premeditation

[cecybeans]

Looking for people's thoughts on the proposition that the Defendant did not demonstrate premeditation due to the extended period of time she spent with the vic, including their activities, prior to the murder. Here, we know the Defendant spent the entire day with the vic. She didn't walk in and kill him in the doorway. Instead, she allowed him to have sex with her, they took a nap, layed around, even allowed him to take pictures of her in compromising positions.

If she went there with a premeditated and specific intent to kill, wouldn't the act have come much sooner rather than later? Spending 12 hours with your intended victim, taking pictures, being intimate, etc. could seem far beyond the logical point she should/could have emotionally gone, if murder was the sole reason for her visit. Can we say that this lady is actually that much of a psychopath, a black widow of the highest form, pleasuring herself for hours then killing her mate? Is that really this woman?

Looking for your thoughts on whether the 12 hours of leisure, sex, and pictures spent with the vic actually "kills" the State's premeditation theory. [Excuse the pun] Clearly, a juror could find her not "evil" enough to follow the State down this particular theoretical path due to the substantial period of time she spent with the vic prior to the homicide. I'm on the fence, but would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks from the "newbie"!!

I don't think any delay between the time she arrived and the time of the murder is any indication premeditation is not on the table. For one thing, the legal threshold for premeditation is met in the extended and brutal method of killing, as others have pointed out.

Personally, I think she went there with the idea that if he changed his mind and took her on the Cancun trip, she might have allowed him to live. She may have spent her time there engaging in sex - with her I think it was a power trip, a way to manipulate or persuade him into doing her bidding - but the fact he refused caused her to take the option of living off the table and to punish him with death. Or she may have just gone there to emphasize his sexual need for her - as one last way to dominate him before she ended his life. Kind of like a cat toying with its prey before the kill. To me, that speaks of an even greater capacity for premeditation. Walking up to his home and shooting him, while obviously premeditated, might also indicate a crime of passion or jealousy. Arriving and engaging in sex, small talk and whatever else ensued, makes me think she is cool and calculating.

The picture she took of him in the shower, although it might have been designed to give her a physical advantage by momentarily blinding him, also makes me think she had gone over this many times in her mind - she had no compunction about catching and preserving the look of fear and horror on his face before she went about brutally ending his life. Just stopping to capture that moment on film was in itself, another indicator to me this crime had many moments of premeditation. IMO, the ability to delay the kill for her own satisfaction makes it seem more calculated and premeditated overall and not less so.

 

[CJae]

I don't think any delay between the time she arrived and the time of the murder is any indication premeditation is not on the table. For one thing, the legal threshold for premeditation is met in the extended and brutal method of killing, as others have pointed out.

Personally, I think she went there with the idea that if he changed his mind and took her on the Cancun trip, she might have allowed him to live. She may have spent her time there engaging in sex - with her I think it was a power trip, a way to manipulate or persuade him into doing her bidding - but the fact he refused caused her to take the option of living off the table and to punish him with death. Or she may have just gone there to emphasize his sexual need for her - as one last way to dominate him before she ended his life. Kind of like a cat toying with its prey before the kill. To me, that speaks of an even greater capacity for premeditation. Walking up to his home and shooting him, while obviously premeditated, might also indicate a crime of passion or jealousy. Arriving and engaging in sex, small talk and whatever else ensued, makes me think she is cool and calculating.

The picture she took of him in the shower, although it might have been designed to give her a physical advantage by momentarily blinding him, also makes me think she had gone over this many times in her mind - she had no compunction about catching and preserving the look of fear and horror on his face before she went about brutally ending his life. Just stopping to capture that moment on film was in itself, another indicator to me this crime had many moments of premeditation. IMO, the ability to delay the kill for her own satisfaction makes it seem more calculated and premeditated overall and not less so.

Thank you for this post!

I couldn't put this into words but the premeditation is just so blatantly obvious to me. If he didn't changed his mind he was done. I firmly believe she not only wanted him to think she was gone so she could surprise him while he was at his most vulnerable, (naked, soaking wet and cornered) but she also wanted him to SEE that gun and/or knife pointed right at him. She took great pleasure in that terrified look on his face, IMO.

Also, you see that pic & the next where he is down before the camera falls and takes ceiling pic. So how is it HE lunged at HER because she dropped the thing?

I get the feeling there is a reason she's remaining on that stand so long. The more feedback the defense is getting from the general public the more they go back in time and up the "abuse" stories for the jury. IMO, the entire direct testimony is premeditative. Otherwise all these new instances of TA's " yelling" and "back handing" her in the car (etc etc) would have already been told last week while they so thoroughly went through the timeline of their relationship.

Hoping this makes sense!

 

[panthera]

Absolutely.

Pre-meditation in planning the trip, and pre-meditation in surprising Travis in the shower, followed by multiple stab wounds, slitting his throat and a gunshot wound to the head.

MOO

 

[cecybeans]

This also reminds me, in a way, of how FCA took Amy to the airport and, when she didn't say, hey! I've got enough in my bank account to float your ticket, she had no compunction about dropping her off and spending every last cent in that checkbook for revenge.

 

[KBisMe]

Looking for your thoughts on whether the 12 hours of leisure, sex, and pictures spent with the vic actually "kills" the State's premeditation theory. [Excuse the pun] Clearly, a juror could find her not "evil" enough to follow the State down this particular theoretical path due to the substantial period of time she spent with the vic prior to the homicide. I'm on the fence, but would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks from the "newbie"!!

Snipped for Space & BBM

I definitely think they have shown premeditation. My thoughts on the 12 hours are:

1) She got there around 3-4 AM and had been driving for a long time. If she killed him right away, she'd have to jump right back into her car.

2) He had roommates and at least one of them was home that night and for part of the afternoon. She couldn't fire a gun or start stabbing him and have the roommate come running when they hear screams.

3) I agree that she wanted to get him in a very vulnerable position. He spent part of that day cleaning and then saw her opportunity when he got in the shower and the roommate had left.

4) I also agree with previous comments about her wanting to have that last intimate moment with him. She's sick and twisted in the head. She probably got a rush knowing FOR SURE that she would be the last woman he ever kissed, etc.

:moo::twocents:

 

[Linda7NJ]

Absol freaking utely!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[suspicious1]

I voted "yes"

The state proved premeditation. For sure.

 

[MEC]

I'm curious as to the other great facts you mentioned. With the exception of renting a car, did all of the other actions occur after the fact? Do we know when the gas cans were purchased? I'm looking for more factors that tend to show "pre"meditation, rather than an after-the-fact covering up of the crime.

A few things that sealed it for me for pre-event evidence: removal of her mobile phone battery during her time in AZ; her lack of paper trail in AZ; and the purchase of gas cans in southern CA.

I'm sure there are more, these are what I can think of off the top of my head. :twocents:

 

[Madeleine74]

That's all pre-planning. Everything she did to prepare to go and commit the murder. Even if the prosecution had zero evidence of all her pre-planning, they could still prove premeditation based on her actions at the start of the crime. The fact they do have all this other evidence (the pre-planning) just helps cement their case.

 

[CheckMate]

I just read the Revised Arizona Jury Instructions, Criminal 3d, 2011 Revision. In Arizona, Murder I, Murder II, and Manslaughter are all intentional killings. Murder II is an intentional killing, but without premeditation. And Manslaughter is an intentional killing with wherein the Defendant acted upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion; and the sudden quarrel or heat of passion resulted from adequate provocation by the person who was killed. Murder I is an intentional killing with premeditation.

“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. An act is not done with premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. [The time needed for reflection is not necessarily prolonged, and the space of time between the intent or knowledge to kill and the act of killing may be very short.]

See RAJI (CRIMINAL) 3d (2011), p. 112.

The point is, they are all "intentional killings"; the Defendant acts with the intent to kill, and does kill the vic. So to say that Jodi intended to kill Travis is just the beginning of the inquiry. That could be Murder I, II, or Man I, pursuant to Arizona law. Thought that was interesting to point out.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

^^ Well then they have her because the gun shot, the stab to the heart, and slashing his throat are all injuries which she would have known would kill him and WHICHEVER one came first is irrelevant as there was time between that one and the next, so therefore premeditation. She also had to swap weapons which also means she had time to think. Murder 1 based on injuries alone. Let alone all the other things she did like hire a car out of town etc etc etc ... I think she planned it from May 26 myself. I think she went down there with the intent to kill because she stole and took the gun.

 

[tinkabella]

Still waiting to hear from the 5 who believe that this crime was not premeditated. *tumble weeds rolling*

 

[Melanie]

I voted yes, and you have all said all the reasons for me!

MOO

Mel

 

[IfIMay]

Premeditation doesn't necessarily mean a long drawn out plan (even though she had one). It can be formed in the instant you raise a gun to aim at the head (if you believe the gun was first), or in the 1st stab to the heart and next stab. Or the time you decide to cut someone's neck from ear to ear as deep as it will go. She formed premeditated intent MANY times over the course of time before she murdered Travis. And the Prosecution proved it.

 

[minor4th]

I just read the Revised Arizona Jury Instructions, Criminal 3d, 2011 Revision. In Arizona, Murder I, Murder II, and Manslaughter are all intentional killings. Murder II is an intentional killing, but without premeditation. And Manslaughter is an intentional killing with wherein the Defendant acted upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion; and the sudden quarrel or heat of passion resulted from adequate provocation by the person who was killed. Murder I is an intentional killing with premeditation.

“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. An act is not done with premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. [The time needed for reflection is not necessarily prolonged, and the space of time between the intent or knowledge to kill and the act of killing may be very short.]

See RAJI (CRIMINAL) 3d (2011), p. 112.

The point is, they are all "intentional killings"; the Defendant acts with the intent to kill, and does kill the vic. So to say that Jodi intended to kill Travis is just the beginning of the inquiry. That could be Murder I, II, or Man I, pursuant to Arizona law. Thought that was interesting to point out.

Manslaughter is not an intentional killing. It is a conscious disregard for a substantial risk of death.

Murder 2 does not require intention either -- Murder 2 is causing death of another either intentionally or knowingly or by reckless conduct with extreme indifference to human life

 

[iluvmua]

This was planned out. She could have turned her car around if she chose too.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks so much for your insight. I'm just starting to learn the facts of this case. Another factor that struck me was the lack of power to the cellular phone during the only time window of her "vacation" = the time of the murder.

As for the other factors you mentioned, unfortunately, the law cannot inject premeditation into the minutes before each act of aggression (stabbing motion). In that event, Murder II wouldn't exist in most cases.

I'm curious as to the other great facts you mentioned. With the exception of renting a car, did all of the other actions occur after the fact? Do we know when the gas cans were purchased? I'm looking for more factors that tend to show "pre"meditation, rather than an after-the-fact covering up of the crime. People who commit crimes of passion or provocation (Murder 2) often cover up their crimes, so those facts won't necessarily make or break the State's burden of proving predesign or prior calculation/intent to murder.

Since the State has not requested the Court give instructions to the jury on lesser included's, Murder 2 isn't on the table. Scary, huh? If they believe she killed the guy out of rage or anger, she could walk, right? (ala Casey Anthony). Surprising that they didn't opt for that defense, actually. It presents better in this situation than the self defense claim.

BBM

Have the requested jury instructions and objections been posted somewhere? I haven't followed the case until recently.

In any event, it isn't up to the state to decide whether to give lesser included instructions. It is up to the court. If the DEFENSE objects, the judge will have to think long and hard before giving the instruction (because she might be overturned on appeal), but if only the STATE objects, the instructions will be given if there is any way to make the evidence fit the lesser included offense.

 

[LuvsSunshine]

I voted YES because (in my opinion) Jodi started planning the trip when she first learned that Travis was going to Cancun with someone else. If she could have convinced Travis to let her go with him to Cancun, he would probably still be alive. She has memory problems in court, but when Travis was supposedly chasing her and she was terrified, she conveniently remembered seeing the gun in the closet.

 

[pinkie60]

Looking for people's thoughts on the proposition that the Defendant did not demonstrate premeditation due to the extended period of time she spent with the vic, including their activities, prior to the murder. Here, we know the Defendant spent the entire day with the vic. She didn't walk in and kill him in the doorway. Instead, she allowed him to have sex with her, they took a nap, layed around, even allowed him to take pictures of her in compromising positions.

If she went there with a premeditated and specific intent to kill, wouldn't the act have come much sooner rather than later? Spending 12 hours with your intended victim, taking pictures, being intimate, etc. could seem far beyond the logical point she should/could have emotionally gone, if murder was the sole reason for her visit. Can we say that this lady is actually that much of a psychopath, a black widow of the highest form, pleasuring herself for hours then killing her mate? Is that really this woman?

Looking for your thoughts on whether the 12 hours of leisure, sex, and pictures spent with the vic actually "kills" the State's premeditation theory. [Excuse the pun] Clearly, a juror could find her not "evil" enough to follow the State down this particular theoretical path due to the substantial period of time she spent with the vic prior to the homicide. I'm on the fence, but would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks from the "newbie"!!

the roommate was home when she arrived and didn't leave i think at 3pm

 

[pinkie60]

the roommate was home when she arrived and didn't leave i think at 3pm

should be until 3pm so she had to wait until he was gone.