:rocker::rocker: I believe she did Premeditate the killing, she knew down deep he would not take her to Cancun or take her as his wife. She wanted him so bad she had to have that last time with him, regardless what he would tell her. She knew she would kill him. She wanted that last time maybe hoping she would win him back so she did not have to kill him. She had to make sure no one was going to be there as well as she knew she had to trick him into a position so she could stab him over and over so he could not over power her. She did that while he was in shower. He fought because he is the one with the defensive wounds not her. He was hurt to bad to stop her. She just had to make sure he really was not going to love her any more before she knew she had to kill him so no one else could have him. I do not think she thought about what after meant, when it come to all the blood. She panic after killing, why it was so sloppy and she did not mean for the camera to go into washing machine, the camera was a ploy to get Travis into a vulnerable position so she could kill him. She looks so surprised when the Detective told her the camera was put into the washing machine. She did not know where it was, I believe. :rocker:
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"!!