premeditation

[scorpio24]

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

The roommate issue was a clincher for me, as well. At one point in her testimony, I believe Jodi even STATED she asked Travis if anyone was home the night she got there. She needed a "clean house." I think she PLANNED to kill him when she arrived with NO WARNING, but couldn't because there was someone else in the house. Then, she had to find a way to stay. She had a plan for that, too. She brought rope!

The statement to Flores along the lines of "I would have to shoot him, I think" gave me pause. It let me know the amount of planning that went into this murder. Jodi became as obsessed with it-and getting away with it-as she was with Travis. From the date of his texts regarding her "betrayal" (May 24th or 26th,) Travis was doomed. She burglarized her grandparents' house on May 28th (.25 caliber gun stolen.) Bought and borrowed gas cans (and filled them in CA to "save money." What?!?) Killed him in a way that a petite little woman couldn't possibly pull off. (Any other woman would HAVE to shoot him. But Jodi was smarter. THAT'S why the gunshot came LAST. It was NOT what killed him.) Colored her hair. Spent over 15 minutes leaving the perfect voice mail. Drove to Utah. Had an tryst with another man. Etc. Etc. Etc.

To me, the cleanup and alibi ALSO prove premeditation. There was as much planning in that as in the crime itself. Timing was crucial. She had a lot of cleanup to do (including herself) in a short time. Dumping the camera in the washer: smart. Leaving the SD card in: not smart. Gas cans: smart. Borrowing them from the one honest boyfriend still alive: not smart. Renting car: smart. Bringing it back with Kool-aid stains and a ton of miles: not smart.

The most horrible part to me: she even remembered to put the doggie gate up so Napoleon couldn't get upstairs. That poor dog couldn't get to Travis. His owner lay in that shower for DAYS.

So, yes, she planned the murder. But there was just as much, if not MORE, planning in the clean up and cover up. In her mind, it was the perfectly planned crime. (Darned SD card.)

 

[Carioca]

I voted a resounding YES for all the evidence previously stated so eloquently by others above.

Am curious about those who voted otherwise and their reasoning...

 

[gngr~snap]

Yes. So many reasons .. but IMO the biggest is she went into the closet for a gun instead of running out the dang door and leaving. She was all packed up and ready to go per her testimony.

 

[Linda From New York]

Well, I vote YES based on what I have seen inside and outside of the courtroom.

But on the fence as to if it has been proved so far to the jury in the courtroom. There's more to come from Juan to prove it for the jury and I cannot wait for this week!

 

[Linda From New York]

Well, I vote YES based on what I have seen inside and outside of the courtroom.

But on the fence as to if it has been proved so far to the jury in the courtroom. There's more to come from Juan to prove it for the jury and I cannot wait for this week!

Ya know what! I am taking back my "on fence". :what: Silly me! I am forgetting all that came before she got on the stand and what she was saying during her "direct".

 

[ElleElle]

Voted "unsure". The car rental, hair, Starbucks etc... is mere circumstantial.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Circumstantial? That's unreasonable doubt.

 

[ElleElle]

Circumstantial? That's unreasonable doubt.

"Circumstantial evidence is based on reasoning and inference-drawing through probability. The judge must apply logic, common sense and experience to the evidence. They must consider the inherent probabilities and improbabilities, frequently eliminating the possibility of coincidence."

Coincidences?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

"Circumstantial evidence is based on reasoning and inference-drawing through probability. The judge must apply logic, common sense and experience to the evidence. They must consider the inherent probabilities and improbabilities, frequently eliminating the possibility of coincidence."

Coincidences?

Yes, proper judgment is about knowing when to eliminate the possibility of coincidence. In this case for premeditation, there's:

1. The big fight on 5/26/08.
2. The stolen gun two days later with matching caliber.
3. The senseless road trip that goes through LA when her claimed main point is to see Ryan in Utah, and when she said she had money problems.
4. The car rental way out of town, instead of in town.
5. The lie to the car rental clerk that she would be driving local.
6. The switching from a red car to a white car.
7. The borrowed gas cans and the receipt for another gas can.
8. Filling the gas cans in Pasadena when she said she brought the gas cans because of expensive gas prices in Calif.
9. The turned off phone and phone charger that's lost only between Pasadena and post-Mesa.
10. The license plate turned upside down.
11. The excessive injuries and the failure to call 911 or get help.
13. The lies to police instead of ever claiming self-defense or passion.

When you have all those data points, it makes innocent coincidence very unlikely. And there may be points I've missed. (I'm omitting hair color till that's better confirmed.)

 

[RATTKATT]

I voted no because I thought the poll question was 'did the state prove premeditation better than JA herself has?' :great:

 

[Applejack]

Voted "unsure". The car rental, hair, Starbucks etc... is mere circumstantial.

We seem to be back in Orlando again. On its own, those pieces of evidence are circumstantial. But when viewed as a whole, it is corroborative evidence for the State's case.

While it's possible an invisible unicorn committed the murder, that's not a "reasonable doubt." To entertain the idea that all the pre-meditative evidence that the State has put forth is more likely just a bunch of innocent coincidences renders the entire justice system a big joke, because the standards of proof are so absurd that they cannot possibly be met.

 

[Hally]

100% premeditated, but worst of all post meditated- flowers sent etc She went well beyond premeditation.

The car rental is a fact that she went many, many miles away to rent it, then change the color of it.

The smoking gun which her Grandparents reported stolen, I am not a gun expert, but my hubby is, and not many people purchase the type of gun used, actually it was banned in sales in the 60/70s for a while.

The guy she gave a bj to, as an excuse for her to travel {blank on his name}, when it was proven she was going to see TA all along.

She planned the trip to see TA, after they were broken off.

combined-

Her peeping tom moves.

Her previous patterns of stalking.

The gas cans.

The motive - jealousy over his Cancun trip with another woman.

I've barely scratched surface on evidence, or accumulative evidence and motives.

I think the question is - Does any of her actions/testimony support the defense? Or lack of defense.

 

[ChinaBlue]

I just voted a definitive YES! In addition to all the other reasons previous stated (even those that posibly could be looked at as "coincidental)", when JA called Ryan Burns an "afterthought" on Monday and then, in response to JM, kinda agreed he was an "alibi" - well that just took me over the top. The trip to visot Ryan was as carefully planned as the rest of the events in her premeditation planning. Ryan was no afterthought.

 

[Ammonitida]

Yes, proper judgment is about knowing when to eliminate the possibility of coincidence. In this case for premeditation, there's:

1. The big fight on 5/26/08.
2. The stolen gun two days later with matching caliber.
3. The senseless road trip that goes through LA when her claimed main point is to see Ryan in Utah, and when she said she had money problems.
4. The car rental way out of town, instead of in town.
5. The lie to the car rental clerk that she would be driving local.
6. The switching from a red car to a white car.
7. The borrowed gas cans and the receipt for another gas can.
8. Filling the gas cans in Pasadena when she said she brought the gas cans because of expensive gas prices in Calif.
9. The turned off phone and phone charger that's lost only between Pasadena and post-Mesa.
10. The license plate turned upside down.
11. The excessive injuries and the failure to call 911 or get help.
13. The lies to police instead of ever claiming self-defense or passion.

When you have all those data points, it makes innocent coincidence very unlikely. And there may be points I've missed. (I'm omitting hair color till that's better confirmed.)

Excellent. You should also add her voice mail message to Travis that was delivered after his death where she attempts to prop up evidence number 9 (by claiming her cell phone died and that she got lost driving miles in the wrong direction). Also add her attempt at a clean-up (placing his dead body back in the shower stall to wash away her DNA) and the gun being disposed of in the desert (not necessary if it was Travis's gun).

 

[KMouse]

For those that vote "no" or "unsure":

What would you need if you were on the jury to prove this crime was premeditated?

I really want to hear the other side and differing opinions so please share them.

 

[KMouse]

We seem to be back in Orlando again. On its own, those pieces of evidence are circumstantial. But when viewed as a whole, it is corroborative evidence for the State's case.

While it's possible an invisible unicorn committed the murder, that's not a "reasonable doubt." To entertain the idea that all the pre-meditative evidence that the State has put forth is more likely just a bunch of innocent coincidences renders the entire justice system a big joke, because the standards of proof are so absurd that they cannot possibly be met.

I think there are people out there (twelve of them for sure in Clearwater, FL) that need the "smoking gun". They need the video or the confession and thery aren't able to take pieces of evidence and put them together as a whole. They are also not clear on what premeditation is in a legal sense.

 

[Candy_Pickletoes]

I don't think the State has to try too hard to show premeditation, the moment she changed weapons premeditation is evident as pointed out by another poster's husband. I hadn't looked at it that way but he's absolutely right, why the change of weapons? JA had to put one down and pick up the other, that act, in and of itself, shows premeditation, IMO.

 

[Tsunvirtual]

Yes. 100 % premeditated. I went back and listened on the phone sex conversation just to make sure I had this right. She asks him if he was coming to visit her before he goes to Cancun. He said that's his plan and that she is at the top of the list. That call was May 10th. He didn't go. His email was hacked and he sent her text on May 25 or 26th telling her how upset he was. That’s the one he calls her a sociopath in. Her grandparents house was robbed and the .25 caliber gun was taken May 28th. I think the text from him set her off on the plan to kill him.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I think there are people out there (twelve of them for sure in Clearwater, FL) that need the "smoking gun". They need the video or the confession and thery aren't able to take pieces of evidence and put them together as a whole. They are also not clear on what premeditation is in a legal sense.

I wonder what those types of jurors would do if they hear that DNA can be "coincidence" as well. DNA just gives a percent probability for those markers. It could be that more than one person in a given population has those markers. Even a video can be doubted by saying special effects.

Every piece of evidence can be doubted at some level. But there are some combinations of evidence that can't REASONABLY be doubted as confirming certain claims.

 

[marciec]

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"!!

Hi Checkmate, I'm a newbie too! I think the state is proving beyond any doubt the premeditation factors. It's just not possible that a week prior to the murder her grandparents home is robbed of a....25 caliber gun?? Then, the car rental far away, the gas cans, the turned off phone, etc. There's just too much evidence showing she absolutely planned this, and reveled in the planning stages right along with carrying it out. The sex & time spent was a perk only. The goal of the trip was to "own" TA once & for all. "No Cancun for you, my dear" is all she was thinking from the burglary at grandparents all the way to June 4th. JMO...