Firstly, I apologize if this have been asked and answered already. Maybe I watch too many crime shows but I was wondering about the gun in this case. Have they been able to link it to Jodi's grandparents? Is is the right caliber? Has the bullet been linked to any at their house? When the gun was stolen was anything else taken? Did Jodi have access to the weapon? Was any kind of forced entry to the house when the gun was stolen?
If the gun can definitively be linked to JA then to me it shows premeditation and absolutely no self defense.
About a week before the murder, a 25 caliber was stolen from jodi's grandparent's house. This is where jodi lived and the gun was in an unlocked gun case so jodi had access.
This is the same caliber as what was used to kill Travis.
What is unusual about the supposed theft is that numerous other guns were sitting right next to the 25 caliber. In other words, there were multiple guns all in one cabinet, but ONLY the .25 was stolen.
Also, the rest of the house was not rifled through and I think only a couple of other, minor items were taken, like, supposedly, some money of jodi's and an old computer. There were no signs of forced entry, IIRC.
This made the investigator suspicious. He stated it was unheard of for a robber to select one gun and leave behind all the rest. Made no sense. So, at the time, the "robbery" was viewed as suspicious and this was before the murder.
Neither the grandparent's gun nor the gun used to kill Travis were ever found. BTW, I think .25s are not that common.
To me, common sense shows that jodi faked a burglary so she could have access to a gun and then she used that gun to kill Travis. This is a premeditated crime.
Her rental of a car to see Travis, instead of her own, a car she drove 90 miles away from home to rent, a car she insisted could not be red (a flashy car) and a car that she flipped the plates upside down on, further shows premeditation as does her dying of her hair right before and then right after the murder.
But I noticed that Willmot flashed the pictures at Juan before she approached the witness. Why didn't he object at that point? If he was going to object, then why all the theatrics, having the witness identify the photos as from the drive, etc.?
What are they talking about at sidebar and in chambers if not these pieces of evidence?
Good question. In a trial, evidence that you are trying to use, whether it is going to be admitted or not, must be shown to opposing counsel. Now he had to wait to hear how it was going to be used before he could object (JM, that is). Once he heard that, he did object.
You can't prevent the other side from playing dirty tricks, 100% of the time.
It seems that Trials have become about "winning". Blame anyone including the Victim. Defense should be defending their client and not playing dirty. This is just appalling. So very heartbreaking for Travis's Family :rose:
Amen.
so sad
