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

To begin his round my opponent questions my focus on 'means, motive, and opportunity'. He notes that it can be possible to have all three and be innocent, or just have two and be guilty. However, he misunderstands my argument here. - the principle can apply to the entire trial. There is no doubt Jodi Arias killed Travis Alexander - she admitted to it, and the evidence backs it up. What I am proving is her motivation for the killing - the focal point of this trial. Either her motive was self-defense, or it wasn't, and I am (and have) established it was not. On the topic of the gun, my opponent makes an argument that, at face value, seems reasonable. He argues that firearm theft is common, that the gun that was stolen from the Arias household had hollow point bullets, and that Alexander was shot with regular bullets. He notes, correctly, that hollow point bullets are much more deadly than regular bullets. He argues that, if she wanted to kill him, why not use the more lethal bullets? First off, firearm theft isn't very common - in 2012, only 5,431 firearms were reported as stolen in Arizona.[1] The problem with the rest of the argument is very simple - the downsides to using the bullets outweigh the benefits. Why? Because if Alexander had been killed by hollow point bullets, it would have been almost certain proof the gun used was the one stolen from the Arias household. Moreover, police could determine the exact brand of bullet used, and compare it with the police report or question the Arias family on it. Basically, by using regular bullets instead of the hollow points, Arias demonstrates premeditation - she carefully thought through the murder.On premeditation, my opponent makes some claims on premeditation. First, he argues that if she used the gun was used after the stabbing, then it would not be indicative of premeditation. He argues that it wouldn't make sense for her to plan a murder where she stabs him first, and then shoots him - to that, I strongly disagree. The mere fact she brought a gun (with no concealed carry license) to a situation like this is clear evidence she planned to use it. That is evidence of premeditation. Additionally, there are very compelling reasons to stab first, not shoot. Given her anger at Alexander, it would have been much more satisfying to personally stab him and then shoot him than to shoot him and then defile his corpse. Either way, however, she demonstrated an intent well beyond one of self defense - if she stabbed first, she would have incapacitated him well before she started stabbing him in the back, and she would have had no need to further stab or shoot. If she shot first, she would have incapacitated him immediately, and would have had no need to stab him 30 times and slit his throat. Of course, as I established in my opening statements, there is no evidence that Arias had even the mildest defensive wounds, while Alexander had defensive wounds on both hands.Second, my opponent questions why Arias would not have killed Alexander in his sleep. Once again, that would be very unsatisfying. The killing was excessive and very painful, indicating extreme rage or anger. Killing in one's sleep would not be nearly as satisfying. Additionally, killing him in his sleep would have precluded her from taking pictures of him - as my opponent and I both agree, the couple were sexual partners, and presumably the killing had a sexual nature as well given photos were taken just before the killing was conducted.Additionally, my opponent claims that Arias said Alexander did actually own a gun, and that he received it from his father. However, this is false - friends of Alexander have said that he didn't own a gun.[2] Additionally, he argues that Travis Alexander might have owned a gun, even though there is no evidence he did. This is a silly argument - this is a serious debate, and my opponent has no evidence that Alexander owned one. That his central argument in this debate is based on such an unprovable point is a major problem.On the topic of photographs, my opponent makes multiple claims. First, he questions how taking photographs can be evidence of premeditation; he states she could have been suspicious of being arrested, that she could have had PTSD, or that she knew erasing the photographs wouldn't result in them permanently disappearing. On the first, having the camera throughout the killing (during and after) shows more or less that she was not defending herself, as no person defending themselves would have time to take a picture of the dead body. On the topic of suspicion of being arrested, none of Arias's other behaviors suggest this; in fact, they confirm premeditation. After she killed Alexander, she sent several voicemails to his phone to make it appear like she was out of state.[3] I've already established Arias did not have PTSD, and on the topic of the camera, the images were indeed deleted, but the camera was also thrown into a washer - presumably to render it further unusable.[4]Second, my opponent asserts the final photograph of Arias isn't evidence of premeditation, and he is welcome to that opinion. However, given that is the final photo of Arias, it would make more sense to line up more closely with whichever side is more accurate. My opponent asserts Alexander went into a murderous rage, but that certainly doesn't show here. On domestic abuse, my opponent asserts that he did indeed provide evidence that, at one point, Arias broke her finger - in the YouTube video. I would like to note, however, that this was not cited to it, nor was the point in the video given. Additionally, the fact her finger was broken at one point is not evidence of domestic assault - there are many ways someone can break or injure a finger. For example, one of my brother's fingers is crooked - this was caused by a football hitting it. My opponent has not established any conclusive link between the broken finger and domestic assault. Additionally, my opponent gives texts sent by Alexander to Arias. Contrary to showing domestic abuse, however, these seem to show simply anger - not abuse. During any break up people say things like this all the time. People fight. Words are not evidence of domestic abuse, however. The fact he hasn't shown any evidence of domestic abuse, and I how shown definitive evidence that she was not abused, renders any argument on abuse moot. On the matter of shirts, the shirt given isn't inherently offensive - it could be a gag gift or something along the lines.On the topic of PTSD, my opponent asserts there is no reason to dismiss the PTSD theory. However, there is - my his own admission, the defense lawyer admits his diagnosis was flawed. The test was conducted while Arias was lying and insisting she knew nothing about the test. In other words, the diagnosis is worthless, and the prosecution's expert has far more credibility at this point.[5] Without the PTSD evidence, there is no reason why Arias wouldn't remember what happened, rendering my opponent's case extremely damaged.On the final issue, defensive wounds, my opponent asserts that the injuries to the legs and knees could easily be explained by him stumbling throughout the house. However, this is insufficient - they could be just as easily explained by the prosecution's claim that Arias dragged Alexander to different rooms while stabbing him. His arguments on the defense wounds similarly rely on his disproven account.With my basic rebuttals done, I turn the debate back to my opponent.Reference:1. https://www.atf.gov...2. http://www.hlntv.com...3. http://www.azcentral.com...4. http://www.hlntv.com...5. http://www.businessinsider.com...