What Is Rainsford's Arguments Against

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I am Jack Oberman, and I have the privilege today to prove Mr Rainsford guilty of assault and third degree murder without any reasonable doubt. According to Mr. Rainsford’s witness statement, he fell off of a ship and swam all the way onto the island. He then met Mr. Zaroff and henchman Ivan. Mr. Rainsford claimed they hunted humans on this island. Rainsford then says Zaroff forced him into being hunted. During the period of the 3 nights he managed to evade Zaroff, alleged hunter. In the process of evading Zaroff he attempted to kill Zaroff in self defense, but in the process killed Ivan and one of Zaroff’s hounds. After the 3 nights were up, the supposed end game, Rainsford swam around to the other end of the island, climbed into Zaroff’s room, and killed him. Unfortunately, we only have one witness to rely on- the perpetrator’s. Mr. Rainsford could have brutally killed both Zaroff and Ivan for reasons he has not informed us, and just
Rainsford for a second, assuming that a single part of his web of deceit is true, we would find several plot holes. Rainsford also claims that Zaroff killed men because he was bored with killing animals, which could very well be Rainsford’s actual psychological state, but framed on Zaroff. Zaroff promised Rainsford freedom if he survived three nights without being killed, and Rainsford survived, but didn’t give Zaroff a chance to send him to freedom. Justice on murder is based on whether the murder was necessary, but this murder was obviously not necessary due to the end of the 3 night limit. Some may say it was self defense, but there is no real proof that Zaroff hunted men besides Rainsford’s words, which only words are not reasonable proof. In the words of Lois McMaster Bujold, “The dead cannot cry out for justice. It is a duty of the living to do so for them.” The only real proof there is are the fingerprints on the knife that slew Ivan and that Rainsford killed