasons instead of medical reasons. I think they felt that gun first might bolster her claims of self defense. Really, they could have medically and forensically chosen either position. The bullet casing might be compelling were it not for the fact that Jodi flooded the bathroom with water so that she could more easily move Travis. Chances are good the bullet casing did not start out in that position.

I think the Prosecution has proven their case of premeditated murder. I don't think it matters any longer whether Jurors think gun first or knife first, even though they might want to hash this out. I hope the Prosecutor makes it clear to them that no matter what steps Jody took in killing Travis, or in what order, it was still premeditated murder. She meant to kill him when she left Yreka. And, she succeeded.

The medical examiner and the blood spatter analyst are not part of any defense or prosecution team. They tell the facts and the evidence. They don't choose which way to spin the story. The ME has taken oaths in his career and can loose his medical license and everything he has ever worked for if this was the case. Also for the blood spatter analyst she was intelligent enough to know when blood was diluted with water in certain areas so I think she would be intelligent enough to be able to say whether that area had been diluted. I don't know how experts became less intelligent and experienced then our own selfs... who have never even seen a murdered person in real life or blood spatter even once much less examined them. :waitasec:
 
The "shoot firsters" in this thread concern me in regards to the jury. I cannot fathom ignoring actual evidence and expert testimony in order to substitute my own theory. . .and I hope no one on the jury thinks that way.

"Well, I know the medical examiner who has done 6000 autopsies says one thing. . .but I've done 0 autoposies and I believe another."

"Well, I know the bullet casing was found in blood with no blood on top of it (only under it). . .but I'm just going to ignore that evidence because it doesn't fit the story I want to believe."

If this woman doesn't get convicted, I'm going to lose faith in our justice system. Maybe randoms off the street aren't qualified to determine guilt or innocence.

Thank you wasn't enough.
 
I believe he was shot last and here are my reasons. Jodi is never going to say what really happened because she would not have a resonable defense. It would be obvious that the murder was premeditated. She is going to make up her defense and testimony to match what evidence they have to work in her favor. That is why the defense is so upset as to steps involved the murder. She took the information from the dectivive and made up her defense to match that information without checking the ME opinion and report 1st. OOPPS !!! Once she has stated her defense she can't change it. She knows if it happened the way the ME said that self defense is out the window. I think it was a giant mistake on her" smarter" than everybody mindset. Did the prosecution setup her up to belive they thought the shot was 1st. Maybe so, but no proof. They can just say they were confused with the discussion between the detective and the Me but it got her story set and now she has to live with it. The ME got it right.
 
The "shoot firsters" in this thread concern me in regards to the jury. I cannot fathom ignoring actual evidence and expert testimony in order to substitute my own theory. . .and I hope no one on the jury thinks that way.

"Well, I know the medical examiner who has done 6000 autopsies says one thing. . .but I've done 0 autoposies and I believe another."

"Well, I know the bullet casing was found in blood with no blood on top of it (only under it). . .but I'm just going to ignore that evidence because it doesn't fit the story I want to believe."

If this woman doesn't get convicted, I'm going to lose faith in our justice system. Maybe randoms off the street aren't qualified to determine guilt or innocence.

The only reason I said she may have shot TA first, is because I feel he could have overtaken her more easily if she had began stabbing him first. I missed the first half of the televised trial - my bad - so I shouldn't really have guessed at all.

Is it possible that when she was cleaning up, the shell ended up on top of the blood somehow?

There's no disputing that she killed him - does it matter what method she used first? I'm not being snarky, I'm asking.
 
Everyone try to remember that asking a question is not a crime and keep in mind that all of our questions may represent what a juror is asking him or herself. Instead of getting mad, offer an explanation/rebuttal.

For me, I'm tired of almost being/feeling bullied by majority rule when I'm only trying to explore all options of thought PRIOR to the jury's verdict.
 
The medical examiner and the blood spatter analyst are not part of any defense or prosecution team. They tell the facts and the evidence. They don't choose which way to spin the story. The ME has taken oaths in his career and can loose his medical license and everything he has ever worked for if this was the case. Also for the blood spatter analyst she was intelligent enough to know when blood was diluted with water in certain areas so I think she would be intelligent enough to be able to say whether that area had been diluted. I don't know how experts became less intelligent and experienced then our own selfs... who have never even seen a murdered person in real life or blood spatter even once much less examined them. :waitasec:

I agree that this is how it should be. But, practically speaking, I don't think this is the way it works in my state. Think of the Cynthia Sommers case.

In my state, the Prosecutor and the ME work for the same boss. Have you ever seen the ME argue with the Prosecutor or vice versa?

You have a Jury who should stand outside of any government power making the decision. That is how it should be. Their salaries, livelihoods, and well-being does not depend on this verdict.

They have the collective life experience of 12 people. How do you know what they have seen? They have the common sense God gave them. And, the only thing directing them is, or should be, their conscience.
 
The only reason I said she may have shot TA first, is because I feel he could have overtaken her more easily if she had began stabbing him first. I missed the first half of the televised trial - my bad - so I shouldn't really have guessed at all.

Is it possible that when she was cleaning up, the shell ended up on top of the blood somehow?

There's no disputing that she killed him - does it matter what method she used first? I'm not being snarky, I'm asking.


No, it is not possible that the shell ended up on top of the blood while she was cleaning up, because blood was only present under the casing. It wasn't present above or around it. It landed in blood and stayed there.


It matters whether she shot him first or last for intent. She shot him after inflicting all the other injuries as a final "screw you", which shows her rage and obviously isn't self defense. (IMO)

now, now lol. The Jury is the finder of fact. Not the ME. Not the Prosecutor. Not the defense team. The Jury is the most powerful group of people in that courtroom.

The ME is only giving his opinion. Twelve Jurors will determine the facts of the case. Yes, there will be some gun firsters on that Jury. This board shows it. They will believe Jodi brought the gun with her to kill him. So why didn't she just shoot him? Why try the difficult task of killing a strong, awake man with a knife first? They will ask the same questions I have asked.

I think the prosecution went with the knife first for legal reasons instead of medical reasons. I think they felt that gun first might bolster her claims of self defense. Really, they could have medically and forensically chosen either position. The bullet casing might be compelling were it not for the fact that Jodi flooded the bathroom with water so that she could more easily move Travis. Chances are good the bullet casing did not start out in that position.

I think the Prosecution has proven their case of premeditated murder. I don't think it matters any longer whether Jurors think gun first or knife first, even though they might want to hash this out. I hope the Prosecutor makes it clear to them that no matter what steps Jody took in killing Travis, or in what order, it was still premeditated murder. She meant to kill him when she left Yreka. And, she succeeded.


The ME is not giving "only his opinion." The ME is giving his VERY educated VERY experienced, VERY knowledgeable, VERY credible "opinion".

No other ME's testified here because there was no way for another ME to argue the ME's findings.

The prosecution went with shot last because there is an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence which says he was shot last. You just happen to be ignoring it.


I pretty much agree with your theory of the sequence of events. Gun shot first. It makes the most sense to me too. Since the sequence of events has not been a huge issue in her trial, we've only heard from one ME. We trial watchers all know that there are frequently two ME in a trial; one for the state and one for the defense. They usually disagree on their conclusions. So there is room for disagreement on what happened first.

Actually, the sequence of events is vital to JA's defense. They didn't have another ME testify because no other possibility exists. No ME would be able to contradict the ME who testified because the evidence is so compelling.

Also, there is more evidence than just the ME. What about the blood spatter expert?

What about the fact that the casing landed in blood? How was the blood there if he hadn't been stabbed first?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
4,244
Total visitors
4,385

Forum statistics

Threads
592,386
Messages
17,968,259
Members
228,764
Latest member
GreyFishOmen
Back
Top