We seem to still be debating the sequence of Jodi’s attacks that resulted in Travis’s death. Personally, I have a really hard time believing that the GSW was post-mortem. It doesn’t make sense to me for so many reasons. Jodi is not a large person and doesn’t appear to me to be particularly athletic or strong. She brought a gun proving premeditation, why would you not just shot the guy first and then get your rage out with the knife? Stabbing and nearly decapitating someone takes a lot of energy, add in moving the dead body around, I just can’t see all of that strength coming from Jodi without shooting him first.
I thought you guys might like to debate this over the weekend. I have included the timeline video we have looked at before above. There was also an excellent comment from JLove made in the wee hours of the morning I didn’t want you guys to miss. I have included it in its entirety below.
Comment by JLove :If you notice, I did not stick to Jodi’s testimony that she “shot him first.” That’s crap. I’ve listened to testimony and read the ME’s autopsy report. I’m a medical professional myself, so the autopsy report was not difficult to understand. The gunshot wound produced no hemorrhaging (bleeding). This would suggest that at the time of the GSW, Mr. A was already dead.
Is it just me, or do others wonder why, first of all, if I were in defense of my life and I had a gun, would I take the time to stab someone instead of merely shooting them to eliminate the threat and then get myself to safety? Also, another question I have is this: Let’s assume, simply for the sake of argument, whether you believe so or not, that Jodi is telling the truth, that she did shoot first. The law is clear regarding self defense, that you can use deadly force only until such time as the imminent danger is over. I also brief Supreme Court cases for fun. The ME testified that the GSW to the face would be incapacitating, that Travis would not have been able to be a threat to her. Therefore, according to her own testimony, the threat would have been passed. By her own account that she shot him first, the following stab wounds and throat slashing would definitely not fall under the auspice or protection of legal self defense. Add to that the 9 or so stab wounds to the back (which would mean that Travis was turned AWAY from her), and I don’t see how her lawyers were even allowed to present self defense as a claim.
Wouldn’t it have been more effective to claim temp insanity? Instead of the woman who did not live with him and was, therefore, not trapped by him, the woman who could have just refused to make the drive to see him, the woman who could have simply changed her number, email address and cut off contact, refused to have sex with him, etc. saying that she was “abused,” why not just say, “I just snapped. He treated me like a whore, a dog, like someone beneath him for so long that when he humiliated me this last time by having sex with me and then telling me he was taking some other woman to Mexico, relegating me back to my sex object whore status, I just snapped.” I might have even been able to swallow that…at least much better than I could ever swallow self defense. I’m not saying that if she had claimed temp insanity I would have necessarily believed her or even given her a pass, but at least that wouldn’t be such a ludicrous claim as is what she says now. It also bothers me that her claims of abuse are just the type to make it more difficult for the women who really are faced with life-and-death abuse. Those women really do have a legitimate case, and Jodi is making a mockery of a tragic, pathetic and dangerous situation for her own gain. That’s ridiculous and should definitely NOT be rewarded.
If I were a juror, I would still be wondering about the order of wounds inflicted on Travis. I suppose that ultimately it would not affect my verdict, but it would be nice to have a clear understanding.
What do y’all think?