Discussion in 'Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias' started by nursebeeme, Feb 11, 2013.
Did the state show premeditation? Vote and discuss here:
I voted yes. They showed how she rented the car and asked for an inconspicuous colored vehicle. They showed the coincidence between the robbery at her grandparent's house and the missing gun...and how ironic it was that the same caliber bullet was found in Travis' face. The dyed hair. Oh, and how they paved the way for Darryl to admit the gas can situation.
Voted yes. Pistol packing mama with a knife for backup.
welcome Midnight Rambler! :cheer:
And thank you nursebeeme. Great site. Have a nice day.
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"!!
If you take away all the evidence such as the rental car, gas cans, hair dye, upside down licence plate, etc. there is still premeditated murder.
When Jodi shot or stabbed Travis the first time (whatever you believe to have come first) he was still alive. He made his way to the sink and then down the hall...all the way leaving a trial of blood spatter due to being attacked multiple times.
He was still alive for a minute. During that time before each stab of the knife Jodi formed the intent to murder Travis.
There is no way one can say this is not premeditated murder.
Thanks so much for your insight. I'm just starting to learn the facts of this case. Another factor that struck me was the lack of power to the cellular phone during the only time window of her "vacation" = the time of the murder.
As for the other factors you mentioned, unfortunately, the law cannot inject premeditation into the minutes before each act of aggression (stabbing motion). In that event, Murder II wouldn't exist in most cases.
I'm curious as to the other great facts you mentioned. With the exception of renting a car, did all of the other actions occur after the fact? Do we know when the gas cans were purchased? I'm looking for more factors that tend to show "pre"meditation, rather than an after-the-fact covering up of the crime. People who commit crimes of passion or provocation (Murder 2) often cover up their crimes, so those facts won't necessarily make or break the State's burden of proving predesign or prior calculation/intent to murder.
Since the State has not requested the Court give instructions to the jury on lesser included's, Murder 2 isn't on the table. Scary, huh? If they believe she killed the guy out of rage or anger, she could walk, right? (ala Casey Anthony). Surprising that they didn't opt for that defense, actually. It presents better in this situation than the self defense claim.
I think they did show premeditation. Why go to his house with a gun? She turned off her cellphone, she lied about it, never told anyone that she was going, asked for gas cans. I do think she went there with the intent to kill him if he didn't commit to her. She was mad that he wanted nothing more to do with her, and he was taking a pretty mormon girl to Cancun. She felt used and betrayed. In her eyes, he will pay for what he did.
^^^^...this is exactly what I believe happened as well. Most of the premeditation happened days before she killed him...As to the time she spent with him in the hours before the murder? Maybe she was just soaking him in knowing he was to die soon.
Her ex-boyfriend of four years testified that she came to him the day before the murder and borrowed the gas cans.
There was a murder case where I live where the suspect was charged with first degree murder. He strangled and then drowned his girlfriend. It was shown that because the girl was drowned after being strangled that was done to make sure she was dead and therefore premeditation. It didn't matter what happened in the hours before the murder. What mattered was that moment in time where the intent was formed to kill.
I want to hear from the people who said the state didn't show premeditation. I have to hear their logic on that one. Premeditation can be formed in an instant. Her acts leading up to his death are enough for me.
Ah, yes, picking up the gas cans prior to the murder is key. You just "got me there". Looking at the totality of the circumstances and facts, we've got the gas cans, lack of cell phone service during the operative window of time, a magically appearing gun, prior reports of jealousy, an upcoming trip with another woman, failure to tell friends/loved ones where she was heading, white rental car with no GPS (she previously reported she relied heavily on GPS, and would've therefore requested that in the rental), all which tend to demonstrate elements of a preconceived plan and intent to murder.
Once we get there, mentally, those facts breathe new meaning and purpose into her actions/cover up, after the fact. Scienter is key here. The only thing the jury has to bring themselves to swallow is the fact that she was able to relish her victim for 12 hours prior to doing what she went there to do. The overkill of the vic works well with this black widow theory.
Thanks so much. You've helped me "get there" with regard to premditation, and mentally exclude some potential arguments for the defense. The actions after the crime now appear more part and parcel of the overal design and scheme, rather than simply fear of being caught after a horrible unintended incident. You guys are pretty smart. Thanks again!
At the end of the trial I definitely believe premeditation will have been established as described in the posts above.
As of this writing, the defense still has JA on the stand going on and on and on. However, after JM sets the record straight with JA, premeditation should not even be an issue. It's all there.
Just my opinion for what it's worth. : )
I believe the state has shown premeditation as well as the reason Jodi decided to murder Travis.
She thought long and hard about killing Travis, that's a given. However, I'm unsure of "what" she is. A psychopath, a sociopath, spawn of the devil??? How did she carry on a 4 year relationship with another man and yet seemed "normal"? I don't get it. AND my worry is the Prosecution Overcharged her so Orlando may be headed to Mesa...
Yes I get what you are saying. The Prosecution has all the evidence, including pics & confession (albeit self-defense). It really bothers me what (some not all) jurors require to convict, but I truly believe the Prosecution have the whole package this time. We know she did it - to me evidence is overwhelming. In my opinion the Prosecution doesn't have to define her mental status...only that it is not self-defense. Just My Opinion
Nice to see another new poster. : )
Don't scare me!
I still have nightmares about the KC trial and if the same thing happens all over again in this case then I will lose all faith in the justice system and will never follow another trial ever again!
Rose, my faith in the legal system was blown apart with the OJ verdict so nothing will surprise me anymore. And I kept telling myself I'm not going to watch anymore trials or log onto Websleuths or any other crime message boards.
I was doing SO WELL... and then the news out of Boulder regarding the Grand Jury indictment in the JonBenet case was revealed and here I am again. That case more then any other breaks my heart and the sad part is I don't think there will ever be justice for her. I find solace knowing no one can ever hurt her again.
As for Jodi there's a special place in hell with her name on it and it gets hotter every single day!
Premeditation can take as little as a few seconds. For instance, if someone is being strangled, that is premeditated murder. Why? Because it takes upwards of 4 minutes for someone to die. In that time the person doing the strangling knows if they continue to cut off the air, the victim will die and the perp is making the decision to continue.
In this case, Jodi knew that stabbing/slashing Travis would kill him and she continued to do so (28+ times). And then she slashed his throat ear-to-ear--she did that on purpose. And she shot him in the head. All acts can be considered premeditation even though the entire span of the murder from start to finish was about 2 minutes in length, give or take. Even if Jodi decided a mere 5 minutes before that she was going to kill him, or even a minute before, she started the attack and kept going, knowing the outcome would result in death. That is premeditated murder.
Yes, the state proved it. Actually, by admitting she did kill Travis, Jodi Arias proved it before the state even got started. Self defense doesn't require 28+ stab wounds and an ear to ear neck slash. That's anger/rage, not self defense.
Separate names with a comma.