premeditation

[Katie-L]

wasnt_me

If the gun and knife were both in the bathroom, and the body was found in the bathroom - wouldn't the whole crime scene be also there?

It wasn't. The amount of blood in the hallway shows a moving crime scene - where the victim wasn't stationary during the attack.

So the gun and the knife could have been anywhere in the general area between the bedroom and the bathroom - or divided (in different places).

It would make more sense (to me anyway) if the gun and knife were entirely separate, as it would account for the movement of the victim through a larger area.

 

[Applejack]

I have to be the odd one out here...

I'm not convinced that the state did prove premeditation - except if, and only if, the gun used on TA was the same one taken from JA's grandparent's home.

Otherwise, they did prove that the trip was well planned. They did show convincing evidence that Jodi intended to visit Travis during the road trip.

I see a few very major gaps though in the premeditation theory:
1) The murder itself was very chaotic and violent, with way too much evidence left behind. Nothing planned about it.
2) If she came with a gun for the purpose of killing him, why the love-making, the shower pics, the posing, the usual (the same behaviour they always engaged in)? First?
3) If she came with a gun - why use a knife? There were defensive wounds, so he was fighting back. If the "shot at the end" scenario was true - why bother with the rest?

So far, for me, neither scenario (defense or prosecution) truly reflects the crime scene - and premeditation doesn't strike me as terribly plausible.

1) Perhaps she didn't go there intending to kill him, only prepared to if she didn't get her way in the end. In interrogation she thought she could explain away any any evidence linking her to the scene as a result of their relationship and her having living there, so why bother cleaning up any more thoroughly if you know the room mates could be home any minute and you really need to get moving on that alibi? >.>

2) Again, perhaps she was hoping to convince him to stay with her and take her on the trip. Perhaps she is really just that sick and twosted to fet joy out of using HIM knowing full well how it would end. Who knows? Not relevant to premeditation.

3) Because she wanted to see him suffer and thus killed him three times over. Perhaps it just ended up being nearby and she changed her plans. Who knows.

They've proved premed with an endless list of evidence. Gas cans, rental car, license plates, the gun, cell phone, hair colour, clean up, alibi, cover up...

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I have to be the odd one out here...

I'm not convinced that the state did prove premeditation - except if, and only if, the gun used on TA was the same one taken from JA's grandparent's home.

Otherwise, they did prove that the trip was well planned. They did show convincing evidence that Jodi intended to visit Travis during the road trip.

I see a few very major gaps though in the premeditation theory:
1) The murder itself was very chaotic and violent, with way too much evidence left behind. Nothing planned about it.
2) If she came with a gun for the purpose of killing him, why the love-making, the shower pics, the posing, the usual (the same behaviour they always engaged in)? First?
3) If she came with a gun - why use a knife? There were defensive wounds, so he was fighting back. If the "shot at the end" scenario was true - why bother with the rest?

So far, for me, neither scenario (defense or prosecution) truly reflects the crime scene - and premeditation doesn't strike me as terribly plausible.

This is unreasonable. She's not a trained assassin. She's a scorned lover, out for blood, literally. Like she said, she's never killed someone before. You're basically saying any messy murder can't be planned, while discounting all the planning evidence that you have acknowledged. She turned off the phone because she wasn't planning to kill him?

She didn't kill right away because she was giving him a final chance.

The only non biological evidence she left behind was the camera, and she didn't know they could recover the deleted photos. She put it in the washer because it was bloody. She may have thought if she took it, it would point to her, because who else would want his camera. But she took everything else involved in the murder, well except the casing, but she just didn't see it or know it meant anything.

And if it were really self defense or 2nd degree, she would have either called 911 then or claimed it right away when caught.

She planned it, without any doubt whatsoever.

 

[InTheGarden]

I have to be the odd one out here...

I'm not convinced that the state did prove premeditation - except if, and only if, the gun used on TA was the same one taken from JA's grandparent's home.

Otherwise, they did prove that the trip was well planned. They did show convincing evidence that Jodi intended to visit Travis during the road trip.

I see a few very major gaps though in the premeditation theory:
1) The murder itself was very chaotic and violent, with way too much evidence left behind. Nothing planned about it. I think JA underestimated what it took to kill a healthy, young male, and did not anticipate how hard TA would fight for his life. During one of her interviews with Det. Flores when she was in the "ninja" story period, she stated TA would not stop fighting or something similar.
2) If she came with a gun for the purpose of killing him, why the love-making, the shower pics, the posing, the usual (the same behaviour they always engaged in)? First? This was JA's script. I can't begin to get into her head. JA loves sex and wanted to be the last partner TA ever had? Killer playing with her prey? The shower pics were to get him in an enclosed area, vulnerable, naked, and wet. If JA had been successful in keeping the "killing field" just in the shower, she would have minimal clean up and less struggle.
3) If she came with a gun - why use a knife? There were defensive wounds, so he was fighting back. If the "shot at the end" scenario was true - why bother with the rest? During her interview with Det. Flores, again during the "ninja" story, JA stated that TA was very strong and it would of taken two people to take him down. Two weapons = two killers.

So far, for me, neither scenario (defense or prosecution) truly reflects the crime scene - and premeditation doesn't strike me as terribly plausible.

I think the crime scene shows a young man temporarily stunned by either the gun shot or intial stabbing, fleeing the shower and getting in front of the mirror in disbelief to see the damage, and his attempt to flee the bathroom crawling away with JA stabbing him, and the throat slicing at the end of the hallway. Extensive lists have already been posted here that show nothing but premeditation: same caliber gun stolen from where she resided matching the murder gun, rental car, hair color change, gas cans, no gas purchase in AZ, phone conveniently off during her time in Arizona, license plate off, license plate upside down, roommates did not see her or an unfamiliar car parked in driveway or near house, calling TA after murder leaving voicemail, etc., etc.

I believe the sole purpose of this road trip was to kill TA. The visiting old boyfriends and RB in Utah were part of her premeditation to cover her tracks.

 

[Babs S]

I think the crime scene shows a young man temporarily stunned by either the gun shot or intial stabbing, fleeing the shower and getting in front of the mirror in disbelief to see the damage, and his attempt to flee the bathroom crawling away with JA stabbing him, and the throat slicing at the end of the hallway. Extensive lists have already been posted here that show nothing but premeditation: same caliber gun stolen from where she resided matching the murder gun, rental car, hair color change, gas cans, no gas purchase in AZ, phone conveniently off during her time in Arizona, license plate off, license plate upside down, roommates did not see her or an unfamiliar car parked in driveway or near house, calling TA after murder leaving voicemail, etc., etc.

I believe the sole purpose of this road trip was to kill TA. The visiting old boyfriends and RB in Utah were part of her premeditation to cover her tracks.

Yes, Yes, Yes,....wonderful summation. Shows your intelligence

 

[wasnt_me]

wasnt_me

If the gun and knife were both in the bathroom, and the body was found in the bathroom - wouldn't the whole crime scene be also there?

It wasn't. The amount of blood in the hallway shows a moving crime scene - where the victim wasn't stationary during the attack.

So the gun and the knife could have been anywhere in the general area between the bedroom and the bathroom - or divided (in different places).

It would make more sense (to me anyway) if the gun and knife were entirely separate, as it would account for the movement of the victim through a larger area.

To me, the bathroom and the hallway are the same location. I count it as the same because there's no door and it all has the same flooring. Just my view of the crime scene.

The point of my post is asking how they were both readily available in 62 seconds. I can't separate the knife and the gun because they both had to be available within 62 seconds. Jodi attempts to explain how the knife was in the vicinity. We'd have to believe her account or guess at some other reason Travis would have a knife in the area, which includes the closet and the bedroom.

I don't think Travis moving as far as the hallway has any connection to premeditation. Can you help me understand why you think it does? I understand that it's "Possible" that Travis went into the bedroom, but this 62 seconds to see him lying prone on the floor with blood gushing out of his neck means--possibly--that his throat was slit. That could have taken place within the 62 seconds, limiting the amount of movement Travis could have done in 62 seconds. I say that because the initial assault and the slashing of the neck takes time.

I am trying to understand how it is that it can't be premeditated if she used an item--the knife--which is not likely to be in a bedroom.

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

What is the definition of "Premeditated Murder" in the State of Arizona? What is required to define Murder as Premeditated? It varies state by state as far as I know.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

What is the definition of "Premeditated Murder" in the State of Arizona? What is required to define Murder as Premeditated? It varies state by state as far as I know.

Arizona law:
http://www.azleg.gov/arizonarevisedstatutes.asp?title=13
13-1105. First degree murder; classification
A. A person commits first degree murder if:
1. Intending or knowing that the person's conduct will cause death, the person causes the death of another person, including an unborn child, with premeditation or, as a result of causing the death of another person with premeditation, causes the death of an unborn child.

13-1101. Definitions
1. "Premeditation" means that the defendant acts with either the intention or the knowledge that he will kill another human being, when such intention or knowledge precedes the killing by any length of time to permit reflection. Proof of actual reflection is not required, but an act is not done with premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.

Arizona standard jury instructions:
http://www.azbar.org/media/58832/2-standard_criminal_revised_2012.pdf
The crime of first-degree premeditated murder requires proof that the defendant:
1. caused the death of another person; and
2. intended or knew that [he] [she] would cause the death of another person; and
3. acted with premeditation.
“Premeditation” means that the defendant intended to kill another human being or knew [he] [she] would kill another human being, and that after forming that intent or knowledge, reflected on the decision before killing. It is this reflection, regardless of the length of time in which it occurs, that distinguishes first-degree murder from second degree murder. An act is not done with premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. [The time needed for reflection is not necessarily prolonged, and the space of time between the intent or knowledge to kill and the act of killing may be very short.]

Notice that you don't even need days of planning for it to be premeditated. We do have proof of that here, but premeditation is also proved by the manner of the killing when his throat was sliced. That act can only be committed with the "the intention or the knowledge that he will kill another human being."

 

[katydid23]

I have to be the odd one out here...

I'm not convinced that the state did prove premeditation - except if, and only if, the gun used on TA was the same one taken from JA's grandparent's home.

Otherwise, they did prove that the trip was well planned. They did show convincing evidence that Jodi intended to visit Travis during the road trip.

I see a few very major gaps though in the premeditation theory:
1) The murder itself was very chaotic and violent, with way too much evidence left behind. Nothing planned about it.
2) If she came with a gun for the purpose of killing him, why the love-making, the shower pics, the posing, the usual (the same behaviour they always engaged in)? First?
3) If she came with a gun - why use a knife? There were defensive wounds, so he was fighting back. If the "shot at the end" scenario was true - why bother with the rest?

So far, for me, neither scenario (defense or prosecution) truly reflects the crime scene - and premeditation doesn't strike me as terribly plausible.

It is not just that the trip was well planned, it was that the trip was TOP SECRET. Why hide the fact that you are anywhere in Arizona if you are just planning to stop by and visit your ex? What is the big secret that needs to be kept?

She turned off her phone for 20 hrs, stopped using credit and atms, turned her tags upside down, didn't use any gas stations in Arizona, didn't park in TA's driveway, like she usually did.

All of that ^^^^ leads us to premeditation. She planned out before hand, how to avoid being seen anywhere in Arizona, because she knew she was probably going to kill him.

1] Yes, chaotic, violent, because it did not go as smoothly as she hoped. The shot to the head did not take him down. So now she has a bloody, raging wounded man trying to escape. Imo, planning a murder is not as easy as it appears. I don't know how you can say there is nothing planned about it, when she did all of the pre-planninjg to avoid being seen in Arizona. As for the evidence left behind, a couple of reasons, imo. After a bloody life and death struggle, there has to be a lapse in judgment and common sense. You are not going to be thinking clearly. And she had a huge time crunch. A roomie could return at any moment. So she had to get out of there. She did the best she could, but hoped her preplanning her alibi would save her. JMO

2] Why didnt she just shoot and leave? I think for two main reasons. One, his roomie was there and she could not chance a gunshot until he left. And two, she still loved TA and hoped to change his mind still, imo. The seduction was to see if he would fall back into their relationship. I guess that didn't work.

3] There were 2 reasons for having both weapons, imo. I think the gun and knife were both used so LE would think there were two perps. It almost worked.
Also, the gun might have jammed so she needed to finish with the knife. I think her rage called for the stabbing. The gun was not as satisfying.

I think Juan will nail down the premeditation in his closing.

Besides that, look at a map. She was in the furthest tip of Northern California. And she says she planned on going to Utah. So why drive 12 hours south to Pasadena, in southern Cali, when it is hundreds of miles off course?

 

[katydid23]

wasnt_me

If the gun and knife were both in the bathroom, and the body was found in the bathroom - wouldn't the whole crime scene be also there?

It wasn't. The amount of blood in the hallway shows a moving crime scene - where the victim wasn't stationary during the attack.

So the gun and the knife could have been anywhere in the general area between the bedroom and the bathroom - or divided (in different places).

It would make more sense (to me anyway) if the gun and knife were entirely separate, as it would account for the movement of the victim through a larger area.

The movement of the victim had nothing to do with the location of the weapons, imo. The victim was moving to ESCAPE. The weapon location accounts for Jodi's movements, not travis's. JMO

 

[deedee21]

KatieL if you recall, JM zoomed in on the pic of the inside of Travices closet. This is 4 and a half years after the crime. What you see is shelves with shoes and sneakers NEATLY lined up. Jodi is looking at this. If you fear for your life, like she claims, then how did she remember that she put her foot at the EDGE OF THE SHELF, over 4 years later? How would someone remember that even 4 days later, for example? She wouldnt. Not if you are telling the truth. She made the whole thing up. The gun was never in the closet. She used her grandfathers gun. Hopefully the jury saw and realized the same thing Jodi saw and realized. Which is why Jodi said I put my foot at the edge og the shelf. Nothing on the shelf was disrupted. Dont forget the shelves were resting on pegs. Holds 40 pounds. Dont forget she claims she grabbed onto another shelf to hold on. No evidence of that either.

 

[Linz]

Just playing devil's advocate here; I agree this murder was premeditated but think Katie-L brought up an excellent point. A good defense attorney could argue that JA was being so secretive at TA's insistence. From what little I've seen of his angry email to her (only a few sentences- is the full text available anywhere?), it could be argued that he was upset because she was revealing things he didn't want revealed. So then the argument would be that she went along with their clandestine affair while always pushing for more, definitively found out that weekend that there was no future for them as a couple, and snapped- murder two. Sure, this scenario doesn't entirely adequately explain the phone, credit card usage, or gas cans, but a good lawyer could muddy those issues enough to cause reasonable doubt. (Or even a bad lawyer- anything's possible after the Anthony case.) I think there was already an excuse offered about the phone and charger; I'm sure she had 'answers' for everything.

Thankfully, it seems like there's a minimum of client control in this case, and narcissistic Jodi decided to swing for the bleachers instead of taking the plea that was doubtless offered.

Anyway, I don't agree with any of this obviously, but I wonder if a scenario like this was what Katie-L was alluding to. That's what I got from the original post, at any rate.

What I'm curious about is if she always planned on killing him, or if she would've given him an 'out' if he agreed to take her to Cancun and start seeing each other publicly again. I know it's off-topic for this thread, but is there a thread specifically devoted to trying to chart/analyze their 'relationship'- such as it was? It would be very helpful, for me at least.

 

[katydid23]

Just playing devil's advocate here; I agree this murder was premeditated but think Katie-L brought up an excellent point. A good defense attorney could argue that JA was being so secretive at TA's insistence. From what little I've seen of his angry email to her (only a few sentences- is the full text available anywhere?), it could be argued that he was upset because she was revealing things he didn't want revealed. So then the argument would be that she went along with their clandestine affair while always pushing for more, definitively found out that weekend that there was no future for them as a couple, and snapped- murder two. Sure, this scenario doesn't entirely adequately explain the phone, credit card usage, or gas cans, but a good lawyer could muddy those issues enough to cause reasonable doubt. (Or even a bad lawyer- anything's possible after the Anthony case.) I think there was already an excuse offered about the phone and charger; I'm sure she had 'answers' for everything.

Thankfully, it seems like there's a minimum of client control in this case, and narcissistic Jodi decided to swing for the bleachers instead of taking the plea that was doubtless offered.

Anyway, I don't agree with any of this obviously, but I wonder if a scenario like this was what Katie-L was alluding to. That's what I got from the original post, at any rate.

What I'm curious about is if she always planned on killing him, or if she would've given him an 'out' if he agreed to take her to Cancun and start seeing each other publicly again. I know it's off-topic for this thread, but is there a thread specifically devoted to trying to chart/analyze their 'relationship'- such as it was? It would be very helpful, for me at least.

BBM

I have wondered the same thing. And I think she did go there hoping to get back together with him. She spent like, what, 12 hours with him? I think she hoped to sex it up with him and lure him back into her web. She had like 4 spray bottles of neutragena skin oil, just like one would need in CanCun.

I think that the only way she got in the door in the first place was by telling him she was sorry, and she was finally moving on, had a new boyfriend, she just needed to rest before driving to Utah, and she had a check towards the BMW.

I think he let his guard down and she seduced him, saying it for old time's sake.

But I think she hoped he would say he missed her and wanted her back in his life. But he probably said " Hey, it's been nice, but I've got to get ready for my conference call, could you hit the road, sweetheart..."

She faked like she was leaving but came back into the bathroom w/the weapons, imo.

 

[wasnt_me]

Just playing devil's advocate here; I agree this murder was premeditated but think Katie-L brought up an excellent point. A good defense attorney could argue that JA was being so secretive at TA's insistence. From what little I've seen of his angry email to her (only a few sentences- is the full text available anywhere?), it could be argued that he was upset because she was revealing things he didn't want revealed. So then the argument would be that she went along with their clandestine affair while always pushing for more, definitively found out that weekend that there was no future for them as a couple, and snapped- murder two. Sure, this scenario doesn't entirely adequately explain the phone, credit card usage, or gas cans, but a good lawyer could muddy those issues enough to cause reasonable doubt. (Or even a bad lawyer- anything's possible after the Anthony case.) I think there was already an excuse offered about the phone and charger; I'm sure she had 'answers' for everything.

I'm not sure the DT could get the jury to believe that she was so "hyper literal" that she thought making her trip secret meant doing all she did. Plus, she claims that she hadn't known she was even going to Travi's house. It was "spur of the moment" when he talked her into it. She'd already laid out the plans for secrecy when she stole the gun, insisted on a white car, lied about the gas cans, and concocted a story about her license plate. Seems like Travis would have been very impressed by that last one if he'd indeed asked her to keep the trip secret.

 

[Linz]

Unfortunately, stealing the gun can't be proven, although the jury can still consider the circumstantial evidence and I agree, the gun is one of the weakest points of any attempted defense. The problem with the license plate is that it wasn't discovered until after JA murdered Travis- so it could be argued it was part of a panic-stricken attempt to cover her tracks, indicative of lack of premeditation (and that would be a convincing argument too, as the upside down plate would only draw more attention to her car and certainly not defeat any traffic cameras- what an idiot). It's my fault; I wasn't clear in my initial post. What I was trying to say is that her DT has all the raw materials to stage a convincing argument for murder two, no death penalty. But JA's pathologies (whatever they are exactly) won't allow that; she'd rather push for a straight not guilty by reason of self-defense, which she will never get.



*Of course with a defendant like this, her stories would change based on which defense they were using, but I wonder if we would've gotten a closer version to the truth if they had gone with a crime of passion.

**I know Arizona is sparsely populated, but is it really possible to drive around with your plates upside down for as long as she did and not get pulled over? (Obviously it is, but that kind of boggles my mind.)

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Unfortunately, stealing the gun can't be proven, although the jury can still consider the circumstantial evidence and I agree, the gun is one of the weakest points of any attempted defense. The problem with the license plate is that it wasn't discovered until after JA murdered Travis- so it could be argued it was part of a panic-stricken attempt to cover her tracks, indicative of lack of premeditation (and that would be a convincing argument too, as the upside down plate would only draw more attention to her car and certainly not defeat any traffic cameras- what an idiot).

She couldn't argue that. She said the license plate was changed in Pasadena.

 

[Applejack]

"Unfortunately, stealing the gun can't be proven."

By that same standard, Jodi killing Travis "can't be proven," since we don't have the weapons that killed him with her fingerprints on it.

Everyyyything is circumstantial *until you put all the tiny pieces together.*

The gun being stolen from her grandparents where she lived, a week before Travis was killed, meant nothing, until it was proven he was shot with the same calibre, and alllllll the other evidence they have presented to prove premeditation, and even her own original statements that Travis never owned a gun, etc etc.

 

[Linz]

"Unfortunately, stealing the gun can't be proven."

By that same standard, Jodi killing Travis "can't be proven," since we don't have the weapons that killed him with her fingerprints on it.

Everyyyything is circumstantial *until you put all the tiny pieces together.*

The gun being stolen from her grandparents where she lived, a week before Travis was killed, meant nothing, until it was proven he was shot with the same calibre, and alllllll the other evidence they have presented to prove premeditation, and even her own original statements that Travis never owned a gun, etc etc.

Jodi killing Travis would be proven in court, that's the point of the trial. (Since she confessed, however, the onus is on the prosecution to prove their charges of first degree specifically, unless she was also charged with second degree, manslaughter, etc.) But it weakens your case to present theories you can't prove, ie. that it was the same gun. You can build a strong case of circumstantial evidence indicating that she stole the gun and filed a false report, but any prosecutor would rather have direct physical evidence linking the .25 that shot Travis with her grandparents' missing .25. This is just basic law and all I was trying to say, as I think I've already agreed that the gun is a real issue for the defense.:smile:

 

[Applejack]

Jodi killing Travis would be proven in court, that's the point of the trial. (Since she confessed, however, the onus is on the prosecution to prove their charges of first degree specifically, unless she was also charged with second degree, manslaughter, etc.) But it weakens your case to present theories you can't prove, ie. that it was the same gun. You can build a strong case of circumstantial evidence indicating that she stole the gun and filed a false report, but any prosecutor would rather have direct physical evidence linking the .25 that shot Travis with her grandparents' missing .25. This is just basic law and all I was trying to say, as I think I've already agreed that the gun is a real issue for the defense.:smile:

Of course any prosecutor would rather have direct physical evidence linking the gun to the crime, but the fact is that people who plan murders generally try to dispose of the weapons and so that doesn't happen as often as we would like. Luckily our law system doesnt require criminals to be absolutely dumb as **** and video tape the murder and hold on to the murder weapon and make sure their finger prints are visible etc etc in order to convict them.

Fact: a gun was stolen from Jodi's grandparents', where Jodi lived, one week before Travis died. Fact: the gun that shot Travis used the same calibre bullet as the stolen gun. Fact: Jodi admittedly disposed of the gun, even though she claims it was Travis'. Fact: Jodi stated Travis didn't own a gun, and in ber new story, all of the details (such as whether or not it was loaded, how it was stored, etc) have changed numerous times.

The prosecution claims she shot him, and brought the gun. The stolen gun is just icing, but ultimately not necessary information for the jury to find that she brought a gun.

 

[sellse]

I'm still unconvinced that the State has proven premeditation. 2nd degree murder, OK, perhaps voluntary manslaughter. Here is what bothers me. If Jodi had really driven to Mesa with the intent to kill Travis (the gun, the gas cans, the rental car w/no GPS, etc), then why did Jodi wait until 25 minutes before one of the roommates was due to return home and then engage in a KNIFE attack? Knife attacks, to my way of thinking, are unpredictable and messy. It seems to me that a roommate could even have arrived home early. Jodi is smart, I can't see her taking the chance that she'd be caught in the very act of killing Travis.

Also, the knife wounds seem to indicate an absolute frenzy, which makes me think that this killing was more the result of a blind impulsive rage. And a blind impulsive rage is either 2nd degree or voluntary manslaughter.

I really appreciate that this forum allows for people to engage in smart discussion without insulting people who have unpopular views. And, I have a feeling that my opinion will not be held by many. That's ok, though, I still have an open mind, and maybe someone could convince me otherwise.