" 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
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.
http://www.healthhype.com/bleeding-from-ear-bloody-fluid-wax-causes-warning-signs.html "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.
http://www.earsite.com/basilar-skull-and-temporal-bone-fractures-etiology
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/ruptured-eardrum/basics/causes/con-20023778
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 : http://www.iccfa.com/reading/2000-2009/embalming-z-purge
"The 26 stages of death" ref: http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Death/Stages.html
- 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.
****Addendum***Addendum***Addendum***Addendum****
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
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?
Or
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.
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?
Or
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.
BRAIN DECAY AND THE AUTOPSY REPORT
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.
W----h----a---t??????
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:
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.
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.
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.
APPARENT IS NOT EQUIVALENT AND INTERCHANGEABLE WITH DEFINITE.
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?
PROMOTING THE DESTRUCTION OF A MAN'S CAREER
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. "
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.
THE WEAKEST CLAIM EVER
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.
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.
INCAPACITATION
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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8664147
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.
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.
" 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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8664147
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.
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.
THE BULLET PATHWAY
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.
TThe 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.
SPEIGHTS'S THEORY ON THE PATHWAY
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?
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.
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 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3052655/
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.
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 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.
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:
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?
THE BLOOD IN THE SINK
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.
"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.
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.
THAT DAMN BLOODY EAR AGAIN....
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 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.
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 21, Reproductions 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 14, Copyright 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.
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.
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.
THE BLOOD FROM THE NOSE
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.
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.
A VERY SPECIAL THANK YOU DEDICATION TO RICHARD SPEIGHTS FOR MAKING MY ARTICLE EVEN MORE ENJOYABLE THROUGH HIS ENCOURAGEMENT TO ME TO GO BACK AND EDIT IT FOR GRAMMAR ERRORS.
Thanks Rich!
Thanks Rich!
ADDENDUM: Speights even boasts about his ability to manipulate photos on his website:
webpage.http://www.herrspeightsventures.com/Herr_Photographer.php
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.
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.
EVEN THE DEFENSE TEAM BELIEVES IT
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.
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.