Wasn't me, all three of those look to me like impulsive killings. Yes, Seaman got first degree but the Judge lowered it to second degree. He believed she was an abused woman. She used an axe, which is a more powerful weapon, and that might have affected the Jury. She killed him with it the day she bought it, which didn't help, either. She also cleaned the crime scene and tried to get rid of the body.
I think it's more likely for a knife to be used in impulsive killing. That's what I'm saying. But, we are talking about premeditated murder as the charge we believe she deserves, and I'm afraid the impulsive looking nature of it with knife first will preclude that.
IMO
Yeah, I agree with you on these examples except for the one about Nancy. She got convicted of premeditated murder. I was searching for you smaller assailants with larger victims because it was just too cumbersome to go through and find small serial killers and then go through their numerous victims and modes of assault to prove my point about size.
But I agree with you on these examples. After I'd gone to bed, I realized that for 2/3 of them, the impulsiveness seemed to be there. I hope I helped you see that a smaller assailant can overcome a bigger one, though.
As far as the premeditation, for one person I listed previously ( correct me if I'm wrong) got caught buying the hatchet on tape at home depot before the episode occurred. She tried to say it wasn't for the murder, I believe.
I personally feel an axe is more cumbersome, takes more effort than a knife. We don't know even what kind of knife Jodi used. I would "think" they could go through the knives in the house and compare them to the striations on Travis' bone. Didn't someone say she cut with enough force to hit his bone? Then we'd at least find the likely knife or know for sure she took it with her.
In any event, I hear you on impulsive killings, but I just see this case has too many premeditative actions for the jury to ignore.
Molly, Since you have a hard time with premeditation, I'd be interested to know your reasoning with these pieces of circumstantial evidence:
How would the jury explain that .25 calibre gun is stolen from her grandparents' house two days after she and Travis had a vicious email fight, and a week later, Travis is killed by Jodi with the same kind of gun? Not to mention, she's claiming he had the exact same calibre of gun in his home as was "stolen" from her grandparents. However, Travis has no record of having a gun. At the very least, the jury would have to believe Travis illegally had the exact type of gun.
How can the jury reconcile that Jodi was found with another gun and knives in her car for a "camping trip" because she was leery of men she didn't know who would be on said trip, and yet, she did not have a gun with her (supposedly) to travel 2900 miles to see Ryan, a man she hardly knew? She seems to be more scared of running out of gas than meeting an uncertain fate on a super long road trip in which no one really knew where she was.
Especially if she had the bright idea of pulling off on highways to put gas in her car. She'd be a sitting duck for a highway abductor by doing that and by sleeping in parking lots. How will the jury explain that she didn't fear these things, yet she wanted to take a gun on a camping trip for fear of her fellow campers?
How can the jury explain away all the calls to Travis in the middle of the night prior to her trip, the calls during her trip, and the fact that he was one of the last calls made on her trip before leaving California, yet she only talked to him for like 2 minutes. But then she loses her charger and her battery dies conveniently before entering AZ. Somehow, in her fog, her charger or her battery resurfaces just on the border of AZ to leave that message for Travis.
How are they to believe that she couldn't find that charger while driving to AZ so that she could continue to call Travis and talk to him as she'd been doing on the previous legs of the trip? However, in her fog where she can't even remember disposing of evidence, she can have the presence of mind to find that charger, charge the phone, and make that alibi call?
There are more instances, as you know, that they jury will have to explain away. But when does the point come where there are just too many things to explain away and the answer becomes premeditation?