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.
Premeditation occured long before she left for her trip. That she "allowed for a possible way for Travis to not be murdered by her" (lol) does not mean she had not formed an intent. She planned to cover her tracks and was PREPARED to murder him at LEAST if "she deemed it necessary." Can we prove she took the time at any point to "reflect" on that intent? You could NEVER prove that in ANY case. But she had AMPLE opportunity to do so and was clearly using very precise and "logical" mental functions to try to get away with it.
As well, the cover up, alibi, and all the actions she took after the "frenzy," were decisions she made. If it was truly as you describe, she could have called the cops, even anonymously, and possibly saved his life, no?
Sooooo premed by law has been proven. Again, the standard you are using is the Casey Anthony Standard where you can never prove 1st Degree because there's "always the possibility an invisible purple unicorn did it!" I guess everyone can just murder whoever they want and claim it was done in a frenzy despite planning to get away with it well in advance and say "you can't prove I ever reflected on it!" and call it a day.