The state Rests in The State v. Jodi Arias: break in trial until 28 January 2013 #11

[Linda7NJ]

I think some of you are confused about what premeditation is (versus pre-planning).

Premeditation can take as little as a few seconds. For instance, if someone is being strangled, that is premeditated murder. Why? Because it takes upwards of 4 minutes for someone to die. In that time the person doing the strangling knows if they continue to cut off the air, the victim will die and the perp is making the decision to continue.

In this case, Jodi knew that stabbing/slashing Travis would kill him and she continued to do so (27+ times). And then she slashed his throat ear-to-ear--she did that on purpose. And she shot him in the head. All acts can be considered premeditation even though the entire span of the murder from start to finish was about 90 seconds. Even if she decided a mere 5 minutes before that she was going to kill him, or even a minute before, she started the attack and kept going, knowing the outcome would result in death. That is premeditated murder.

Pre-planning, by contrast, does not have to be proved in order to prove premeditation. Like preparing a murder kit, obtaining a weapon, making travel plans. Those things are useful to help obtain a conviction, and it is strong circumstantial evidence, but it is very possible for there to be premeditated first degree murder but without evidence of prior pre-planning.

Therefore the State of AZ will be able to easily (IMO) argue this murder is premeditated because of the actions that started and continued. Jodi also pre-planned the crime, which adds to the state's case against her. But even if they had no evidence of pre-planning they still have evidence of premeditation!

I'm soooo glad you're here


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Karmady]

OMG!

Great minds...

I thought DH was looney for thinking this but now I think the prosecution screwed up by insisting the GSW occurred last.

No disrespect to other WS peeps, but I believe that that gun slowed TA down.

And was the first weapon to assault him.

MOO

ITA. I sincerely believe that the shot came first and I do think it's a mistake by the prosecution to contend otherwise.

 

[Laceybug]

these photos are from after the house was foreclosed i think

I saw on the memorial page where they thought the house recently sold.... not for certain tho.

 

[Madeleine74]

You can assume whatever you please but the jury has to figure out why she "premeditated" with a gun and ended up using a knife that there's no evidence she brought to the scene instead of a gun that was obviously there.

Like I said, I think she shot him first, so it's not a problem for me pre-meditation wise. But I honestly think it's a really good argument for the defense. At least compared to what all else they have, which is nothing.

Nope. The jury does not "have" to figure out any of it. The jury only needs to evaluate the evidence, the witness testimony, consider the totality of the evidence, and determine if the killing was done in self-defense or not. That's it. The jury is not to try and construct the crime scene or do experiments or any of the things that folks love to do. To prove first degree murder it doesn't require that the perp bring the weapon(s) or not bring the weapon(s) to the scene. It only requires proving that the perp committed the crime (and here the defense has already said she did it) and that there is no evidence of the killing being done in self-defense. And pictures prove that.

 

[Isabelle]

So, reading elsewhere, I saw the argument that if stealing the gun was premeditated, why did she kill him with the knife first? I'm sticking with shot first, so it doesn't matter to me. But for those of you who believe she stabbed first, how do you link the gun theft to premeditation if she used a knife. Afaik, there's no evidence at all about where the knife came from or where it went.

I think she stabbed him first, cut his throat and because she may have heard a gurgling sound and thought he was still alive, she then shot him. She wanted to make sure he was dead, she didn't want to be identified as the perp.

 

[dgfred]

You can assume whatever you please but the jury has to figure out why she "premeditated" with a gun and ended up using a knife that there's no evidence she brought to the scene instead of a gun that was obviously there.

Like I said, I think she shot him first, so it's not a problem for me pre-meditation wise. But I honestly think it's a really good argument for the defense. At least compared to what all else they have, which is nothing.

Right. I think the Defense is going to make a big play off the investigator saying he was shot first and the ME saying maybe not.

JA 'I would kill him in a humane way... not that killing is humane SO TO SPEAK'

Unreal!

 

[Linda7NJ]

I hope the jury doesn't get fixated on this. It doesn't matter if she brought her own knife or got one from TA's house. It doesn't matter that the gun and knife were never found. She, through her attorneys, admitted she did the killing.

Even if she had never admitted it, the state still has the trump cards: They have her bloody palm print in the victim's blood, mixed with her own blood on the wall near the crime scene. Further, they have her hair mixed with TA's blood at the crime scene. Even without her admittance, on just those things alone they could still nail her. But wait there's more! Photographs that tie her to the scene and the victim! There's a mountain of evidence that doesn't require the state to produce the actual weapons or a confession.

But they do have the confession through her attorneys, so score!

Lets hope the jurors arent stupid!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LotusPawprint]

No, but she hasn't said anything. Her lawyers claim self defense and said she had to protect herself... they haven't said 'how' yet.

Well she had to protect herself from a wet, naked man who was apparently enraged that she dropped his camera and her "response" was shooting him in the head and stabbing him 29 times in the back, chest and slicing his throat.
Both weapons were within her reach readily available to her.

 

[pip]

Not to gross anyone out too much.. but in the photo with TA laying on the bed holding up 2 fingers.. I am surprised no one has mentioned the white substance very apparent dripping down his hand/wrist. It is so obvious in the photo. Any comments here? Did the end of the sexcapade result in him masturbating rather than ejaculating into her? Before you bash me.. i am trying to be clinical as possible here..take a close look at the pic before you decide.

 

[Isabelle]

ITA. I sincerely believe that the shot came first and I do think it's a mistake by the prosecution to contend otherwise.

The autopsy seemed to show otherwise, since there was no bleeding. This would not only be bleeding to the outside, but inside the brain and that blood would have remained contained within the skull and over time would have turned black.

 

[kscornfed]

She was very lucky to have been holding the gun or knife in her hand huh? Wow! What luck!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bingo. We know this didn't take that long from start to finish. She had time to run somewhere and grab a gun and a knife?

There goes self defense right there. Unless they're going to say Travis kept a gun and knife in the bathroom just in case!

:

 

[norest4thewicked]

You can assume whatever you please but the jury has to figure out why she "premeditated" with a gun and ended up using a knife that there's no evidence she brought to the scene instead of a gun that was obviously there.

Like I said, I think she shot him first, so it's not a problem for me pre-meditation wise. But I honestly think it's a really good argument for the defense. At least compared to what all else they have, which is nothing.

I don't see this as a problem at all. She obviously had access to both a gun and a knife. And, she killed him. And, she used both a gun and a knife.

The jury is also going to have a hard time figuring how there was blood everywhere and he had been stabbed a couple of dozen times and almost completely bled out, but the wound from the gun shot barely bled, of they choose to think he was shot first. AND, we have the medical expert saying that absolutely the gun came last. I don't think that the jury will choose to dismiss the medical expert.

I guess we will see.

 

[SwampMama]

Not spit up, spit out! Just wet remnants of tassels. Nothing gross like the time my son fed her a box of crayons because he thought she would poop in rainbow colors!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ROFL, when I was teaching at a very old school, I found a huge pile of brightly colored sprinkles in my supply closet. Upon closer inspection I discovered it was actually rodent poop from rodents who had eaten all of my crayons. It was truly festive looking, lol!!

 

[Madeleine74]

ITA. I sincerely believe that the shot came first and I do think it's a mistake by the prosecution to contend otherwise.

So you'd advise the State of AZ to contradict their own medical examiner's testimony because...??? Why would this be a good idea? And the jury should then believe...who?

 

[FrayedKnot]

Not to gross anyone out too much.. but in the photo with TA laying on the bed holding up 2 fingers.. I am surprised no one has mentioned the white substance very apparent dripping down his hand/wrist. It is so obvious in the photo. Any comments here? Did the end of the sexcapade result in him masturbating rather than ejaculating into her? Before you bash me.. i am trying to be clinical as possible here..take a close look at the pic before you decide.

Ewwwww.

But yes. I see what you mean.

So, ewwww!

 

[polleypockets]

This is an old interview from a couple of years ago. So she's not spinning it again they're just re-airing for ratings with updates from the trial. But yes it's just as frustrating. :furious:

its not on in cali yet - is she talking about self defence? or is she telling the ninja story?

 

[dgfred]

Yawn... Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wake up woman! :great:

PS to Karmady... my grey female cat is named Karmandi... Am I spelling it wrong?

 

[Madeleine74]

Lets hope the jurors arent stupid!

Odds are there will be at least one or two dumb ones, but hopefully they will be countered by the smart ones with common sense who follow the judge's orders.

 

[Isabelle]

Well, that (48 Hrs) raised my blood pressure. Very poor 'update' weaving the old and new together. I think it probably left some of the audience thinking she's still claiming the intruders killed him.

I think Jodi would have had a good chance of convincing LE with the intruder story if she had not made so many mistakes and quite a name for herself.

 

[FrayedKnot]

So you'd advise the State of AZ to contradict their own medical examiner's testimony because...??? Why would this be a good idea? And the jury should then believe...who?

At the beginning of the thread, mods said all opinions were allowed and attacks were not.

MOO.

Not a mod, just trying to keep the thread open!