Boy oh boy do stories like this get me to wondering law interpretation. I sure can use some education as to how what seems obvious apparently isn't.  The assailant claims a defense mixing."I was on drugs (meth)", with "I don't know why I stabbed her 22 times and killed her." That leaves the suggestion or innuendo of the drugs did it or made me do it. The drugs may have played a part but he killed her because, he wanted the TV and she would not let him in. Ticked him off, bullies his say in and escalates into a murderous rage. It seems the truth if the matter is...I'm guilty, I killed her because I wanted the TV and she was in thecway.  My other question I wonder about is what's the point of...'Guilty, sentenenced to life in prison. Eligible for parole in 25 years.'
Confusing to say the least.