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

To begin his argument my opponent asserts that I am on the defensive - that my case is in shambles and that I'm in damage control mode. Simply put, this is silly, as I will explain in this round. My opponent attempts to refute my point on the gun theft and bullets - he argues that, contrary to the logic I presented, that gun theft is common in Arizona, and that there is no evidence connecting Arias to the gun. Estimates are that there are between 270 million and 310 million guns in the US, so let's split in the middle and say there are 290 million.[1] Arizona makes up 2.04% of the total US population,[2] let's multiply 290,000,000 by 0.0204. That gives us 5,196,000 guns in Arizona. What this means is that only 0.00096% of guns in Arizona are stolen each year - that's hardly a significant number. More importantly, however, is the theft itself. In an average burglary, you would expect the thief to steal as much as they can - the more items stolen, the more money they can make. The Arias family owned four guns, only one of which was stolen, and there was also money in the same cabinet just laying out in the open.[3][4] In other words, the robber only wanted one thing - the gun. This, combined with the fact that she denies ever owning a gun and there is no evidence to suggest Alexander owned one, immediately narrows the field and presents a clear and compelling reason to link Arias to the theft of the gun and shooting. This is, quite literally, the smoking gun.My opponent also attacks my linking the carrying of the gun to premeditation. He argues (incorrectly) that there is no evidence linking Arias to the gun. He also claims my scenario is stupid - he asserts there is no logical reason for Arias to stab and then shoot Alexander, and that if she wanted to kill him, she could have done it in his sleep. Me and my opponent both agree Arias some form of mental illness, which renders the idea of her acting sanely moot, but I have also noted the two had a sado-masochistic relationship. It is very likely she could have felt a sort of sexual satisfaction in killing him personally. It isn't nearly as satisfying to shoot him in his sleep as it would be to take pictures of him naked and then brutally murder him. In contrast, I'll ask my opponent this - if Arias was merely acting in self-defense, why did she need to stab Alexander 30 times, slit his throat, and shoot him in the head? That is a far more irrational argument than mine.On the topic of gun ownership, my opponent argues that he doesn't have to prove Alexander owned a gun, just that he might have. That is an ignorant argument - Travis Alexander's ownership of a gun is central to my opponent's theory. If he doesn't own a gun, his entire case falls apart. He does, in fact, need to show some evidence for this claim in order for it to be given any credibility. The problem, of course, is that there is no evidence Travis Alexander owned a gun. This makes my opponent's claim a bit difficult to support.On the topic of photographs, my opponent has backtracked - he now says that "clearly after Travis started beating the crap out of Arias, a lot of photos were taken accidentally". In his opening argument, however, my opponent places the camera as the cause of the attack ("Jodi stunned by this accidentally drops Travis's camera. He yells at he "You F**king idiot", and body slams her to the tile."). This reinforces my question - if Arias dropped the camera, how are all these pictures being taken? My opponent can't explain that.On the gunshot wound, another key point in my opponent's case, my opponent is again struggling. He seems to have dropped his claim that the gunshot wound went through the sinus and had thus conceded that it went through his right frontal lobe. However, he says "People survive shot's to the head, they often times can move around and are fully conscious after shots to the head. It's no guarantee that the second it happens you'll die or be incapacitated". I'm not sure when my opponent went to medical school, but his claim here lies flat in the face of what Dr. Kevin Horn, who performed the autopsy, says - he notes that "[Alexander] would be incapacitated… rapidly".[5] Simply put, there isn't a way Alexander could have done anything after being shot in the right frontal lobe, which completely destroys everything my opponent argues happened after the gunshot wound.On the issue of the fact that Arias had no defensive wounds while Alexander had many, my opponent asserts that Travis never had the chance to hit her. I call bullsh*t on that. Just a few sentence earlier in the debate, my opponent claimed that Alexander was "beating the crap out of" Arias. Which one is it? It can't be both.On the issue of voicemails and the camera, my opponent only responds to the phone arguments. I extend my arguments on the voicemails. My opponent thinks it is absurd that Arias would have tried to delete the photos, as "Jodi Arias was a photographer and that she knew deleting the photos wouldn't erase them". I agree! That's why she threw the camera in the washer, to try and ruin it.On the issue of domestic abuse, my opponent, like he has in all these other responses, has made many claims but presented no evidence. He argues that, even though there is no evidence of domestic violence (besides Arias having broken a finger once, which can be caused by many things), that Arias was abused. Once again, I point to earlier arguments - where is the proof? My opponent can't present any evidence of a physically abusive relationship, because there is none. He is making unfalsifiable claims to try and bolster his very, very weak case. For instance, he accuses Alexander, without any evidence, of being a pedophile. It is much harder for my opponent to prove he was attracted to young boys than it is for me to prove he isn't, so he tries to shift the burden to me. Also, I want to note here that my opponent says "He is capable of chasing of body slamming her then chasing her in a moment of anger". This is another contradiction in my opponent's case - was Alexander able to hit Arias, or was he not? You can't have it both ways.On the topic of PTSD, tries to counter how I showed that the PTSD diagnosis was in error by saying the doctor never admitted the diagnosis was wrong, just that he should have conducted another test. This is a red herring - if the doctor is confident in the PTSD claim, why would he acknowledge an error in not conducting another test?Finally, on the topic of my opponent's theory as to what happened, I want to set the record straight - despite what my opponent claims, I have debunked his entire case. Here are just a few reasons that, on their own individual merit, disprove his entire account:*My opponent claims the camera being dropped instigated the fight, even though that is impossible as pictures were taken during and after the fight. *My opponent Jodi Arias found Travis Alexander's gun and shot him accidentally in the sinus, snapping him into a "less aggressive state". This is false on two levels: there is no evidence Alexander owned a gun, and Alexander was not shot in the sinus, but the right frontal lobe, which would have rendered him incapacitated basically immediately. Also, what sort of idiot spousal abuser lets their abused partner know where they keep the weapons?*My opponent claims Arias only stabbed in self-defense. However, this makes no sense on two levels: one, she has a gun. Why would she need to stab him? Two, many of the stab wounds were on Alexander's back - which would basically be impossible to stab in a self-defense situation.Of course, there are many other holes I've noted earlier. It is worth noting my opponent's entire case revolves around the accuracy of his claim, which is at best incorrect and at worst patently ridiculous. My opponent simply hasn't backed up his extraordinary claims with any real evidence. In contrast, I've shown crime scene evidence proving the guilt of Jodi Arias. I look forward to the final round and my opponent's closing arguments.References:1. http://www.pewresearch.org...2. https://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...5. http://radaronline.com...