Jodi Arias Trial Verdict IS IN: GUILTY Of MURDER In The Slaying Of Travis Alexander
Image courtesy Arias
Phoenix, AZ- In the 4 month long trial of Jodi Ann Arias for the murder of her brief boyfriend Travis Victor Alexander, the jury deliberating since last Friday has arrived at a verdict in her case. Arias was found guilty of the pre-meditated murder of Travis Alexander on June 4th, 2008.
Related Posts
Related Posts:
1,859 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Part 8 Dr horns testimony
the complete cross and redirect-
Cross Examination
Wilmott: Dr. Horn, how long does blood stay in a person’s brain after they have died?
Horn: If there is injury there, there should be blood visible.
Wilmott: Well, if there is no injury to the brain, how long is it going to take for …somebody… for that … if somebody’s bleeding out… how long is it going to take for that blood to leave the brain?
Horn: I’m not sure I understand your question.
Wilmott: Well, you talked about the fact that there was no hemorrhage that you could see when you were looking through these … when you were doing the autopsy, right?
Horn: Right, looking at the decomposed brain, yes.
Wilmott: So, and when you talked about how you felt there was no hemorrhaging, one of the reasons that you are giving us for that, is the fact that maybe there was no blood left, right?
Horn: That he bled out from other injuries, yes.
Wilmott: Okay, so how long does it take to get to that point?
Horn: Ah, given the other injuries that Mr. Alexander had, all his blood basically had left his body from his injuries to his throat and other areas of his body so I am not surprised that there is really no hemorrhage left in this track.
Wilmott: My question is how long is it going to take?
Horn: With his injuries … seconds.
Wilmott: So in seconds, you would expect that there is absolutely no blood left in the brain?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: Okay. And ah, also with regards to … we’ve talked about with this brain and it’s consistency of tapioca, right?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: Yes, and regardless of the consistency of tapioca, you were able to actually take slices of it, weren’t you?
Horn: Not slices. We put the brain in a pan to weigh it, and really this is like a liquid, almost a very soft pudding like brain and we do section through it in the pan otherwise it will run off our table when we are trying to examine it. So you are able to cut it with a knife and section it and that’s what I meant when I said I`m sectioning a decomposing brain.
Wilmott: So now you`re telling me that it’s completely liquefied?
Horn: I didn’t say that. I said it was the consistency of pudding. It’s very soft.
Wilmott: Well, if you didn’t have it in this pan it was going to run off the pan, like liquid, right?
Horn: It’s like a sludge, yes. It’s a pudding.
Wilmott: Okay, so you don’t talk about this pudding or this sludge in your report do you?
Horn: Yes, I do.
Wilmott: When you talk about the autolysed brain?
Horn: I call it autolysed, that’s what that means.
Wilmott: And autolysed has different degrees, doesn’t it?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: Okay. So just because you are talking about an autolysed brain, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is going to be liquefied, right?
Horn: I didn’t call it liquefied.
Wilmott: Okay, but it doesn’t mean that it’s going to be liquefied does it?
Horn: When it’s autolysed, it’s very soft and very fragile, and pudding-like is most of the time, what I see in an autolysed brain.
Wilmott: That wasn’t my question. My question was when we’re dealing with an autolysed brain, there are different degrees, so if you term it as you did in your report, autolysed brain, that doesn’t mean that it’s going to be liquefied, right, necessarily?
Horn: I didn`t call it liquefied.
Wilmott: I`m asking you, in an autolysed brain, talking about autolysed brains, are there different degrees of having an autolysed brain?
Horn: Yes, I answered that. There are.
Wilmott: Okay. So then answer me this. If there are different degrees, just because you have an autolysed brain and you are looking at an autolysed brain, does it necessarily mean that that autolysed brain is going to be liquefied?
Horn: No.
Wilmott: Okay, so because there are varying degrees, correct?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: And in this case, the degree you talk about medium decomposition, don’t you?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: And so you are not talking about completely decomposed?
Horn: Well, medium decomposition is pretty .. pretty far along.
Wilmott: Well, when we are talking about medium, isn’t there a little, medium and a lot?
Horn: Right. If the end would be a skeleton, so medium is pretty much a liquefied , bloated body which is what …
Wilmott: So we’re back to liquefied again?
Horn: Yes, the body is liquefying. The stages of liquefying ..
Wilmott: And did you not just tell us that the brain was not liquefied?
Horn: It’s a pudding. So it’s a form of liquid. It’s not like water. It’s like a … it’s an oozing liquid. It’s like
Wilmott: Okay..
Horn: It’s ..
Wilmott: Go ahead.
Horn: It’s like a pudding.
Wilmott: Like pudding. Okay. So, when you were able to take this brain and put it into a pan, you talk about doing these sections, right?
Horn: Cutting it with a knife..
Wilmott: Yes, and so, in cutting it with a knife, you were able to actually look at the slices, right… weren’t you able to?
Horn: That’s what I usually do..
Wilmott: Okay. And so, it wasn’t so pudding-like that you couldn’t see the difference as you’re putting the knife in, see the slices, right?
Horn: They aren’t slices as the best use of that term. I’m able to cut through what is there, pull it apart, and look through it to see if I am missing bullet fragments or hemorrhage, scarring or other things. So what I am saying, is based on the limitations of the exam that I have, I didn’t see any of those things.
Wilmott: So perfect. What you just said, I think helps explain what we’re trying to talk about here. You are able to put a knife through it and pull it apart, right?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: And when you can pull it apart, you are able to then take a look at what you are pulling apart, right?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: And you do that for several sections, right?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: Okay. And so in these several sections, you weren’t able to see any foreign bodies, right?
Horn: That’s right.
Wilmott: There was no evidence of that.
Horn: Right.
Wilmott: So when you talk about this bullet tumbling and deforming, it certainly wasn’t exploding, right?
Horn: Not exploding, no.
Wilmott: And not breaking apart.
Horn: Not fragmented.
Wilmott: And there were no fragments in the rest of the brain, right?
Horn: Not that I found.
Wilmott: So just this one track, or this, well… you couldn’t see a track, right?
Horn: I could not see a track through the brain, that’s correct.
Wilmott: Even though you were able to slice it and pull the slices apart, you were not able to see a track, is that what you are telling us?
Horn: That’s right. Yes.
Wilmott: And you were able to see enough that you couldn’t see any apparent trauma, right?
Horn: I couldn’t see any hemorrhage or a wound track in the brain, yes that’s true.
Wilmott: And you talked about this shock theory, right, that when a bullet goes into a brain that there is a shock to the rest of the brain
Horn: I call it a temporary cavity, yes.
Wilmott: Okay, and so does that mean, in your opinion, any time someone is hit by a projectile in their frontal lobe, they will automatically be incapacitated due to this shock wave?
Horn: I’m talking about my experience with similar cases, yes.
Wilmott: So just in your experience?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: Okay. So you are not familiar with any research then?
Horn: Not explicitly today, no.
Wilmott: Okay, so you’re not familiar with research that talks about specifically people getting hit with projectiles in their frontal lobe and not being incapacitated. Are you aware of that?
Horn: No.
Wilmott: So you don’t do that extra research as a part of your job?
Horn: No.
Wilmott: And you don’t keep up with the current research that tells us about projectiles and brains?
Horn: I have read articles, but no, I can’t quote any articles to you today.
Wilmott: Okay. And so, based on what you’re telling us, is that every time the right frontal lobe has a projectile go through it, regardless of the calibre, it’s going to immediately incapacitate?
Horn: That’s been my experience with these cases, yes.
Wilmott: And that’s been your experience, but not looking outside your experience, right?
Horn: Well, my colleagues cases as well, similar cases that we’ve investigated.
Wilmott: And not any research?
Horn: Not any independent research, no.
Wilmott: Okay, Alright, I’m showing you what’s been in as 654. This is that arrows right? You’re talking about entry and exit
Horn: Yes
Wilmott: And so basically, and when we talk about entry and exit what we are also talking about is the fact that it’s also going down…down, is that correct?
Horn: Yes, it goes down into the face.
Wilmott: Okay, and, actually would it be better if we do it that way cause it’s down and to the left, right?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: Okay, so it goes in at this front corner and then it’s out … and when we see this hole over here .. what we’re really talking about is down into the nasal cavity, right?
Horn: Yes, and down into the cheek.
Wilmott: Okay, so when you drew that line for us … about the trajectory of the bullet… the bullet actually just went in, according to you, just went in very briefly, and then out the nasal cavity into the left cheek, right?
Horn: Very briefly, sure. It takes no time at all.
Wilmott: Well, very briefly into the brain, just a little part of it then, right?
Horn: Yes, through the frontal lobe.
Wilmott: Okay, the right frontal lobe?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: And with regard to your report, everything else is correct, isn’t it?
Horn: I believe so.
Wilmott: Alright, nothing further.
Re-Direct:
Martinez: Even though you couldn’t see….given the consistency of the brain, even though you couldn’t see a track, in terms of this particular wound, exhibit number 653, is this the entrance wound?
Horn: Yes.
Martinez: And the bullet was travelling in this direction?
Horn: Yes.
Martinez: And if it’s travelling in this direction, what would it hit?
Horn: It’s going to injure the right frontal lobe.
Martinez: And what is this right here? Is this the cranium? Is that what they call it?
Horn: That is the right frontal bone, yes, cranium.
Martinez: And then the bullet travelled in this direction and it came out of the cavity, correct?
Horn: Yes.
Martinez: I don’t have anything else, thank you.
____end snip-
yet Dr horns own report does not bolster his testimony;
See here;
GUNSHOT WOUND OF HEAD
There is a 1/8 inch circular gunshot wound of entrance over the anterolateral lower right forehead, above the eyebrow. The wound is located 3 inches inferior to the crown of the head and 1 ½ inches to the right of the midline forehead. There is a 1/8 inch wide equal rim of marginal abrasion surrounding the wound. No soot, gunpowder stippling, or intact gunpowder particles surrounding the wound.
The wound track perforates the anterior frontal skull near the superior orbital bone and traverses the right anterior fossa, without gross evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage or apparent cerebral injury (although examination of brain tissue is somewhat limited to the decomposed nature of the remains). The projectile re-enters the facial skeleton near the midline and the wound track terminates in the left cheek.
Palpation and incision of the left cheek reveals the presence of a deformed apparent small caliber projectile, which is located 6 inches inferior to the crown of the head and 4 ½ inches to the left of the anterior facial midline. The projectile is recovered, photographed, and retained as evidence.
There is no gunshot wound of exit.
The wound track trajectory is right to left and downwards.
Also snipped;
NERVOUS SYSTEM
The scalp is reflected in the usual fashion revealing previously described injuries. The 1525-gram brain is covered by thin, clear, delicate leptomeninges. The dura mater and falx cerebri are intact. There is good preservation of cerebral symmetry with diffuse green-gray softening of parenchyma due to decomposition. Multiple serial sections of autolyzed brain do not reveal the presence of grossly apparent trauma, foreign bodies, or previously existing natural disease. The atlanto-occipital articulation is grossly normal.
—-
There is alot of very contradictory information in this report
Part 8 Dr horns testimony
the complete cross and redirect-
Cross Examination
Wilmott: Dr. Horn, how long does blood stay in a person’s brain after they have died?
Horn: If there is injury there, there should be blood visible.
Wilmott: Well, if there is no injury to the brain, how long is it going to take for …somebody… for that … if somebody’s bleeding out… how long is it going to take for that blood to leave the brain?
Horn: I’m not sure I understand your question.
Wilmott: Well, you talked about the fact that there was no hemorrhage that you could see when you were looking through these … when you were doing the autopsy, right?
Horn: Right, looking at the decomposed brain, yes.
Wilmott: So, and when you talked about how you felt there was no hemorrhaging, one of the reasons that you are giving us for that, is the fact that maybe there was no blood left, right?
Horn: That he bled out from other injuries, yes.
Wilmott: Okay, so how long does it take to get to that point?
Horn: Ah, given the other injuries that Mr. Alexander had, all his blood basically had left his body from his injuries to his throat and other areas of his body so I am not surprised that there is really no hemorrhage left in this track.
Wilmott: My question is how long is it going to take?
Horn: With his injuries … seconds.
Wilmott: So in seconds, you would expect that there is absolutely no blood left in the brain?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: Okay. And ah, also with regards to … we’ve talked about with this brain and it’s consistency of tapioca, right?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: Yes, and regardless of the consistency of tapioca, you were able to actually take slices of it, weren’t you?
Horn: Not slices. We put the brain in a pan to weigh it, and really this is like a liquid, almost a very soft pudding like brain and we do section through it in the pan otherwise it will run off our table when we are trying to examine it. So you are able to cut it with a knife and section it and that’s what I meant when I said I`m sectioning a decomposing brain.
Wilmott: So now you`re telling me that it’s completely liquefied?
Horn: I didn’t say that. I said it was the consistency of pudding. It’s very soft.
Wilmott: Well, if you didn’t have it in this pan it was going to run off the pan, like liquid, right?
Horn: It’s like a sludge, yes. It’s a pudding.
Wilmott: Okay, so you don’t talk about this pudding or this sludge in your report do you?
Horn: Yes, I do.
Wilmott: When you talk about the autolysed brain?
Horn: I call it autolysed, that’s what that means.
Wilmott: And autolysed has different degrees, doesn’t it?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: Okay. So just because you are talking about an autolysed brain, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is going to be liquefied, right?
Horn: I didn’t call it liquefied.
Wilmott: Okay, but it doesn’t mean that it’s going to be liquefied does it?
Horn: When it’s autolysed, it’s very soft and very fragile, and pudding-like is most of the time, what I see in an autolysed brain.
Wilmott: That wasn’t my question. My question was when we’re dealing with an autolysed brain, there are different degrees, so if you term it as you did in your report, autolysed brain, that doesn’t mean that it’s going to be liquefied, right, necessarily?
Horn: I didn`t call it liquefied.
Wilmott: I`m asking you, in an autolysed brain, talking about autolysed brains, are there different degrees of having an autolysed brain?
Horn: Yes, I answered that. There are.
Wilmott: Okay. So then answer me this. If there are different degrees, just because you have an autolysed brain and you are looking at an autolysed brain, does it necessarily mean that that autolysed brain is going to be liquefied?
Horn: No.
Wilmott: Okay, so because there are varying degrees, correct?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: And in this case, the degree you talk about medium decomposition, don’t you?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: And so you are not talking about completely decomposed?
Horn: Well, medium decomposition is pretty .. pretty far along.
Wilmott: Well, when we are talking about medium, isn’t there a little, medium and a lot?
Horn: Right. If the end would be a skeleton, so medium is pretty much a liquefied , bloated body which is what …
Wilmott: So we’re back to liquefied again?
Horn: Yes, the body is liquefying. The stages of liquefying ..
Wilmott: And did you not just tell us that the brain was not liquefied?
Horn: It’s a pudding. So it’s a form of liquid. It’s not like water. It’s like a … it’s an oozing liquid. It’s like
Wilmott: Okay..
Horn: It’s ..
Wilmott: Go ahead.
Horn: It’s like a pudding.
Wilmott: Like pudding. Okay. So, when you were able to take this brain and put it into a pan, you talk about doing these sections, right?
Horn: Cutting it with a knife..
Wilmott: Yes, and so, in cutting it with a knife, you were able to actually look at the slices, right… weren’t you able to?
Horn: That’s what I usually do..
Wilmott: Okay. And so, it wasn’t so pudding-like that you couldn’t see the difference as you’re putting the knife in, see the slices, right?
Horn: They aren’t slices as the best use of that term. I’m able to cut through what is there, pull it apart, and look through it to see if I am missing bullet fragments or hemorrhage, scarring or other things. So what I am saying, is based on the limitations of the exam that I have, I didn’t see any of those things.
Wilmott: So perfect. What you just said, I think helps explain what we’re trying to talk about here. You are able to put a knife through it and pull it apart, right?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: And when you can pull it apart, you are able to then take a look at what you are pulling apart, right?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: And you do that for several sections, right?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: Okay. And so in these several sections, you weren’t able to see any foreign bodies, right?
Horn: That’s right.
Wilmott: There was no evidence of that.
Horn: Right.
Wilmott: So when you talk about this bullet tumbling and deforming, it certainly wasn’t exploding, right?
Horn: Not exploding, no.
Wilmott: And not breaking apart.
Horn: Not fragmented.
Wilmott: And there were no fragments in the rest of the brain, right?
Horn: Not that I found.
Wilmott: So just this one track, or this, well… you couldn’t see a track, right?
Horn: I could not see a track through the brain, that’s correct.
Wilmott: Even though you were able to slice it and pull the slices apart, you were not able to see a track, is that what you are telling us?
Horn: That’s right. Yes.
Wilmott: And you were able to see enough that you couldn’t see any apparent trauma, right?
Horn: I couldn’t see any hemorrhage or a wound track in the brain, yes that’s true.
Wilmott: And you talked about this shock theory, right, that when a bullet goes into a brain that there is a shock to the rest of the brain
Horn: I call it a temporary cavity, yes.
Wilmott: Okay, and so does that mean, in your opinion, any time someone is hit by a projectile in their frontal lobe, they will automatically be incapacitated due to this shock wave?
Horn: I’m talking about my experience with similar cases, yes.
Wilmott: So just in your experience?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: Okay. So you are not familiar with any research then?
Horn: Not explicitly today, no.
Wilmott: Okay, so you’re not familiar with research that talks about specifically people getting hit with projectiles in their frontal lobe and not being incapacitated. Are you aware of that?
Horn: No.
Wilmott: So you don’t do that extra research as a part of your job?
Horn: No.
Wilmott: And you don’t keep up with the current research that tells us about projectiles and brains?
Horn: I have read articles, but no, I can’t quote any articles to you today.
Wilmott: Okay. And so, based on what you’re telling us, is that every time the right frontal lobe has a projectile go through it, regardless of the calibre, it’s going to immediately incapacitate?
Horn: That’s been my experience with these cases, yes.
Wilmott: And that’s been your experience, but not looking outside your experience, right?
Horn: Well, my colleagues cases as well, similar cases that we’ve investigated.
Wilmott: And not any research?
Horn: Not any independent research, no.
Wilmott: Okay, Alright, I’m showing you what’s been in as 654. This is that arrows right? You’re talking about entry and exit
Horn: Yes
Wilmott: And so basically, and when we talk about entry and exit what we are also talking about is the fact that it’s also going down…down, is that correct?
Horn: Yes, it goes down into the face.
Wilmott: Okay, and, actually would it be better if we do it that way cause it’s down and to the left, right?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: Okay, so it goes in at this front corner and then it’s out … and when we see this hole over here .. what we’re really talking about is down into the nasal cavity, right?
Horn: Yes, and down into the cheek.
Wilmott: Okay, so when you drew that line for us … about the trajectory of the bullet… the bullet actually just went in, according to you, just went in very briefly, and then out the nasal cavity into the left cheek, right?
Horn: Very briefly, sure. It takes no time at all.
Wilmott: Well, very briefly into the brain, just a little part of it then, right?
Horn: Yes, through the frontal lobe.
Wilmott: Okay, the right frontal lobe?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: And with regard to your report, everything else is correct, isn’t it?
Horn: I believe so.
Wilmott: Alright, nothing further.
Re-Direct:
Martinez: Even though you couldn’t see….given the consistency of the brain, even though you couldn’t see a track, in terms of this particular wound, exhibit number 653, is this the entrance wound?
Horn: Yes.
Martinez: And the bullet was travelling in this direction?
Horn: Yes.
Martinez: And if it’s travelling in this direction, what would it hit?
Horn: It’s going to injure the right frontal lobe.
Martinez: And what is this right here? Is this the cranium? Is that what they call it?
Horn: That is the right frontal bone, yes, cranium.
Martinez: And then the bullet travelled in this direction and it came out of the cavity, correct?
Horn: Yes.
Martinez: I don’t have anything else, thank you.
____end snip-
yet Dr horns own report does not bolster his testimony;
See here;
GUNSHOT WOUND OF HEAD
There is a 1/8 inch circular gunshot wound of entrance over the anterolateral lower right forehead, above the eyebrow. The wound is located 3 inches inferior to the crown of the head and 1 ½ inches to the right of the midline forehead. There is a 1/8 inch wide equal rim of marginal abrasion surrounding the wound. No soot, gunpowder stippling, or intact gunpowder particles surrounding the wound.
The wound track perforates the anterior frontal skull near the superior orbital bone and traverses the right anterior fossa, without gross evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage or apparent cerebral injury (although examination of brain tissue is somewhat limited to the decomposed nature of the remains). The projectile re-enters the facial skeleton near the midline and the wound track terminates in the left cheek.
Palpation and incision of the left cheek reveals the presence of a deformed apparent small caliber projectile, which is located 6 inches inferior to the crown of the head and 4 ½ inches to the left of the anterior facial midline. The projectile is recovered, photographed, and retained as evidence.
There is no gunshot wound of exit.
The wound track trajectory is right to left and downwards.
Also snipped;
NERVOUS SYSTEM
The scalp is reflected in the usual fashion revealing previously described injuries. The 1525-gram brain is covered by thin, clear, delicate leptomeninges. The dura mater and falx cerebri are intact. There is good preservation of cerebral symmetry with diffuse green-gray softening of parenchyma due to decomposition. Multiple serial sections of autolyzed brain do not reveal the presence of grossly apparent trauma, foreign bodies, or previously existing natural disease. The atlanto-occipital articulation is grossly normal.
—-
There is alot of very contradictory information in this report
ajmo
cont
oops double post
Horn testified that his dura mater findings were in fact a typo nothing more nothing less-
A question not asked by the defense mind you but brought up by a juror.
Snipped-
Judge Stephens: Any more questions from the jury? Alright, one more question from the jury. Counsel please approach. We have one additional question.
“Your report stated there was no damage to the dura mater membrane. Can you explain how the brain can be damaged without damaging the membrane?”
Horn: I, ah, let me review my report… it’s the usual protocol with the report so clearly the dura mater had to have been perforated so that would be a typographical error in my report.
Judge Stephens: Alright, any other questions from the jury? Follow up Mr. Martinez.
Martinez: With regards to that issue of the perforation of that particular part of the anatomy, so as you look at it and your recollection, based on what you saw, was there that perforation?
Horn: Yes, there would have to have been.
Martinez: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear you.
Horn: There would have to have been, yes.
Martinez: When you say, there would have to have been, why is that?
Horn: Because of the location of the tracks, and the fact that the dura sits right on where that bone would have been fractured and blown apart so it would have had to perforate the dura in that location.
Martinez: No other questions.
Stephens: Ms. Wilmott.
Wilmott: Dr. Horn, you’re aware, this is a capital case, right?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: You know how serious it is.
Martinez: Objection, relevance.
Stephens: Sustained.
Wilmott: You understand that this is a serious case.
Martinez: Objection, relevance.
Stephens: Sustained.
Wilmott: You would have reviewed your report prior to coming to testify, right?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: And you would have reviewed your report probably long before that also, right?
Horn: Yes, before testimony.
Wilmott: And you were interviewed in this case by defence counsel , weren’t you?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: And wouldn’t you have reviewed your report prior to being interviewed by defence counsel?
Horn: Usually, yes.
Wilmott: And all those times that you were reviewing your reports, you never found any error with regard to the dura mater did you?
Horn: I did not note that until just now.
Wilmott: Okay, and so, in fact, did I not just ask you five minutes ago if the rest of your report was correct?
Horn: To the best of my knowledge, it was, yes.
Wilmott: And you answered, yes. But In fact, now you’re telling us to … in order to fit what the idea that this bullet had to have passed through the brain, you’re telling us that your report is incorrect now? Is that right?
Horn: There is a typographical error. Yes that’s exactly what it is.
Wilmott: You made a mistake didn’t you?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: Is that what you’re telling us?
Horn: Yes.
Wilmott: And you’re sure that the mistake isn’t the fact that the bullet just didn’t go through the brain?
Horn: It had to have injured the brain, yes.
Wilmott: So you’re just wrong in your report, and it’s incorrect?
Horn: It’s a typographical error. Yes.
Wilmott: Nothing further.
Judge Stephens: Alright, any other questions. Thank you Dr. Horn. You may step down.
end snip
____
he did state that not only the dura mater was intact but also the falx cerebri and the brain was covered by the thin delicate leptomeniges….
The leptomeninges include the pia mater and and arachnoid, both of which are thin and delicate in structure, as opposed to the dura mater.
Dr Horn, is his whole autopsy report a typo?
BTW how can there be symmetry in pudding?
“without gross evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage or apparent cerebral injury (although examination of brain tissue is somewhat limited to the decomposed nature of the remains)”
“There is good preservation of cerebral symmetry with diffuse green-gray softening of parenchyma due to decomposition. Multiple serial sections of autolyzed brain do not reveal the presence of grossly apparent trauma, foreign bodies, or previously existing natural disease.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falx_cerebri
and
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-brain-parenchyma.htm
and
http://wdict.net/word/Leptomeninges/
and this presentation;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgKTJJSAM8k
and
WARNING extremely graphic dissection of brain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrKEdHb1vgA
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbPXlUb-3Yg
AJMO
ill be back thanks for reading as always sorry for the length
take care peace
Hi Mom3.0,
I’m curious about the fixation with the gunshot wound, others have also raised questions.
I agree there are inconsistencies yet there is no dispute JA DID admit shooting him, DID admit stabbing him and DID admit slashing his throat. Given this, what is the point of examining this injury. After all, it was just one of the three ways she killed him.
If it’s because it makes her version of events more believable, it still doesn’t appear to negate other facts or other contradictions to her story.
As I said, I’m just curious where your trail leads. Thanks for any response.
“Jodi Arias Suggests She May Take Deal to Avoid Death Rather Than Appeal Conviction”
http://abcnews.go.com/US/jodi-arias-suggests-deal-avoid-death-appeal-conviction/story?id=19467665
IMO…Best thing that could happen.
Seriously already. I am repeating myself, and many others.
B
mom3.0
———-
Mom 3.0, The testimony you citing was was offered during the phase of deciding if the murder was committed in a cruel and heinous way.
The Defense’s position was that IF Travis had been shot first, he would not have suffered. That is why Willmott was questioning Horn about sequence.
BUT-
Even if he had been shot first, what could a naked, injured, weaponless man have done, within a matter of minutes ( seconds) after the shot, to justify 29 stabs and a slit throat? This IS overkill.
And blatantly, if defense is saying he was shot first, of course he is then fighting for his life, NOT continuing to attack Arias to the extent that she would have to stab him 29 times and slit his throat in order to survive.
. Willmott is trying to show that lack of blood to the brain shows lack of serious injury. But again, the point is, did Arias overkill? And the answer is yes.
I personally do beleive that the autopsy report supports Horn’s interpretation that the lack of blood in the brain indicates that there was no blood left, that his opinion is justifiable at least.
here is a snip from autopsy report:
“The wound track perforates the anterior frontal skull near the superior orbital bone and traverses the right anterior fossa, without gross evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage or apparent cerebral injury (although examination of brain tissue is somewhat limited to the decomposed nature of the remains ”
—-
The issue at hand is what Arias fate will be. It is not about whether or not she killed with aggravation, they have lready decided that.( And again, the relevancy of the autopsy report is to show whether or not Arias killed with aggravation)
The issue at hand now is the defense motion of wanting to postpone the trial in order to gather more mitigating evidence to prevent Arias from DP.
Under Arizona law, neither side is allowed to introduce new evidence in the final sentencing phase about aggravation, . This phase is just about whether or not she will get life or death for the crime they have already found her guilty of.
Here is a link to Arizona law about trial pahses and life or death verdict:
http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/arizona/az-laws/arizona_laws_13-752
a snippet
F. The penalty phase shall be held immediately after the trier of fact finds at the aggravation phase that one or more of the aggravating circumstances under section 13-751, subsection F have been proven. A finding by the trier of fact that any of the remaining aggravating circumstances alleged has not been proven or the inability of the trier of fact to agree on the issue of whether any of the remaining aggravating circumstances alleged has been proven shall not prevent the holding of the penalty phase.
—–
I so appreciate all the time and effort you are putting into this, but for this piece, with MUCH respect, I don’t get your point at this time. The trial has many appealable issues I am sure, but they havent even decided on when , if EVER, a second jury will be empaneled.( lol !!!)
Most importantly, hope your dad’s recovery continues to go well xxx
Re Blink
You wrote:
O/T: Nice to see you friend and glad to hear your Pop is better. My sweet lord how I can relate to your journey.
Thank you
yes he is doing better, we are at the wait and see stage…
I know you know this worry well, as do so many other BOCers –
I cant tell you how much i appreciate you.
You wrote:
The only reason i can come up with that Wilmott and Nurmi did not challenge Dr. Horn on that issue is that they were precluded from doing so based on the defense assertion the State came up with a new theory after the fact, in fact, after the aggravators hearing. In a death penalty case, it cannot be multiple choice fill ins.
I guess i can understand that, but why didnt she bring forth any of the cases Horn had no knowledge of, she could have couldnt she? IDK, like that one man who shot himself in the head- but was still cognizant. And what of the research and cases of people being injured in the frontal lobe than acting aggressively? Again IDK
You wrote:
Alternatively, Willmott may not be particularly savvy in forensics, and as an observation I believe that was the case- but I would say the same about Martinez.
Yes I agree, and that is not right- I mean it took a juror to point out the dura mater “typo” and Wilmott did not pursue that avenue to its fullest either. Dr Horn stated that (the bullet) “It had to have injured the brain, yes.”
But we know that this statement is untruthful- as a small caliber bullet shot from an indeterminate range may not have pierced the dura mater in fact may have been deflected by it turning it toward the cheek… therby missing the brain..
Dr horn says:
The wound track perforates the anterior frontal skull near the superior orbital bone and traverses the right anterior fossa, without gross evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage or apparent cerebral injury (although examination of brain tissue is somewhat limited to the decomposed nature of the remains).
end snip
well IF the dura mater was intact along with the leptomeninges just because the bullet traverses the right anterior fossa (with no apparent injury to brain) in no way ensures the bullet ever actually made it past these membranes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterior_cranial_fossa
“anterior cranial fossa is a depression in the floor of the cranial vault which houses the projecting frontal lobes of the brain. It is formed by the orbital plates of the frontal, the cribriform plate of the ethmoid, and the small wings and front part of the body of the sphenoid; it is limited behind by the posterior borders of the small wings of the sphenoid and by the anterior margin of the chiasmatic groove. The lesser wings of the sphenoid separate the anterior and middle fossae.The central portion corresponds with the roof of the nasal cavity, and is markedly depressed on either side of the crista galli.
It presents, in and near the median line, from before backward, the commencement of the frontal crest for the attachment of the falx cerebri; the foramen cecum, between the frontal bone and the crista galli of the ethmoid, which usually transmits a small vein from the nasal cavity to the superior sagittal sinus; behind the foramen cecum, the crista galli, the free margin of which affords attachment to the falx cerebri; on either side of the crista galli, the olfactory groove formed by the cribriform plate, which supports the olfactory bulb and presents foramina for the transmission of the olfactory nerves, and in front a slit-like opening for the nasociliary nerve.
Lateral to either olfactory groove are the internal openings of the anterior and posterior ethmoidal foramina; the anterior, situated about the middle of the lateral margin of the olfactory groove, transmits the anterior ethmoidal vessels and the nasociliary nerve; the nerve runs in a groove along the lateral edge of the cribriform plate to the slit-like opening above mentioned; the posterior ethmoidal foramen opens at the back part of this margin under cover of the projecting lamina of the sphenoid, and transmits the posterior ethmoidal vessels and nerve.
Farther back in the middle line is the ethmoidal spine, bounded behind by a slight elevation separating two shallow longitudinal grooves which support the olfactory lobes.
Behind this is the anterior margin of the chiasmatic groove, running laterally on either side to the upper margin of the optic foramen.
end snip
somewhat graphic jpj
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slide4jjjj.JPG
If I am understanding this correctly, and please correct me if not, the bullet traversing the anterior fossa could have simply missed the brain and hit the etmoid bone or maybe just behind the sinus- IDK
Where are the pics of the autopsy- they should have included the skull before removal of brain the dura mater…all of it
Horn stated the falx cerebri was intact, so is it possible the bullet missed the brain entirely because of the tough exterior of the dura mater..to include the other membranes
or perhaps because it was deflected into the nasal cavity…
my question would be were the ethmoid bone and/or the cribriform plate intact?
You wrote:
Don’t make me whip out my cycle of the blowfly schematics, lol.
Ha, those were the days… just goes to prove even the best experts testimony falls on deaf ears.
You wrote:
I believe strongly this is grounds for a new trial- and to my knowledge we have one pending interlocutory filing.
I am starting to think the same thing.
You wrote;
It does not mean I agree with it, as you point out I am on record, but as a “standard” or precedent under our constitution we need to have our jurisprudence functioning on all cylinders.
True
you wrote:
The ME in a homicide case changed his tune years after the fact. This needs further exploration, imo.
When I say this needs further exploration it pisses me off. As I said, this is coming back, and I feel the outcome is less than desirable.
B
Yes, its a total shame as the prosecution could have ensured the verdict better by just NOT presenting a sequence, as most persons dont care which came first, they still see it as heinous and cruel and premeditated…
Thanks for the response Blinky- enjoy your day.
AJMO Peace
My friend, I am the choir on this one- excellent substantive argument in support. I think this is what has bothered from day one. The dichotomy of how “guilty” I know Arias to be, and how seemingly careless and short sighted this prosecution AND defense has been.
I do not like to insult quasi peers, but Wilmott defies explanation- or at least a constructive one. I can’t seem to get most to realize the long range issues with this case, potentially.
I realize my opinion is unpopular, but Martinezs’ approach was flawed, imo. This was a forensic case. To your point, to have a juror ask about the dura mater- I mean, hello?
I feel like I am repeating myself on an issue that will take years to come to fruition, so I apologize, but it will.
This comes down to one issue and one issue alone, which to this day, I have NO IDEA what scared the prosecution into their whole he was shot last nonsense.
It comes down to Travis and Jodi potentially scuffling after he was shot, and under the law, his lack of flight. It is ridiculous and the state should have given “the people” more credit. This crime was more heinous than anyone even knows and that should never be. Travis fought for his life, while impaired and imo, no jury would have reduced that to 2nd degree- which was the prosecutors avoidance measure in the first place. So he won, but be careful what you wish for in a legal setting in criminal law in a dp case.
Allow me to underscore what I think sometimes gets lost in peoples emotions following the case. They have not executed a woman in AZ since 1930. The last woman on death row just got a new trial. They have not sequestered a jury in over 20 years. This is the climate, like it or not.
At the end of the day, imo, people need to understand that this is about Habeas. The state stands a better chance of keeping this lizard in a cage for the rest of her natural life by allowing her to besentenced to LWOP. All the way around. From appellate issues to basic statute- add in the fact it will drive her insane- er. This needs to end and I am sorry to inform my good and pure readers that the justice in this case is past our reach. There is the “here” and there is the “there” and for those of us here- we need to recognize the potential outcomes on our society.
I say this as a victims advocate for Travis, and an analyst and profiler who recognizes the danger Jodi Arias presents to society. Stop making it about whether or not the woman is sentenced to die because I am telling you that is NOT going to happen. AND I am telling you it opens doors for her nobody wants opened.
Respectfully submitted to all-
B
whodunnit
Many thanks for such a masterful piece of information. I agree one hundred percent.
Yes Mom3:0 Love and prayers to you and your dad as he continues to improve.
@Lyla as usual you post interesting links
I looked at the cell pics but don’t see art supplies Do you? I wonder where she does the art
Anyway I don’t know if Jodi is just trying to get attention and stay in the news or what
I have a hard time believing her
But the idea of a plea suits me fine
@Lyla
Jodi is beginning to remind me of Diane Downs who just tried to be the center of attention years after she was locked away even escaping at one point
Last time I saw her she could hardly talk and seemed insane no parole for her thanks
She also thought she was so sexy and was willing to kill her own children for a man
Mom3.0′s lengthy piece just explains how Dr. Horn’s examination did not match his report. This doctor IMO could use an opportunity to work in a first class forensics lab to hone his knowledge and techniques. A class on critical thinking would also be in order.
He needs to spend some time working with information regarding ballistics and wound damage. He also needs to get some training on how to present the proper information to prosecution so that they are able to see the most effective path to take.
Little small guns with short barrels do not produce enough energy to drive the projectile at high speed and power. Therefore, they do not penetrate hard bone very well. I still do not believe the bullet did damage to the frontal lobe before it was deflected to the downward path through the nasal cavity and sinus area. We don’t know if the bullet was intact when found in the cheek.
Based on Blink’s comments about actual facts and the DP for women in
Arizona, the court should take steps to save some time and money and sentence JA to LWOP.
Glad to know that your dad’s condition is getting better Mom3.0.
I have used Blink Jr’s old happy meal plastic figure toys for target practice of my Dad’s .22 pistol. At about 40 ft I can hit them square and not knock them off a rock wall. As you know the .15 has less power than that.
A Medical Examiner is by design supposed to be a neutral “reporter” of the medical death findings at autopsy, but in a medico legal death investigation, he is also tasked with using the investigative field data according to protocol in the State of Arizona.
Does everyone know that in the aggravators hearing that the state testified that Travis was shot first in the SHOWER??? It is in stark contrast to the trial testimony and not only that, THE EVIDENCE. So much for that casing on top of blood on the floor in front of the sink.
The problem is there was NO change in medical finding whatsoever and no investigative “gains” from the time of that hearing to trial to prompt the change in theory. It was simply the State’s barometer that it needed to present a scenario to counter the “struggle” theory. Wilmott did enough to preserve the record, but I can only assume they did not hire their own medical expert because they wanted to keep the wound testimony constricted overall. I get the strategy- but then the lawyer needed to bolster her knowledge base and technique. I mean, Martinez actually did some of that job for her and she never capitalized on it.
Dr. Horn’s testimony and reporting is absolutely going to come back to haunt the State during the appellate process, imo. I hate to say it again, but had this case been Baden’s- she would have shredded Horn on the stand.
Now we have this case that again blew out ratings for months, and what comes next? Strong and skilled appellate lawyers who take pro bono cases for the rights to tell the story or for the legislative mojo.
We will learn more about this case following it’s sentencing when the FOIA produce what was not presented at trial- all of which will be used for a Habeas petition.
B
Blink writes:
This comes down to one issue and one issue alone, which to this day, I have NO IDEA what scared the prosecution into their whole he was shot last nonsense.
—
I think the state pushed for shot last in order to secure there position of heinous crime and secure death penalty verdict. In his closing statement ,Martinez whole thing was about what Travis must have been feeling as she stabbed him etc etc., trying to take the heat off of the mess Horn created, for those of the jury who didn’t beleive he had been shot last. I also think he may have put that forth just to reinforce Arias lack of credibility, since so much of State case rested on her being a liar. Appealable, oh yea!
I totally agree with you that LWOP would be the best outcome.
It is my understanding that LWOP can be appealed but it is not paid for by the State like an automatic appeal would be for DP verdict, and that what can be appealed in a LWOP verdict is narrower than in DP.
Blink writes:
Stop making it about whether or not the woman is sentenced to die because I am telling you that is NOT going to happen.
—
got it!
Fwiw, I wish I felt differently. I truly believe she deserves death if she acted alone in this crime.
B
B,
I get it. I’ve considered your opinions, as well as all others, when it came to weighing in on mine. I get the risk and can’t comprehend the reasons for sloppy and even shady approach to this trial. Maybe it’s pride and not about the victim, after all.
I get…I mean…..I BELIEVE the shot came first. I believe Travis suffered beyond all human comprehension…..more heinous than we can possibly fathom. I get that Arias needs to be put away, forever, regardless of her mental state. I get that justice, as presented by the state and defense, was flawed, weak, incomplete and hastily represented. I don’t get the fear or why the need to ever hide the real story. This is why I believe justice is imperfect. I realized that when Caylee’s murderer walked free. Justice is as strong as its weakest links….and I personally understand that you’ve been bolding, italicizing and underlining those links from the git go. This was an ill prepared case with plenty of evidence to expose the TRUE events of Travis’ murder. Why do these people want to become lawyers, to make a difference….only to appear like slick used car salesmen? What’s the force to be reckoned with, regarding this case? Why does Blink get it, but Martinez doesn’t? What was wrong with this being a ‘forensics focused’ trial? I’d be interested in JM’s response as to why he approached this from a much weaker stand point?
I’m grateful that someone DOES get it and is laying it down. I’m grateful someone is understanding their gift to human kind, and calling it out despite the trolls and haters.
Keep digging, friendLY. Keep standing up for the truth, even if it makes your voice shake. It’s righteous. Wisdom lives and breathes here, not for the glory of one but for the highest good of all who need a voice.
LWOP is a win for everybody, including Travis and his family. It’s a sure thing; an end of a chapter, to begin the next because nothing will ever bring that sweetness which was Travis, back to his loved ones.
Posted with great respect and love….and AJMHO
In a way, I think the blame should be shared equal parts LE and the State. However, according to Flores, he was in touch with Martinez from day one so it was not like Flores built this case in a vacuum.
It is my hope that Flores is the kind of investigator that did a post mortem on his work and will incorporate what was clearly a need for enhanced training in his duties. I can tell you as a fact that was done in the Cword’s case on every LE level and I applaud it. You can’t know what you are not taught and you can’t teach what you have not learned. I get that and believe it but as professional we are also tasked with our own professional development.
I don’t see Dr. Horn having an independent ME expert witness career ahead of him and I suspect he is fine with that at this juncture, lol. That kind of arrogance in his role has blow back written all over it, imo. The chances of him having another very high profile case land on his table are on his side, however. I have so far resisted the urge to write a piece just on the contradictions and medically unsupported and unsupportABLE flaws in his work in this case because I don’t feel like doing the defense’s work for them. At the end of the day while it is my goal and fervent wish our prosecutors beef up their standards in the face of our very ‘CSI society’, it is not at the expense of this trial outcome I sincerely hope.
Strictly from an investigative criminal analyst perspective- this has been brutally painful to observe.
It is my opinion the answers as to why this case was presented by the State as it was will come from the foia of the case files
Much love and respect back at ya
B
-snipped
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act[edit]
In 1996, following the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress passed (91–8–1 in the Senate, 293–133–7 in the House) and President Clinton signed into law the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The AEDPA was intended to “deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes.” The AEDPA introduced one of the few limitations on habeas corpus. For the first time, its Section 101 set a statute of limitations of one year following conviction for prisoners to seek the writ. The Act limits the power of federal judges to grant relief unless the state court’s adjudication of the claim has resulted in a decision that
Is contrary to, or has involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
Has resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.
It generally but not absolutely barred second or successive petitions, with several exceptions. Petitioners who had already filed a federal habeas petition were required first to secure authorization from the appropriate United States Court of Appeals, to ensure that such an exception was at least facially made out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States
Has a writ ever been sought by JA’s attorney’s? I don’t recall Baez requesting a writ for cword (sorry if this is deeply irrelevant).
Got it….never mind….found my answer re: cword.
I also noticed I snipped the wrong clip from the link I provided (I did not mean to post AEDPA). I’m happy I caught it before I made a fool of myself, but I’m not even fit to be researching in this lack of sleep state. I forget what portion I wanted to clip ~Sigh~
Goodnight Ragdoll
It’s not too late, is it?
http://tinyurl.com/kzmaufd
…and….
http://tinyurl.com/l45oqhv
Reading Dr. Horn’s testimony, it just looks like sloppy work. He didn’t do his homework. What kind of person preparing to testify on national television doesn’t review his materials and doesn’t freshen up his knowledge by reading a few articles or at least review a textbook chapter. The mechanism he described is factually true. Many gunshot wound victims die from asphyxia as they stop breathing from the shock wave caused by cavitation, and next the actual brain injury. Yet, there are documented exceptions and he should have come to court prepared to discuss that. The mention of the dura being intact was not a “typo”. No transcriptionist would make that kind of error. The phrasing he used is most likely his standard template for a normal brain exam, and he dictated it (or typed it) out of habit. I would have more respect for him if he simply stated “I made a mistake” and avoided the “typo” comment which appeared to me as if he wes blaming his transcriptionist. His subsequent comments were evasive. He stated that the dura must have been injured, but never stated he saw an injury.
Willmont didn’t make a big deal of it. Was she secretly saving this for later in the trial or did she miss it completely? Did the defense forget to have an expert review the autopsy? Maybe they wanted to get past the incriminating evidence as quickly as possible, and move on to their great defense. Arguing over mechanisms of death didn’t fit in with their narrative of TA attacked, JA shot him, the gun jammed, and TA came after her like a World War Z zombie. She stabbed him multiple times while he continued to attack, and she was only able to stop him by slashing his neck. I personally think an approach of contesting every shred of prosecution evidence would have been more effective. Even a strategy of TA was a zombie would probably be more effective than the defense they put on.
Of course the defense experts weren’t any better. What expert quotes Time Magazine articles? It would have taken a brief effort to research the underlying articles and publications from the scientific literature and quote those directly. It would be much more impressive to the jury than quoting Time Magazine. What’s next, will future experts quote from National Inquirer headlines?
I had a long conversation on this issue with a friend/colleague who is a very well known and successful criminal defense attorney. Because we are friends I never quote him so I won’t now, but while the trial was ongoing, I broached the subject that the defense strategy appeared to me to be one whereby they knew going in based on the discovery that their best shot was an overturned verdict on appeal. He scoffed and laundry listed the ways that is entirely unethical, blah blah.
After Horn’s testimony and the whole prosecution theory reversioning, the evidence we uncovered about the pics, etc, the lack of submission of forensics from the scene, and the other heavily highlighted items here, he changed his tune. He said you know- your theory of showing up to forfeit may just have legs here. He also said he was not aware under AZ law that prosecutors were permitted to testify without being sworn in, LOL.
B
@Malty
Getting a peek inside Jodi’s cell is pretty depressing. I suppose somewhere in the clutter lie her painting materials. She’s let out of her 7 by 11 foot cell for one hour a day? Gives me the willies.
Jodi’s personality does remind me of Diane Downs…Psychopathy.
I really think a major problem in this case was the time lag between the crime and the discovery of the body, the time of arrest of the murderer and the time it has taken to get it to trial.
Add to that the problem Arias lack of veracity.
Arias maintained the ninja theory until 2011 (!) In fact, the original filings from the State for death penalty included that Arias may have committed the crime with others.
I really think that the beginning of the lack of justice in this was because Arias hid the murder, delaying an auptopsy that could have proved more concrete evidence, and the fact that she continued to lie for so long. Similar to the lack of forensic evidence in the Pinellas county trial, where they had only ddry bones to base their murder theory on, and the subtrefuge perpetrated by CA.
“I really think a major problem in this case was the time lag between the crime and the discovery of the body, the time of arrest of the murderer and the time it has taken to get it to trial.
Add to that the problem Arias lack of veracity.”
———————————————————————
And SHE was the major problem regarding time lag and discovery of the body. That along with cleaning up a crime scene in an attempt to destroy evidence, ridding herself of murder weapons never to be found and blatently and repeatedly lying to detectives during interrogation. If anyone deserves the death penalty it is Jodi Arias and I believe she acted alone.
Good shooting Blink. Happy meal figures at forty feet require good technique. If dad’s .22 pistol has a barrel length of six inches, the velocity and power of it would be greater than that of the two inch barrel of the .25. That is assuming the ammunition was LR.
Those figures are lightweight plastic. They would be easily pushed off the wall by a .22 cal. bullet. It would be interesting to find out what would happen to one that was fixed so as not to move when hit.
I have never understood why the prosecution and LE did not spend some time trying to determine if JA was the only person there during the murder and pointing this out, if it were true, along with the evidence that made it so.
The defense tactic IMO was all about misdirection and wearing out the jury in the hope of a not guilty verdict. That is what happened with C-word. However, this jury was much smarter than the one in Florida.
If there was another person there How did they get there Were they local and she called for help or did they travel there
I can’t picture how this other person got there
@A Texas Grandfather
@Malty
“I have never understood why the prosecution and LE did not spend some time trying to determine if JA was the only person there during the murder and pointing this out, if it were true, along with the evidence that made it so.
The defense tactic IMO was all about misdirection and wearing out the jury in the hope of a not guilty verdict. That is what happened with C-word. However, this jury was much smarter than the one in Florida.”
——————————————————————
It could be as simple as no evidence of, nor motive for someone else to be involved.
I agree about the defense tactic. They along with Jodi drug Travis thru the dirt. I wonder no more why the Alexander family wants her dead. She destroyed Travis physically and if that wasn’t enough she slandered his character in a court of law. I’m grateful the jury got it right.
Malty writes:
If there was another person there How did they get there Were they local and she called for help or did they travel there
I can’t picture how this other person got there
—-
Lyla, these are just my opinions, leisurely pondered, for what its worth.
I think she was alone.
I think the time stamps on the pics are totally erroneous and that she had much more time to committ murder and clean up. The thing that begs the question of accomplices is the short time frame, ..how did she manage to do all that on her own and so quickly?….. and that is dependant on the time stamps.
I think she killed him in fits and starts, periods of hurting him and then helping him, the same way that she went back and forth so much in the relationship.
I think she had a few hours to do all of it, the murder, the clean up.
I think she cleaned up only to the degree to eliminate any evidence of herself.
She didn’t want the crime scene to be spotless, she wanted the roomates to find travis when she was in Salt Lake City, with her alibi. She didnt want to hide that he had been killed brutally, she just wanted to hide that she had done it. And I might as well say it, I do think that she was aware of the blood atonement ritual with the throat slitting, and I think she incorprated this into the scene, for the purposes of connecting it to Mormonism in others eyes.
I actually think that when Travis body wasn’t found for days, that is when her magical thinking kicked in, and gave her the “proof” that she might actually get away with it. This gave her the confidence to propagate the lie about the ninjas.
Just my opinion, getting it off my chest!
RE Beth says:
June 23, 2013 at 8:49 am
Hi Mom3.0,
I’m curious about the fixation with the gunshot wound, others have also raised questions.
I agree there are inconsistencies yet there is no dispute JA DID admit shooting him, DID admit stabbing him and DID admit slashing his throat.
Given this, what is the point of examining this injury. After all, it was just one of the three ways she killed him.
If it’s because it makes her version of events more believable, it still doesn’t appear to negate other facts or other contradictions to her story.
As I said, I’m just curious where your trail leads. Thanks for any response.
_______
_______
Hi Beth,
I am still working on going back and responding to previous posts-
but,
Youre exactly right she did admit to killing him
There was a wealth of evidence that she did do it-
and you are exactly correct there are inconsistencies….
With so much evidence against her, why is it that with further scrutiny, it seems to become more and more apparent that the State presented a case which is less than trustworthy?
With so much evidence against her, why is it there are so many questionable concerns about each piece of evidence each witness/ testimony?
There is something very wrong in the States case and the way they decided to present the evidence
there are so many questionable concerns about each piece of evidence each witness testimony
There is something very wrong in the States case and the way they decided to present the evidence
There are legitimate concerns about the pics recovered about the date and timestamps, about the deletion, about the stipulations
There are legitimate concerns over the whole prosecution theory reversioning
There are legitimate concerns about Dr Horns entire body of work in this case about his testimony his autopsy report, the sequencing about whether or not Florez was thrown to the wolves and for what?
There are legitimate concerns over the lack of submission of forensics from the scene and what story it might have told…
There are legitimate concerns over whther or not the prosecutions own diagnosis bolsters JAs claims of the fog, PTSD the amnesia,,,
legitimate concerns of securing the scene, securing info, collecting evidence, manipulating evidence, failing to collect test, and present the evidence….and so on
As a citizen, I am very concerned about this entire case and what it could mean for any of us who may find ourselves at the mercy of LE and the courts and a jury set to determine and weigh the evidence against us when that evidence is all highly questionable.
you said;
there is no dispute JA DID admit shooting him, DID admit stabbing him and DID admit slashing his throat.
There may be no dispute that she ADMITTED to shooting him, she did not admit to stabbing him or slashing his throat- admitting something doesnt always= the truth of what happened-
Why is the evidence that is supposed to lead us to the truth, only lead us to more questions and concerns?
If this is such a slam dunk case of a heinous premeditated murder then why did the prosecution feel the need to present a case full of mistakes and twisted evidence?
You said: I’m curious about the fixation with the gunshot wound, others have also raised questions…..If it’s because it makes her version of events more believable, it still doesn’t appear to negate other facts or other contradictions to her story.
Which version of events Beth, and whose ?
Jodi isnt the ONLY one who changed the version of events a # of times -is she?
Questions remain-
Still many of us are satisfied that she did do it, and probably agreed to all the evidence etc to hide the truly viscous truth of the killing-
If this is the case, then the State let her get away with it and helped her to obscure the truth by their own manipulations and shortcomings
The evidence is supposed to tell the story yet so much of the evidence was either not collected, was never presented, or was twisted to fit a version of events a theory….
Just a theory
And we are all left to ponder that evidence, and when we do, all we come up with is more concerns
What is the truth? i dont know
IRT the state, if the prosecution and LE can go to trial and present a case such as this, one that cant be trusted-
How trustworthy is our system for anyone, not just admitted killers like JA?
AJMO peace
-snipped
It is my hope that Flores is the kind of investigator that did a post mortem on his work and will incorporate what was clearly a need for enhanced training in his duties. I can tell you as a fact that was done in the Cword’s case on every LE level and I applaud it. You can’t know what you are not taught and you can’t teach what you have not learned. I get that and believe it but as professional we are also tasked with our own professional development.
YES YES YES!!!! I 110% concur with you…and very well expressed. I thank you for responding to my post and enlightening us further with your position in more detail.
I need to elaborate that my comment regarding the cword trial, was directed at the defense and jury, not the state. Skirting around the truth by manifesting a bonafide lie/s from hell, even if it’s ‘sustainted’ in the court room, will never be my definition of justice. Creating another scenario, one that cannot be established and has no back bone, should not be a justified means of defense.
As for Dr. H and other ‘expert’ witnesses, let’s just say testimony is only as strong as the character of the person on the witness stand. I get your message, despite my inability to grasp and express it by post. I DO NOT get the diversions, short cuts or holding back of evidence, in TA’s case.
So now I’ve learned to lean on the on justice that is tried, tested and true.
I don’t have anything brilliant or wise to add to this, overall. I’m in awe of what you’ve laid down and your brutally honesty about your concerns. You’ve proven them to be justifiable and unsettling. My, how you’ve grown in the past 5 years. It’s been really cool to witness your growth on BOC. Rock on, friendLY. Rock. On.
Thank you kindly, I have a lot of great teachers- most especially all of you.
B
If anything, a fascinating read from the journal, Psychology Today.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/201305/jodi-joran-and-casey-the-psychology-evil
Mom3.0 says:
June 23, 2013 at 2:56 am
Mom3.0 says, There is alot of very contradictory information in this report
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Mom3.0, so good to hear your Dad is recovering.
@ Mom3.0, What parts of the autopsy report and Dr. Horn’s testimony do you consider contradictory?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mom3.0 says, “BTW how can there be symmetry in pudding?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mom3.0, have you attended an autopsies or sectioning of brains in various stages of decomposition? If not, I can understand why it might be difficult to understand what Dr. Horn is describing. In my experience, one can assess symmetry in a brain that has the consistency of pudding. One can visualize that symmetry as the brain sits within the confines of the skull and when the brain is removed and sectioned.
@whodunit
“I think the time stamps on the pics are totally erroneous and that she had much more time to committ murder and clean up. The thing that begs the question of accomplices is the short time frame, ..how did she manage to do all that on her own and so quickly?….. and that is dependant on the time stamps.
I think she killed him in fits and starts, periods of hurting him and then helping him, the same way that she went back and forth so much in the relationship.
I think she had a few hours to do all of it, the murder, the clean up.
I think she cleaned up only to the degree to eliminate any evidence of herself.
She didn’t want the crime scene to be spotless, she wanted the roomates to find travis when she was in Salt Lake City, with her alibi. She didnt want to hide that he had been killed brutally, she just wanted to hide that she had done it. And I might as well say it, I do think that she was aware of the blood atonement ritual with the throat slitting, and I think she incorprated this into the scene, for the purposes of connecting it to Mormonism in others eyes.
I actually think that when Travis body wasn’t found for days, that is when her magical thinking kicked in, and gave her the “proof” that she might actually get away with it. This gave her the confidence to propagate the lie about the ninjas.
Just my opinion, getting it off my chest!”
————————————————————–
I agree with your opinion. I’d like to think the killing was perpetrated by a sudden act of rage and was over quickly, but because of the premeditation my gut tells me she methodically tortured him to death…I say heinous because of the extreme manner of cruelty inflicted upon Travis. Truly, Jodi doesn’t deserve to live. I hope the Alexander family and friends find peace knowing their loved one is with his Saviour.
@Whodunnit
Like your post I can’t remember for sure here but wasn’t it said Jodi was at Travis home approx 13 hrs in all
There was some fight over DVDs being scratched. Naps sex and murder
But 13 hrs is quite awhile
And your post hits me as maybe near true. She took her time and clean up Clean up of her part but she didn’t get the hand print on the wall
She sure does weave back and forth 18days of he abused me and made me feel like used toilet paper
I still love him. I looked up to him. So on. And so on I would never said a bad word about Travis as she trashes him
Grrrrrrr. It drives me bats
Excellent articles Ragdoll by Dr. Stephen Diamond and Dr. Dale Archer MD. I don’t have time now to comment on everything, but I do feel that Paulus Vander Sloot knew that his son was an evil seed and he tried desperately to save Joran from himself. Paulus covered up the murder of Natalee Holloway because he clearly thought he could get his son past this and set him straight. If anyone has ever seen the show “Dexter”, the male figure in Dexter’s life knew Dexter was a psychopath and tried to work with his evil tendencies. Ultimately, this psychopathy is bigger than the average person can deal with. If left untreated, it can mushroom into the violence we have seen in the above stated cases.
We have discussed the book “The Gift of Fear” by Gavin de Becker many times on Blink’s site. If one has NEVER met evil face to face and has been so lucky, then it’s difficult to explain evil to someone. I have met evil as a young girl when a female relative married someone who sexually abused her daughter repeatedly over 5 yrs. He mentally abused my relative – his wife, and he eventually walked out leaving them financially and emotionally bankrupt. Little did they know at the time, but that was the luckiest day of their lives when he left. He later tried to come back into my young relative’s life by stalking her where she worked. Thank God, I didn’t have any experience with him, but I was absolutely petrified of him from the moment I met him. He made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. I was never comfortable in his presence as I had picked up on the enormous evil person he was – without knowing what he was capable of. I have met many people like him during my years in corrections. There are no psychological definitions that excuse what he did, and his former childhood environment is not an excuse for the absolute evil he perpetrated on the members of my family. He came from an over bearing yet loving mother, and a father who took little responsibility for his children. He was in and out of their lives. So what’s his excuse for abusing a little girl every chance he got? Evil. Pure evil.
Dr. Stephen Diamond write of Charles Manson and his horrifically violent childhood. Joran Van der Sloot, Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias did not come from the horrific conditions of Charles Manson’s childhood. Yet they perpetrated crimes of extreme rage and violence on innocent victims – in the same manner as Charles Manson.
I know Mom 3.0 is making the case of learning from these cases in order to prevent more victims. I agree, and perhaps things will move in that direction. The doctor states that more and more of these disordered people are being born. Some are made from their environments, but some have the propensity because they are born that way and their environment only enables the disorder to mushroom out of control. It is difficult to put it all together in one neat package and I’m not sure it can be done.
O/T…
Yeah, just a head’s up for those who aren’t big fans of HLN’s After Dark mock trials and scaled down crime scenes (who did NOT see this coming????)…
The Wizard of Oz wannabe back-drop features the gated community where Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Cardstock paper re-invented.
Love n hugs to y’all~~~
Thanks Ragdoll for the link to the piece by Dr. Diamond.
It is a thoughtful piece in a quest for understanding. His reference back to Sigmon Freud talking about damage to children is IMO getting close to the roots of behavior that contributes much to the “not normal” behavior of the three he discusses. He discusses the effects of too little or too much of the basic needs of children regarding love, understanding and the right kind of help when corrections are needed.
He did not discuss the effects of other children in the family and the effects of cousins, aunts and uncles. Children learn by observing others. If they choose a bad example of behavior and it is not corrected quickly, it will be reinforced. This is assuming that the brain is considered to be “normal”.
Mothers who shout at children needlessly and fathers who do the same are doing potential harm that will appear in the future. Additionally, moms and dads who constantly bicker and snipe at one another are teaching bad behavior. This also creates a constant edge to the home life that children will try to escape from if possible. If physical escape is not possible, then they will mentally escape into things that may be harmful.
What part does heredity play in the stability or lack thereof in children? We cannot know for certain, being only able to observe the behaviors.
Science is just now reaching the stage of instrumentation that will allow the study of brain structures during life rather than from lifeless tissue. What part do the diseases of childhood play in affecting the development of a normal or abnormal brain and the strange behavior from damaged brains?
Little by little humans gain the knowledge to identify and help those who need it. It is a slow process.
The solution for keeping ourselves and those we love as safe as possible is to learn something about the behaviors that are dangerous so that we become aware for the potential of harm. The second thing is to learn to remove ourselves and those we love from such situations in the least harmful manner.
In the meantime, we have our mental health systems and Criminal Justice system trying to do their part in the protection of society.
The more we discuss these behaviors and learn from them, the better we are equipped to protect society from bad acts of individuals or groups.
Sue–horrific scenario you post. Heartbreaking.
Mom 3 may know why she is posting on this ‘teaching blog’ as there are those who may benefit from the analysis. Making the case of learning.
Evil is. We know that. As I’ve said ad nauseum we individually and as groups need to speak up when/where we see injustice and potential for harm. Got to do it. Preventative actions such as molestation prevention programs in place in churches, youth organizations, schools, sports, etc will help look evil in the face. But then, how many of us are willing to stay after practice to collect the kids who otherwise would be prey? Is there a way to systematize and look out for the vulnerable when their own families aren’t willing to do so? Before they get to CSD?
In addition to the disordered we have have chronic problem of addiction. More than 23 million Americans are addicted and only 10 percent (approx) are in treatment/recovery. I understand that among the 2.3 million incarcerated, about 65 percent qualify as addicts (of all types). (And about 10 percent of them in treatment programs?) Is that your experience with this population?
Tell us the end of the story is that your Evil Man is now where he can’t hurt another child? Please, oh please?
OT but I thought important. An online course in child sex abuse prevention.
http://www.d2l.org/site/c.4dICIJOkGcISE/b.6143703/k.15DC/7_Steps_to_Protecting_Our_Children.htm
@ Sue says:
June 25, 2013 at 3:31 pm
Thank GOD you were safe but I am so sorry for the experience your relatives went through. I fear these kinds of stories are becoming far too common.
Forgive me if this comes across as ’1 upman-ship’ but that is not my intent. We are all living closer to this reality, than we realize. My momma just told me that the priest that baptized my brother and me as babies, was a pedophile. I’m grateful I didn’t learn this earlier in my life. I’m grateful I was never left alone with this monster posing as a man of God, but there are adults my age who are still battling this, and no doubt, their children.
@ Word Girl…..great link! It’s more than necessary and I think we all need to educate ourselves. Thank you for this information and your stance on prevention and education.
@ ATG…… Your ability to see ‘wisdom’ is something I appreciate about you. You are a wise and gentle soul, yourself. Indeed, it is a very ‘thoughtful piece in a quest for understanding’. It’s human nature to want answers or a satisfactory quenching of questions that don’t have black and white answers. It goes to show the information is out there if you’re willing to look.
@ Sue
quote
Dr. Stephen Diamond write of Charles Manson and his horrifically violent childhood. Joran Van der Sloot, Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias did not come from the horrific conditions of Charles Manson’s childhood. Yet they perpetrated crimes of extreme rage and violence on innocent victims – in the same manner as Charles Manson.
unquote
THANK YOU! Great observation. I considered that (whilst reading that articles) the writer couldn’t confirm that any of these ‘characters’ were abused or harmed physically….BUT….one thing did stand out and that was children who are over indulged, spoiled or didn’t get the attention they needed (that includes boundaries, rules, consequences imho., That can possibly be viewed as abandonement from their perspective). I see that being a prominent factor wrt to ‘them’.
-snipped
They are angry with their parents, angry with authority, angry with God, angry with life. They have been hurt, abused, emotionally wounded, deprived, overindulged, spoiled, abandoned or neglected in various ways–some grossly and some much more subtly–and are still bitterly lashing out against life. Against society. Against authority. When you have a pissed-off, impulsive five or ten-year-old in an adult body, with the freedom to do just as he or she pleases, you have an extraordinarily dangerous person capable of the most heinous evil deeds. Such angry, vindictive, embittered, opportunistic, impulsive and sometimes predatory people see the world as their personal playground, and for some, everyone in it as their potential next victim. To quote convicted mass murderer Charles Manson, the poster boy for such evil or antisocial tendencies : “I’m still a little five-year-old kid.” And an extremely angry one.
Frustrating it’s not cut and dry. I do believe society has come a fair distance in realizing that mental disorders do not constitute junk psychology.
PamSpaz says:
June 13, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Mom3.0 forgive me but my post will be from memory rather than copying and addressing as there is just so much to go back to. You answered my question re: which criminals to analyze to which you replied all (eventually). If that is the case to me this would be counter productive. As Sue previously stated justice would come to a screeching halt. Also, and I know you addressed this but my opinion is that the skewing that would occur from criminals would not benefit any study obtained via that route. Additionally this implies to me that every criminal has a mh issue. I do not think that this is the case nor do I think that someone that has a mh issue commits a crime because of it. There may be some but also some not.
______
understood PamSpaz, and you may be correct as I do not have the answers or a fix all -,
IMO knowing that many of “norms” include the criminal pop, it seems to me, that we are learning and incorporating some research and info at this point already.
if we accept that this is helpful why cant we accept that some of the info and research should go to prevent and treat…and why on earth, if we can agree that they have MH disorders, once they are incarcerated, why cant the state and defense- work together to figure out the truths before it is set before a jury, to better enable them to have a complete picture?
You wrote;
Regarding the memory or lack thereof, the other instances you mentioned would be memories that would put her in a bad light imo. So I am still of the opinion these instances are a matter of convenience and not true memory loss.
There is such a thing as selective amnesia or dissociation and yes this would be part of that diagnosis.
Again, persons with this disorder dissociate in degrees as it is like a continuum
Ruling out DID would have been an intensive process- with questions about JAs history to include if she had a history of sleep walking or add-
You wrote:
I am speaking of memory loss that would rise to the levels that would support DID. I do not see anything that would indicate a need to further study her to rule this out.
“Dissociative Disorders are characterized by a disruption in the normal functioning of consciousness, identity, memory, or the world around her / him. Dissociative Disorders can be acute or chronic.”
The fact that had she been given the DES and answered the questions accordingly, SHOULD have alerted these medical professionals to utilize further tests to rule out DID.
testing such as the QED
there has been research done that has found DID can be ruled out/diagnosed several different ways.
TMK none of these were utilizied for JA IRT DID
See here;’ MPD/DID
A number of tests have been studied to see how well they can help diagnose MPD and other dissociative disorders. The Questionnaire of Experiences of Dissociation (QED) was given to 18 people with MPD, 18 controls, 18 male alcoholics, and 15 patients with PTSD and substance abuse disorders. The QED correctly identified all of the MPD subjects as needing further screening, and only one of the alcoholics were incorrectly identified by the test (Dunn & Ryan, 1993). Coons and Fine tested the accuracy of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) on 63 psychiatric patients and found that the test identified 68% of the MPD patients correctly (1990). Armstrong administered the Rorschach test to 14 subjects with MPD and PTSD and found that MPD subjects had more complexity, introspectiveness, and intellectuality of their responses (versus emotionality) than the PTSD group (1991). Labott, Leavitt, and Braun tried to replicate the study and found that the Rorschach was not a good indicator for MPD, but that greater diagnostic accuracy was obtained when using frequency of splitting and dissociative responses (1992). In 1994, 11 MPD subjects were matched with 22 controls and given the Rorschach and the Hand Test. The researchers found the combination to yield 91% correct MPD identifications with no false positives (Young, Wagner, & Finn). The DES has been tested numerous time to test the reliability and validity of the instrument as a way of identifying dissociative disorders and MPD. The test has been put through test-retest patterns and found to be internally valid with subject pools as large as 1,051 people (Frischholz & Braun et al., 1990; Carlson, Putnam, & Ross et al., 1993). The results have been put through ANOVA1s and Cronbach1s alphas and also proven highly valid (Dubester & Braun, 1995). The DES has also been tested and found to be very accurate in other countries, such as Puerto Rico with the Spanish version (Martinez-Taboas, 1995). In addition, other forms of the DES have been made due the high rates of success with the DES as a diagnostic tool. Studies have been done to show that the DES-II is just as accurate as the DES (Ellason & Ross et al., 1994). The DES was created for adults and a form was created to help asses children, called the Child Dissociative Checklist (CDC). A test was done with 131 children who fell into groups of normal, sexually abused, DDNOS, and MPD. The reliability and validity were checked through test-retest and one year test-retest measures, and found to be highly valid and reliable (Putnam, Helmers, & Trickett, 1993).
Another way researchers have been trying to prove that MPD does exist is by comparing MPD subjects against subjects with other disorders. It is not surprising that after decades of diagnosing MPD patients as schizophrenics that there is still research going on trying to see if there are differences between the two disorders. Ellason and Ross compared 108 MPD patients with 240 schizophrenic patients with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), which was developed to differentiate schizophrenic subtypes. They found that the positive symptom scores were more severe in the MPD group, while the negative symptom scores were more severe in the schizophrenic group. Consequently, depending on which end of the scale is being focused on by the diagnosing professional, misdiagnosis can occur for either diagnosis (1995). Steinberg et al., utilized the SCID-D as given by the DSM-IV, and found that it correctly differentiated the MPD subjects from the schizophrenic subjects (1994). Schneiderian first rank symptoms were also used to diagnose schizophrenia, but research has shown that MPD subjects present more Schneiderian symptoms than schizophrenics. A comparison of 1739 schizophrenics with 368 MPD patients found that schizophrenics averaged 1.3 symptoms, while MPD subjects averaged 4.9 (Ross & Miller et al., 1990). Lauer, Black, and Keen compared 14 MPD and 13 borderline personality disorder (BPD) subjects with the SCID-D, DES, and Beck Depression Inventory. The results showed considerable overlap, and the researchers conclude that possibly they are different aspects of the same disorder (1993). Fink and Golinkoff used the MCMI, MMPI, and DES to see if what differences could be seen between MPD, BPD, and schizophrenia. They found that MPD was differentiated from schizophrenia on most measures, but not from BPD on the MMPI or the MCMI. They stated that MPD and BPD could be differentiated by using clinical features, such as past history of physical and sexual abuse and dissociative experiences (1990). Boon and Draijer looked at the differences between DDNOS, MPD, BPD, and/or histrionic personality disorder. They found that severity of childhood abuse, defensive reactions, and dissociation symptoms were the greatest indicators for differentiation (1993). Ross, Fast, and Anderson compared the somatic symptom reports of MPD versus multiple sclerosis (MS) groups of subjects and found that MPD subjects reported an average of 14.5 somatic symptoms, while MS subjects averaged 3.0. They also found that MS subjects often reported muscle weakness and paralysis, while MPD subjects reports genitourinary and gastrointestinal symptoms (1990). A study done by Kluft in 1990 compared 20 therapists who had MPD with MPD patients and found that the therapists had fewer signs of psychopathology then the MPD subjects in general. Hughes compared trance channelers to MPD subjects with the DDIS and the DES and found that while the dissociative processes underlying both phenomena may be similar, etiology, function, control, and pathology all differentiate between the two groups (1992).
http://www.2multiples.com/twcrew/10_page.html
This site is very informative.
PamSpaz,
You bring up an interesting concern. As we know JA scored high on the desirability scale.
Interesting in and of itself as patients diagnosed with DID are thought to be
“frequently unhappy insecure people who are….strongly invested invested in presenting themselves in a way that will win their therapists interest, concern and approval”
this tendency would also exist for the person IRT others not just their doctors, I would think
So it seems her findings on this scale also point toward the need to further rule out DID.
You may not see the need for further testing and I respect that opinion. However the aforementioned subjects IMO should have raised concerns to ruleout DID.
You wrote:
A lot of your statements mention what we do not know. As true as this is for some things a lot of it is not known because it is just not there. I would think that if there were other instances of memory loss whether it rose to the DID level or not, it would most definately come out at trial as it would have supported her claims.
——
How so, PamSpaz, as if she was suffering from DID she may not realize it as up until June 4th 08 she may have been aware of only losing time in relatively small spans. And so much of the truth and aspects of the evidence did not make it into trial, forinstance a thorough breakdown of BPD
So no, I dont agree that it most definitely would have come out at trial. However I am in agreement that it may not “be there” to find, we cant know because TMK the steps werent followed thru to rule it out.
You wrote:
Also with respect to DID, I read that not only is this rare, but the cause is from a horrific trauma from childhood that would make the person create an alter as a defense mechanisim.
———-
Yes just as with BPD trauma and abuse is a factor
What would you consider horrific Pammspaz? For each person this would be personal. And just as some who suffer from the most extreme horrible abuse do not always become abusers – the same can be said for those who may or may not develop DID.
As for the rarity of the disorder, again research has shown it may be more prevalent than once thought.
You wrote:
This too would have come out in trial as she claimed abuse as a child but only mentioned being knocked into a piano, a doorway, the wooden spoon and they did not support her artwork.
—-
Part of Dissociation may be the complete compartmentalization of traumatic event/ abuse meaning she may have buried it so as to not remember
Having said this, there is research that is ongoing which suggests no extreme abuse need to occur to develop BPD or DID….
You wrote:
So for me there was no abuse especially abuse that rose to the level of being so horrific that she developed another personality.
—-
Again it is personal just as Some soldiers develop PTSD over the same exact event that others do not- Bessiders, you are going back to DID more like Sybil with two or more separate distinct alters when research has shown that this need not always be the case.
You wrote:
IMO also typically test are not done to rule things out but rather to diagnose.If a dx cannot be made or if there is a dx and treatment does not help then and only then do you go further
——
No that isnt always the case with DID as r have found it more likely to work from the standpoint of ruling out rather than diagnosing – please read thru the link
You wrote:
. I realize that you see certain things that would require further review, but I just see those same things differently than you do.
—-
Thats okay, I am not speaking to what I see PamSpa I am speaking to what has been researched and documented IRT BPD and DID and PTSD and how it COULD relate to JA- I am not attempting to diagnosis her- i am simply pointing out that from all i have read and researched in addition to what i know it seems to me that this condition DID needed to be ruled out.
___
You wrote
Additionally, her journals from middle school to the present were anylized. To me there would have been an indicator of abuse in childhood (giving consideration to the reason it does not exist wrt abuse from Travis), of perhaps another personality for the DID if there was one but there was not.
We know next to nothing about what was in the journals and again if JA suffered from DID perhaps the alter that dealt with the abuse and trauma did not journal…
Besides her diagnosis of BPD does include this charecteristic
Dissociation is a coping skill and if her dissociation rose to the level of DID then it is not to huge a leap to think JA would not journal about these issues as journaling can be seen as a healthy way to cope, and her fragmentation could have been so extreme that this was impossible
Many persons who are in abusive relationships or who are abused physically emotionally and sexually in childhood do not incorporate these truths into their journaling.
You wrote:
We do know plenty, and it is enough to me for the jury to have come to the right conclusion as they did. I am not sure what else they could have come to know that would have changed the outcome. Not everything comes out at trial and not everything needs to.
——-
Understood, and i see your point
I would never go as far as to say that a jury being less informed is a good thing and helps the hands of justice rather than impedes it- we cant know what we dont know.. as a juror i would want all the facts not twisted cherry picked facts. JMO
You wrote:
I know your heart is in the right place to find a solution to prevent, and I am with you on this one.
—
DITTO Pamspaz
You:
Perhaps the burden should be on the MH community rather than the justice system. Grants, federal and private funding could be obtained to further research and possibly lead to prevention.
—-
I think this would be a step in the right direction. Although not specific to just the “MH community”
you wrote:
Perhaps an analysis should be done on highschool graduates before they enter into the adult world. If there is an indication that a person needs treatment or additional analysis than it would be on their family, rather than the taxpayers. Just a thought.
—-
This would not and could not work as it would be far too extreme IMO- it would be an invasion of privacy and some of these disorders do not present or test well until adulthood-
frankly i think our tax dollars shouldnt be the crux of it as our tax dollars IMO are going to far less beneficial things then MH issues.
I totally respect your views also Pamspa, and I am not necessarily tying my posts to my own…I am throwing out questions and concerns as a way to further a discussion i do feel is important.
Thanks for taking the time to respond I always learn alot from your perspectives.
AJMO
Peace
Re whodunnit says:
June 10, 2013 at 9:43 am
Hi who, I just noticed you wrote a new response to my latest thoughts- thanks- i am trying to work my way forward to catch up- i do not want to let yours or others previous responses go unanswered, please bare with me.
Thanks to all for wanting to continue this discussion, not just because i find it fascinating , but because it helps me to think outside of my own problems.
Its almost a stress relief at this point-
malty- before i cont with this post i just wanted to express my condolences to you- Im so sorry for your losses
Who wrote:
Mom3.0 says:
June 10, 2013 at 1:45 am
—
mom 3.0- I re and re read your posts every time, I truly appreciate how much you share and teach!!
thanks who right back at ya-
you wrote
- I am sure that all the experts recognized that Arias had previously lied, and it is my recollection that they all acknowledged this in testimony. But defense witnesses took the position that regardless of previous lies, Arias was truthful in their encounters with her. The mental state of the fog was key to the defense because they were attempting to prove that not only did Arias kill Travis because of long tiome abuse, she also didn’t remember crucial details of the crime. They offered this defense NOT To show that Arias was mentally ill. They offered this to show that she had become so affected by abuse that she was afraid for her life, and that she was not trying to hide/lie about the crime, she just had PTSD.
—–
I agree with all of the above, and its my opinion that the defense was wrong to go all in with this tactic. IMO the veracity of the tests is not at issue
You wrote;
DeMarte was presented as a rebuttal witness to defense claims of PTSD and global transient amnesia. DeMarte testified that in her opinion, Arias WAS lying about the fog, She used the legal term w ” malingering”. She explained in detail, and referred to testing
——–
She did say that the tests could be relied on as the veracity scales came back as showing no signs for concern over lying.
She did NOT explain in detail about BPD PTSD or dissiociative amnesia she went over the criteria and pinpointed one area where Ja presented behaviors and then brushed over it with a very cursory response which i highlighed before- basically in her opinion and based on her “knowledge of how memory works” the fog PTSD /amnesia could not be true-
She kept refering to “typical” memory when clearly we wouldnt be discussing a typical scenario but one which a person suffers from BPD to include PTSD then dissociation and the defense could have expanded this info to include severe dissociative states/dissociative amnesia all of which most certainly can be a trait of BPD…thereby opening the door for Samuels previous thoughts on DID.
Again PTSD and borderline personality disorder do go hand in hand, and the same can be said for dissociative amnesia so Demartes assertions regarding no PTSD and no fog and no abuse no amnesia do not fit into her her own diagnosis of BPD including the potential for the gap to be “huge” and for JA to still have an “impeccable memory” for day to day nonimportant info….
“Over-general,autobiographical recall may help to protect borderline individuals from parasuicidal acts by helping them to avoid distressing memories.”
BTW Demarte offering her psychological opinion of JAs bloody hand utterance of “I knew i killed him, not being “logical” is bogus for,IF JA remembers the shooting and remembers the scuffle and TA falling on her, t– then it is NOT a huge leap to awaken see blood which is not your own and think I killed him…
logical would not be a factor as;
“In some of the more severe individuals with bpd there is a complete fragmentation. It becomes really confusing since so many statements and behaviors appear to be contradictory” (Kathi Stringer)
Please keep in mind by this point JA had already been interviewed by Samuels by Carp and IIRC ALV who we know had a tendency to ask leading questions and supply abuse to every action it seems… so at that point can we be sure the info came from memory?
As for jodis suspected malingering, well as Demarte herself said taking the tests findings IRT truthfulness and interperting them to be just another case of JAs “lies” would be to take objective info and twist it into subjective data…and that would be a no no
You wrote;
The fog was key to the defense because they were attempting to prove that not only did Arias kill Travis because she was reacting to long term abuse, but also that she didn’t fully remember doing it.
–
—yes this is correct, but you are speaking as if the fog/ lapse of memory WAS a lie, and as Ive pointed out, with Demartes diagnosis of BPD the fog /memory gap need not be a lie or a defense “tactic” it could be the truth
You wrote;
The gist of the State’s response to testing was,1. how can you believe Arias was being honest when tested, But La Violette and Samuels
and 2. ( in Samuels case) How much credibility can be given to the test test when they were given at a time when Arias was denying involvement, i.e lying?
—
Well, as I have said to not trust the test is to throw away objective data
Who, for many who suffer from BPD
” the Trauma, dissociation, lying and memory are linked
During their transient episode of dissociation, their memory storage is impaired
Dissociation occurs which is a self-defensive mode to escape from an unacceptable situation.”
PP
In that way it is logical to not encode the memories as they are in a dissociative state-
In such circumstances asking a patient about this episode will lead him to say his/her truth, or a supplied “truth” but it is not the actual truth
(It is then very dangerous and can lead to false accusations false memories etc)
again How much information was supplied by friends, family, news reports, by Florez, thru media interviews, by her counsel, by Nurmi and samuels as they confronted her on “lying” by ALV… all perhaps leading her to “encode” the new memories to fill in the “huge” gap of a dissociative episode.
You wrote:
As I said, I am learning from you- but I still am not aware of any written test that is specifically designed for the sole purpose of diagnosing a person as a pathological liar.
Thanks Im learning from U too Again IF she suffers from BPD perhaps she is not “lying” in the sense of a pathological liar, but lying to further dissociate herself from the trauma from the shame and in fact may not even be aware that she is lying as it may be a case of her incorporating others “truths” as her own to fill in her memory gaps…in essence she would be creating false memories…
You wrote:
The Minnesota Multi phasic tests DO have ” internal checks” for veracity, but as they seem to have a built in assumption that the person being tested cannot possibly “see through” them. For example, they will ask on one page, ” What kind of a job would you like to have if you worked for a newspaper, and then you are given the choice of journalist, weather, gardening etc. Or on one page they will ask ” who do you love the most in your family ?” and give you a choice of mother father sister brother. And then many pages later, there will be a question like ” do you like gardening?” Or “do you hate your mother” Veracity is tested by comparison of the answers, and the discrepancies. IMO, I beleive Arias has the ability to follow such details.
—-
who,
I agree, there is always a chance that someone is trying to dupe the test- but again the test would pick this up and as for being able to see thru them… I doubt it, as there are many questions which are not as simple as those you gave, & if this were the case, then why wouldnt Arias have answered in such a way that would supply a clear defense to the murder ?
And why is it that both defense and prosecutions diagnosis overlap in characteristics?
As i pointed out, diagnoses are an interpretation of data… in this case, the characteristics line up even if the label does not.- seemingly adding credence to JAs claims IRT blacking out/fog, PTSD…
You wrote:
With SO much respect for what you have been saying, I fear that ARIAS is just not a good example of this diagnosis
—
Why is that Who? No matter what her diagnostic “label” the tests are clear- she met and exceeded the threshold for a # of disorders all of which do fit comfortably into the umbrella of BPD/DID so besides calling her evil, what diagnosis would you feel is closer to the truth?
You wrote:
and .. without wanting to sound horrible, what is the point? We are not talking about a person who has made any discernable impact on anyone’s life, let alone kept even herself functioning in society. This isn’t a Minister/doctor.laywer/nurse who snapped, a teacher who taught hundreds of students who succeeded in life, or even a camp counseler who lost her way! We are talking specifically about a woman who even at age 27.was unable to graduate from high school,stay out of debt, find a profession, or become a part of anything lager than the social life linked with her love interest. Where is the charity work, the long term church affiliation, the family, the community that would again benefit if Arias could be ” returned to normal” I am NOT saying ” kill her” because she has little to offer to society , I am simply saying that she should be viewed in terms of existing laws.
——
Whoa wait a persons life no matter their age has worth
Worth is NOT to be found in their profession, in their ability to hold a diploma ANY diploma, and it certainly isnt measured by how financially successful they are, or how in debt they may be
In truth a humans life worth can not even be measured in the # of friends they made, or how many persons their life may have impacted or if the community welcomes them are shuns them or whther they belong to a church or not.
As for charity work, why bother as most charity is done for those that would fall into your “worthless” description of JA:
Those who are alone, suffering from MH disorders, no friends, no family, no job, no impact, no diploma, no Birth certificate, no welcoming community, no church, perhaps criminal records etc
and JFTR Who, can we say beyond a reasonable doubt whether JA snapped or not- IDTS not by the evidence presented or withheld.
She does offer something for society even after being found guilty she offers a way to learn and teach and prevent. Besides can you or anyone really state she had nothing to offer to anyone before june 4th 08?
and as for after, well it can be argued that even when someone has committed murder they can go on to become a person who offers much to their communities to their loved ones, etc…
You wrote;
She should be viewed in terms of existing laws,
How? i dont get what youre saying here
you wrote;
And nothing has proven her to be mentally ill to the point of being alleviated of responsibility for pre med with aggravation. ( 1000 apolies for my broken record here!)
—–
respectfully Who , ofcourse youre correct How can any of it be proven if it was never presented?
again we started this conversation with a question by you on DID – well it was a good question one of the many questions that both sides left open
again so much was not presented the blood evidence the questions remain on the camera the date of th pics, the shower, EVERYTHING-
this jury did not receive the facts and i fear this may be true on every aspect-
not just as it may relate to MH- but as it may relate to the TRUTH of what went down that day why and who was involved.
So many questions so few answers.
You wrote;
And btw, I am the one who earlier asked about DID- but I did so for my own needs to understand what is incomprehensible to me- not to apply it to Arias vis a vis whether or not she deserves full force of the law in THIS case.
—
I am aware,
okay so your need to understand the whys does not go toward truth and justice in this case?
Sure it does the same way knowing all the info/facts and understanding them would have helped the jury reach a fair and just sentence in this case.
The full force of the law? how so, In a jury trial, a jury is the trier of fact. The jury weighs the facts and applies them to the law Thus, in a jury trial, the findings of fact are made by the jury…
But if the jury is not provided with the information and facts to weigh and determine, than how can it be said a verdict what ever it may be is the right application for the “full force” of the law?
i wrote:
-Again this would be part of her disorder many who are mentally ill do not fully understand that they need help She did say during LE interview that she did not know the why- of it- but Flores kept offering her scenarios “outs” and it is possible that Florez inadvertently aided in Arias recall of previous unrecalled unstored memories same for ALV and Samuels and the media
You responded;
Mom 3.0- Arias said she “did not know the why of it”, before she formally came up with a plea of self defense.
But by the time she went to trial,her entire defense is based on her explanaition of WHY she did it:
She is VERY clear that the reason she did this is because Travis abused her.
—
Who,
to clarify, that quote was mine not JAs’
NO you are mistaken she was never clear, and her answer to why she killed him at trial was (PP) because he attacked me, it was selfdefense- her defense was never she did it “because of the abuse”
you wrote;
When asked by a juror how she could remember minute details of things that happened years ago, but could not remember she stabbing Travis, she testified that she didnt know how the brain works. That was a lie, She had already been tested by her own experts and was very aware of what the defense strategy was, and her defense strategy how HER brain worked!
—-
Who, come on – just because I supplied you with countless pieces of information on how a persons mind could work given the diagnosis of BPD and DID PTSD etc does not mean either you or I understand how the brain/memory “works”- in fact Drs dont either- that is why so much more research and testing is needed in these areas.
Demarte was on the stand as an expert in this area and she was blatently WRONG about a # of issues on how the brain/memory works” typical” or not- the same can be said for Samuels—in fact anyone suffering from any condition themselves may be aware of all info and data but STILL not understand the way the brain /body works
who, AGain, respectfully, IF she does suffer from BPD PTSD or DID- then she most certainly can have an “impecable memory” in every aspect except when asked to recall episodes of dissociation or traumatic /negative events.
You wrote
I maintain that Arias IS aware of having mental health issues , but is not motivated to change them, unless faced with a consequence she doesn’t want, and she is playing this out to the bitter end.
—-
Understood and i respect your opinion and your thought process as to how you reached this opinion-
i however can not claim to know what JA may feel or what she may know- as for avoiding the consequences- yep i agree most human beings do want to avoid consequences and alot will carry it out to the bitter end- I bet this is especially true for those who suffer from MH conditions to include PD.
You wrote:
so , for the more generalized topic-
I feel i understand – and am so apprecitive of all the information about BPD and its manifestations as well as so many other diagnosis you have addressed- all that appear to justify Arias behavior.
—-
Thank you and ditto to your contributions as well.. JFTR I am not trying to “justify” JA behavior i am trying to figure out the truth and to understand inorder to prevent. I am tryin to point out what wasnt offered at trial which is a complete picture of all facts and info
You wrote
But I am equally appreciative of the concept of ” Confirmation Bias”, where in a person can look for things with the purpose of confirming a theory instead of developing one, if that makes sense- (here is a link that discusses thathttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-solin/what-alyce-laviolette-can_b_3122823.html)
Who, I am aware of the concept, and i sincerely hope you are not suggesting that this is what i am doing with my research and info-
because again , my hope is to learn understand and prevent and my goal is that a court of law presents all of the info and facts to give a jury a better understanding of the evidence so that they can make fair and just informed decisions-
the link you provided states;
Your investing decisions should be based on a dispassionate review of objective facts To be sure you are getting all sides of the story, seek out opposing views and broaden your inquiry before making any investment decision
– How true, i would think this would be most helpful for LE and at trial also.
if i were a juror on this or any other case which agonizes over the sentencing and the verdict- i would not want to make way home to learn of some fact or detail which would have swayed my process and deliberations.
You wrote;
Circling back, ideally, we can hope for change in our justice system that would provide inmates the help they need to become re integrated into society as rational productive beings.
Agreed-
you wrote;
But doe Arias, and the specific circumstances she has presented thus far- including the testing, the various DX (in court, not on our site!!LOL) does SHE warrant an entire campaign to alter the way things stand now?
I don’t think so. I don’t think she should be martyred, in any way.
—–
Who,, again I respect your opinion, but if the full set of facts and information were not supplied to the jury then how can we say that a just verdict and sentence was handed down?
Alter the way things stand now? well IMO IF LE, the defense and the prosecution had done a better job then I would think that we may not be where we are now- stuck in limbo with no sentence- no end in sight- and with the jurors questions and concerns unanswered as well as our own.
pardon me, but who here is trying to make JA a martyer? certainly not me- in truth all i am doing is suppling information and addressing questions and concerns that should have been brought to light and dealt with during her trial.
—
Sorry it took so long to respond who, i am still working on catching up- as always thanks for offering up your perspectives they are invaluable.
AJMO
Peace
mom3.0 writes:
As a citizen, I am very concerned about this entire case and what it could mean for any of us who may find ourselves at the mercy of LE and the courts and a jury set to determine and weigh the evidence against us when that evidence is all highly questionable.
—–
I say in a jocular tone- short answer to that is, don’t break the law, but we all know that is not really the answer and certainly isn’t what I really mean to say…
With great respect, I dont agree that the evidence in the Arias is ALL highly questionable. The State chose to present their case as being based primarialy on circumstantial evidence. The jury was legally empowered to disregard any and all of the testimony they heard. Without getting into great detail, the real point is , does anything that you are looking into eliminate the fact that she murdered Travis ( to which she confessed) and did so heinously ( look at the pictures). Mitigate, maybe, but eliminate all guilt, well, no.
I can see all the things you are pointing out as errors on the States part, and she is entitled to appeal, in varying degrees, whatever her final sentence is. State pays for the appeal if she is sentenced to Dp, she pays if it is life with or without parole.
So my question to you is, do you think the State has done all this on purpose?
you write:
“Still many of us are satisfied that she did do it, and probably agreed to all the evidence etc to hide the truly viscous truth of the killing-
If this is the case, then the State let her get away with it and helped her to obscure the truth by their own manipulations and shortcomings
The evidence is supposed to tell the story yet so much of the evidence was either not collected, was never presented, or was twisted to fit a version of events a theory….”
—–
I think that what we are looking at is the legal system itself, and everyones on going frustration as their own questions remain unanswered. the court has a process of winnowing down the evidence, there are pretty tough rules about it.
So even the process of getting evidence INTO a trial is fraught with legal parameters that must be followed, that is the system we have.
For example- Arias submitted copies of letters that were alledgedly written by Travis, which she claimed would prove he was a pedo phile. These letters were deemed inadmissible, because she would not submit the originals and would not reveal where she got the copies. Further, the evidence of the letters she presented was viewed by the court to be forged and not written by Travis. She offered these letters saying they were integral to her defense, and she did so acting as her own counsel. Is that the kind of evidence that you would consider suppressed- and which part- the copies of the letters themselves, the fact they were judged forged, or the fact that she tried to present the victim as a criminal with no legal proof, or the fact that she excused her public defenders because they would not submit the letters, and shesubmitted them while acting as her own lawyer?
The interogation tapes of her parents, which icluded her mother sayingthat Arias told her she” wasn’t in Arizona and had the reciepts to prove it”- the jury was not allowed to see that, or the neturety of Arias interrogation as evidence,because it would be seen as prejudcial- is that what you mean by suppressing evidence?
Guy Searcy’s public claim that Arias called him at 3:00 a.m on June 5th, distraught and saying Travis was dead. He publicly claims he asked her where she was and she said California. He says that he called the DA’s office twice after they arrested her,and said he had information that could help or hurt her case. He said that they could have located the closest tower to where she was calling and proved where she was when she said Travis was dead . When they put him on the stand, he pled the fifth. So was that evidence suppressed, or did his legal rights preclude the State from being able to ask him what they wanted to know?
As far as Horn’s testimony, he testified as an expert and gave his opinion. he explained why he interpreted his autoposy the way he did. The only thing to question there is his expertise. The defense was entitled to bring in their own expert…… and yet…..
I think that there are two parallel universes going on here,( for want of a better way to describe it) One is the world of the justice system itself, and the other is of the degree of guilt of Arias. Unless laws are changed, we are stuck with the process of conviction, sentencing and appeal.
At present, there is no psychological diagnosis that alleviates her of pre meditating ( only takes a second) and following through on an aggravated act of homicide.
So maybe the question to ask is HOW was it possible for this trial to unfold in the way it has- and i maintain that is because of existing laws . And these laws have come about , in part, because of previous court cases. So where do you start to unravel all of this? For me, the Arias case is not the standard to use to dissect what should and should not happen in a court of law, because the fundamental thing about a trial is that everyone is sworn to tell the truth- and Arias, at the center of it, has not complied with that simple demand.
Have the prosecutors lied? I dont think so, even though I don’t agree with their scenario- I don’t think they are lying about their belief in their own scenario, I think it is the best they came up with in a situation where the crime scene itself was five days old, and the murderer lied for three years (at least) about her involvement .
I dont think Horn, Flores, la Violette, Demarte or Samuels lied when putting forth their opinions, though all of them could be judged for their expertise or lack of it.
We pray for the truth and fairness, but clearly we have not created a perfect justice system that will guarrentee that.
We are left with human beings who are lawyers, who use their specific knowledge of the legal system to get the conviction they want.
Do I think that the State or the defense has purposely manipulated facts? I think they are practicing law. And I think that the word “practicing” means just that- making attempts to work within the legal system to prove their case. The law does not demand that any lawyer be certain of his client innocence or gulf, the law only demands that rules be followed to get tio a conviction and sentence. A prosecutor can think his client is culpable but can also fight for the clients right to go free. The defense can personally beleive their client is guilty, but can fight for that client to be declared innocent in the eyes of the law. It is the JURY who must translate everything. It is the JUDGE who who is no longer “praticing” as a lawyer, she is empowered to decide the truth on all matters.
We have talked so much about the lawyers involved and the case they have presented, it occurs to me the person we should be sending prayers to (also) is the JUDGE!
I agree that overall the best thing for everyone is to close the door on Jodi now. LWOP and that’s that. No more trials, tv appearances or even parole hearings to give her anymore publicity (the one pleasure she has left).
Yet,I also see how Travis’s family and friends want death penalty for Jodi more out of wanting Jodi to live the lonely and far worse life of a death row inmate rather than mixing and mingling among society within a prison. A sociopath can adapt to their environment (much like an alligator grows as big as its cage allows) and all she needs is other people to feed off and play her games. On death row, you’re alone pretty much until you die and there is probably no worse feeling than that.
Hello Blink and Blinksters.
JA got to much attention all those months but this was because it had to be for Travis so that the truth comes out and that justice can be done. If JA gets LWOP for me thats fine. Bye JA.
There are others that needs your help like Adrienne Salinas who gone missing ten days ago …
With all my love and respect
Private to Blink
Blink can you cover Adrienne Salinas. The poor one and poor family . This case breaks my heart . So sad…
REGraceintheHills says:
June 25, 2013 at 11:23 am
Mom3.0 says:
June 23, 2013 at 2:56 am
Mom3.0 says, There is alot of very contradictory information in this report
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi Mom3.0, so good to hear your Dad is recovering.
thank you kindly Grace
and thanks to all who kept my dad in your prayers a well
—-
@ Mom3.0, What parts of the autopsy report and Dr. Horn’s testimony do you consider contradictory?
I was speaking IRT His testimony vs the report- Sorry for the confusion. Are you saying that you find it to be otherwise?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mom3.0 says, “BTW how can there be symmetry in pudding?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mom3.0, have you attended an autopsies or sectioning of brains in various stages of decomposition? If not, I can understand why it might be difficult to understand what Dr. Horn is describing. In my experience, one can assess symmetry in a brain that has the consistency of pudding. One can visualize that symmetry as the brain sits within the confines of the skull and when the brain is removed and sectioned.
—
Thanks for voicing your thoughts most appreciated. No I have not attended but I am aware of autopsy protocol in a questionable death more so in cases of suspected homicide and that protocol is to document thoroughly with pics and better still, even vid every step of the process to include before pics- during and after-
That protocol also extends to the issues of all wounds to include measurements etc as with the duramater for if it is as Dr horn suggests at trial, perforated- and “it had to have injured the brain” then there most definitely should have been pics of this perforation as well as noting the location of the rupture, the size of the rupture etc.
I get what you are saying in regards to symmetry, but again if the brain was so decomposed as to be “tapioca”, how is it that the legimenges was intact? especially if the duramater was ruptured to extend to a brain injury from said bullet which according to Horn entered the frontal lobe and most likely would have tumbled around…causing the victim to drop within seconds…
Well had he noted the exact part where the dura mater was ruptured he could have started there to look for a track he could have stated- at such a such a marker the dura mater is ruptured to include the legemenges membranes however due to the “somewhat” decomposed brain i am unable to note a wound track even to include a temporary cavity…with hemorrhaging evidence…
When the juror question came up he could have whipped out his notes his measurements his pics yet he didnt…instead on redirect he answered JM with:
Martinez: With regards to that issue of the perforation of that particular part of the anatomy, so as you look at it and your recollection, based on what you saw, was there that perforation?
Horn: Yes, there would have to have been.
Martinez: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear you.
Horn: There would have to have been, yes.
Martinez: When you say, there would have to have been, why is that?
Horn: Because of the location of the tracks, and the fact that the dura sits right on where that bone would have been fractured and blown apart so it would have had to perforate the dura in that location.
Martinez: No other questions.
—The location of the tracks? What tracks? and the bone would have been fractured would have been or WAS? and if it was again the bullet could have been deflected correct?
further still we have his testimony on cross as:
Wilmott: So when you talk about this bullet tumbling and deforming, it certainly wasn’t exploding, right?
Horn: Not exploding, no.
Wilmott: And not breaking apart.
Horn: Not fragmented.
Wilmott: And there were no fragments in the rest of the brain, right?
Horn: Not that I found.
Wilmott: So just this one track, or this, well… you couldn’t see a track, right?
Horn: I could not see a track through the brain, that’s correct.
Wilmott: Even though you were able to slice it and pull the slices apart, you were not able to see a track, is that what you are telling us?
Horn: That’s right. Yes.
Wilmott: And you were able to see enough that you couldn’t see any apparent trauma, right?
Horn: I couldn’t see any hemorrhage or a wound track in the brain, yes that’s true.
Wilmott: And you talked about this shock theory, right, that when a bullet goes into a brain that there is a shock to the rest of the brain
Horn: I call it a temporary cavity, yes.
Wilmott: Okay, and so does that mean, in your opinion, any time someone is hit by a projectile in their frontal lobe, they will automatically be incapacitated due to this shock wave?
Horn: I’m talking about my experience with similar cases, yes.
and to compare from his autopsy report:
GUNSHOT WOUND OF HEAD
There is a 1/8 inch circular gunshot wound of entrance over the anterolateral lower right forehead, above the eyebrow. The wound is located 3 inches inferior to the crown of the head and 1 ½ inches to the right of the midline forehead. There is a 1/8 inch wide equal rim of marginal abrasion surrounding the wound. No soot, gunpowder stippling, or intact gunpowder particles surrounding the wound.
The wound track perforates the anterior frontal skull near the superior orbital bone and traverses the right anterior fossa, without gross evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage or apparent cerebral injury (although examination of brain tissue is somewhat limited to the decomposed nature of the remains). The projectile re-enters the facial skeleton near the midline and the wound track terminates in the left cheek.
and
NERVOUS SYSTEM
The scalp is reflected in the usual fashion revealing previously described injuries. The 1525-gram brain is covered by thin, clear, delicate leptomeninges. The dura mater and falx cerebri are intact. There is good preservation of cerebral symmetry with diffuse green-gray softening of parenchyma due to decomposition. Multiple serial sections of autolyzed brain do not reveal the presence of grossly apparent trauma, foreign bodies, or previously existing natural disease. The atlanto-occipital articulation is grossly normal.
None of it is contradictory?
Thanks for weighing in Grace and please correct me if I am misunderstanding as that certainly could be the case as Horn did not document as to demonstrate fully.
AJMo
Peace
who great thoughts I will address soon thanks
Sue, i am sorry to read of your heartache
Word girl- I agree child protection is key as these children who have been hurt so bad can sadly become those we most fear.
AJMO
Peace
WordGirl – The monster who tortured the members of my family served 5 short years in prison for his horrific deed of sexual abuse. He took a plea, but the plea came at the last minute. His victim was ready to testify in court, but thank God she was spared having to re-live the abuse. He is out now, been out for a long time. He is a registered sex offender and is no longer living in the area. This was many years ago. My relative went through a very rough period in her teens and early twenties and was very self-destructive for a while. She finally moved past her traumatic childhood and went to school and made something of herself in her early thirties. She feels now that her past is what made her what she is today and has a great outlook on life. She is a mother now and works in a wonderful profession helping the elderly. She is no longer self-destructive and is willing to help anyone who has gone through what she went through. She has such a good heart and is adored by everyone who meets her. She is a very special person and I’m so proud to be her family member.
@ WordGirl and Sue….
Lovin on you both, so stinkin much. Thank you m’ladies for sharing your stories. I embrace testimonies of the human spirit and victories over the darkness. Infinite hearts~~~~~
mom3.0 says:
June 26, 2013 at 3:46 pm
~~~~~~~~~~
Mom3.0, thanks for reading my post. Aside from the error regarding the dura, If you can tell me what elements you think are contradictory in the ME’s testimony and autopsy report, I may be able to address your concerns. This is not a guarantee, but I will try.
Mom3.0
Hi Mom 3.0!
Just wanted to make sure you know thatr my post on June 26 @ 4:29 a.m. was a response to an EARLIER post of yours, that had the snippet I included.
I guess because of posts waiting in moderation, I was not able to read your post, addressed to me, on June 26, which was a response to my post on JUne 10.
Just wanted to let you know I have now read your most recent post and want to respond to it- will do when I have the first chance- I can see you misunderstood a bit of what I was saying, and I wanna clarify..
Thanks for your patience!
The State vs Jodi Arias ~ Travis Alexander murder trial
MOTION TO VACATE AGGRAVATION PHASE VERDICT
http://media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/arias.pdf