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

Means, Motive and Opportunity There is a lot more to prove than means motive and opportunity. You can have all 3 and not be a murderer and you can have only 2/3 of them and be a murderer. Examining means motive and opportunty is an investgative tool and it's only used to determine an initial list of suspects. It's also an invesigative tool that is useless alone with the rise of thrill killings. My opponent must prove that Arias is a murderer beyond a reasonable doubt. We arent playing with percentages here. It can be 80% likely she is guilty and you would still have a ton of reasonable doubt. My opponent has agreed to this burden and given his initial arguments he will not meet it. The Gun This wasn't premeditated as my opponent concludes. Let's examine one piece of evidence he uses to conclude premeditation. The stolen Gun. It's true that a gun was stolen from the grandparent's house. Not a particularly uncommon occurence. What my opponent doesn't say is that, the gun stolen from the grandparent's place contained hollow points. [1] Watch the video in this link to see the difference between the damage caused by a hollow point and one caused by a round tip bullet. [2] The autopsy photos clearly show the use of a round tip bullet and the prosecution doesn't deny that is the bullet used' There is no reason in the world to believe that Jodi Arias would decide to kill Travis Alexander, but before doing so make a decision to swap out the more powerful hollow tip bullets for round tip bullets. To put it bluntly, the hollow point has stopping power a round point doesn't. People shot with a round point in the hed often can still be conscious and even survive later on. You get shot with a hollow point and it's lights out. My opponent has a hard task ahead of him. If the gun was used after the stabbing as my opponent contends then that wouldn't be indicative of premeditation. It makes no sense for Jodi Arias to plot a murder, where she stabs her boyfriend repeatedly then shoots him in the head. If the gun was used before hand then my opponent is at least partially agreeing with the version of events I laid out. If this is premeditated murder as my opponent makes it out to be, then why wouldn't Jodi Arias, just kill Travis Alexander in his sleep where he can't defend himelf? The version of events my opponent lays out is just nonsense and doesn't add up. My opponent contends that Jodi bringing a gun shows premeditation, but I've already showed it wasn't the grandparent's gun and on top of that Jodi seemed to be about to testify that the gun was given to Travis by his father. She wasn't allowed to finish. It's on ething to cut off hear say evidence for the prosecution, but the defense should be allowed it, sense it could explain the evidence better. "Nurmi: You were asked about the gun, when you learned of the gun. You said that you became aware of that in 2007 when you were working as his housekeeper, correct?Arias: Correct.Nurmi: What was your understanding of how Mr Alexander had acquired that gun?Arias: My understanding of how he got the gun is that it.. [ she tails off, swallows, thinks ]Arias: My understanding is that [pause] his father used to ..Objection (hearsay) sustained." [3] "*My opponent asserts that Arias grabbed the gun while retreating from Alexander, but how is that possible? There is no record of Travis Alexander having owned a gun, and even if he did how would she know where it is or how to get to it?" Jodi Arias and Travis Alexander were lovers. She would know where to get the gun, which cupboard the plates were in and several other details of his house. They were together that day for sex and were taking several nude photos of each other. Just because no record of Alexander owning a gun exists, doesn'tt mean he didn't own one. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack. I think my opponent mistakes where the BOP here is and how much BOP he has. I just have to show a scenario is plausible, he has to show his scenario, actually occurred. Photographs "Further, evidence recovered at the crime scene definitively shows that the murder was premeditated. A camera was recovered at the crime scene, with deleted images taken before and after Alexander was murdered having been recovered by the police" How does something after the fact indicate premeditation? She could have thought tha she'd be arrested for defending herself and lied. Or as I suggest she could be suffering from PTSD and just be trying to erase and wash away the horror of the situation. As a photographer she knew that erasing the images wouldn't destroy the evidence. She'd remove the flash card to destroy the evidence and then discard it. "take a look at Alexander's face.[5] Does that look more like someone who is angry and ready to attack, as my opponent suggests, or someone who is being forced to pose at gunpoint" How can you determine by looking at Alexander's face he had a gun to his head? How can you determine whether he was angry or not in that photo? He didn't have a smile on his face and the texts I showed from him and Jodi, indicate he does have a temper problem. Also what type of murder plan is my opponent suggesting. Is he saying that Jodi Arias took a gun and forced Travis to pose nude, and if so for what purpose? How does forcing him to pose nude benefit her, what so ever? This is the dumbest murder plot, I've ever heard of. According to my opponent Jodi Arias stole her grand parent's gun replaced strong bullets with weak bullets then drove to Alexander's house and forced him to pose nude at gun point. After forcing him to pose nude, she sets the gun down, stabs him to death. Waits until he is dead and then shoots him in the head. In what world is this a murder plot that actually happens? Domestic abuse "My opponent also makes a claim that Travis broke Jodi's finger, but he provides no evidence for this." Quite the contrary I do show evidence for this. The video in round 2 where Jodi Arias holds up a finger that has clearly been broken in the past. I've alse shown from Travis's own e-mils as well as Jodi Arias's E-mails that he does have a history of flying off the handle. Travis Alexander has an explosive temper. The Testimony of Alyce LaViolettee a domestic abuse expert on some messages from Travis Alexander to Jodi Arias "In the 16 pages: What a freakin whore. He accuses her of going on to the next dick. He tells her her words are worthless. He hates her. She's caused him more pain than the death of his father. She's a rotten lunatic. He's never dealt with a more solid form of evil. She's nothing but a liar. She lives a life identical to satan. She's a three hole wonder. She ought to get tips for giving bjs. She never loved him. She's got a slut's job. Who freaking cares about you you're worthless. You're a bitch. You're lies make your life worthless. You're taking up people's air. You don't care. You don't know what horror you've caused me. You're a laughing stock. You don't care about anything but Jodi. He blames her for a lot of the pain he feels in his own life. He tells her he was nothing more than a dildo with a heartbeat to her. You're demented." [4]She also testifies that victims of domestic abuse do often times block out memories to deal with the trauma. This picture shows Travis Alexander saw Jodi Arias as a piece of property as well. PTSD vs BPD "More interesting are his psychological arguments. He asserts that Arias had PTSD. However, this is from a defense experts - prosecution experts saw no sign of PTSD or amnesia, but instead borderline personality disorder (BPD)" The defense expert stated that looking at the same evidence as the prosecution's experts, that you can come to the concluion that Arias had PTSD. My opponent gives no reasons, that the prosecutions analysis of the same evidence is superior to the defense expert's analysis. If anything you have to give them equal weight. If you could conclude from the same evidence BPD and PTSD than it's clear that there is some confirmation bias taking place in the prosecutions analysis. Defensive wounds "My opponent argues many of the stab wounds to his knees and shins actually from "things". What exactly these things are is beyond me, as he doesn't explain them. Also, he didn't actually have any stab wounds on his knees or thighs" No I never claimed stab wounds were on Travis's knees or legs, the picture shows clear cuts and bruises. I think a good explanation for them could be that he was chasing Jodi down the hall way and was slipping a lot and running into things due to being wet from just getting out of the shower. "My opponent claims the stab wounds to the hands were from Alexander attacking. However, the wounds were defensive - not offensive." Me and my source gave a scenario that explains every wound exactly. If these wounds can be accounted for in my scenario than they do not qualify as evidence for my opponent. Here is an explanation of the defenive wounds which perfectly correlate with my version of events. " Arias reached the knife across the front of her body and made these two cuts, one weak and one strong, the first on top of his thumb and the second in the fleshy part of the hand between the thumb and wrist to make him let go, knife blade pointing up toward the ceiling. Alexander releases with his left hand and grabs hold of Arias’ clothes with his right hand and then grabs at the knife with his left hand as she tries to keep it away from him. This produces the two defensive like wounds in Alexander’s left hand (inside his hand, the area of the palm)." [5] I'm out of character space, more next round. sources [1] https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net... [2] http://www.occupyhln.org... [3] R2 video http://www.youtube.com... [4] [5] http://www.herrspeightsventures.com...