[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

How was it "obviously" premeditated? And again (again, and again) he removed the chip AFTER killing the dog not BEFORE so it has absolutely no relevance to whether or not he had snapped when he actually killed it. None at all. Disposing of the dog and covering up the act was planned, and carried out in a way that some might consider mercenary. That's a completely different discussion.

I'd say if it was "premeditated" he would have had a solid plan for disposing of the dog afterwards, rather than failing to do so twice and ultimately being found with it on his property. That strongly suggests that he hadn't thought it through at all.

It all seemed pretty premeditated to me, surely if he was in such a blind rage he wouldn't have thought to drown the dog? If he had snapped surely he would have just strangled it or kill it in a more direct (and quick) fashion? Filling up a bucket to drown a dog when you've 'snapped' doesn't sound right.

Just because he was incompetent when it came to the cover up doesn't mean it wasn't premeditated. Everything about this case is cut and dry, there is no defending this man.