Jumping in here before we have more live action... I don't post much, mostly because by the time I get around to it someone else has expressed my thought or asked my question... I'm not an attorney, psychiatrist, psychologist, LE, or (most importantly??) psychic... but...
Having served on several juries over the years, I am applying the principles used in those deliberations to come up with the following, over simplified, points.
JA admits killing TA, and there is photographic and forensic evidence to prove this fact. It IS NOT reasonable to doubt this fact. So, this becomes a "fact" in my argument for conviction.
JA is a known and admitted liar. One of the few things she has said that I can truly believe is that she admits to lying. It is NOT reasonable to doubt that JA has lied, her stories have changed under oath on the witness stand. So this becomes a "fact" in my argument.
1) Her tales of an abusive relationship are uncorroborated, there is no proof other than her word that these things happened. Although everyone is different and will react to abuse differently, she exhibits none of the expected characteristics. Her actions, in fact, contradict that she was a victim of abuse. Remember, she is a known (and admitted) liar. It IS reasonable to doubt these claims;
2) The explanations of extra gasoline, using a rental car, and other machinizations for the trip make no sense. No reasonable person would do any of this, much less for the "reasons" she states. It IS reasonable to doubt that she did all of this for any purpose other than to hide her visit to Mesa (premeditation!)
3) "Inference" becomes important here. Inference is basically adding 2+2 to determine the result. Combine the theft of g-pa's gun under "strange circumstances", which happens to be of the same type used in the "killing"; all the "fog", convoluted circumstances of how the "killing" gun came to be where it supposedly was, JA herself and other people have stated that TA did not own a gun. Add it up, and reasonable people will get 2+2=4. It IS reasonable to doubt any scenario other than JA stole g-pa's untraceable gun for use in the killing (premeditation!).
Now, let's do the math: 1) TA died at JA's hand; 2) she had no reasonable claim to "self defense"; 3) the trip to Mesa was planned to be "under the radar"; 4) she brought the weapon(s) with her... <drumroll, please> . TA's death was premeditated murder.... 2+2=4
To avoid writing a mini-novel, I will stop at this and conclude with this: "Beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't mean "100% no doubt". It means "can a person reasonably believe what they are being told?" If the answer is "No", then we are beyond reasonable doubt. I can doubt that I will burn my hand if I put it on the burner, but I see the knob is in the "On" position, the burner is red-hot. Is my doubt reasonable? Would a reasonable person put their hand on the burner? I don't think so...
Yes, I have the advantage of more information than an actual juror in the courtroom, but people are convicted of crimes everyday. Keep your faith in the judicial system. It is not perfect, but it does work most of the time. One of the juries on which I served was for a rapist, the victims were effectively "raped" again and again by the defense. Still makes me ill 20+ years later.... Sickening, but not surprising to see the true victim, TA, vilified given the sexual aspects that have been the forefront of this defense...
I apologize if someone else has said this before and probably better, I try to read to avoid being redundant Sorry for the long post, hope it makes as much sense to others as it does to me (LOL!)...
