Jodi Arias is innocent *Fall Tier Tournament- round 2*

I look forward to seeing the results and who advances! In my opening round, I will focus first on rebutting my opponent's final round, and then I will give my closing thoughts. My opponent's first statement here is rather interesting - he attempts to argue I haven't fulfilled my burden of proof. He notes that "[I] must prove that Jodi Arias was not acting in self defense beyond a reasonable doubt". I agree on this point, I'm not sure why my opponent feels the need to repeat it. However, I think it is very clear from this debate that I have indeed proven that, beyond a reasonable doubt, Jodi Arias did not act in self-defense. On the issue of the gun, my opponent asserts that "I don't have the same BOP as my opponent. Mine is much, much smaller. He has to prove beyond any reasonable doubt (no matter how small), that the gun was one belonging to Jodi Arias. I merely have to shed some doubt on that and show a plausible alternative". I vehemently contest this point - the gun is indeed a key part of my case, but there is no real reason as to why I must prove it is hers. There are scenarios where it might not be - for instance, if Alexander did indeed have a gun, but Arias stole it to kill him. Is that a likely scenario? No. But it's no less likely than my opponent's hypothesis. Regardless, I think I have definitively shown that there is compelling evidence she stole the gun from her parents. My opponent argues that "The swapped out bullets by them selves give pause to assuming the gun belonged to Jodi Arias. It's certainly reasonable to believe that Travis Alexander possibly had an unregistered firearm. Lots of people do and owning an unregistered firearm isn't something that people go around bragging about. The person most intimate with you who is around your house all the time might know but not too many people outside of that circle". This ignores virtually every key point I have made on the topic, namely:*There is no evidence Alexander owned a gun*There is no reason someone who you assert to be abusive towards you would show you the gun*and*Alexander owning an unregistered gun is vital to my opponent's case. The third is by far the most important. Alexander illegally owning a gun is one of many, many points in my opponent's hypothesis that, if disproven or rejected, would make his case impossible. My opponent has presented literally no evidence that Alexander owned a gun, and thus his claim should be treated as what it is: unprovable and likely incorrect. On the last gun problem my opponent raises, he asserts that Arias would have to be both a genius and a moron to steal her parent's gun, swap out the bullets, and then kill Alexander. Once again, my opponent runs into a problem here: Arias had no intentions of being found. She aimed to establish an out-of-state alibi via phone calls and her sleeping with her boyfriend. If she was able to successful establish that, the caliber of the gun would be irrelevant. It was only once she was found out that the potential issue arose. On defensive wounds, my opponent argues that his hypothesis adequately explains all wounds, as well as the blood on the kitchen sink (from Alexander examining the gunshot wound). He asserts that "My opponent hasn't really shown how the scenario I laid isn't a correct accounting of the events and he has not laid out a better timeline than what I have developed". This is patently absurd. I have not examined every detail of the crime scene due to time and text restraints (there simply isn't enough room to explain where all 30 stab wounds occurred), but I have, in fact, laid out an affirmative case for her being responsible for the killing and having motive. In contrast, my opponent's case has been thoroughly debunked - the gunshot wound being examined on the sink argument, for instance, has been proven incorrect as the wound Alexander sustained to his head would have incapacitated him immediately, making it impossible for him to head towards the sink. My opponent's next arguments are, frankly, uncalled for. First, he asserts that I am 'blaming the victim' by describing Arias as being in a sado-masochistic relationship. It find it telling that, rather than try and debunk my claim of them being in such a relationship, he instead feigns outrage and insults me. Can he prove me wrong on this point? Apparently not. He also claims my suggestion Jodi Arias could have found sexual satisfaction in killing Alexander is "Disgusting, unfounded and uncalled for". I find this interesting on many levels. First, my opponent again doesn't refute my point, instead attacking me. What is my opponent's issue with this statement? I've demonstrated she clearly planned to kill Alexander and, more importantly, she did so violently and utterly mutilated Alexander's body. There must have been a reason for that, so it is really that wrong a thing to say? Second, my opponent made a similar claim against Alexander's character (that he was an abusive boyfriend with pedophilic tendencies). The difference, of course, is that my opponent has present no real evidence towards either claim, while I've demonstrated all my claims against Arias as having some basis in reality. On the topic of self-defense, my opponent again stubbornly holds to his debunked hypothesis on how the attack went down. On the issue of the camera, my opponent again continues his backtracking. He now argues she had the camera around her neck, a complete 180 from when he argued she dropped the phone and it hit the ground, causing a picture to be taken. He also says "Stopping in the middle of a life or death fight with a man twice her size and in decent shape isn't the time to be whipping the camera out and taking photos. No matter how this scenario played out the photos were clearly not taken on purpose". I agree the photos were accidental, I'm not contesting that. What I am contesting, however, is how two photos at two very different locations and relatively different times could be taken from a camera that my opponent claims was dropped only once. My opponent has yet to explain how that is possible. On the issue of the gunshot wound rendering Alexander incapacitated, my opponent once again cannot refute my facts. Instead, he bizarrely claims Dr. Horn could not say what effect being shot in that region of the head would do to Travis Alexander. This is patently ridiculous, and flies flat in the face of what Dr. Horn - an expert in the subject area - says. Who do you trust more - my opponent, who probably has no post-graduate medical knowledge, or Dr. Horn, someone who knows what he is talking about? Given my opponent has presented no evidence to rebut this claim, I think we know who to trust here. On the issue of whether or not Arias tried to delete the photos, my opponent continues his lack of rebuttals. He simply repeats his talking point that Arias symbolically put the camera in the washer to 'wash away the memories'. Quite frankly you either believe me or my opponent on this one, but his only makes sense in the context of his disproven attack scenario. On the PTSD claim, my opponent again repeats his standard argument. I will say, for the last time, that the psychiatrist admitted he was in error. That's enough for me to discredit his claim. Confusingly, however, my opponent asserts that that "Whether or not she has PTSD or not doesn't matter". If it doesn't matter, why has my opponent made it a vital part of his argument and vehemently rejected any claims she didn't have it? In conclusion, I think it is safe to say that my opponent's case has been utterly disproven. I've established his theory on what happened is wrong on so many different levels (the camera, gun, gunshot wound to head and defensive wounds) even one of which would completely discredit it. In contrast, I've established there is no evidence that Arias was abused. I've established that, by her own boyfriend's account (who saw her the same day she killed Alexander), she had no visible injuries, except a few bandages on her fingers. I've established Arias created three different stories on what happened. I've established Arias likely stole the gun used to kill Alexander. I've established Alexander had eight stab wounds on his back, which would be impossible to stab if he was attacking her. I've established that Alexander had defensive wounds on both hands. I've established that there is no evidence Alexander owned a gun, and that his friends said he didn't own a gun. I've established Arias attempted to set up an alibi by sending voicemails to Alexander, and going to see her boyfriend to have sex. And, keep in mind, my opponent hasn't disproven a single one of these. He's repeatedly ignored these factual claims to either make claims without evidence or personally attack either myself or the deceased Travis Alexander. Moreover, he's repeatedly backtracked on his claims: from asserting that the camera was dropped to that it wasn't dropped, from asserting Travis Alexander was "beating the crap out of" Arias to saying he never touched her, and from the gunshot being to the sinus to it being in the brain. My opponent's case is so riddled with holes to make it utterly unworkable. In contrast, my case is completely intact and hasn't been refuted. I believe it is self evident that I have established that, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jodi Arias did not kill Travis Alexander in self defense, and thus I urge a vote for CON.