Saturday, June 28, 2014

The Herr Speights Sinus Theory Debunked

" The most difficult student to educate is the one who is not willing to admit their ignorance" - anonymous

"Herr" Speights is the pen name of a man who has made the libelous claim that Dr. Horn lied on the stand.  He attempted to uphold this claim based on incorrect medical statements.   Some of Speights's claims are similar to ones that other Jodi supporters use due to the result of not understanding medical standards, anatomy, and language.   This post will review Speights's claims and demonstrate why they just are not true.


The bloody ear is what some call the strongest piece of evidence Travis was shot in the head while alive. However, that claim is the easiest to debunk.

Richard Speights has surmised  the blood in the ear came from the gunshot wound.  There are multiple factors that indicate it is unlikely the wound resulted in the fluid noted in the ear canal in the picture.
The wound track does not intersect with the ear canal. 
There was no basilar skull fracture involving the ear canal.
The decibel lever of a .25 caliber handgun is unlikely to produce enough force to blow an eardrum.
Not enough time passed to result in an increase in intracranial pressure,  a major cause of ear  bleeding in head wounds.

A frontal lobe gunshot wound from a .25-caliber handgun could not be the source of this blood in the ear in such a short time.  To fully understand why,  we first have to understand the structure of the ear and the ear canal.   The tympanic membrane, AKA the eardrum,  separates the outer ear and the inner ear.   The ear drum seals the ear canal and prevents anything from passing freely from one side to the other.  In order for any bleeding within the nasal passage to pass to the ear,  this membrane would have first had to be ruptured.
"Blood is thicker than water"  -- this diagram shows how an intact ear drum prevents the flow of water


A ruptured eardrum is the number one cause of ear bleeding.   "A tear in the eardrum is one of the most common causes of bleeding from the ear"

So,  what could rupture the ear drum?  A loud noise can rupture the ear drum,  but it takes a sound intensity of 160 decibels to cause a rupture.  A .25-caliber hand gun only produces 155 decibels of noise.  The enclosed space may have heightened the decibels,  but distance has to be considered as well.   When shot, Travis would have been at a distance greater than 30 inches from the gun in order to have a lack of stippling. This distance would have dropped the decibel level associated with the gunshot down to 147dB. The effect of the enclosed space would raise this some,  but not beyond that of 155 dB, thus not loud enough to burst his ear drum.

We also have to consider that in order to fit Jodi's version of the shooting, she would have had to be closer to the gun then Travis. Otherwise,  he would have been in the closet when shot to put greater than 5 feet in between them.  Even though Alyce LaViolette testified  Jodi said she and Travis were both in the closet when she pulled the trigger, we know that this cannot be true. There was a lack of blood in the closet.  The needed positioning puts Jodi within the area of one foot from the muzzle of the gun which means the decibel level reaching her ears from the gunshot would be higher,  about 154 dB.  Thus,  if the gunshot burst Travis's ear drum, it would have burst one, if not both of Jodi's ear drums.  Something of the sort would have been noticed by Ryan when she arrived as she would not have been able  to hear.  In addition,  she would not have been able to listen to her voice mail on Travis's phone when she was trying to  get her after killing alibi message "just right".

Even with a perforated ear drum,  there are other anatomical facts that  make it very unlikely the blood in the ear traveled there via means of the sinuses. Further study of the anatomy of the ear and the associated structures will show this.

On the inside of the eardrum after passing through the external ear canal we find the three small bones of the ear and the internal auditory canal,  or Eustachian tube.  The Eustachian tube is about a 1.5 inch enclosed tunnel of one opening that starts at the eardrum and leads to the nasal pharynx.  There are no other passages intersecting with it.  The Eustachian tube is only about 3 mm in diameter,  or 0.1 inches (less than 1/10th of an inch).   This tube opens into the nasal passageway at a downward angle from above

The nature of physics states that a fluid will flow via the path of least resistance and with gravity. This fact means that if Travis were bleeding from the nose,  the blood would have flowed by gravity down the larger lumen of the esophagus or through the larger diameter nostrils.  However,  due to the size of the Eustachian tube and given the viscosity (thickness) of blood,  this would be true if he were on his back as well.  Blood would have pooled in the back of his mouth eliciting a cough. Next, the blood would have been expelled through the larger orifice of the nose, mouth, or simply just ran down the back of his throat.  I mean seriously,  think about it....   Have you ever choked on milk or other fluid lying on your back?   Did it come out your ears?

Speights and others like him are under the false belief that ALL head wounds cause immediate ear bleeding; It is not true.  In most cases,  associated ear bleeding r/t to closed head wounds is not an immediate symptom.  It occurs much later, and it is caused by increased intracranial pressure (ICP) related to the build up of fluid and associated edema WITHIN the skull (the area where the brain resides). There are other symptoms that occur  prior to the symptom of blood coming from the ears r/t an increased ICP.  Among these signs would be a headache,  nausea with vomiting  and a decreased level of consciousness.   Travis was not alive long enough after he was shot to have his ICP increase enough from the gunshot wound to result in the ear bleeding.  I am not sure of the exact mechanism of how increased ICP causes the ears to bleed,  but I believe it has to do with the pressure causing internal hemorrhages in the auditory canal and thus bleeding.  Nonetheless,  any ear bleeding associated with head trauma would indicate a definite damage to brain tissue.  So,  by insisting that this ear-bleeding must have come from a gunshot wound to his head is equivalent to saying that he suffered severe damage to his brain that would have incapacitated him.      Ear bleeding following a tympanic membrane rupture after a blow to the head is also related to a severe head injury.  Thus,  if the impact to the head via the gunshot caused the eardrum to blow,  Travis would have been pretty much incapacitated, making Jodi's story BS.  

For those cases that result in immediate ear bleeding following a skull fracture,  it is the result of a temporal basilar skull fracture from severe head trauma.  Such an injury is considered an immediately incapacitating injury.  A high intensity frontal impact can result in a temporal basilar skull fracture and associated ear bleeding. However, according to the autopsy,  Travis did not have a  a temporal basilar skull fracture.

HOW did this blood get in the ear?  One likely reason would be ear purge.  Even with an intact eardrum the process of putrefaction (breakdown of tissues)  can result in purge via the ears as tissues break down and start to ooze fluid.  The gasses forming within Travis's cranial vault from five days of decomposing tissues raises  ICP.  This process can result in the same effect of pushing fluids out an ear, especially when that ear is facing down.   

"Purge can occur at any point in the body where an orifice exists—mouth, nose, ears, urethra, rectum or an artificial orifice such as a wound. "  (that is why we see the side ways drainage from his abdomen wounds) " Purge can be due to a number of factors, including hemorrhage, gas pressure or both, or excessive embalming pressure with unregulated rate of flow."
"Ear purge is usually hemorrhagic in nature, or caused by putrefaction, both of which create intracranial pressure"   

reference :

"The 26 stages of death"   ref:
  • After 3 days:21} The gases in the body tissues form large blisters on the skin
    22} The whole body begins to bloat and swell grotesquely. This process is speeded up if victim is in a hot environment, or in water
    23} Fluids leak from the mouth, nose, eyes, ears and rectum and urinary opening"
Travis' body sat decaying in the same position for five days were Jodi left his corpse with his right ear facing down.  Gravity would have caused any fluids r/t the putrefaction  process to have seeped out of it.

Other possibilities exist for how this fluid got in the ear exist such as an external source. It was a bloody crime scene, and we  do not know all the positions  he was in when he was on the floor next to the tub or at the end of the hall. He had multiple wounds to the head. Bleeding from these wounds could have settled in the crevices of the ear.  Since his right ear canal was facing downwards when Jodi washed his body (discussion later),   any fluid in the crevice would have remained.  

The fact is, the ME had the benefit of a direct examination of the body at the time of the autopsy.  If the ear were believed to be bleeding from an inflicted injury,  this would have been further examined and noted. There would not have been any reason to not to do it in order  to "frame" Arias  because Arias was not in custody at the time of the autopsy.   The actual physical exam of the ear blood  provided so much more detail than just  a look at one picture via the internet.  One photograph of a body in the state of decay is not sufficient evidence to use to come to the conclusion dark fluid in the ear got there from a gunshot wound.  A person who asserts they can make the conclusion is demonstrating their confirmation basis.

The bullet did rupture his eardrum (probably due to air pressure caused by the passage of the bullet through his nasal cavity - we can't tell for sure but that's most likely""  

Such a claim warrants taking a closer look at the function and purpose of the Eustachian tube. The Eustachian tube is the only way this "air pressure" could have reached the inner ear canal from any change of pressure within the sinuses (which we will also discuss).
The main purpose of this tube is to maintain an equal pressure within the middle ear and the outside atmosphere.   The 1/10th inch tiny little Eustachian tube is usually closed. It can be opened slightly to allow a tiny bit of  air from inside to enter the middle ear to prevent damage if the outside atmospheric pressure is too high.    This process can be done manually such as chewing gum on an airplane.  The higher cabin pressure  causes higher pressure on the outer surface of the eardrum and reduces hearing.  The act of chewing gum will temporarily open up the tiny little Eustachian tube that in turn allows  just enough air into the inner ear to equalize the pressure on both sides.

Now,  let's examine James Dean's claim. 

For the changes in "air pressure"  as described by Dean to have occurred it would have had to travel through the Eustachian tube - which it would not have done given the anatomy of the nasal passageway,  the nature of the way energy travels,  and the features of each orifice.

The anatomy of the nasal passageway shows multiple directions of travel

The diameter of the Eustachian tube is 3mm.   The 1/3 of this 1.5-inch long tube next to the middle ear is made up of bone; thus it does not expand (this can be seen in picture one at the tip of the blue arrow).   
The diameter of the human nostril varies around 8 mm.  The human nostril is smaller than the nasal passage but is made up of stretchable cartilage.  The passage way from the oral cavity to the throat is made up of soft, moist expandable tissue as well and much larger than the opening of the Eustachian tube in the nasal passage.  The oral cavity and mouth are quite flexible and can expand to a size much larger than that of the Eustachian tube.  

The law of energy is that it takes the path of least resistance.  Changes in air pressure related to "force" is energy.  Which way is it going to travel: 
Out the large areas of the open nostrils with the flexible walls? Down the large opening of the back of nasal pharynx with the soft moveable walls, into the mouth to the outside?   
Through a closed tube, that at it's largest can only expand to 3mm,  1/10th of an inch,  working AGAINST the energy of the pressure on the other side of that tube

"we can't tell for sure, but that's most likely""   ---Get real,  Dean,  get real.   What's most likely is  the blood in the ear is not a result from a rupture related to changes in "air pressure.


Richard Speights referred to multiple excerpts from the autopsy report and used them to support his claim  there was not any brain involvement in the gunshot wound.  So, what he wants people to believe is the gunshot wound affected the brain enough to make the ear bleed, but it did not affect the brain tissue at all.

A healthy brain is not a very solid structure.  It has the consistency of tofu, similar to that of ballistics gel.

To get a better understanding,  please watch this video:  Warning, contains graphic scenes.

Note, it only took a short time of pressure from the doctor's hand to cause an indentation in the tissue of the brain. The brain in the video is a recently removed specimen that was cushioned by cerebral spinal fluid.  The delicate tissue structure of the brain makes it very prone to injury.  It's the reason nature has housed the brain in a vault surrounding by bone called the skull. Due to its delicate nature,  brain tissue tends to decay and break down very quickly once it is no longer feed by oxygen and glucose.   Add pressure and bacteria,  and the decay process is even faster.

When Jodi shot Travis in the head,  she opened his normally sterile brain up to bacteria. The bacteria fed on the nutritious tissue and sped up the decomposition process.  The hole in the base of his skull served to drain out the cerebral spinal fluid that normally would cushion the brain from the pressure of the skull. Without the CSF, the direct pressure of the hard bone on the brain would speed up the decomposition process even more.  This process went on for 5 days.  At the end of 5 days of pressure,  bacteria, and decay what was left was a slimy mush held together by the shape of the skull.  It was able to be scooped out in one piece and placed on the scale for examination.  However, once the supporting walls of the skull were removed, the brain would have slowly oozed to fit the shape of the scale, just like a pudding removed from the can and placed in a bowl.    

To understand what this brain would have been like, imagine a pile of thick mud mounded in a bowl.  Poke a  straight stick through the top of that thick mud on the right and pull it out a little lower to the left.   One can see the pathway of the stick without a problem (IE the bullet pathway in a fresh brain).   Now,  pour lots of water on this pile of thick mud and watch it melt into the bowl ( the decay/ autolysis process of the decaying brain).   Once the thick mud hits the consistency of a moist slimy pudding, let it sit for a bit. What happened to your "bullet track"? The 'slimy pudding' (autolyzed brain) collapsed in on itself, and the walls 'melted' together. 

The track the stick made is no longer there because the slimy pudding type mud no longer has the density to maintain the walls of the track. However,  just because it's not there after the process, doesn't mean it was not there prior to the water (decay) process.  This "moist pudding"  can be taken out of the bowl (skull) and moved to another bowl (scale).   One can even take a knife to cut off pieces of this moist pudding mud (serial sections of autolyzed brain) to inspect.  However,  a detailed inspection cannot be conducted because the mud (tissue) squishes together under the pressure of the knife.  Only a general view of can be conducted (grossly apparent).  Remove the moist, slimy mud and place it on a flat surface (autopsy table), and it will ooze all over the place. 

At this point in the 'exam',  even if one knows the pathway for the stick was once there,  they cannot state that they see it during the exam.  The only way to determine where the stick pathway was is if there were landmarks to identify it: IE the hole entry point,  a point midway, and the exit point.  This process is what it would have been like to study a brain that has turned to a pudding type liquid. Wet mud isn't going to behave in the  same manner as a decaying brain,  but the image was used to give the general idea.

Throughout his article, Speights refused to acknowledge the brain was not in an appropriate condition for a detailed examination due to the autolysis process.  Serial sections of autolyzed brain could be taken and placed on a slide,  but it would be a slide of showing the tissues mushed together.  When Speights posted the information he claimed supported his analysis,  he intentionally left out the portion of the autopsy which explained why a detailed examination was not possible.

From Speights' article: "without gross evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage or apparent cerebral injury."    
The autopsy statement: " "without gross evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage or apparent cerebral injury although examination of brain tissue is somewhat limited by the decomposed nature of the remains." 

The statement he chose to exclude described the condition of the  brain; it was mushy slimy pudding (a liquid in the medical community), and thus only a gross examination could be completed.  A 'gross examination" is  the visualization of  the brain for the overall shape, size,  and any evidence of injury seen by the naked eye that had not been affected by the decomposition process.  An injury affected by decomposition includes a bullet track.  The brain tissue had sunk in on itself because of the decomposition process, and the track would no longer be determinable.   

Many of Speights' concerns  about the autopsy can be answered "decomposition."  And, the statement indicating decomposition was what he left out his analysis:

  • " without gross evidence of significant intracranial hemorrhage or apparent cerebral injury…” DECOMPOSITION
  • " Multiple serial sections of the autolyzed brain do not reveal the presence of grossly apparent trauma, foreign bodies, or previously existing natural disease…” (Autopsy Report, Page 7 of 8)"  - DECOMPOSITION
  • " there is good preservation of cerebral symmetry "  DECOMPOSITION   

Speights alleged that if the bullet hit the brain  the hemispheres would be asymmetrical.  However, his assertion details his overall lack of knowledge of medical terminology used in the autopsy involving a decomposed brain.

When assessing the decayed brain,  symmetry is in relation to the general size and shapes of the hemispheres.  The brain is too decomposed to study it in detail.  And, the hemispheres of Travis' brain would have been symmetrical in shape and size whether the bullet passed through brain tissue or not.  There was not enough time from injury to death to cause enough pressure to result in hemispheral atrophy from an old injury.  An asymmetrical brain is the result of continued pressure on one of the hemispheres related to tumors, bleeding, or any other process that changes the shape of one hemisphere over a period of time.

An asymmetrical  brain: the hemispheres are different sizes.

Speights was mistaken  when  he claimed "symmetrical" meant "same" on both sides.  He described the brain as "mirror images" of each other.  The hemispheres of a normal adult brain is similar in shape in size (symmetrical) but it far from an exact mirror image of both sides.


 Speights  ignored or maybe  did not understand that words used in the general population take on a different meaning when used by medical professionals.  In fact,  entire college classes are provided to assist with the understanding of medical terminology.

  The term "Grossly apparent"  is NOT equivalent to "NOT THERE"  as Speights alluded.  The term grossly apparent in medical terminology simply means that it was or was not easily visualized; which would be the case for examining a brain that is a mushy mess and has  collapsed in on itself. Dr. Horn could only report what was visible in regards to the brain tissue, and an injury cannot be ruled or ruled out when examining brain tissue that is mush.  It was why he did not say there was an injury, even though the trajectory shows brain tissue lie in the path of the trajectory.  He also did not say an injury was NOT there; he  simply said  nothing was readily visible.  So why does Speights continue to interchange apparent with definite? 

Whether the reason is the purposeful act of ignoring a fact or a  lack of medical understanding,  one has to ask themselves if the analysis made by Speights is one that can be trusted as accurate?


Speights argued that Dr. Horn was crooked.   He stated:
"Overwhelming evidence suggests in the strongest possible terms, Dr. Kevin Horn, Medical Examiner of Maricopa County, did not tell the whole truth during his testimony in the trial of Jodi Arias. He apparently perjured himself both times he took the witness stand in the Jodi Arias trial. "   

 Speights allegation was based on his confirmation bias.  In order to reach his conclusion, he decided to leave out key evidence,  ignore the facts,  and there are even signs of  a possible manipulation of photos (discussed later).  He has little factual evidence to offer, yet he continued to attack  a man who, to the best of his knowledge,  gave his professional opinion.   An opinion that the defense team could not find even one medical doctor to disprove.  

Yes,  it's always possible for a witness to be wrong but when one makes such a damaging claim against a man without sharing all the evidence,  it appears to be for a nefarious reason.   Again,  the question is - DO WE TRUST THE ANALYSIS OF SOMEONE WHO DOES THIS?  Maybe Dr. Horn should be prepared to get the keys to a new house as such unfounded claims can cause damage to professional reputation and often makes them susceptible to receiving reparations from the wrongdoer. 


Speights used the old "would've could've scenario" in his allegation Horn  lied about the dura mater.  He claimed if the dura mater were  torn,  Horn would have stated the location of the rupture, the size, and the nature (laceration, puncture, jagged, etc.)    

 There may be some ME's and autopsies that include this,  but it is an unnecessary act that provides no evidence of  value,  only just extra work.  The Dura is attached to the skull, and if the dura is perforated at the level of the skull,  there is  no need to describe the dura unless the bullet traveled under it.  If the pathway of the bullet was under the dura,  evidence such as dural hemorrhages and skull sweeps wold be present and noticeable.  Neither were noted on Travis' autopsy report.

Describing a dural tear provides no evidentiary value.  The value is found in describing the entry point on the skin because it helps to determine range.   I have not found one autopsy report for a gunshot wound to the head as of yet which  describes the dural perforation other than if it was or was not perforated.  HOWEVER,  IF ANY OF YOU OUT THERE HAVE ONE,  I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT.

The fact about autopsy reports as with most medical charting  is that different templates and methods are used in different ME's offices.     They all have different methods of recording and charting.   However,  even with that fact I have yet to see a dural perforation explained in detail as Speights asserted was normal procedure. 


Speights implied the ME purposely lied about the gunshot immediately incapacitating Travis.  He stated,  

" There are simply too many examples of people remaining conscious and fully functioning after a bullet has entered and or passed through the brain."    

Many Jodi supporters use the same allegation,  but I have yet to see "many examples" of these super-human beings.  Often the response is "the defense doesn't have to provide evidence."  Right,  but it doesn't mean their testimony is immediately believed.    The only time the defendant's testimony  is immediately accepted as true is at the start of the trial.  The jury approaches the case with the belief of "guilty until proven innocent."  Once the trial begins,  the defendant's testimony is equal to other witness's testimony and will be judged for credibility.  If the defense is going to make an allegation  something is what it is not, they better damn well provide evidence to back up their claim.  

The same thing holds true in exerting an argument.  If Speights and other Jodi supporters want other to believe the gunshot would not have immediately incapacitated Travis,  they need to provide evidence as to why.  However,  they have not.  They have offered nothing to strengthen their statement.  Where are the links to these 
"many examples"?

I  searched for those "many examples."  I found few. However,  I did find a paper that explains why those "many examples"  Speights alleged exist are not reliable.

There are many significant differences between the gunshot in Travis' situation and those "many examples." 

First, some of the 'examples' had to be removed from the group because they were not clear as to the functional capability of the gunshot victim:
"A large number of case reports had to be excluded from re-examination because of doubtful capability to act or lack of morphological documentation."

Second,  many of the examples involved the use of  slow firing and lightweight bullets,  such as the .22 rimfire.
"more than 70% of the guns used fired slow and lightweight bullets: 6.35 mm Browning, .22 rimfire or extremely ineffective projectiles (ancient, inappropriate or selfmade)."

In some of the cases, special circumstances existed.
"A coincidence of several lucky circumstances made sustained capability to act possible in two cases of military centrefire rifle bullets passing longitudinally between the frontal lobes without direct contact with brain tissue. "

The conclusion of the paper was that the capability to function after a gunshot wound to the brain was extremely rare:
 "It is suggested that these findings are at least very rare and not obvious in cases of sustained capability to act."

I decided to approach a neurosurgeon and ask him about the gunshot wound and the incapacitating effects.  He identified the .22 as a weak caliber weapon (as suggested by the journal paper),  and indicated that even it often results in incapacitation when it struck   brain tissue.  It has to do with the "Shockwave"  effect of projectiles.

Dr. Horn's  professional opinion was due to the shockwave effect of the bullet;  He believed Travis Alexander would have immediately been incapacitated when the bullet struck his brain.   If Travis was sitting in the shower when shot,  the incapacitation effects might not have been apparent.    

If Travis were sitting,  the loss of muscle control related to the shockwave would not have been readily noticed.  However,  if he were standing when shot, it would have.  He would have fallen where he stood and not been able to retain normal function for a period.  He would not have continued to lunge,  said "fucking kill you bitch", and attempted to climb on top of Jodi Arias.

As stated before, the brain has a soft consistency;  it is like ballistic gel. The shock wave effect of a .25 bullet would be similar as to a .25 bullet passing through ballistics gel.  In the following video,  please note how much the ballistics gel shakes after a .25 bullet passes through it.

Note, due to the bullet size,  the trajectory was not noticeable in part of the gel. Now ask yourself why it wasn't noticeable in a 5-day decomposed brain.

Note,  the shock wave moved the ballistics gel out further past it's original resting place. It represents the energy moving out.  The skull would have held in that energy.

Note the stretch cavity.  It represents what the bullet would have done once it started to slow down and tumble in Travis' brain.  The portion of the brain where it tumbled was the part of the decomposing brain that was resting on the skull.  Because of the hole,  there was not any cerebral spinal fluid to keep it cushioned.  The stretch cavity caused by the tumbling bullet would no longer be able to be seen because of the pressure breakdown caused by 5-days of decay.  

Please take notice of the comment section under the video.  It seems like Speights twisted the truth and claimed I stated that the bullet would have acted the same in anywhere in the human body.  Apparently, there is a reading comprehension problem there because the statement was the brain had a similar consistency.  The purpose of the video is to provide a visible example of how the shock wave would have resounded throughout the brain.  Most people have the capacity to understand it was used as a substitute example.

Ballistics gel does not have the exact consistency of the human brain,  but it has a similar one.  The following video includes an inspection of a recently removed brain.  Please note how it only took a short time of pressure from the doctors hand to leave an impression.

Warning: Graphic content.
"It's very very soft."

The shock wave effect of a .25 bullet passing through a "very very soft" brain would be similar to the effect demonstrated in the ballistics gel.  The difference is the energy from the shock wave would be contained within the hard shell of the skull.  It would have resounded back and forth until the energy was spent.  It is why the ME concluded Travis would have been immediately incapacitated when the bullet passed through brain tissue;  it had nothing to do with the ME being dishonest. 

It was his professional opinion that he stood by,  not some symbiotic relationship with the prosecutor to make sure some unknown woman would get the death penalty for the murder of some unknown man.  It's an unfounded allegation for anyone to make a claim of perjury. 

Speights says, "it is, though, atypical for a .25 caliber bullet shot at distance to penetrate the thick skull bone of the human forehead, especially when the bullet strikes the skull at such a dramatic angle. A 35 to 50-grain bullet simply does not carry enough kinetic energy to do so. More often then one might think, a .25 caliber bullet will deflect off the skull bone and become trapped between the skull and the scalp."
 HOWEVER,   facts and physics say differently.   According to the video above,  the mean velocity of the .25-auto shot was 647f/s.   This is equivalent to 441 MPH.   The impact energy is shown as 41-foot/ lbs.  To only fracture a skull,  it only takes 33-ft lbs of blunt force spread over a large area.   When all that energy is compressed,  i.e. a bullet, and directed at one area,   it takes much less - I have read about 16-ft/ lbs.   Speights's  claim that the bullet passed through the hardest bone of the facial skeleton debunks his theory that the bone could not have passed through the weaker area that it impacted.  His theory really makes no sense when viewed a whole. 

Speights talks about "shot at a distance" in his tests,  but does not give what that distance was.  However,  as you can see via the video,  the bullet that was shot into the ballistics gel was shot at a distance similar to the one that Travis would have had to be at via evidence and using Arias's description. Thus,  by the measurements shown in the video,  it is not only possible but highly likely that the bullet passed through the skull at the point of entry as measured.  Evidence has been previously presented to Speights about his entry area being the hardest in the facial skeleton.  This indicates he is well aware that the bullet could have passed through the bone at the area as indicated by the autopsy measurements  because it is weaker at that point than his proposed entry point.  However, he continues to claim that it is because it is "thinner" it means it had less to move through indicating it would pass more readily. Density plays a big role in the passage of objects.  Consider that the next time you try to hammer a nail through a one-inch block of steel as compared to a two- inch block of wood. 

Speights has described the slight curve of the human forehead as a "dramatic" angle.  He is referring to the fact that the human forehead curved, not flat.  However, that curve is not dramatic. 

 As you will see in the next section,  the slight forehead curve shows that there just is not any way that the bullet could have followed the pathway Speights theorized it did.   In order to follow that pathway, both measurements and the nature of physics have to be manipulated.


Critics such as Speights like to give the impression that it was just a "guess"  via the ME that the bullet passed through brain tissue.  Speights states, "To claim the bullet “must have” passed through the brain ignores all his reported empirical evidence. To make an emphatic statement without supporting data is to step beyond scientific methodology into the realm of speculation and opinion."  

 However,  this is just another incident among many in which Speights has "lied by omission" (per Speights's definition) by not sharing the full details including the fact that measurements were taken by the doctor.    The empirical evidence gained via those measurements supports Horn's claims STRONGLY in regards to the pathway of the bullet and makes Speights's pathway not possible.  

The ME used specific measurements of the ENTRY wound -- 1.5 inches to the right of  facial mid line/3 inches inferior to the crown of the head.  The ME used specific measurements for the resting point of the bullet - 4.5 inches to the left of anterior facial midline and 6 inches inferior to the crown of the head.  (Speights possibly may have  fudged the numbers with the resting spot to MAKE his trajectory work and that will be discussed soon under "Mistaked or Faked".

Dr. Horn used the measurement from point A (the entry), connected to point B (the hole in the base of the skull),  and ended at point C (the resting point of the bullet).  This pathway passes through the area in which the brain would rest in the skull base so thus,  the bullet must have passed through brain tissue just as Dr. Horn claimed.   As the brain was NOT viable for any type of detailed examination at all,  there is not one thing within the autopsy to support that the bullet did not. The poor state of the brain makes it necessary to depend on the trajectory of the bullet in order to determine which tissues and organs were hit.

While discussing the trajectory,  a photo of the large hole in the base of Travis's skull was on the overhead for the jury to see.  Horn noted that the entire cribriform plate was gone, causing a hole in the skull base.  However,  Speights has come up with his own 'version' of how the hole in the base of the skull occurred and his own 'version' of the pathway; A pathway which is NOT based on measurements.   


The fallacy of the XRAY Bullet Fragment

Richard Speights starts to explain his pathway with an unsupported claim: "The x-ray of Alexander’s skull shows a bullet fragment in the sinus cavity not far from the bullet wound in the scalp (see x-ray photos A and F). Bullet fragments are indicators of the true path of the bullet."    The x-ray that Speights is referring to is a POOR QUALITY copy of the original film in which one cannot even see the entire outline of the skull:

Any TRUE radiologist worth their salt would never come to a conclusion based on using only a poor quality copy of an x-ray --  if they do,  they should loose their board certification in the field.    The only way to term this a bullet fragment using this x-ray would be to do a physical exam and pull the bullet fragment out of the tissue.  Speights has used the location of the area of higher attenuation as seen in the forehead of the x-ray because it helps his bullet pathway to work.  However,  the problem is that even if it was a bullet fragment -- it does not tell one the location on the forehead.  The bullet's resting place can be seen along the jaw --  but that is on the opposite side of the jaw from the lateral view of the x-ray.

I believe that even Speights is aware of how poor quality this x-ray is.   If not,  why would he have enhanced  it on his website and brightened the entire x-ray up? Yes, he changed and manipulated photographic evidence to make his claim more believable.  And, it is not the only time.   In doing so,  the area on the forehead becomes much much brighter and is very misleading as to what it is.  Someone should really consider that any time they have to change the evidence to make it fit their conclusion  that the conclusion is flawed.

The fallacy of the sinus path

Speights states, "Since Dr. Horn found an apparent bullet entry hole in Alexander’s forehead, and an apparent exit hole near the base of the skull, but no apparent damage to the brain, there is only one explanation to answer what had happened."  

 The fact that he stated 'apparent' when describing damage leads me to believe that he does indeed know what the term refers to, and he is purposely trying to mislead others who may not.  He plays on the words describing a definite hole in the base of the skull as apparent.   Is this an attempt to confuse the reader?  Ie give the impression that the word apparent is used in medical terminology to describe something that is a definite thus implying that no apparent damage is equivalent to no damage since the apparent hole in the skull base would be equivalent to a definite hole?   Or is it just his lack of understanding that in medical terminology apparent  is not interchangeable with definite.    Be it the former or the later,  would that be an opinion one can trust to be factual and non-biased?  

Speights continues his explanation of his theory of the pathway, "The bullet strikes Alexander’s forehead at the very edge of his superior right sinus cavity at a dramatic angle (see photos C and I). The bullet deflects and enters the sinus cavity through the thinner bone covering".  
There are a couple of issues with this claim.  One,  if a pointed projectile is traveling at 441 MPH and expelling 41-ft/ lbs of energy hit an area in which it would take around 16-ft/lbs of energy to fracture,  then except for a freak incident in nature,  there would be a fracture at the impact site if the bullet did not go through the bone.   The other issue is that the "thinner bone covering" Speights describes as being over the sinus cavity is the MOST DIFFICULT to break in the facial skeleton.
 "The frontal sinus is protected by thick cortical bone and is more resistant to fracture than any other facial bone"  reference site  

I. don't want to imply it cannot be fractured because the article does go on to read that when fractured, it is the result of a high-velocity injury.  The point is,  is that it is harder and thus if the bullet passes through the frontal sinus,  it can pass through the frontal bone not housing the sinus

 One can only logically conclude that if a bullet is still strong enough to pass through the thickest bone in the facial skeleton after initial impact elsewhere,  then that initial impact would have resulted in a fracture of the weaker bone hit with more energy. 

Thus,  there would be a fracture at the point of impact along with a hole in the bone of the frontal sinus.  However,  the autopsy report only indicates ONE hole in the forehead and not a hole and a fracture.   The presence of just one hole would have been backed up via the x-ray reports that the defense team had full access to.   

Now,  Speights can claim that his description of "thinner bone" is a fact since, indeed,   in width it is.  However,  can it still be considered to be misleading when a statement is stated in such a way that in its entirety gives a false impression?  - i.e., that the stronger bone of the frontal sinus would be more likely to allow the bullet to pass through than the weaker bone  of the area the bullet hit upon impact.   Nonetheless,  his pathway is still faced with the fact that there would be a fracture and a hole both at this point.

Moving on....  "It then comes into contact with the back wall of the sinus cavity and glances off, punching a hole. This does no damage to the dura mater."  -- Richard Speights
  The bullet was moving at the right-to-left-downward-and-in path.  It means that the hole it made going INTO the sinus would not be aligned with the "punching a hole"  in the back of the sinus wall.  Thus,  at this point we now have TWO holes in the forehead (one in the front wall of the sinus and one next to it in the back wall of the sinus) and one fracture as well if we follow the "logic" of Speight's theory.  And,  again,  the autopsy and x-ray reports only show the one hole in the forehead.    Anyhow,  at this point with "glancing off"   (deflecting) the posterior sinus wall,  the projectile is now moving in the right-to-left-downward-and-FORWARD direction....  uh oh.......

"The bullet then travels through the superior right sinus cavity into the nasal passages, where it strikes the perpendicular plate of ethmoid bone "  states Richard Speights.

Wait a minute,  I am confused.  I must have missed the part where his projectile glanced off again to cause it to go back into the facial skeleton where it could come in contact with the perpendicular plate of the ethmoid bone.   Anyhow,  here is a diagram from the top view of what is occurring as Speights described it.  

A view from the side

Speights continues his story, "This perpendicular plate is attached to the cribriform plate (see photos K and P). Striking the perpendicular plate, the impact shatters and tears away the cribriform plate, which leaves a large hole in the base of the skull."  

 In order to even have the possibility to cause such a thing to occur the bullet would have to strike RIGHT BELOW THE CRIBRIFORM PLATE when it hit midline, coming into contact with the base of the skull.  This strike would have had to be in an upward direction and bounced off.   But,  I did not show this on the diagram above.  I was nice because to do that it would mean that the bullet made an ever sharper turn than what is shown to reach the area.  It would have to look more like the yellow line:

Speights claims the perpendicular plate of the ethmoid bone tore away the cribriform plate.  For this to happen,  his claim has to contain the bullet striking the bone immediately under the cribriform plate at the junction of the two bones.  In return,  it would mean that the bullet which was heading forward had made a greater than 90-degree turn to take a detour back toward the face.

There are even more problems because at this point;  Speights has just debunked his own theory.  The  typo on the autopsy report reads "The dura mater AND the falx cerebri are intact."      The anatomy of the cribrifrom plate  makes this an impossibility if the plate is missing.   The superior portion of the cribriform plate is called the crista galli.  The top of the crista galli is attached to the falx cerebri.  Thus,  if a bullet rips away the cribriform plate, the falx cerebri is no longer intact.  This flaw in his theory has been presented to Speights.  Instead of recognizing it as a flaw,  in order to make his theory right,  he had changed the evidence.  His claim changed to the idea that it was just a portion of the cribriform plate that was ripped away. However,  the evidence just does not show that.  Dr.  Horn made the statement to imply that the entire cribriform plate was blown away while the picture of the base of Alexander's skull was on the overhead showing that the entire cribriform plate was missing.
The jury had access to this information, and the jury had an ER nurse on the panel.    The question of the typo only came up via a jury question and most likely it was her.  Nonetheless,  if someone is going to catch a typo,  he or she is going to notice a lie about the cribriform plate being missing if it is not when they are looking at the picture as the doctor said it.  

Speights's pathway involves the bullet passing from the frontal (he calls it superior) sinuses into the nasal passage.  The frontal sinuses are pretty much surrounded with bone with a small outlet drain.  Thus,  for the bullet to have move through the frontal (superior as Speights calls them)  to the nasal passages,  most likely we would see additional frontal sinus fractures.  Thus,  so far we would see on the x-ray and the autopsy report - a forehead fracture,  two holes in the frontal bone in the area of the frontal sinus, and a sinus fracture where the bullet came out of the frontal sinus to reach the nasal passageway.

After entering the nasal canal,  Speights claims the bullet struck the perpendicular plate of the ethmoid bone, and in result the cribriform plate was torn away forming a  hole in the base of the skull.  However, taking  a look at anatomical structures will tell us that just does not happen.   The perpendicular plate is a thin piece of bone and makes up a portion of the nasal septum:

The perpendicular plate is often involved in nasal fracture, and the nose is the MOST common bone in the body to be fractured.  Yet, there is no known case of a fracture of this bone just "pulling away the cribriform plate" to cause a large hole in the skull base. HOWEVER,  IF YOU KNOW OF ONE,  I WOULD LOVE TO READ UP ON IT.

 I have heard of fractures of the nasal septum expanding up into the skull base and resulting in a basilar skull fracture,  but to tear a huge chunk of it away?  No. 

 The incidences of nasal fractures give one an idea as to how weak this bone is.   Bone tends to break at the weakest point - which would be the perpendicular plate.   The perpendicular plate of the ethmoid bone in relation to the cribriform plate would be like a T that is thicker and harder on the horizontal line and thinner on the lateral line.   So,  if the bullet struck the perpendicular plate below the base of the skull that would mean the nasal septum would have fractured and that fracture could extend into the skull base but not break a huge chunk of it off. Or, it just would have shattered with no cribriform plate involvement. 

In order to have any chance of causing the hole in the base of the skull from underneath,  the bullet would have had to come in contact with  the bone at the underside of the cribriform plate which is the outer side of the skull base.   However,  in order to do so,  it would have had to make a sudden and drastic turn of slightly over 90 degrees to reach this area since the bullet would be heading AWAY from the body where it glanced off of the back of the rear wall of the sinus as described.  And,  then it would have to deflect up and glance off, heading back down to the resting spot of the bullet. 

No matter how his theory is presented,  it just does not workout.   In order to stay within the sinuses from where the bullet hit, it would have had to stay within the small area of the frontal bone as shown on the diagram.  The frontal sinuses do expand at the level of the gunshot injury -- but OUTWARDS,  not inwards. This expansion can be seen on the diagram of the skull above via the ridge protruding in between the eye sockets.   That means in order to stay within the sinuses from where it entered the bullet would have had to continue to move in a direction away from the body.  However,  to reach the skull base at the area of the cribriform plate,  it would have had to make a turn and head back towards the body --  this causes a zigzag path.   And as Speights  has alluded to,  a zigzag path just doesn't make sense.

 At this point,  according to Speights's theory we would have ONE impact skull fracture,  TWO holes in the frontal bone,  an additional sinus fracture, one shattered perpendicular plate,  and one hole in the base of the skull where the cribriform plate was missing.

 "After striking the perpendicular plate of the ethmoid bone, the bullet travels into and through the inferior left sinus cavity. The bullet then breaks out the far side and comes to rest in the soft tissue under the left cheek" - Richard Speights.

This "inferior left sinus cavity" is AKA the maxillary sinus and is ALSO surrounded by bone with one outlet drain.  So,  that means there must be yet another hole not mentioned in the autopsy report or seen on x-ray. A hole at the level of the maxillary sinuses.   

In conclusion,   for Speights's theory to be correct,  we would have:
One skull fracture at the impact point.
TWO separate holes in the frontal bone (one in the front sinus wall next to one in the rear sinus wall).
An additional frontal sinus fracture.
A shattered perpendicular plate.
A hole in the base of the skull with a missing cribriform plate.

A fracture of the maxillary sinus where the projectile entered.
One hole in the cheekbone / maxillary sinus area where the projectile exited.  

That is a lot of extra injuries that were not on either the autopsy report or the x-ray.     Even though we have not seen the actual films,  the defense team did.  If there were more injuries than noted, the defense would have been brought up at trial. After all,  everyone understands this is a capital case,  right Wilmott?    


Speights stated that the ME's claim if the lung was nicked it could have resulted in the blood in the sink was a big lie.  He supports this allegation of a lie with his analysis of the autopsy report and talks about autolysis.

"If the lungs had been too autolyzed to precisely tell if one had been punctured during the stabbing, they would be too autolyzed to note induration (hardening), consolidation (filled with liquid), hemorrhage, or gross scarring. If the lungs had been to autolyzed to note these things, he would have said so in his autopsy report." 

WOW...  just wow.   This 'analysis'  of his shows that Speights does,  indeed understand a bit about what  autolysis means.  Thus,  the only thing that can be concluded when he purposely leaves out the fact the brain was decomposed and continues to claim  the autopsy report indicates an undamaged brain is that he purposely omitted evidence.  And, it was Speights who called this kind of behavior a "lie by omission."  It seems that he KNOWS that the ME had inferred  that the brain was too autolyzed for a detailed examination.  This is supported by the fact that earlier in his report  Speights omitted the ME's statement about decay.   So,  I once again ask how can anybody trust Speights's  assertions to be fact if it appears  he takes on such practices?   It's a definite sign of his confirmation bias.  

There is a difference between induration, consolidation, hemorrhage, and gross scarring when we talk about size.   When we have a situation of induration, consolidation, or hemorrhage in the lung,  it is over a large area and can be easily seen even in the lung that has undergone autolyzation.   However,  when a "nick" to the lung is being considered,  we are discussing a SMALL area that may or may not be apparent in the exam of autolyzed lungs.   It's really just common sense folks.   Think back to that mud pile example.  If I have a mud pile and I put a big hole in one side (induration, consolidation, hemorrhage) and a much smaller hole in the other (a nick)  and then pour the water over the mud pile (autolysis)    --  which one disappears first? 

Speights discusses  how "obvious" it would have been to see fluid oozing out a small nick if the plueral sac were nicked when that lung was removed.   We must understand the method of autopsy to understand if this is true. 
A Y incision is made. 
The internal organs are removed - usually all together but sometimes in a specific order.
The organs are then weighed and examined.. 
After the autopsy, everything is put back.

If the body has decomposed for a number of days,  this is a much more messy procedure.    The amount of fluids oozing from decayed tissues in relation to five-day decay process is quite copious in nature.  The result is an oozing from a nick might not be so obvious as Speights claims. 

To understand why the ME stated that the lung could have been nicked we have to look at internal chest anatomy:

the arrow points at the superior vena cava.   Somewhere along it,  it was nicked.

This is how the lungs sit in the chest -  the heart would be in the middle

I tried to be as close as possible,  but there may be an error so verify for yourself.   I hope to prepare a more accurate view soon using a better lung graphic.  However,  the one I did use is a picture of an anatomically correct model that to purchase the model costs $500, so I am guessing it's pretty anatomically accurate.  In comparing the deepest chest wound that did perforate the superior vena cava,  it is very understandable why Dr. Horn would believe that the lung was nicked:

The stab wound at that point extended 3.5 inches deep.  

Thus,  when considering all factors such as the effects of a .25-caliber bullet to the brain, decomposition state,  and wound location Dr. Horn came to his professional opinion that the lung was nicked thus that is where the bleeding may have originated.  Could he be wrong?  Possible, as there are a number of factors that could have caused the blood spray on the sink.   However,  that does not mean it is related to perjury.  The man used the evidence at hand and came to a conclusion to the best of his knowledge. 

There are other explanations for the blood at the sink that Speights has not shared.  The blood spatter expert testified that the blood could have gotten there via TWO means --  one was expired blood.  The other was in relation to an impact injury to an area of high vascularization such as the scalp.   

Overall, Speight's claim that the blood on the sink had to come from the gunshot wound is just incorrect and not factual.


Speights had made the bold claim that because Dr. Horn had not answered Juan's question about injury to the vena cava causing blood in the ear that it shows dishonest attempt. 
 Speights states,  "The blood in Alexander’s right ear seems the strongest evidence of perjury, subornation for perjury, and maybe even conspiracy to commit perjury.The moment Juan Martinez mentioned blood coming out of the ear, Dr. Horn should have clarified and revealed to the court the only wound capable of producing blood in Alexander’s right ear was the gunshot to the head. He did not."  
The reason behind Dr. Horn not "clarifying" is because Speights is dead wrong about the blood in the ear must have come from the gunshot wound for the reasons already discussed.  Furthermore,  the doctor was answering the questions per the best of his knowledge, and the doctor believed the gunshot wound was last.  This is not perjury as Speights alleges. 

FAKED OR MISTAKED? Let truth prevail

But first...  a little note about copyrights....

Speights has alleged that the pictures on his site are his own and made accusations towards others that they were breaking copyright laws for copying it. IE -- "****** used the above picture without my permission. I created this image on Photoshop, and I gave no one permission to use it." (quoted from Speights)   However,  copyright laws state something different: 

How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. See Circular 14Copyright Registration for Derivative Works.

The skulls on Speights's site are made the same stock photos found on multiple websites.   Search "sagittal section of skull" and you will find many.   Unless the original owner of that photo gave Speight's permission to call it his own,  Speights is in bigger violation of copyright infringement by claiming the work to be his own.   The accusation that Speights made of copyright infringement is thus not founded.  It was not his work because he changed it.  In addition,  the fair use act allowed the picture Speights presented to be used because it was used in conjunction with criticism.

Moving on......

I try to analyze all and take a pretty close look at the evidence when considering the validity of any claim.  Because of this I have noticed some practices of fudging the evidence to support a claim and have been gathering a collection together -- if I do collect enough I will be presenting it one day in a "not valid" article.

  I do believe in giving the benefit of the doubt and hope others will do the same. Thus, I choose to present the evidence and let the individual decide -- was it a mistake or was it faked?

In reviewing Speights's  'evidence' via the photos he created and put up,  something never quite sat right with me in regards to the placement of the bullet resting place in the lower cheek/ jaw area.  He has it resting between the 2 and 3rd tooth from the back in his demonstration,  but from the ACTUAL measurements,  this is just too far forward.  In reality,  he needed to go back just ONE tooth. 
 One would think that the difference of one tooth would not make much of a difference,  but it does when considering his demonstration of the wound track on PHOTO I. 

 Close inspection shows that his wound track puts his bullet trajectory on the INSIDE of the cranial vault.  But, this is done to compensate for the curvature of the skull - hence indicating that the track starts a little bit further to the right of midline.  But, if one examines the frontal view as to where he has placed the bullet trajectory,  he STILL did not go in far enough to compensate. 

 If we take the REAL resting spot of the bullet using the measurements,  Speights's trajectory will enter the brain pan even with using his misplaced bullet on the forehead.   Even though they are poor quality for diagnoses,  the lateral head x-ray supports the placement of the bullet further back in the jaw. However, using the measurements from the autopsy is the most accurate method.
Speights had admitted to needing to manipulate and change the artist version of the skull in order to make it match the x-ray version.  He stated that he had to stretch it out because the rendition was that of a perfect skull.  However,  he failed to understand that in doing so,  he made his "model" ineffective to be used as evidence.  Stretching out that model rendition does not take in account for the structure of the jaw -- it only makes the teeth wider.   Using measurements from the autopsy is the most accurate way to recreate the trajectory.   And,  this will show the bullet to have passed within the brain vault.
An example of Speights's flawed method: 

If you look close,  you can see that the top skull is not aligned with the bottom skull.  The bottom skull sits back further on the page than the top.  Due to the faintness of the x-ray,  you have to take a close up look on Paint to see this.  The purplish line is the lateral placement to depict where Speights placed his bullet in the jaw line. As you can see, the top and the lower picture match via the purple straight line.  However, the bottom skull is not in alignment with the top which means the bullet is not in the correct spot on his model.  The fact that the skulls could not be lined up should be the first clue to anyone that Speights's method of determining trajectory is very flawed, or the autopsy numbers were fudged and ignored.

I have included the steps for you to verify this yourself:    
Step one - find your snip tool - if you already know how,  great,  if not  just type "Snip" in the search engine of your start up menu.
Step two-  Go to Speights's page and snip away photo H and I within the same snip.
Step three -  hit the "copy" button on the top of the snip page that comes up. On my menu,  it looks like two pages of paper.
Step four - Go to your paint,  and hit "paste" - not paste from,  just paste. Enlarge the size using the resize tool to a size where you can see the majority of the picture - it's OK to cut off the very bottom or top.
Step five --   using the line tool draw a straight line from the front of the teeth on Travis's x-ray down ----  SEE IT?    It Doesn't match. Speights's 'model' sits further back.
Step six  Draw a straight line using the line tool from the back of the Xray head to Speight's models head ----   SEE IT?  It doesn't match. The line goes through the back of Speight's model's head.
Step seven - Draw a straight line from the bullet on the XRAY to the bullet that Speights placed ...  it matches  --  BUT,  if the heads are not aligned as shown,  it should not.

It may come to be one day that Speights decides to correct this issue, and the above steps will no longer produce the result as pictured. However,  if he does correct the issue,  his pathway will end up entering the area the brain  rests unless he moves his "entry point' -- and if that happens ---  what does that tell a person?  Confirmation bias -- the manipulation of evidence to maintain a constant conclusion despite the evidence showing otherwise.    

Now, I am not stating that Speights intentionally meant to mislead or lie.  All possibilities should be considered before making that claim against him.  That's an example Speights  should follow in his own damaging allegation against Dr. Horn.


Speights has mistakenly concluded that the drainage from the nose is blood and because it is near the lip that it means he was in an upright position.  However,  the picture that Speights is using to prove this is an enhanced/ lightened picture of the crime scene photos.  I have compared the photo on his website with another photo of the same. In his photo, there are areas on Travis's cheek that are much lighter than the original photo.  The reflection of the flash in the corner is much brighter too.  So,  to me that means the photo has been changed in some way.  I don't care to publish the full photo, but I am comfortable with posting the reflection area for comparison. 

One can tell  that when Speights's photo on his website is compared with the online photo of the crime scene,  his is much brighter and has been enhanced.   There is nothing wrong with that ONLY if the information is made known and the original photo posted as well.  Posting both pictures allows for fair comparison of the two photos to determine if any interpretations could be biased.  In the original photo, it is not possible to come to a definite conclusion as to what the area under his nose is.  This is because other factors such as decomposition fluid, swelling, shadows, blood, reflection of light from taking a photo,  or a combination of those factors could be in play.  In such a poor quality original picture,  only a broad general guess can be made as to what the darker area is  when dealing with such a small overall area such as the space between the lips and the nose. 

There are other factors that need to be considered when looking at the picture as well.  
What would the rate of flow of any decomposing fluid be given that Travis lost a major portion of the blood volume, thus moisture in his body?  Would it still run freely or ooze slowly?  
We can't see the right side of his face, so we don't know if there is a collection of fluid following the crevice between his upper cheek and nose.  We cannot see his lower right cheek at the corner of his mouth well enough to see if there is fluid collection there that would indicate an oozing. 
 However,  there is one thing that we can see that would give the impression this "nasal blood vs. purge" did not occur when the victim was upright.   If this fluid were blood flow when upright r/t a bloody nose,  the blood would flow with the angle of the lip and the philtrum of the lip.  That is a little raised area above one's lip at midline face.   The philtrum would cause natural blood flow to  move to the outer corners of lips when one has a massive bloody nose.  Furthermore,  it is common for a person to wipe away blood flowing out of the nose in massive quantities  away from the lips to prevent collection in the mouth.  This causes smears across the lips.   But,  if we look closely at the crime scene photo,  there is no sign that blood ever touched much of the left side of Travis's upper lip or the space in between because it matches the tone of the rest of his face. In fact,  the darkened area matches a flow that is off to the right if you look closely.  However,  because of shadowing and reflection of the photograph of a photograph,  only a broad general guess can be made.

 A major fact exists which  argues against this being blood left from a nosebleed.  There is evidence that the body was washed in the shower after being put there.  We can see this in the crime scene photos of the body.  There is evidence of fluid flow from the chest wounds in a lateral motion - IE moving from the left to the right - such as the leakage of fluids when he was in that right lying position in the shower.  However,  there are not any signs of bleeding in any other direction.  The stab wound to his abdomen as noted in the shower shows a severe lack of bleeding as well.  And,  if we consider the neck wound,  a wound that would have bleed immensely, there is only a small stream going down from the left side of that wound that is consistent with the oozing of putrefacation fluid from an opening,  not active bleeding. Further evidence of this washing of the body is that the wound behind the right ear when photographed at the scene showed no blood in it at all,  the same with the entire right side of the throat wound.  However,  in the same pictures, smeared red fluid can be detected on his back where he would have been lying in the shower.  This same red fluid can be seen on the floor of the shower once his body was removed.  This suggests a pooling of fluid that had collected under a body being washed.

The lack of bleeding indicates a washing of the body which makes me believe that most of any active bleeding from his nose would have been washed away as well.  Speights claimed,  "She didn’t drag Alexander to the shower to wash away DNA. She dragged him to the shower to wash away the horror."   However, if that were true,  the face would have been fully washed because that is the main thing we recognize each other through. 

Thanks Rich! 

ADDENDUM:  Speights even boasts about his ability to manipulate photos on his website: 
I had a photo of an unidentified woman posted to show an example of his photo altering talents.  I intentionally blocked out a lot of the photo for anonymity reasons.   However,  Speights removed the privacy of the woman via stating who she was,  so I believe it necessary to remove her picture from this site.  The use of her picture was responded in terms of an emotional outburst and the immature behavior of name calling on Speights's part.  

If one goes to the link as noted,  one can tell that when it comes to his photography and photoshop skills,  Speights is quite good. It's even more obvious that the evidence photos  above were manipulated to show what he wanted them to show. But it still leaves that nagging question about if one has to change evidence to make it fit,  doesn't that make the conclusion less reliable than one obtained from using the real thing?   It shows a confirmation bias in which any conclusion gathered from such a method is not usable. 


Jodi's own defense team even believes that the bullet hit the brain. Because of this belief,  their main focus was on trying to prove the bullet would not have necessarily incapacitated which can be seen via the route that they decided to take for rebuttal.

 The defense offered studies to show  a person is not always incapacitated when struck in the brain with a bullet.  However,  in those studies,  at least the ones I have read,   the instances are rare.  Thus,  to go this route her defense team would have been faced with the jury considering the likelihood of what she claimed and using her credibility - Jodi had none.   Her supporters know of her credibility issues and how unlikely it is to believe a man is still walking after being shot in the brain.  They must or they would not be ignoring the true medical facts,  manipulating the evidence of the crime scene, or making claims that go against medical science. 
The defense team chose a rebuttal witness who was not a medical doctor,  just a clinical neuropsychologist whose experience would be treating the latent stages of a gunshot wound to the brain.   He had no experience in autopsies and, being just a psychologist,  he would not have the same medical credentials as a medical doctor.   This unfair balance of education, experience, and knowledge  would hold the potential that based on credentials, the jury might lean towards a medical doctor.  So one has to wonder why pick someone that does not have an equal ability to analyze and interpret the evidence? 

The better route would have been instead of using a clinical psychologist,  to use an actual licensed forensic specialist to refute Horn's claims.  A doctor of equal footing is more likely to be believed.    In the end,  this would be greatly beneficial for the defense if that medical doctor stated the pathway would not have intersected brain tissue.  Such a statement would have meant that the concern of incapacitation did not exist.   Once again,   with such a great benefit,  one has to consider why the defense went the other route. 

The defense did not obtain the licensed clinical psychologist as a  rebuttal witness until late in the trial.   They had equal and ample chances of obtaining a licensed forensic specialist.  But they chose not to.  WHY?  If not a licensed forensic specialist,  then they could have used a neurosurgeon.  However, they choose a lesser educated man.  WHY? 
There is no limit to cost on hiring a pertinent expert, which either a neurosurgeon or forensic medical specialist for the defense would be.  Whether medical specialist or clinical psychologist, a fee is still mandatory.  So,  once again, the question is why hire a psychologist? 

The only logical answer given that they had plenty of time and the funds to seek out an actual medical doctor, forensic or neurosurgeon, is that the assessment of the autopsy results and the nature of the injury would have matched that of Dr. Horn's.   The defense team could not find one forensic specialist or neurosurgeon to support their claims.  Either that  or they knew better to even try.  
Those who support Jodi and claim to want to help her are really focusing their battles in the wrong playing field.  They will never be able to disprove that the bullet hit brain tissue, and if they continue to try,  they are fighting a loosing battle.  This action can only help to ensure she will remain convicted in the slim chance of an appeal were to come up.   Nonetheless, her supporters continue to insist that even though against medical science and physics,  the bullet did not intersect brain because subconsciously they know and understand that when a  .25-caliber bullet intersects brain  that it is rare for a person to be not affected or incapacitated in some manner.  They know that the bullet hitting brain tissue would have allowed Jodi a short interval of escape if she were truly afraid for her life to the point she drew a gun on Travis.  There only escape from this reality is to live in their own fantasy in which medical fact does not matter.  But,  no matter how they try,  medical fact is always out there waiting to be verified. 


  1. This is pure genius. Herr Speights is nothing more than a hack on the internet. He uses what little bit of base medical jargon and anatomically (inaccurate) knowledge he has to manipulate, misrepresent and SPIN in the hopes of becoming a big fish in a small pond. A lot of what you've said is very challenging to the medical layman and it gave me a headache to read- just because it really requires the reader to pay attention and you encourage us to not JUST take your word for it but to investigate for it's truthfulness. Well I can say I did just that and you've perfectly articulated how Herr Speights has been extremely dishonest in his representation. Whatever the mans objective, I hope he's held accountable for the libel inflicted on a respected professional medical examiner.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Shanhai C., please see my Defamation, Libel, and Myths article. I have posed a question in the comments and would like your input.

  2. Reblogged! Thank you so much for putting together this post. I had been wanting to do something similar but my knowledge in this area is limited.

    These fools that want to support Jodi insult basic human intelligence. No "abuser" allows themselves to be put in such a submissive position - naked, wet, and sitting down in a shower. Case closed. If she had so much time to run into a closet and grab a gun, she had more than enough time to run out the front door and call the police.

    The moment she demonstrated Travis lunging at her should have been the very first clue to these idiots that she was lying. The gun shot could not have occurred the way she describes. Period.

    1. It's not only the fact of an abuser allowing themselves to be put in a submissive position -- think about it. IF Travis was an abuser INTENT on hurting her or "fucking kill you bitch" and she was close enough to stab him 14 times in the back of his body and several times in the chest, why is Jodi without a mark on her own body?

      Even if the excuse is that Jodi kept out of reach she still would have had to be close enough when she did come in contact with the knife all those times she did. That would mean that a pissed of Travis who was intent on "fucking kill you bitch" just allowed Jodi to stab him all those times without trying to overpower her or punch her in the face. It's a ridiculous and laughable situation. They can say she was able to keep away from him all they want -- the fact still will always remain that she was close enough to knife him 25+ times. That means Travis had all those opportunities to punch or overpower Jodi by grabbing her arm and taking that knife away from her. If he was going to keep persuing her as they claim when she was stabbing him without concern for himself, he would have gotten the knife away

      Those Jodi supporters often state that "Travis was bigger and stronger then her" -- why would he let her stab him like that when the are talking about self defense. They claim that he would have hit or punched her --- HELLO???? Do they even listen to themselves? A SCARED Travis intent on saving his life is a hell of lot more likely to try to escape the one with the knife instead of charge the one with the knife. However, a PISSED OFF Travis with an intent to kill would be a hell of a lot more likely to punch her, hit her, and overpower her and take the knife since he was "bigger and stronger". No matter how they play it, she STILL had to be close enough to stab him which would have allowed a pissed off Travis lots of opportunities to punch her or take the knife.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Richard, you are now restrained to whining about a bloggers use of language. Do you not realize how petty and immature you're being?

      Sometime my heart hurts for you, Richard. It can't be easy being you.

    4. Richard,

      You were blatantly wrong on the facts, wrong on the related anatomy/science - And your discredited and ham-handed forensic “methods” expose your utter lack of professional acumen and prowess. You are the LAST person to have made blatant and over-the-top criminal accusations toward an experienced medical examiner.

      You are simply a hack when it comes to forensic science! And you decided, due to your own biases and blinders, to inject yourself into this high-profile case and to act as a shill for a rightfully-convicted murderer! Your choice!...So please do not whine about how this choice of yours has led others to debunk and criticize your views on-line. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!

      It would appear that your super-sized ego somehow leads you to feel superior about the fact that your debunked garbage was spell-checked and proof-read for typos before going on your blog!...So what?!?! We fans of FACTS and DATA and SCIENCE actually prefer the TRUTH (typos and all) as opposed to the distorted and wildly inaccurate garbage you were slinging on your pathetic blog.

      You are a decent photographer and self-promoter. Don't quit your day job, Sir (which I can only presume is that you sit around all day on-line threatening to sue people who disagree with your lame and worthless opinions).

    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    7. Thank you for proving my point, Sir!...Well done!

      Your inaccurate theories of the crime scene have all (once again) been fairly easily debunked by a person of TRUE science and facts - And the best retort you can muster is to (once again) point out the existence of punctuation and grammatical errors within an extensive scientific and fact-based blog that just completed schooled YOU on YOUR ENTIRE theory of the case!

      So, in addition to photographer and self-promoter (something you share in common with Ms. Arias), at least there remains a career path for you performing grammatical and punctuation editing upon the strong technical works of other people. It only requires you to master the English language, but it will not require you to be a person of true science (nor expose the gaping holes in your dreadful scientific “expertise”). Better still, it will allow you to employ your incessant need to dismiss the technical writing of other folks simply because the piece in question may have some typos and grammatical errors.

      By the way, you are NOT as gifted a writer as you believe!...

      Lastly, there are several ways to go in terms of your hearing from SO many people that you are a hack: 1) You can deny it (like an adolescent/arrogant oaf), and imply that your detractors are simply not reaching deep enough into a thesaurus to locate an original term to describe your lack of talent, 2) You can (like an adult) accept some of the criticism, look for ways to improve, and be less of a hack in the future.

      Your choice!...

    8. Great Blog post, understood every word of it.

    9. Hi all! Please see my new article "a rebuttal for Speights". It demonstrates that ppl in glass houses should not throw stones - such as his misuse of the word "Detour" when the correct word is "Deter" or his very choppy end of his "Innocence Essay".

      In addition, it shows that he does not understand cardio-vessel anatomy per his incorrect description of the superior vena cava as a major artery between the heart and lungs. First of all, the type of vessel is in the name -- it is a VEIN. Second, it does not communicate with the lungs -- it returns blood to the heart from the upper circulatory system.

    10. Terrell, I have to say I 100% agree with you. I have just started to REALLY read some of Rich's stuff and I am noticing all kinds of mistakes. Such as using the word "personal" to describe personnel, the use of commas inappropriately, referring to a time period way back when but using a present tense for what was believed, (IE, in the Dark Ages, people believe bad smells caused illness), using verbs for nouns -- ie "some twenty-six years in quarantined" instead of " some twenty-six years in quarantine", omitting commas, etc. Lucky I am taking a heck of a lot of snips. Idea for Blog "those in glass houses...."

    11. Oh my.... All I have to say is THAT guy was critiquing my writing? LOL... Who writes "however, if, for some extraordinary reason, you must drain the fluid, ...... LOL... up to 5 pages of snips now of that improper grammar from his blog. The sad thing is, I am not a writer so if I make mistakes it's expected. But this guy... he is supposed to be a writer -- he should know his grammar and vocabulary. Subtle is NOT used to describe a blister...

    12. I loved his blister care BS. LOL

    13. OMG -- did you see where he is telling people to take a blade and slice off their calluses? Ask ANY single doctor if one should do that and they will scream NO!!!!!!!! It's scary that he is saying that while stating a background and an army medic. I mean, he did not even take the consideration of opening the skin to infection or a diabetic. I have known a person who did this type of bathroom surgery and lost a larger portion of her foot due to infection.
      I have a hard time believing that he has retained any information from time spent as an army medic if that is something he is instructing others to do. It's just plain out scary as hell. Isn't there some way to look up military people and see if they were medics? I am really curious now. I did read something about the Freedom of Information act, which I think indicated that basic information can be obtained.

  3. The bullet did rupture his eardrum (probably due to air pressure caused by the passage of the bullet through his nasal cavity - we can't tell for sure but that's most likely - Jodi's eardrum was intact because she didnt have a bullet passing through her sinuses).
    And Jodi did not say she shot him in the closet - it was near the bathroom, she aimed at him and he continued lunging at her at which point the gun went off.
    Also, saying that the brain looked intact but due to decomp we cannot be sure is tantamount to lying - wouldn't it be better to say "inconclusive" with regard to any trauma to the brain? The fact that Dr Horn mentioned in more than one place that the brain looked intact means that acc to his observation it was indeed intact.
    What is more strange is that he flip-flopped on the stand and said that it had to have been damaged and that his report was wrong. Which statement to believe? And if it was in such an advanced state of decomp that it was impossible to say whether it was intact or not, then why say on the stand that it was a typo and that it should have read "the brain was damaged by the bullet"?
    Sorry, but Dr Horn lied.

    1. I recently had the most curious email that showed a message posted on my blog whcih suggested that you "James Dean" are in true a known Jodi supporter with their own blog. This supporter that has their very own blog and supports another certain someone that has some very very VERY laughable medical evidence that does not correlate with medical fact. Don't worry, I don't call out names without doing my own verification but that does not mean I will sensor someone else making the allegation -- I only will remove those comments that are slanderous in nature.

      Anyhow, I am curious at to something --- it's been more than a week since I requested that you provide fact and medical proof for your unfounded statements. I wanted to give you at least a week to prepare -- or should I take that as a concession that you could not provide the proof to support your statement?

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Rich, I read your retort which lead to reading a lot of the comments here. That started a cascade of events which lead to a bad outcome for you. You really set yourself up for that bad outcome - being discredited via your own actions.
      I noticed in your initial version of "Tsunami" you revised your own mistake of the word "peel" that you misspelled "peal". That fact plus a comment by another lead me on the hunt for mistakes of your own. I took multiple snips of those mistakes and once again found your habit of spelling the simple word "peel" as "peal" among multiple other errors.
      Now, I am aware of the fact that I made many of my own mistakes. But geez Rich, when someone such as yourself takes on the arrogant stand of implying "don't listen to her, she made these mistakes in her writing", his own writing sure the hell better be almost damn perfect. Your writing is far from it.
      However, this "hunt for imperfection" lead me to the most damaging aspect of your medical credibility - Your instruction to others to perform dangerous "bathroom" surgery and remove their own calluses. As a professional, it made me sick to see someone spitting in the face of medicine and giving such dangerous advice under the premise that they had the qualifications to do so. I've told other colleagues about the "ex-army medic" giving instructions to the public to do such a thing and their reaction was the same as mine - a shocked gasp and a comment of "no, no, no, bad advice". Do you understand that such an action can make you culpable for any negative outcome that occurs? It's called professional accountability. It makes you responsible for damages to any poor soul that would be foolish enough to listen to your "advice" based on the fact "Rich says he was an army medic so he must know the right thing to do".
      You wrote about "an editor" in your "Tsunami" article. What you have seem to forgotten is the necessity to ensure facts are accurate prior to turning said article into the editor. It appears your fact verification method is based along the same method as your "callus removal instruction" --- fast as possible without taking the time to ensure it is correct in order to prevent harm to others.
      From your dangerous medical advice on something so simple, you have discredited yourself as having the knowledge of being someone that can efficiently discuss medical fact from medical fiction. Mr. Speights, let me query, Do you believe such other falsehoods such as the "Bible Bump" method for smashing a cyst to the hand? What about blood letting? Your own "isolate them if they have HIV" advice declares your ignorance to medical research and modes of transmission. Face it Rich, you just do not have the knowledge or credentials to be educating others as to medical fact. Take your own advice, YOU have a LONG way to go and a LOT of learning to obtain before you can SAFELY instruct others.
      It's possible that you are not aware of your mistake by now and the multiple times I have implored you to remove the dangerous advice from your site, because it remains. But, something keeps telling me that as I wrote this you are well aware. I really hope I am wrong and you are not aware as of yet. Because that would mean that you have put your pride and need to be "right" above the safety of others because you could not handle the fact that someone with overall superior medical knowledge as compared to you pointed out your dangerous mistake. Remove the dangerous advice Rich, and remove it ASAP. Show us you are a man of good conscious.
      So does this mean you are going to sue me now because I pointed out that you discredited yourself with dangerous medical advice? The fault is you own.

    4. Brilliantly said, Ms. Debbie!

    5. Richard Speights, I read your comment about it being quite impossible to slander anybody on this blog or any other blog. And then your statement made in a failed attempt to cause others to infer that I must not know medical knowledge since I used the incorrect word, slander, not libel.
      hmmm... lol. It's so clear that a person is putting up an ad hominem attack when they do the same action. Instead of focusing on my mistakes, it would behoove you to go back and fix your own. But, it's probably a bit late to get the letter back from the governor of Arizona to correct the statement:
      "Interestingly, none of the people slandering me online have read my report."
      "Online" is written defamation.

      Your actions are clearly done in desperation to hide your lack of medical knowledge. However, in the end such careless tactics are always discovered, and it destroys the credibility of the claim.

      So, what does it say of a man who, instead of providing any scientific information to back up his claims, uses the same mistakes in grammar and vocabulary to imply another is incorrect?
      What does it say when that man makes many, many, many more vocabulary mistakes than the one he is attempting to defame?
      Such as peal/peel, deter/detour, libel/slander, then/than, clothes/ cloths, stuck/struck, its/it's, coped/copied, write/ writer, defiantly/definitely.
      Now, within the multiple vocabulary errors, there could be some typo's such as the stuck/struck and write/writer examples. As could the multiple times you left out simple articles. Typos are easy to make as indicated within your own writing. Such as the case of the typo described in the trial.

    6. Oh look... I made a typo when I wrote typo's. Tsk Tsk...

    7. Sorry Debbie for taking so long to reply - I've just read your question.

      I would like to know what "unfounded" statements you were alluding to because I haven't got a clue. I'd like to add I am not in the habit of making unfounded claims.

    8. The unfounded statement is the first one of your previous comment. It is explained in the addendum I added to the article. In addition, eardrum rupture is associated with severe head injury. A person with a severe head injury is not walking around as Rich states. A severe head injury includes a GCS of 8 or below, and a person is incapacitated when they have a GCS that low.
      As was said before, a statement makes me suspect who you are but it is not confirmed. However, whether you are in the conspiracy camp or the "Jodi is not lying about shooting him first for SD" camp, continued statements that go against medical science are only going to harm her in the end. If such theories are offered on the stand in her defense, medical experts will only explain why they are not possible. It is highly unlikely the defense will find one legitimate medical expert to support the claim. That is why they had to use a person whose training is mainly for psychotherapy and behavior functions (a licensed clinical psychologist) to argue their theory and not a person educated in the study of medicine. Arizona law is set to allow public defenders the funds to pay pertinent experts so they can testify (such as an alternate forensic MD or neurosurgeon).

    9. To clarify, an unfounded statement is one that is not based in fact.

      I invite you to read my stolen valor article. The article will show that I use many sources in doing research to find the truth about things. It is necessary to do when making claims against another.

      Strong research is what you and others who are supporting Jodi should be doing if your intention is to get her acquitted. It can help by helping you to avoid getting linked to anyone who has acted badly To clarify - an unfounded statement is one that is not based in fact. A person makes a claim and states it to be true but does not want to offer an explanation as to why. I try to offer that explanation as to why.

      I invite you to read my stolen valor article. The article will show that I use many sources in doing research to find the truth about things. It is necessary to do when making claims against another. The valor article examines a DD214 form that was presented to make others believe the person had knowledge to support a claim -- but instead the DD214 form showed the person lied about something.

      Another incidence of research that I do to either support or debunk a fact can be found in the gas article. After investigation, I uncovered the VIN number to Jodi's rental car which shows it only had a 13.5 gallon tank. The tank indicates Jodi lied on the stand involving the gas issues.

      Strong research is what you and others who are supporting Jodi should be doing if your intention is to get her acquitted. It can help by helping you to avoid getting linked to anyone who has acted badly by purposely presenting bad information to support their claim. If you truly believe Jodi is innocent of M1, you should be trying to make your arguments the strongest by basing them on verifiable facts. This means separating yourself from those who have used fake evidence to try to make people believe their word should be trusted. I have seen such tactics used by more than one person.

      Use the information that people offer to show she is guilty and do your research to approach alternative theories. I do believe that the defense had it correct with the blacking-out argument for all those knife wounds. IE - Jodi went into a blind rage because of the alleged abuse and was no longer in control of her faculties. Research those cases in which abused people and even abused animals loose control. Use such cases to support a claim of NG via SD or even temporary insanity brought on by alleged abuse.

      What you and yours are not realizing is that the DT had five years to come up with their defense theory. They would have researched the alternative medical theories during that time. In addition, they also had a lot more direct resources to find experts for consultation than the average citizen does. One has to ask themselves, if the DT could not come up with a stronger theory in five years with access to such experts, what makes the average citizen think that they can do better in only one from an armchair view of only a portion of the evidence?

      Use the information that people offer to show she is guilty and do your research to approach alternative theories. I do believe that the defense had it correct with the blacking-out argument for all those knife wounds. IE - Jodi went into a blind rage because of the alleged abuse and was no longer in control of her faculties. Research those cases in which abused people and even abused animals loose control.

      What you and yours are not realizing is that the DT had 5 years to come up with a supporting theory. They would have researched the alternative medical theories during that time. In addition, they also had a lot more direct resources to find experts for consultation than the average citizen does. One has to ask themselves, if the DT could not come up with a stronger theory in 5 years with access to such experts, what makes the average citizen think that they can do better in only one from an armchair view of only a portion of the evidence?

  4. The article already shows how the bullet could not pass through the sinuses - so show me using Speight's theory how that is wrong - remember to consider the injuries it would have left and the findings on the XRAY
    Sorry, but you are wrong in your post about the tympanic membrane. - Thank you, tho - because I will add an addendum to the post about your silly "pressure bursting" theory.
    If you believe otherwise - put fact and medical proof where your unfounded statements are. Present..... Can you? I think not. I dare you to prove me wrong.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    2. Says the one who crawls out of a bunker daily. That's all you've got? What are you smoking? You are highly uneducated in the medical field. She asked you a legit ? and as par for your course. That's all you could come up with. More lies on your poorly written site? Oh that should hurt...NOT Bunker Boy you sure know how to make a further fool of yourself that's for sure. Oh no, there goes that "bull" litigation threat again. That's all a crock and you know it. Who you kidding? What are waiting for? A bus? Geesh, put up or shut up already "crank". You already failed Law 101 a long time ago. Did you know that all your slander & out right lies can and will be used against you. Your goose is already cooked. You don't listen well now do you? I am certain that is why were where fired multiple times in your life and all of those jobs had nothing to do with the medical field. Just because you post bs on your silly website, does not make it so. Learn something besides being a pretend expert who really knows nothing at all.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. You're the entertainment don't ya know? You're a troll and nothing more. Oh by the way, Debbie doesn't owe an apology. You don't deserve any respect. You asked that same thing of others. When debunked you cry, when proven wrong, whine, when proven you threaten so sue and demand an apology. Get real. Put down the crack already.

    5. Rich Speights's complaint to the judge (an example created using previous writings by Speights):

      "Dear Judge, In my lawsuit I charge that scandalous statements have been written online by Dr. Debbie and others. Please not, Dr. Debbie write; It suggested that I either did not know my medical knowledge or that I might have been embellishing the truth; so my assessment of the Jodi Arias case as seen through my eyes, should not be believed. There are other people on there that called me names, and stated that I was never in the army. I want to sue them, to. For further information, please read my blog and look at "Tsnami of Errors" and "Monkey business". They are publications that include my name calling towards others, implications that Debbie Maran was lying, and suggestions she does not know her medical advice. As you will see, the evidence that shows her bad grammar, will prove those facts. More, I would like to state, she posted a picture of an unnamed woman, from my site, blocked out parts of it, to hide the identity, and said that I was good at one part of my job, as a photographer, and which is to change pictures. Such nastiness should not be allowed!!!".

    6. To which the Judge rolls his/her eyes, sighs and tells RS to get out of his/her courtroom.

    7. Hilarious! The judge wouldn't even let him in the court room.

  6. Something that has always struck me is that Richard ignores science. When reading his tripe, one notes a distinct lack of scientific knowledge and application.

    Richard has a profound lack of scientific knowledge, which explains his complete reliance on supposition. Interestingly, Richard's images are non-white. He uses stock images that are not to scale. This is significant and highlights his need to distort information to fit his hypothesis rather than forming a hypothesis based on the facts available.

    1. Correction: "non-white" should read as "nonsense". Autocorrect is evil!

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Bingo. You won't get into a scientific argument with me because you can't argue my science. You know exactly what I've written on JDT about the head wound.

      I've dared you to try in the past, Richard. But you won't even try. And that says everything about your understanding of science.

      Debbie tossed you out to dry.

    4. You hit it on the nose, V. It seems that the best argument "Rich" could put forth would be one that is supported via medical fact --- yet instead he charges with the grammar stick.... Think that's because he has no other ammunition?

    5. Well said, Debbie! I keep expecting better from Richard. Silly ol' me.

    6. He wouldn't know a medical fact if it hit him on his lazy butt. He's proving that all over the net. Google Dick. Oh my. I can't wait for Jodi's mother to find out, but she probably knows what kind dirty old men are lusting after Jodi. Some sick creeps out there who are extremely hard up for obvious reasons. Get a blow up doll Richard. You'll never free Jodi.

  7. Hi Debbie,

    My name is Victorious on many Jodi related sites.

    I wrote several similar pieces and Richard continually threatened me, claiming he was going to file a libel suit against me. He's full of hot air. Nothing you've written could be remotely viewed as libelous. Richard understands the law as much as he understands anatomy ... very little.

    Well-done, Debbie! I'm going to read more of this essay tomorrow.

    Best wishes,

    1. Hello Victorious - no worry. Mr Speights "threats' cause me little concern. I am currently in process of writing a reply to Speights's poor attempts at a rebuttal. It will include stone throwing glass house snippets to show that Speights should take a page from his own book in his "concerns" about grammar. Just too bad I was too late to grab that "pealed" snippet -- he knows what I talk of.
      But of course, the focus is not on grammar -- it's about his misunderstanding of the medical world. Basic anatomony needs to be understood before once can proceed to pathophysiology. And when a person mis labels such an important part of the human system -- it's so obvious they lack medical knowledge - I DID get a snip of that.

      Mr. Speights forgets that it's a blog and not a scholarly article. Thus, the most important thing is reaching the audience. In addition, when it is about truth, the facts offered have to be true --- not made up in the great imagination of man.

    2. Great Blog Deb, understood every word of it.

    3. Well said, Debbie! I can't wait to read your upcoming response.
      I'm thinking of posting what I wrote 9 months ago on my FB acct as a special page ... if I can figure out how to do so. I don't have a blog.

    4. He's full of hot air. I've explained how his threats are such a joke in detail. He wants your real name! Talk about having zero concept on how the net works either. So embarrassed for this guy's ignorance. Richard, your extremely ignorant essay is not work. You did not give it to anyone that would count in reality. You admitted it. How did that joke of a petition not work out to well for you? Seriously, do you not read all the fake signatures? Hello??? anyone home? Apparently not. You're a legend in your own mind. I find you highly entertaining though. Your so easy to debunk and get all riled. It's fun to watch. Thanks of the entertainment.

  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. You seem confused about who said what on JDT, Richard.

      Just sayin'.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. No one called you the "una bomber" which does not matter anyway. I read what was said. You don't read well now do you? They said. You are like the "una bomber". Major difference there. Stop whining and playing the victim. Can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. You give as good as you get. Ask Dr. Horn whom you defamed, slandered and got him some death threats. Ask your buddy James Dean who is a female from Russia. You don't mind what hate you caused now do you? Don't be shocked if you are served with a law suit big time by Horn as you should be. You incited violence & hate with pure horse shit. Shame on your sorry soul.

    4. How obtuse of you Richard Speights. Blah, blah, blah to your litigation threats. They are and will always be a joke especially now we know you copy and paste that ignorant threat for months now. Don't be shocked when someone serves you for making threats & giving out bad medical advice.

    5. Richard Speights, start by kissing my feet first. We've been through this before. You are wet behind the ears obviously. If you want to sue someone because you are a nobody hack living on the net. You don't need our names. You were told this in February. You ignored it. Now if I google you again, bet you've made a lot of threats. Tsk, tsk, that would never fair well for you ever in court. Did you just discover the net in February when you happened upon this case you still have zero clue about? Listen up Bunker Boy instead of telling others to.

  9. I know you've read the multiple scientific essays I've posted at JDT, Richard. I know you read them months ago.

    As far as your assertion that I see only what wish to; saying that certainly doesn't make it true. You've presented nothing to support such a claim.

    Science is science, Richard. You've had over 8 months (or more) to address my various essays as presented on JDT, but you simply don't have the scientific education to refute me. I'm not criticizing your science background. But I am a professional scientist; you are not. You're a semi-professional writer. My job requires that I write extensively, but I'm not a professional or semi-professional writer.

    You claim my science is "twisted" and that I "see only what I want to see". You have a reason for saying that, and, IMO, it is less than intellectually honest. Before you even attempt to address my extensive essays as written on JDT, you simply imply that nothing you write will be taken seriously by me because of my "hatred". You assert this because it gives you an easy explanation to explain any failure on your part should you attempt to argue my scientific explanations.

    Finally, you honestly have no clue as to how libel litigation works. You regularly confuse opinion with libel. Frankly, you threaten litigation against anyone who criticizes your work or behavior. That's childish behavior.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. You confuse JDT's blog and his forum, Richard. That statement has ALWAYS been on his blog. His blog existed before his forum. Sheesh.

      You have screenshots of everything said on JDT. You know who said what. So stop saying that I've said what I haven't said.

      Finally, yuku responded to your complaints by ... BANNING YOU. That's all that happened. Nothing happened to anyone else. LOL!

      Finally, your caterwauling about pseudonyms is so tedious. No one takes your bait. A real man would stop caterwauling and discuss the topic at hand.

      One would assume that a writer would be able to express more than insulting others use of language, threatening litigation and whining about pseudonyms. Alas, you seem stuck and limited.

      Not even Geebee whines as much as you.

    5. Great posts. RS has got nothing but silly fake litigation threats. 8 mos. later he still hasn't picked up the phone to call a lawyer either. What is he waiting for?

    6. Wow Richard. You're taking the play book from Jodi Arias herself. Lie like a rug to deflect from the issue of answering ?s. Yuku & Clear water did nothing of the sort. They banned you. No one else was banned. They saw through your "litigation" lie big time. That site is doing just fine and you seem really jealous on top of being a whiner. No one is allowed to post the truth your failed website. You deleted certain comments and kept "others" to suit your failed agenda. Thankfully I kept the old comments from you that you tried to hide.

    7. Richard, you're lying so that makes you a known liar. Would it not? Yes, of course it does. I did not call you the "Una Bomber" and you were not there. You were fed by George Barwood. I said " you sound like a future Una Bomber" due to your unsavory comments all over the net. Don't you google yourself? I can find you anywhere and personally to me, you sound like a militia nut. That's my opinion for which you can't sue me for. The bunker mentality & the manifesto you actually thought would free a killer & get Horn fired is why I said it. You are not a writer either. you don't get paid to write now do you? I put that in the same category as you being an expert at all. Garbage bin!

    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    9. Wow, that's all you've got? You failed. Your threats are a riot. LOL@ subpoena for what? What cause? oh yeah, some judge is just going to give you one because you are making a fool of yourself & getting laughed at..NOT! Just like you're going to free Jodi? Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, that's why you don't get invited to parties. Oooh, you're keeping a collection. Did SW teach you that? As if that means anything. Get off the net creeper. You can't handle it. LMAO GET A LAWYER, YOU'LL NEED ONE MORE THAN I.

    10. Pinky, your last statement to him was very wise advice.

    11. Thanks. Unfortunately, he won't follow it since he's extremely limited in comprehension 101. He's his own worst enemy.

  10. Hi Debbie,

    I hope to have my essays available soon; I don't have a blog, but I might use FB to post my work. JDT had to make his forum private, so my work is no longer accessible to the public. When I've found a place to post my work, I'll let you know. I would love to talk more about the arguments we both make against Richard's non-sense.

  11. She acknowledged she killed Travis and did it alone, right? The real question is: was the killing murder or self-defense.

    Travis is shot in the head, receives 27 stab wounds to the body, many stab wounds to the back, a deep knife slash to the throat, while Jodi receives NO INJURIES, and had may opportunities to leave the scene, but didn't.

    Definitely not self defense.

    1. Then there's all that pesky premeditation evidence. Sheesh. What's a girl to do?

  12. Well in typical fashion Richard runs off after whining, making idiotic legal threats & come to find he has no idea where he is posting. I mean really, when he's put to the test. He can't hack it and gets all sorts of confused. RS, I already proved you did not follow one minute of the case a while ago. You watched a you tube video of Dr. Horn. Now all of a sudden you, Johnny Come Lately is pretending to be a "knife expert and army medic". Geesh, you don't even know how many stab wounds she inflicted upon Travis.

  13. I read on his site against my better judgement. He's such a fool. This comment from him is yet another lie he makes up for he has no clue about the law: "Do not slander. Do not libel. Do not defame. If you do, someone will hand you a piece of paper and say the magic words, "You have been served." It's a sad day when the court orders you to hand the keys to your house and car over to a stranger." Only in your feeble mind will that happen. You live in a fantasy world. All you did was prove how ignorant and a big coward you are.

  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Missing much as usual? Everyone is mocking & being snarky to you which is much deserved. Zoom over your head.

  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Bwahahahah!

      Dick writes: "Hopefully, the people who do have the power over Arias's life will eventually read all these words, theirs and mine. It will certainly help clarify Arias’s case, the contrast between objectivity and subjectivity, the craving for revenge railing against the desire for justice.
      I shall not rest until Arias is safe home again in her mother’s arms. I will not stop until the people holding the power over her fate see the truth of my words. Keep screaming, my friends."

      Several months ago, some posted comments on your blog. I read the exchanges with interest. Someone asked you if you've contacted the defense team. You claim to be the ONLY person that can understand Travis' injuries. Several posters highlighted that if that were the case, then it was your moral duty to contact the defense team. I appreciated that someone finally asked you what you've actually done.

      Your response: "Richard Speights said: March 11th, 2014 5:14 pm
      AS FAR AS I KNOW, they've been made aware. It is not my place to inject myself into their case. As an outsider, I carry much more weight in the THINGS I SAY. I do not know Arias, her friends, family, or defense team. I must maintain distance or else I loss objectivity."

      So, Dick, you "WON'T REST" until Jodi is home. Oh, please.

      All you've done is write crap on an obscure blog, link to it on other blogs, create a petition and, IIRC, write a few letters. To whom of significance in this case have you said ANYTHING? If you are, as you claim, the ONLY person capable of understanding the autopsy forensics, it is immoral for you to not forward that info to the defense team. Instead, you give meaningless excuses for why you can't print your essay and mail it to the defense.

      You're not objective. If you were, you wouldn't claim that you won't rest until a specific result is achieved. Working for a specific result shows an absolute lack of objectivity. Those who are truly objective know that unbiased don't work for a specific outcome. Their sole purpose is to present objective evidence for other to use. Oh, and evidence must be shared to be of use.

      I really was stunned that you haven't sent your work to the defense team. I was stunned that you would accept that someone else sent your essay to the defense team. You wrote your essay before the guilt phase was over. If your work is so objective, and if you truly are the ONLY one who can understand the autopsy forensics, then how can you live with yourself for not guaranteeing that your work was received by the defense team before the guilt phase was over?

      Your claim that you won't rest until Arias is home is pathetic.

    2. Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!, omg, you are one deluded dude. The case is over! She's been found guilty. You're just a horney toad who wrote non medical facts. Quit whining weeny! You reap what you sow.

    3. LOL@Sillyhaha, Yup, Dick never sent that idiotic report to anyone & he also admitted, like George "he did not follow the case". That's pretty obvious. He thinks someone is going to come along and go "OMG, Jodi is innocent" because Herr Speights lied his face off about his past life & has zero clue about this case? Delusional! Dick will die waiting for the evil killer. She's never getting out alive.

    4. Rich, everyone is still waiting for those medical facts that support your "theories". They seems to be lacking. Are you even to able to provide those medical sites that show "the superior vena cava is a major artery between the heart and lungs" and "ear bleeding is always from and treated as a head injury". I have provided links to medical fact that proves you dead wrong on those, Dicky boy. But you have ignored them. Where is your links to support them? Seems a bit lacking on your part. See, that's were you are mistaken. Most people put their faith in information supported by facts, not information that some guy says "this is true" without any links to support his idea. Those who can't support what they say cry foul and say "I am going to sue you for proving me wrong".

    5. Oh, BTW Rich, I will continue to "write some more stuff". For each article that your share your speculations, I will share the links to true medical fact. Such as the link to what the superior vena cava really is, the link to the most common cause of ear bleeding, and the links to the multiple medical sites that show cutting off one's own callus is a horrible thing to do.

    6. Crock of the day by Richard Speights. You've been debunked and put back in the corner. Your "garbage" is worthless. FACT!!!!

      "Oh, and Debbie. Write some more stuff. Nothing supports my argument better than your counter-arguments."

  16. Mr. Speights,

    When faced with multiple, rational and logical scientific counterpoints which clearly expose the lack of merits in your utterly absurd theories of the crime scene, you are left with arrogantly and pathetically trying to fly off into the sunset on some angel's wings (with "Justice and Truth" stamped upon them) to an ivory tower somewhere (as if you are the only one in the world interested in having justice and truth prevail). This is predictable (and apparently repeatable) behavior for you, as an arrogant and generally non-scientific person who simply cannot back up their technical arguments under scrutiny from others.

    I don't cast aspersions on your name! I don't know you (and don't wish to). You don't know me! It is only your bogus (and well publicized and thoroughly debunked) theories of this case which are being discussed here in this blog - And, given the multiple invitations here (and elsewhere) to engage in further rational discussion of your theories that you repeatedly decline, it is clear that you are only interested in tossing out your unproven theories all over cyberspace, then hoping lots of people will adopt them as Gospel truth! Glad this method works for you within your imaginary (and mental masturbatory) world of science and academia.

    Alas, in the real scientific and academic worlds, consisting of folks a lot better educated, trained and experienced than you (who are likely a lot smarter than you too), such ideas are subject to peer review - And can often unravel when subjected to this greater peer scrutiny - Which is the very reason why the scientific and academic communities demand this crucial step in proving the underlying technical/scientific merits of the premise being put forth. This is based on the obvious benefits of having many smart folks evaluating/testing the premise (vs. someone tossing out something unproven and saying "Trust Me!"). You mentioned in your post above something about "...when a person claims intellectual equality" as you (implying that others must first offer up their list of credentials to be worthy of challenging your ideas . This is a laughable point for you to make, in light of how Debbie Maran just completely detonated all of your poorly-conceived notions of the crime scene and the court case - Yes, for those in the know about the real science and academic worlds, it becomes painfully obvious that it is you who is the participant in the discussion without the scientific and academic prowess. It is you who is the great pretender in this scientific discussion of the crime scene. And while this does not disqualify you from offering your views, it does make you look like an arrogant "wanna be" who simply cannot stand to have any of the their ideas challenged publicly....

    1. (continued)
      I can understand why you would not want to put yourself (and your discredited theories of this case) in the hands of the defense team, or to take an active role with the defense. After all, it is you who floated such absurd notions as Ms. Arias obtaining some expert knife-handling prowess by having watched an action movie in the past?!?! And in that light, regrettably, the world will not be able to witness the delicious comic theater of the absurd which would have occurred had you taken the stand and tried to offer your "expertise" in the case for the defense team! Who knows, maybe your absurd and incompetent testimony could have garnered Ms. Arias two death penalties or two consecutive life without parole sentences?!?!

      In terms of someone becoming emotional and screaming (and allowing their enflamed passions on a subject to cause them to lose their objectivity), it is YOU AND ONLY YOU who trolls various sights threatening to sue (and trying to intimidate) anyone who would have the temerity/audacity to oppose your self-professed expertise and prowess in forensics analysis, autopsy techniques, anatomy, ballistics...etc. It is you who have pre-decided Ms. Arias is not guilty, and re-shaped your tortured theories of the case to match that outcome (all the while ignoring all of the much more compelling/factual evidence that Ms. Arias simply planned and killed Mr. Alexander in cold blood) - As such, it sounds like you may have to surrender that "Justice and Truth" patch on your angel's wings.

      Lastly, you state that your goal is to reunite Ms. Arias with her Mom - You may just want to check with Ms. Arias' mom first on that solemn quest, Richard (based on ALL of the facts of the case and the relationship between Ms. Arias and her parents). I have no doubt Ms. Arias' mom wants her daughter to avoid punishment for murder and to be freed; but I seriously doubt she wants Ms. Arias living in her house. I suspect she is more interested in getting her daughter the long overdue and intense mental health treatment her daughter needs...Of course, since your delusional overarching theory of this case (as stated in your blog) is that Ms. Arias was a gentle little butterfly who never hurt anyone before was ultimately forced to defend herself with a gun and knife, then by all means keep your divine delusions about her in your ivory tower as you continue to ignore all of the folks who continue to destroy your impotent theories of this crime!...

    2. I was able to figure out that Dick is out of his league on the net. He mad a major mistake by attaching his butt to this case & thought no one would challenge him & all his fake professions. Too bad. He can't un-ring the bell & cry foul, but he's trying. His threats are laughed at because we know the law. LOL@Jodi a gentle flower? Oh my, he missed what her parents said about Jodi! Abusing animals like she did, dropping out school, using men..etc. Killing Travis and lying about "self defence" makes her a butterfly? Yikes! Let her out for a day and send her to his shack? See how long he will last.

    3. Ooops, I made a mistake. "made a mistake"

    4. Wow Terrel, you have nailed it down. I am pretty impressed at your insight.
      You mentioned a concern that I have had for quite awhile --- the defenses people like Speights offer will only encourage the result of the DP in cases such as Arias. Those theories are so far-fetched and so far from medical fact that it would take just under two minutes for an expert to discredit them.
      I do not wish Jodi the DP. However, I do believe she is guilty of the crime and must take responsibility for it. Since she has not done this on her own via admission of guilt, it needs to be a forced responsibility.
      In addition, it is very obvious to those of us that know that the woman needs mental health counseling. (such as you suggested her mother may feel). The sad thing is, she will never get that now. The nature of the problem needs to be, not the action of pretending she was not culpable for her actions, but an attempt to search out the thinking that caused her to perform the act of premeditated murder. Only when that can be found, can the attempts be made to see if she can be rehabilitated. I will admit, I waiver on LWP and LWOP. The fact is, her crime was a terrible one and Alexander suffered.... but to either execute her or give her LWOP is to say that she is a hopeless cause ...... I really don't know if that can be said of many people in the world. But then again, do we risk allowing someone who has such dangerous potential in them to do it again to an innocent victim? It is indeed, a conundrum.

    5. Yep, I think we're pretty much on the same page, Debbie.

      I am a long-time staunch opponent of the DP (for a variety of reasons), none of which specifically have to do with this particular court case. But I am okay with the notion of LWOP where it applies.

      Sadly, in our world (and not just here in the US), there are still way too many vast and fundamental variations between different state/local/federal jurisdictions as well as the age/race/gender/etc of the accused and/or the victim in terms of how society arrives at "justice". The very same violent crime in one setting gets capital punishment, and in another setting (even within the same city/state) involving a different age/race/gender mix of accused/victim, gets a slap on the wrist or a short jail stay (or even no charges being brought). This does not mean we all give up. It just means that free thinking and free speaking folks continue to shine a light on injustice.

      However, there was absolutely NOTHING unjust about the jury's verdict to convict Ms. Arias of 1st Degree Murder last May. It was a fair trial, Ms. Arias and her lawyers rolled the dice based on a truckload of lies about the murder victim (and her steps to premeditate the murder), and they lost their gamble because the jury properly did not believe it.

      None of the various supporters of Ms. Arias are helping her (nor are they doing her or her defense team any favors) with re-broadcasting their bogus theories of the crime or trying to excuse/deny her culpability for plotting and carrying out this incredibly violent murder with their continued re-broadcast of her same lies that they jury did not buy!

  17. Another fabrication made up by Dick. Jodi went on vacation to Arizona and just end up in jail for nothing. Dick warned people not to do to Arizona. Are you for real? Jodi went there to commit murder. FACT! You missed it Dick.

  18. Poor Richard, you exposed yourself again as the fib teller you always have been. You were never in the Army nor were you a medic. What you say, can and will be used against you in the court of law. What is your lawyers name again? oh wait, you don't have one. Shove your silly threats where the sun don't shine. You exposed yourself as a total fraud. We caught you altering your father's documents with photo shop. Posing as being in the military is a crime in this country the last I checked.

    I have been trained in hand-to-hand combat, including the art of knife fighting. My training began in my youth under the tutelage of my father, who trained in Special Forces (The Green Beret Teams) in the early sixties. He participated in Operation White Star (Google it) and other operations. He trained in knife fighting at Camp McCall and then used these skills during the military/CIA action in Laos. A number of unfortunate communists learned of his talent too late to survive the encounters.

  19. I linked to this blog on my blog and Richard is on my blog having a melt down of sorts over your grammar mistakes! LMFAO!!! Check it out if you want a laugh! I figured I should share in all the fun. Love the work; keep it up!

    1. That's funny! What a bore he is. Yet, he can barely spell himself. Hilariously delusional he be at all times.

  20. This comment has been removed by the author.


    1. Rich, you caused the harm yourself by naming her. The identity was blocked, and the message associated with the image referred to you being talented at that portion of you job. Thus, no apology is needed, and no apology will be given. So deal with it or go cry your eyes out somewhere else. If your family lineage cannot handle a blocked-out identity picture of a family member with the caption that the person did a good job at the alteration they made, then too bad. Maybe you should not have posted her picture online if it is such a sensitive manner that someone says, " this was a good job" in relation to the photo. Rich, if good comments about your work of repair and alteration of photographs bother you, then you need to man up and grow a pair.

      Face it, you just can't handle the fact that your medical knowledge was shown to be lacking, which makes your "sinus theory" and "breakdown of events" complete BS.
      Nice to know that I did teach you the fact the SVC is not an artery, but a vein. Not sure how much you have learned yet as you still fail to provide a relevant counter-argument to support your medical claims. Due to the lack of any attempt, one can only believe that you are not able to do so. Thus, the continued attacks with using irrelevant arguments about grammar and kindergarten name calling.

    2. You describe yourself to a T. Take your lame threats and shove them up your butt whole. You're a joke knuckle dragging troglodyte.

    3. What a drama queen you are Richard. You're a fool for posting that in the first place. Stop lying and making threats. They are never taken seriously. You get no apology ever. Take a hike you fool! Go cry in your bunker. You big baby! You reap what you sow.

    4. Indeed! One of the biggest drama queens ever. I guess daddy didn't pay him enough attention when he was growing up. He never learned to not sweat the small stuff. Mountains out of molehills!

    5. Give this guy a binky! I've never seen anyone whine as much as this crazy nutter does.

    6. Hi guys thought I would let you know I wrote another article. Please take a look and read my comment before writing your own.

  21. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. What Rich? Still no medical evidence to support your medical fiction?

    2. Nope, don't hold your breathe. Richard never backs up his junk. I love how he makes things up like "a whole lot of people are pissed off at you, Debbie". As if that is supposed to scare you. Richard sinks lower every day. It's fun to watch how desperate he gets. Such a drama queen which is evident on his sadly pathetic petition. LMAO!

    3. Amazing how he has no problem with calling everyone else a liar but, gets sand up in his vagina when someone calls him out.

    4. Hi. Finished another article which you might be interested in reading. It's called "Lies, Defamation, and Other Myths".
      What is pretty interesting is that during research I found this law on the Montana books:

      Sounds like there could be some criminal ramifications for Speights actions leading up to 6 months in jail, eh? Now, my background is not in the legal arena, but it still does seem to indicate that Speights's actions could lead to his absence from the online world for a period of 6 months.

    5. Right now, I can't find the article on his page.

    6. I am not sure which article you are referring to, V. That's most likely my own fault as I noticed I left off the "I" in my hasty typing. The article is my own, and it cites the multiple times that Speights has maliciously defamed me which is a criminal act.

      If you are referring to his article, It's still there. And, even if he removes it I still have enough evidence to use if I chose to do so.

    7. All the Jodi trolls have the same vile personalities & can't handle being exposed for the frauds they are.

    8. Bunker Boob is the ultimate hypocrite & he's a fraud. He hates he is being exposed, but too bad. He did a good job of doing that himself. We are "little girls" (he likes to call us that) who have a louder voice for truth. He's in for a rude awakening for daring to promote his "lies" junk.

    9. No problem V! And I am looking forward to receiving your article and hopefully can post it soon!

  22. Oooh, Richard got ya now...NOT! A you tube video! LMAO What a maroon!

  23. Irony of the day! Dick never does the right thing, but wants others to. Some how I doubt the drama queen showed all his family that he's making a total fool of himself on the net & cyber stalking people. Geesh, Dick, if you're going to lie. Make it plausible.

  24. This comment has been removed by the author.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.