premeditation

[Katie-L]

....Fact: a gun was stolen from Jodi's grandparents', where Jodi lived, one week before Travis died. Fact: the gun that shot Travis used the same calibre bullet as the stolen gun. Fact: Jodi admittedly disposed of the gun, even though she claims it was Travis'. Fact: Jodi stated Travis didn't own a gun, and in ber new story, all of the details (such as whether or not it was loaded, how it was stored, etc) have changed numerous times.

The prosecution claims she shot him, and brought the gun. The stolen gun is just icing, but ultimately not necessary information for the jury to find that she brought a gun.

But there are other facts that can't be ignored (at least not by an honest jury). ...

Fact: Jodi was never tied to the robbery from her grandparents house, and there is no evidence that she was ever in possession of any of the stolen goods - nor at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime.

Fact: .25 calibre guns are very common and not difficult to get ahold of. They can be difficult to trace - very difficult - cause they can be sold privately with no record.

Fact: everything Jodi said prior to the trial were the claims of a woman trying to first avoid arrest, then avoid a charge, then save herself from the death penalty. Regardless of guilt or innocence - no one in that situation is going to hand over detailed information to the police, unless there is an acceptable plea bargin on the table.

The job of a prosecutor is to take a set of facts and try to make them into a picture. I've always assumed that it's understood that many parts of that picture are guess-work, suppositions. Weaving normal and unconnected circumstances into the picture can backfire if the picture depends on them.

Seriously - if I were on the jury (at this point in the trial) I'd be leaning towards manslaughter and hoping that charge is available.

I do understand that many people feel that she's guilty - period. I'm not sure the jury is going to agree - but they're different people and will come to their own conclusions.

 

[Wolfpack Fan]

25-caliber handguns are NOT popular. I've looked up handguns at Bass Pro Shops, and I couldn't find any.

http://www.basspro.com/Pistols/_/S-12400001003

My husband just said these guns were still in sales catalogs in the mid-1950's, but he does not think many have been made since then. It makes sense that Jodi's grandfather had that caliber. A thirty-year-old guy is not going to buy one. Travis would have asked a friend for advice if he planned on getting a gun. He had asked Zach for advice on what camera to get.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I'm still unconvinced that the State has proven premeditation. 2nd degree murder, OK, perhaps voluntary manslaughter. Here is what bothers me. If Jodi had really driven to Mesa with the intent to kill Travis (the gun, the gas cans, the rental car w/no GPS, etc), then why did Jodi wait until 25 minutes before one of the roommates was due to return home and then engage in a KNIFE attack? Knife attacks, to my way of thinking, are unpredictable and messy. It seems to me that a roommate could even have arrived home early. Jodi is smart, I can't see her taking the chance that she'd be caught in the very act of killing Travis.

Also, the knife wounds seem to indicate an absolute frenzy, which makes me think that this killing was more the result of a blind impulsive rage. And a blind impulsive rage is either 2nd degree or voluntary manslaughter.

I really appreciate that this forum allows for people to engage in smart discussion without insulting people who have unpopular views. And, I have a feeling that my opinion will not be held by many. That's ok, though, I still have an open mind, and maybe someone could convince me otherwise.

She needs reasonable doubt. What you've argued is completely unreasonable in context of all the evidence for planning presented so far. And again, even is she didn't plan this a week ahead (but we know she did), she cut his neck in half. That act is a premeditated intent to kill no matter what.

 

[rose222]

I'm still unconvinced that the State has proven premeditation. 2nd degree murder, OK, perhaps voluntary manslaughter. Here is what bothers me. If Jodi had really driven to Mesa with the intent to kill Travis (the gun, the gas cans, the rental car w/no GPS, etc), then why did Jodi wait until 25 minutes before one of the roommates was due to return home and then engage in a KNIFE attack? Knife attacks, to my way of thinking, are unpredictable and messy. It seems to me that a roommate could even have arrived home early. Jodi is smart, I can't see her taking the chance that she'd be caught in the very act of killing Travis.

Also, the knife wounds seem to indicate an absolute frenzy, which makes me think that this killing was more the result of a blind impulsive rage. And a blind impulsive rage is either 2nd degree or voluntary manslaughter.

I really appreciate that this forum allows for people to engage in smart discussion without insulting people who have unpopular views. And, I have a feeling that my opinion will not be held by many. That's ok, though, I still have an open mind, and maybe someone could convince me otherwise.

Not trying to be snarky but do you know the definition of premeditation as defined by the Arizona Court? Please familiarize yourself with that.

25+ stab wounds, throat cut from ear to ear and a gun shot to the head = premeditation.

 

[sellse]

Why thank you rose222 for the advice that I familiarize myself with Arizona's definition of premeditation! I am most certainly aware of its meaning. I will say, respectfully, that 25+ stab wounds & throat cut from ear to ear is also consistent with 2nd degree murder and vountary manslaughter. The frustrating thing about legal definitions is that reasonable people can differ in how they interpret legal terms such as reasonable doubt and intent.

You may not agree with me, but please don't insult my intelligence because you disagree with my interpretation. Thanks!

 

[fifteen89]

<respectfully snipped by me>....white rental car with no GPS (she previously reported she relied heavily on GPS, and would've therefore requested that in the rental).......

It hadn't occured to me until I read this that she had to NOT have gps in the car because otherwise she couldn't have 'gotten lost'. For me there's no doubt. And the hours before the murder/not instantly shooting him when she walked in the door? Aside from needing to make sure no one else was home and probably wanting to change his mind about dumping her.......she wanted to be the last person to be intimate with Travis. Somehow in her warped brain that makes him hers alone forever.

Yeppers, I cannot quite put my finger on it, but something is just off with that girl.

 

[wasnt_me]

"Unfortunately, stealing the gun can't be proven."

By that same standard, Jodi killing Travis "can't be proven," since we don't have the weapons that killed him with her fingerprints on it.

Everyyyything is circumstantial *until you put all the tiny pieces together.*

The gun being stolen from her grandparents where she lived, a week before Travis was killed, meant nothing, until it was proven he was shot with the same calibre, and alllllll the other evidence they have presented to prove premeditation, and even her own original statements that Travis never owned a gun, etc etc.

Having the weapons is just as circumstantial as well as her finger prints being on them. If she owned both weapons, then it's logical that her fingerprints would be on them. On them in Travis' blood? Well, now we're talking....

 

[wasnt_me]

I'm still unconvinced that the State has proven premeditation. 2nd degree murder, OK, perhaps voluntary manslaughter. Here is what bothers me. If Jodi had really driven to Mesa with the intent to kill Travis (the gun, the gas cans, the rental car w/no GPS, etc), then why did Jodi wait until 25 minutes before one of the roommates was due to return home and then engage in a KNIFE attack? Knife attacks, to my way of thinking, are unpredictable and messy. It seems to me that a roommate could even have arrived home early. Jodi is smart, I can't see her taking the chance that she'd be caught in the very act of killing Travis.

Also, the knife wounds seem to indicate an absolute frenzy, which makes me think that this killing was more the result of a blind impulsive rage. And a blind impulsive rage is either 2nd degree or voluntary manslaughter.

I really appreciate that this forum allows for people to engage in smart discussion without insulting people who have unpopular views. And, I have a feeling that my opinion will not be held by many. That's ok, though, I still have an open mind, and maybe someone could convince me otherwise.

One of his rommates was in and out of the house that day. I'm sure she didn't know that would happen and I think at least one of them was there the night she arrived. So waiting for the rommates to leave and stay gone is logical.

I don't know if she knew the roommate would be back so soon in the evening. And it's possible that she was still upstairs behind the locked door when the roommate came home. We don't know.

What we do know is she claims to have sneaked in and sneaked out of that house all the time to carry on their secret affair. So it's even logical that she was there when the roommate was there between 6 and 6:30pm. That's another thing. I heard he got home between those times, not exactly at 6pm.

Hope that helps.

 

[Applejack]

But there are other facts that can't be ignored (at least not by an honest jury). ...

Fact: Jodi was never tied to the robbery from her grandparents house, and there is no evidence that she was ever in possession of any of the stolen goods - nor at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime.

Fact: .25 calibre guns are very common and not difficult to get ahold of. They can be difficult to trace - very difficult - cause they can be sold privately with no record.

Fact: everything Jodi said prior to the trial were the claims of a woman trying to first avoid arrest, then avoid a charge, then save herself from the death penalty. Regardless of guilt or innocence - no one in that situation is going to hand over detailed information to the police,

How are those facts relevant to this case? No one was ever charged for the robery, and they're common, therefore it's reasonable to believe that it's all a coincidence and Jodi's new story (which totally isn't being told to save her own butt now) is true and Travis did own a secret gun that only she knew about, and everything else she said did actually happen? And she disposed of the gun but not the knife, even though the gun was Travis' too? Sorry but this is the Casey Anthony definition of "reasonable doubt." Circumstantial evidence IS evidence. When viewed all together it paints a clear picture.

But even putting the murder weapons aside, premeditation has been proven.

 

[Applejack]

Also, the knife wounds seem to indicate an absolute frenzy, which makes me think that this killing was more the result of a blind impulsive rage. And a blind impulsive rage is either 2nd degree or voluntary manslaughter.

A messy, rage-filled killing does NOT automatically equal volutary manslaughter. Not when you drive for hours on end in the desert on no sleep and in ninja stealth mode, and even have an alibi all neatly set up.

 

[sellse]

Here's where the State has failed, for me, Applejack. They have simply not proven this killing was NOT the result of a blind frenzied rage. A frenzy means the person is NOT taking time to reflect on their actions. That's the essence of a frenzy ... you are out of your mind.

So, as frustrating as this may sound, it doesn't matter about the gas cans, the burglary of the gun, etc, because the possibility was left open that Jodi would NOT kill Travis (if he agreed to take her to Mexico.) So there was only a possibility of intent, not actual intent. I think something happened in that house that drove her to kill impulsively and brutally.

The key to premeditation is that there is a period of time, regardless of how small, for the killer to reflect on the very acts that result in a killing. I dont see how this has been proven. So many of you simply state that the very brutality of the crime proves premeditation. This is simply not true, from how I read the Arizona homicide statutes.

Please don't yell at me, and insult me, because I have an unpopular opinion. I am following this trial closely and I don't like Jodi Arias either. Who could? But, I like to think that I am fair and impartial and can follow the letter of the law. Reasonable people can subjectively, and in good faith, interpret things differently, right? I think the best charge that the State has the ability to prove is 2nd degree murder. I'm not sure enough provocation has been shown to get voluntary manslaughter. But, I'm still listening, to all the evidence, with an OPEN mind. Thanks!

 

[Applejack]

Here's where the State has failed, for me, Applejack. They have simply not proven this killing was NOT the result of a blind frenzied rage. A frenzy means the person is NOT taking time to reflect on their actions. That's the essence of a frenzy ... you are out of your mind.

So, as frustrating as this may sound, it doesn't matter about the gas cans, the burglary of the gun, etc, because the possibility was left open that Jodi would NOT kill Travis (if he agreed to take her to Mexico.) So there was only a possibility of intent, not actual intent. I think something happened in that house that drove her to kill impulsively and brutally.

The key to premeditation is that there is a period of time, regardless of how small, for the killer to reflect on the very acts that result in a killing. I dont see how this has been proven. So many of you simply state that the very brutality of the crime proves premeditation. This is simply not true, from how I read the Arizona homicide statutes.

Please don't yell at me, and insult me, because I have an unpopular opinion. I am following this trial closely and I don't like Jodi Arias either. Who could? But, I like to think that I am fair and impartial and can follow the letter of the law. Reasonable people can subjectively, and in good faith, interpret things differently, right? I think the best charge that the State has the ability to prove is 2nd degree murder. I'm not sure enough provocation has been shown to get voluntary manslaughter. But, I'm still listening, to all the evidence, with an OPEN mind. Thanks!

That's not how the law works. She doesn't get off 1st Degree because she may have "left the possibility open to not kill him if he took her on the trip instead, but covered up her tracks in premeditation and was prepared to kill him 'if necessary'." The fact that she covered her tracks ahead of time indicates she was fully prepared to carry out that scenario if things didn't go her way. That is absolutely intent. That she left open a way for him to "not get murdered" makes no difference.

Arizona Law:

"Premeditation" means that the defendant intended to kill another human being or knew [he] [she] would kill another human being, and that after forming that intent or knowledge, reflected on the decision before killing. It is this reflection, regardless of the length of time in which it occurs, that distinguishes first degree murder from second degree murder."

She reflected on it before she went there, and in the midst of killing him *numerous times over.* There is no way to argue that at no point did she have time to reflect for even the slightest moment that she was killing him. She claims she didn't know he was dead even after all of it, so she could have called 911 if it was truly a spur of the moment rage that went wrong. I cannot fathom how what happened could be considered an accident. As one jury member asked sarcastically: what's the difference between a defense coping mechanism and a cover up?

 

[Wolfpack Fan]

Here is a list of popular pistol calibers. Read what it says about the 25.

List of popular pistol calibers - Survivalist Forum

 

[Wolfpack Fan]

Here is a list of popular pistol calibers. Read what it says about the 25.

List of popular pistol calibers - Survivalist Forum

 

[sellse]

That's not how the law works.

I disagree. I think the State has FAILED to prove the "reflecting" part of premeditation. If you are in the grip of a blind frenzy, you are not REFLECTING on the consequences of your action. A frenzy, by definition, means you are in a manic state and not capable of reflection.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[geevee]

Here's where the State has failed, for me, Applejack. They have simply not proven this killing was NOT the result of a blind frenzied rage. A frenzy means the person is NOT taking time to reflect on their actions. That's the essence of a frenzy ... you are out of your mind.

So, as frustrating as this may sound, it doesn't matter about the gas cans, the burglary of the gun, etc, because the possibility was left open that Jodi would NOT kill Travis (if he agreed to take her to Mexico.) So there was only a possibility of intent, not actual intent. I think something happened in that house that drove her to kill impulsively and brutally.

The key to premeditation is that there is a period of time, regardless of how small, for the killer to reflect on the very acts that result in a killing. I dont see how this has been proven. So many of you simply state that the very brutality of the crime proves premeditation. This is simply not true, from how I read the Arizona homicide statutes.

Please don't yell at me, and insult me, because I have an unpopular opinion. I am following this trial closely and I don't like Jodi Arias either. Who could? But, I like to think that I am fair and impartial and can follow the letter of the law. Reasonable people can subjectively, and in good faith, interpret things differently, right? I think the best charge that the State has the ability to prove is 2nd degree murder. I'm not sure enough provocation has been shown to get voluntary manslaughter. But, I'm still listening, to all the evidence, with an OPEN mind. Thanks!

I appreciate your open-mindedness. Is it your opinion that the stolen gun, rental car, gas cans, dyeing hair, telling everyone that she came down to see the new baby of a woman she tells Flores she hasn't talked to or seen in many months (but sees many other people, mainly old bfs), and no receipts and dead cell phone only in the state of AZ are all coincidences?

I suppose it's possible to see only those events as maybe coincidental, but when you add in all of the other facts in the case and things she did after she killed Travis, it doesn't seem likely or logical that they are all innocent and the only damning evidence is once she enters the house. At least that's my view.

 

[Sherazhad]

All the evidence points to premeditation. Jodi's stories are laughable & have been proven to be false:

-She climbed up the shelves in Travis's closet to get the gun. The shelves were totally undisturbed, so she did NOT get the gun from there. Also who keeps a gun without ammunition? Also when Travis went shooting with a friend he had to borrow a gun as he didn't have 1 of his own.
-The timing of the photographs proves her story to be false: a matter of seconds for the action in the bathroom, climbing up the closet for the gun, lunging, stabbing etc. Makes no sense.
-She took gas cans so it would be cheaper & safer if she got stuck in the desert- BUT she bought more expensive gas than she needed to at a filling station. If you are safety conscious about a long trip you tell people where you are, ensure your cell battery is charged & get a gps car. All these things she didn't do to avoid detection & occurred before she even arrived at Travis' house- premeditation!!!
-Her story about self-defense only works if there is any evidence she was beaten & abused. Apart from the word of an admitted liar (i.e. Jodi), what evidence is there? Her tone & arrogance on the stand pretty much shot down the meek, trodden down Jodi persona too.
-All common sense points to premeditation- reasonable doubt means just that: is it reasonable, not odds of a 1000 to 1 that she didn't premeditate this murder?

 

[Sherazhad]

Also the gruesomeness of the murder (i.e. nearly decapitating him) & the cold way she tried to clean up the murder scene don't point to some random act of rage. This was beyond that, it was cruel & brutal. That many stab wounds (including many in his back) the throat slashing & gunshot were to ensure he was dead. In contrast she was left relatively unscathed to trot off to see a new man & grind on his lap.

 

[Wolfpack Fan]

Travis asked Zach's opinion on which camera to buy. Since he had never owned a gun, I feel sure he would have gotten the opinion about which gun to buy from one of the guys with whom he went shooting. NO ONE would have suggested that he get a 25-caliber, a novelty gun. Jodi stole her grandfather's gun. Travis didn't own a gun.

I have no idea what time Jodi got to Travis's house. If she did get there in the middle of the night, Enrico was there. The next day Enrico was gone until 6:00 p.m. or later. Zach left sometime that day to get his car out of the shop but came back around 3 p.m. He left again around 4. This was Zach's day off work. I guess they didn't know when he would come back. Fear of the roommates being there is one reason I can think of why Jodi waited to kill him. I guess the other was to have sex with him. She wanted to be the last person to be with Travis.

Premeditation: gun, hair color, gas cans, rental car color, dead cell phone battery, upside-down license plate, etc.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I disagree. I think the State has FAILED to prove the "reflecting" part of premeditation. If you are in the grip of a blind frenzy, you are not REFLECTING on the consequences of your action. A frenzy, by definition, means you are in a manic state and not capable of reflection.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

No way, if it were anything but 1st degree, Jodi would have been able to give a plausible story for how it happened. Her version is ludicrous. There is no reasonable doubt that she committed this murder with total premeditated intent to kill.