Actually I'm disappointed in most everyone associated with this trial. Add to that, IMO, JA is overcharged.
Really? What do you think a more appropriate charge would be? Also, what do you think is missing (so far) that makes you believe she has been overcharged?
IMO, this is the only appropriate charge because beyond any reasonable story, the amount of premeditation evidence is clear to me. She had 3 (I believe mathematically that is the most logical and she had no return receipt despite having her other receipt). She claims she did get gas in Arizona, but didn't keep the receipt because it wasn't something she would claim on her taxes; even if this were true, which is highly suspect to me, it is interesting she would have had to use cash instead of her card which she used in Utah, removing her paper trail. She is only claiming to getting gas in Arizona now because with only 2 gas cans as she claims, she would have needed to get gas at some point. Her phone coincidentally turns off during this period of Arizona so her phone isn't picked up on cell towers, another way to not get found. TA's room mates never reported any car in the driveway or garage, so where would JA have parked? Why would she have parked anywhere but the driveway or garage unless she didn't want anyone to notice? Yeah we didn't find detailed drawn plans for how she was going to attack him or whatever but sufficient circumstantial is there to me.
And then there is the gun. It may not have been spelled out super clear to the jury at this point, but again, what are the chances that May 26 he sends her scathing texts basically calling her out as an evil sociopath who only cares about herself, worst thing that ever happened to him and to leave him alone and 2 days later her grandparent's gun, at the house she lived in with the grandparent's, was stolen and a DVD player and $30 of Arias'... that just does not sound like a normal robbery. There were other valuable items and guns but only 1 gun was taken. At TA's house there was 0 evidence he ever owned a gun, no bullets, no holster, no cleaning kit; his gun aficionado friend said TA's would have told him if he had a gun, it wasn't registered and TA seemed like he would register a gun he owned (law abiding, had an image to protect that an illegally owned gun would not jive with) It just makes no sense and is another fable created by the defendant.
It is very important for JA's goal of not getting 1st degree murder that the gun have been TA's and in the closet and the knife had been TA's and in the bathroom/bedroom. The stories she has told surrounding these 2 to try and fit in her defense are laughably fictitious, IMO. We all saw how thin that 1-2 inch piece of "rope" found in the bathroom was. What sane person would use a large, super sharp knife to cut that instead of scissors or maybe a pocket knife? The knife TA must have chosen (based on JA's story) was sharp enough to impale him through so much cartilage, muscle and organs. And it was long too, I believe it was estimated the blade was 5" IIRC. Why would TA use such a large and dangerous knife to cut this soft, thin "rope"?
And, in conclusion and I know it isn't of sound jury-worth decision making so it is my own biased judgments coming in, but any case that a defendant must lie and dance their way through (before trial, and during) means to me they are full of ***** and guilty as hell. I know after the CA trial that is obviously not how juries work and I understand it should about evidence but I am sick of murderers concocting lie after lie after lie until they finally found one that, with incredible amounts of embellishment/coincidences/implausibilities, almost fits into the evidence at hand.
MOO, interested in yours
eace:
