That's not what I was saying, although that could work for me, too. I'm trying to look at it the way a Jury would, not a lawyer.
What I'm saying is that if you try to prove a circumstantial case with the use of a gun and she doesn't use a gun to kill him, than you have not proved her plan at all.
The fact that she kills him with a knife proves she never planned to kill him with a gun, --so there goes your circumstantial case down the toilet.
Otherwise, you have to prove or at least give strong evidence why she would have changed weapons.
That is about the craziest logic I have every heard.
First, she did use the gun on him during his murder. So, how do you get she didn't use the gun. Just because the gun did not produce the death blow does not negate the planning and forethought she put into the crime. You don't have to prove how she was going to kill him, only that she had a plan to kill him. You can also show that her original plan did not work, and that she had a secondary plan to finish the job.
You are too hung up on the gun having to be the murder weapon, and it does not. Again, premeditation is about pre-planning and intent. You don't have to prove a specific weapon was the intended weapon to show there was pre-planning and intent to cause the individual's death. They have provided pre-planning concerning this trip on several fronts. There is also evidence that she did use the gun in an attempt to kill Travis, so where is the problem?
How to you think a profiler would characterize that crime scene? Probably say--a disorganized perpetrator? Hard to say it was even premeditated by the looks of it. It looks more impulsive.
About standard for a first time murder with a knife. It really isn't that disorganized, unless you count her not expecting the victim to actually fight back and try to get out of the bathroom. What do you expect a premeditated murder scene to look like? Do you expect it to look like the maid service has just came through?
I don't consider it illogical at all. Jodi is doing strange things around stealing the gun, her hair, the license plates, her phone battery. But Jodi did lots of strange things all the time. Maybe you could even prove from that that she was sneaking into Arizona to see Travis. But, so what? She often sneaked over to Travis house, and often at his insistence. Remember how she said he would call her at midnight and say everyone's in bed, come on over?
The first two sentences are all parts of her plan to provide herself with a weapon, alter her look so she would not be immediately recognized, she specifically picked a car that "would not stand out", and would make tracing her movements difficult or impossible, but only in the state of Arizona. These all show pre-planning and premeditation, and since Travis ended up dead. Then the gun being stolen and Travis ending up being shot with the same caliber gun is really strong evidence for a plan being in place.
We only have her word that he would make those calls. Have those call be admitted as evidence? He didn't end up dead after any of those trips, but his did after this one, a week after a .25 caliber pistol went missing from her grandfather's home.
I don't see where it is clear if she used a knife to kill him.
If she used the gun, then it's very clear, I agree.
You can't see this weakness in the Prosecution case?
IMO
This is not a weakness. She went there to kill him and she did. She planned it and she carried the play out. She may have had to change her plan a little, but the end result was the same.