Defense answer:
You only kill someone because they attacked you.
You had the gun in your purse only for protection.
The knife just happened to be nearby.
I ended up using both because of fear/shock/panic.
No premeditation there, right?
dg, I'm just jumpin off your post because it kinda speaks to what I'm gonna say....NOT attacking, or being argumentative, OK?? It's just a good example of what, IMO, the defense might say.
I woke up today thinking like a juror on this case. I HATE to keep bringing up this person/trial, but I don't feel as "vested" in this case as I did in the "other" one.
First, the words that you only kill someone if they attack you better NOT come out of the defenses mouths, BUT, as you say, it probably WILL....laughably.
So, as far as I'm concerned, as a juror, AND IMO, JA admitted to doing this.
I'm thinking the opposite way, I want the DEFENSE to convince me this was done as an act of "protection", as opposed to the prosecution proving their case. Those interview tapes kinda did it for me.
In the opening statements, the defense said, so dramatically, it was basically JA's life or death.
I always remember from NG, in one of her more lucid moments, that PREMEDATATION can happen in "the twinkling of an eye".
It IS feasible that JA could have carried a gun for protection....lets just use our imagination here. I'd "assume" it was in her purse, as a holster seems quite far fetched.
So, she's taking pictures of TA in the shower, etc. Lets just say he "attacked" her for dropping the camera. I'm gonna "assume" she didn't bring her purse into the bathroom, so, she MUST have had her faculties around her enough to run to the bedroom to get the gun out of her purse and run back, since the blood evidence/trails don't really support him getting to her BEFORE she got the gun.
OK, so, IMO, AND as a juror, that part right there, the thought enough to run to the purse to get the gun and "protect" herself.....while the honest to goodness thought would have been to just get the heck outta dodge. He's nekked, for cryin out loud. You get that "fight or flight" thing going on. She has a good running start. IF she took the time enough to "run for her life" to the bedroom and remember she had a gun in her purse AND remember where she PUT her purse, THAT, IMO, is premeditation at it's finest.
IF, the KNIFE came first...again, she'd have to remember where the knife was to "protect" herself. IIRC, the defense mentioned a knife on the bed stand to "cut" the rope TA tied her up with....guess scissors don't exist...but apparently, it was stated, he "liked" to use a knife to do that. Whatever!!
(Although, I'm wondering about the fact that, IF she got tied up with those drapery tie back thingies, AND TA cut them off each time with a knife, JoAnn's Fabrics or wherever, must have had to stock a ton of those things, AND, JA/TA having to just have them "handy"....but I digress.)
So, I don't know. I mentioned in a prior post, that, those questions from the jury are coming from ONE particular juror who's trying to turn this case into a "who dunnit", again, IMO.
We also need to remember there's closing statements, and IIRC, the prosecution gets to do a "rebuttal" (?) AFTER the defense.
For all his, shall we say "rigorous" questioning in redirect (?), I have NO doubts WHATSOEVER, that the prosecutor will leave any room for ANY questions in the jury's minds.
Sorry for the length and long winded discussion...LOL
ETA: I just thought of something Kramer, from Seinfeld, called someone who was being persistent, he said "you're a tenacious little monkey, aren't you??". Just funny it reminded me of that prosecutor. He's got a mouth full of Nurmi's butt and he ain't letting go!!! LOL
