Prosecutor Juan Martinez releases new book, February 2016 - #2

I'm only about halfway through the book. I find it to be a very good read, but I am surprised at how many (small) factual errors there are, along with many grammar and punctuation errors. Not to take anything away from JM -- he's a great story-teller -- just surprised that a big publishing house like William Morrow doesn't have better editors...

JMO
 
Such an ignoramus. She is not smart... just average, but she excels at manipulation, obsessiveness and the integration of factoids and misc info into her dialog.
She is just so dang WEIRD! ICK!

It is so weird but I've found that clients who are heavily narcissistic tend to use big words inappropriately or pronounce them incorrectly...and it's just not that hard to look in a dictionary and find that, say, "casing" a neighborhood is not the same as "canvassing" it.
 
Such an ignoramus. She is not smart... just average, but she excels at manipulation, obsessiveness and the integration of factoids and misc info into her dialog.
She is just so dang WEIRD! ICK!

English is my second language so I'm far...far from perfect but even I understand what an independent memory refers to.

Ms. Einstein doesn't.

Examples:
JM: Do you have an independent memory of having oral intercourse with Mr. Alexander?
JA: I don't know what you mean. Independent of what?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JM: You do have an independent recollection of it then, right?
JA: What do you mean by independent?
JM: Independent means coming from inside your head!

:shame:
 
Such an ignoramus. She is not smart... just average, but she excels at manipulation, obsessiveness and the integration of factoids and misc info into her dialog.
She is just so dang WEIRD! ICK!

You know, I hate to say it but, they say men usually act out by using overt behavior (can use force/acts of aggression against target, verbal communication can become derogatory) and women will tend to use mental deception (use trickery to create a hostile environment). Either party can use whatever weapon in varying degrees, it depends on whatever is triggering them (need not require anyone has a personal relationship or merited such response in the slightest).

My guess is, she knew she was dangerous in her pre-adolescence either way. She must have settled on pathological lying and the manipulation of one's reality as akin to the release of her inner violence... sabotage one's mind instead of physical bodies. Well, I don't doubt she's had quite the dangerous disdain for smaller animals from time to time. Either way, the only reason she didn't destroy a body for everyone to see earlier, would have simply been because she didn't have the mechanisms to evade police. I think everyone in Yreka would have known about her and ratted her out ASAP too. It was however, a smaller community, perhaps too risky to visibly commit an atrocious crime.

She forged her 'support network' from PPL (either way, quite the source of income and additional aide from Gus).

But with this girl, the way others are able to pick up on her pattern, I wouldn't be surprised if she resided in every state in the USA... and every community she came into contact with went... "I have the feeling Jodi Arias did this..!"

No need to worry, she'd have left behind her palm print mixed with victim's blood, photos, and if that's not enough, will keep the receipts and literal road map in her safe deposit box....
 
(...) -- just surprised that a big publishing house like William Morrow doesn't have better editors...

JMO

Yes, I noticed a few smallish errors too. William Morrow should have caught them.
 
Good examples, PocketAccent. Do people remember when Juan asked her to qualify something? She didn't understand him and he had to explain the word 'qualify' (or some similar term). Also, remember Juan made some kind of error writing something to project overhead and Arias had a quiet little s****** moment?
 
Good examples, PocketAccent. Do people remember when Juan asked her to qualify something? She didn't understand him and he had to explain the word 'qualify' (or some similar term). Also, remember Juan made some kind of error writing something to project overhead and Arias had a quiet little s****** moment?

You sparked my memory, when Juan asked her for her "independent " reasoning for something, she asked " independent of what" and another question on her recent memory and she asked " what did he mean by recent". With all the 50 dollar words she was using, she sure showed her stupidity.
 
Good examples, PocketAccent. Do people remember when Juan asked her to qualify something? She didn't understand him and he had to explain the word 'qualify' (or some similar term). Also, remember Juan made some kind of error writing something to project overhead and Arias had a quiet little s****** moment?

I remember both.

JM was writing down symptoms of PTSD during his cross of Samuels. He wrote 'a fortshortened future', instead of 'a foreshortened future'. My, my, JA Immediately alerted Willmott and both snickered and smirked together. That moment I lost any respect left for Willmott...

Of course JM redeemed himself when he did the same with Dr. DeMarte. He spelled the word correctly much to disappointment of those two adolescents. Yes, JA checked with her fake glasses on.

Regarding the word qualify, I remember less clearly, but I think JM was asking her something like -So is your statement qualified?, and JA asked - What do you mean by qualified?
 
Great discussion here. But, LOVED the book, hated that there were too many PM's which should have been AM's. Stopped me every time as when it said she got to DB's at 7 PM and had breakfast!
 
Lots of typos in the book, especially the AM's and PM's, and the Sanyo vs Sony Camera. I am thinking they had so many preorders on the book they didn't proofread it well enough as they needed to release it.
I really enjoyed reading the book. Many people said that there wasn't too much new information but I think the book achieved its goal of explaining how Juan secured the "Conviction" - how he figured out the killer's psyche and used it against her. I liked how he planned his cross examination of her to be so effective that she fell into incriminating herself without knowing it. Thank heavens we had such an experienced and driven prosecutor in this case. He always kept the victim forefront and Juan's goal was to get justice for Travis, and he did.
I'm going to reread the book as I read it quickly the first time to make sure I didn't miss any details. I couldn't put it down, but it took me four days due to work, etc.
 
Hahaha @ fake glasses. The jury saw through that too - asking for more details.

Re 'qualify' - yes. That's seems familiar to me. As tisitra01 mentions above, the big words didn't disguise her failure on smaller word comprehension.

Re Willmott, I too lost respect for her on observing that. It's was a mean thing to do. Made her look immature, like her client from hell.
 
As CarolinaMoon and you point out, there were lots of little errors. May have been rush to market issues indeed. What is interesting about the book is it answers strategy questions.

When the first trial was unfolding, Juan was criticised for the route he took. Everyone had suggestions on how he should have started, it seemed. Yet by the end of the book it's easier to realise the strands that had to be unweaved were a massive tangle. Juan guided us through the unspinning of Arias' web of lies. He concentrated on what he could prove and skilfully snipped out the dross. Seems obvious now, huh?
 
As CarolinaMoon and you point out, there were lots of little errors. May have been rush to market issues indeed. What is interesting about the book is it answers strategy questions.

When the first trial was unfolding, Juan was criticised for the route he took. Everyone had suggestions on how he should have started, it seemed. Yet by the end of the book it's easier to realise the strands that had to be unweaved were a massive tangle. Juan guided us through the unspinning of Arias' web of lies. He concentrated on what he could prove and skilfully snipped out the dross. Seems obvious now, huh?
 
Hahaha @ fake glasses. The jury saw through that too - asking for more details.

Re 'qualify' - yes. That's seems familiar to me. As tisitra01 mentions above, the big words didn't disguise her failure on smaller word comprehension.

Re Willmott, I too lost respect for her on observing that. It's was a mean thing to do. Made her look immature, like her client from hell.

Willmott, MDLR, & Nurmi are pretty immature. They may be components in the AZ courts, yet they do what they do for posterity - for strut. Like.. "look at me*, I actually passed the bar, got this certificate thingy and made it here." Just barely, I'm guessing.

To this day, it doesn't seem they could have possibly prepared a proper defense for their client. They chose to trash Travis. If Juan was a defense attorney, he'd have brought in mental health experts, brain scans, medicated, guided her properly on consequences within the court room and on the jury, in another words, the works!

I was actually a little pissed they compared her to 'a mousy librarian.' Like aye! That would have been a dream job for me personally, librarians are educated and personable. Perhaps on television, they're made to appear anti-social or the 'weak nerd' that 'no one wants to date.' Hrmph, they're a reserved breed due to their responsibilities to provide sources of education for the masses so.... I get nonathat from Ms. Jodi Ari-a$s. P.S. I've never seen a librarian that's ever looked like her hobo @$$ in the first place. Heh
 
Juan's book demonstrates clear thinking and precise, considered application. Nurmi - obviously - couldn't stand his client and couldn't contain it. I'm not sure how he could have persuaded Arias to consider a different strategy. Having read her journals and texts between them, it seems to me that she relished Travis' misery. She is a sadist. Nurmi's area of expertise allowed her to draw every drop of pain from Travis' family and friends re the sexual allegations. She had the perfect lawyer to guide her through the buzzwords and theories. Re the 'librarian' look - I am not convinced that stereotype worked for her. It emphasised the ugliness of her words. There was little makeup to add gloss or attractiveness. She looked hideous inside and out. She couldn't keep a lid on smug, immature, spiteful and malicious.
 
Juan's book demonstrates clear thinking and precise, considered application. Nurmi - obviously - couldn't stand his client and couldn't contain it. I'm not sure how he could have persuaded Arias to consider a different strategy. Having read her journals and texts between them, it seems to me that she relished Travis' misery. She is a sadist. Nurmi's area of expertise allowed her to draw every drop of pain from Travis' family and friends re the sexual allegations. She had the perfect lawyer to guide her through the buzzwords and theories. Re the 'librarian' look - I am not convinced that stereotype worked for her. It emphasised the ugliness of her words. There was little makeup to add gloss or attractiveness. She looked hideous inside and out. She couldn't keep a lid on smug, immature, spiteful and malicious.

I cringed every time I heard her referred to as having the mousy librarian look. I felt her mouth gave her away. She looked and sounded like a *advertiser censored*. correction: She is a *advertiser censored*.
I have enjoyed watching trials over the years and I never saw an attorney giggle, whispering and writing notes to their client during testimony and at the same time writing incessantly. Nurmi and
Wilmont both failed in my eyes.
 
I don't care how many books Nurmi writes as he will never gain any redemption in my eyes. He and Wilmott presented themselves and the case horribly. Nurmi said he was trying hard to save his client's life. Not good enough for me to excuse the way they systematically tore Travis' character to shreds. They tried to humiliate his memory and then in the post trial interview Wilmott had the nerve to say they never called Travis a pedophile. Juan didn't need much more physical evidence to convict. The DT muddied the waters trying to protect that (to borrow a phrase, if I may). Even Juan said in his book that Nurmi began using overt sexual references right in his opening statement that the effect wore off as the trial went on. Nurmi and Wilmott were terrible in their strategy. Yes they saved her life, but did they, really? The killer now gets to die a slow miserable death, gets less appeals, and gets to fade away. LWOP is the better sentence for her, me thinks.
 
Late to the party here, but I just finished the book. Although I was chagrined by the many blatant errors (factual and grammatical), I still enjoyed it very much. To me, it was more of a classic story of good conquering evil. But even within that context, I appreciated JM's modesty and humility, as he outlined a pretty brilliant plan to convict JA. Well done!
 
(...) I have enjoyed watching trials over the years and I never saw an attorney giggle, whispering and writing notes to their client during testimony and at the same time writing incessantly. Nurmi and
Wilmont both failed in my eyes.

Willmott shocked me too with that display of spelling arrogance. So snide and immature. Also, if we caught it, the jury probably did. Professional? Definitely not.
 
Salsberg7, I agree that the strategy of the Defense was to trash Travis using every lie they could present. Following their client's wishes, yes. Yet they lost dignity with her. I don't believe either Nurmi or Willmott liked Arias. Willmott just faked it better.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
83
Guests online
4,321
Total visitors
4,404

Forum statistics

Threads
592,488
Messages
17,969,707
Members
228,788
Latest member
Soccergirl500
Back
Top