:facepalm:There's been a great many posts expressing nervousness regarding this jury's verdict. Frequently it is accompanied by memories of the CA trial. These are just a few reasons IMO we won't have a repeat of that verdict.
1. There is a definite forensic evidence of both the murder and defendant's involvement
2. The defendant has admitted to killing victim
3. Story of the shot first is not corroborated by the ME's findings and the defense has yet to provide forensics to support her version of events.
4. Strong evidence of premeditation through her efforts to conceal her trip to Mesa, gun theft at her residence, and her attempts to establish an alibi
5. There is no supporting evidence (thus far) in the DT case to her claims of DV either on or before 06/04
6. She has admitted to altering the crime scene and destroying/removing evidence
7. Admissions to repeatedly lying regarding the events on 06/04 to police, psych evaluator and everyone else.
8. "Amnesia" conveniently occurs during the events which put her in the worst light: frenzied stabbing, throat cutting, deletion of photos and other crime scene offenses.
Of just these few, the juror's questions have hit on 4 thru 8 and displayed a great deal of skepticism of JA's story.
As far as the CA trial, this is my first and last mention of that trial.
The first few CA jurors who gave interviews seemed to dwell on a few main points. The lack of a cause of death, primarily circumstantial evidence and the definition of reasonable doubt. Of these three, the one which disturbed me the most was their belief that it could have been accidental.
Of course we here know there have been murder convictions when there has been no body found, much less a forensic cause of death. IMO, if it had been an adult found in those bags thrown in that dump site no one would have questioned whether or not it was murder.
