Book released by Defense Attorney, Nov 2015 #2

[samspace070]

Yes, it is a matter of opinion not fact that Nurmi is thin-skinned and acted on personal feelings in ADDITION to providing the killer the defense of her choice. Reasonable people can reasonably disagree on that point.

I base my opinion that he did so on a number of objective truths, though. Not least is the book he has chosen to write, which could just as easily have been an impassioned argument against the DP, or about the price he paid for successfully saving his client from the DP, and how it was worth it to him because he saved his client from a death sentence.

But, nope. That's not what he has written. He's written over 300 pages trashing his client, saying listening to her manipulate her mother and Donovan made him feel she deserved the DP, and trashing (and impugning the integrity of) JM, Flores, DeMarte, and Horn.

Sorry, I just don't see the slightest bit of professionalism in any of that. If you've read my recent posts you know I don't feel anger or scorn towards him.

I also don't believe he deserves a free pass, and given that even after trial he continues to trash the name of his client's victim, I don't think he is the slightest bit entitled to anything other than the additional scrutiny he's receiving.

I agree

 

[samspace070]

It's good to see that the dislike we have for LKN professionally, hasn't stopped us from having compassion for him during his cancer struggle. What a group we have on WS, it makes me proud to "know" you all. :grouphug:

You are right Caylee Advocate, all here have posted their compassion and hope for KLN's bout with cancer. I think most of us here have had someone or know someone that has had this terrible disease and died with it. I don't want anyone to suffer this awful disease even CMJA. I want the disease eradicated from the face of this earth. I know there are many other diseases that are bad and kill many people but cancer seems such an evil disease. I lost my husband and both his parents to this disease and I hate it. They suffered a long time. Praise God we can fine a cure for this awful disease soon. Too many small children die of it.

 

[pocketaccent]

It goes without saying I feel genuine compassion for Nurmi in such an unfortunate and tough situation. Recent days must have been scary for him and his family, outlook on future uncertain, dealing with chemo exhausting . My wish for his complete recovery from cancer is from the bottom of my heart. I wish him in good health always.

I also fully comprehend his role as a defense attorney for JA, that he had to become her advocate, protect her from unlawful prosecution, and provide her with a vigorous and competent defense.

My issue with Nurmi however is that he still has a lot of facts wrong in this case.
I get upset every time he makes innuendos describing Travis as a manipulator, a man sexually charged toward JA and a pedophile interested in 12yr old girls, and as an angry man who was always verbally abusive to JA. Nothing could be further from the truth. While Travis was not the most perfect human being on earth, he was none of those things accused of. May 26 was the only time he used inappropriate words out of utter frustration with his to-be-murderer. Prior to that day, I don't think I saw Travis using any derogatory words to her. Sure, he protested her dishonesty and voiced how he was sick of her games and asked her to leave him alone; hardly a reason to call him an always-abusive man.

He also believes JA did not premeditate murder. According to him, if she premeditated, she would have killed Travis the moment she arrived at his house. This means he has disregarded all evidences of her wicked plan to murder, which JM painstakingly and meticulously produced to the Court. When JM was done, I had no doubt in my mind JA premeditated prior to her arrival at Travis's house.

 

[IfIMay]

Hi back to you, Madeleine.


I followed your link which just kicks me to the top of this page, but I did reread all the posts here.

Perhaps the post you refer to is about Nurmi choosing to be DP- qualified, and so should have known what kind of client he's bound to have, and thus is undeserving of sympathy?

Your version is one interpretation of what was meant. Mine is different. I understood it to mean that Nurmi is asking for sympathy for the choices he made freely, and having made those choices freely should have understood he wasn't going to be beloved no matter what he did. Successful defenders of the most reviled don't get thrown ticker tape parades. If adulation is what is most important to Nurmi he made a very bad career choice indeed.

All of that is different- and more nuanced- than misunderstanding what his job was, and criticizing him for doing what he had to do.

And if I'm the one who is misunderstanding critiques of Nurmi, bad on me and please pipe up, those who I've misunderstood.

Thank you . This is what I meant. I don't post much because I'm not as eloquent in writing as most here. He wants praise for what he did. While is it necessary, I meant everything Hope said here. You don't get revered when you act like Nurms did in this trial. There was nothing noble about what he did other than his duty to do the job. Which he did poorly and except for 2 rogue jurors with agendas (1st foreman and the 2nd penalty hang up juror) he failed miserably and did it with no honor about him at all. He LIED to the freakin' jury. HOW in the WORLD is that deserving of praise and compassion? He CHOSE to do that. JA didn't "MAKE" him lie.

There has to be a line somewhere. So you write a book still killing the victim, then get cancer and suddenly you're a better person? When he truly does some soul searching, I'll have some compassion. Right now he is just defending what he did. No thank you.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I tend to thank well thought out posts, regardless of the position a person takes towards Nurmi. I think they all reflect what we saw at trial and what we read on tweets the second time around in the DP phase.

I also respect the difficult role of defense attorneys when they have to go against reality to do their job.

I've watched so many trials from OJ on (thanks, Court TV). I've seen parents put the blame on their own children. I've seen character assassination as severe as that done to Travis Alexander. Add in Deana, who the defense tried to dirty up as well.

It's a fact of defense attorney life, and they have to serve their clients. Without them, there could be no justice for the victim and the perpetrator.

Even during the main trial, most of us understood the defense role, even if we didn't like it. In the end, Nurmi got what he wanted; Jodi got LWOP. As others have pointed out, it saves the system a ton of money on worthless appeals and keeps a dangerous person out of real life forever. Jodi will never win an appeal, especially when trying to say her attorneys didn't do their job!

So, in that aspect, I thank Mr. Nurmi and Ms. Wilmott. I also hope that by this time next year, Mr. Nurmi is cancer free.

Now, the "but" part!

I didn't appreciate the level of trash the defense tossed out. I didn't appreciate the denigration of qualified witnesses the prosecution called. I didn't appreciate the over-use of the "three-hole-wonder" words repeated ad nauseum. They came from ONE highly charged e-mail when Travis had reached the end of his rope with JA. I didn't appreciate the touting of the Alliant affiliated "professional" witnesses. They didn't shine in their testimony.

I can't fathom why Nurmi wrote this book, although others here have given us some good options. What Nurmi needed was a credible ghost-writer who could organize his thoughts and point out to him the flip-flopping he does on a regular basis. (Thanks YesorNo) She stole the gun from grandpa, no it wasn't premeditates, yes it was is the best example I found.

I wonder if their is a ghost writer/unbiased psychoanalyst out there who could have given Nurmi therapy as they co-wrote the book. In that case, I would have bought the book.

 

[samspace070]

Thank you . This is what I meant. I don't post much because I'm not as eloquent in writing as most here. He wants praise for what he did. While is it necessary, I meant everything Hope said here. You don't get revered when you act like Nurms did in this trial. There was nothing noble about what he did other than his duty to do the job. Which he did poorly and except for 2 rogue jurors with agendas (1st foreman and the 2nd penalty hang up juror) he failed miserably and did it with no honor about him at all. He LIED to the freakin' jury. HOW in the WORLD is that deserving of praise and compassion? He CHOSE to do that. JA didn't "MAKE" him lie.

There has to be a line somewhere. So you write a book still killing the victim, then get cancer and suddenly you're a better person? When he truly does some soul searching, I'll have some compassion. Right now he is just defending what he did. No thank you.

I couldn't agree more, IfIMay, Nurmi lied to the jury and he has lied in his interviews. There was no text or message to CMJA asking her to come see him. He needs to correct that so called fact. I am very appreciative of good lawyers no matter what side of the fence they are on. Alan Dershowitz is a wonder in the courtroom. He is amazing and VERY PROFESSIONAL, but I have not agreed with the innocence of most of his high profile clients, ie: OJ, Claus von Bulon, Mike Tyson, Michael Milken, but he was brilliant in their defense, not a slime merchant like Nurmi. Dershowitz does half of his cases pro bono and I have seen a few in videos, he is really good.

Dershowitz was the first attorney to coin the phrase, "the abuse excuse", he said this in reference to the Menendez brothers. Leslie Abramson was their attorney and took exception to what Dershowitz said but he didn't back off it but actually added to it. He said dragging the victim thru the mud with unsubstantiated claims of abuse should not be allowed. He said it has become the defense of many murderers when they have no defense. He is an ethical lawyer, unlike Nurmi and Willnot. The really good attorneys don't use those unethical tactics. Like Dershowitz said, anyone can make claims of abuse, but proving it is difficult when it isn't true.

Nurmi needs to find another job, I don't think he has the temperament for being a defense attorney. Facts are stubborn things.

Just a note to WS posters, I have mentioned Dershowitz in a number of posts, but let me qualify my endorsement, I do not agree with Alan's political views or the innocence of most of his clients but never the less I admire his ability in the courtroom and the method he uses. We need more like him. But unfortunately we have too many like Nurmi and Willnot.

 

[samspace070]

I tend to thank well thought out posts, regardless of the position a person takes towards Nurmi. I think they all reflect what we saw at trial and what we read on tweets the second time around in the DP phase.

I also respect the difficult role of defense attorneys when they have to go against reality to do their job.

I've watched so many trials from OJ on (thanks, Court TV). I've seen parents put the blame on their own children. I've seen character assassination as severe as that done to Travis Alexander. Add in Deana, who the defense tried to dirty up as well.

It's a fact of defense attorney life, and they have to serve their clients. Without them, there could be no justice for the victim and the perpetrator.

Even during the main trial, most of us understood the defense role, even if we didn't like it. In the end, Nurmi got what he wanted; Jodi got LWOP. As others have pointed out, it saves the system a ton of money on worthless appeals and keeps a dangerous person out of real life forever. Jodi will never win an appeal, especially when trying to say her attorneys didn't do their job!

So, in that aspect, I thank Mr. Nurmi and Ms. Wilmott. I also hope that by this time next year, Mr. Nurmi is cancer free.

Now, the "but" part!

I didn't appreciate the level of trash the defense tossed out. I didn't appreciate the denigration of qualified witnesses the prosecution called. I didn't appreciate the over-use of the "three-hole-wonder" words repeated ad nauseum. They came from ONE highly charged e-mail when Travis had reached the end of his rope with JA. I didn't appreciate the touting of the Alliant affiliated "professional" witnesses. They didn't shine in their testimony.

I can't fathom why Nurmi wrote this book, although others here have given us some good options. What Nurmi needed was a credible ghost-writer who could organize his thoughts and point out to him the flip-flopping he does on a regular basis. (Thanks YesorNo) She stole the gun from grandpa, no it wasn't premeditates, yes it was is the best example I found.

I wonder if their is a ghost writer/unbiased psychoanalyst out there who could have given Nurmi therapy as they co-wrote the book. In that case, I would have bought the book.

Good Post

 

[YESorNO]

Trapped with Ms. Arias

Section 10

How Was I Going to Save Ms. Arias' Life?

in Chap 49- L explains why I was still interested in saving the murderer's life (even tho' he didn't like her)

in Chap 50- L's plan to save her life

in Chap 51- "the last few moments of peace...before the trial began"
===============================================

Chapter 49

Why Did I Fight For Ms. Arias Life?

L will address why he thinks DP was not appropriate for the murderer

"I truly believed that Ms. Arias did not deserve to be killed for her crime"

- "something more specific than" his belief about the DP, which he opposes- "willing to do what it took, within the bounds of my ethical duties, those ethical duties I have as a lawyer, to prevent this from happening" (pg. 285)

but, 1st issue: "relates to Mr. Alexander and those who love him......

"I do not want anyone to think that by asserting my opinion that the death penalty was not an appropriate sanction for Ms. Arias that I somehow minimizing the killing of Mr. Alexander, his personal loss of life, or his suffering that his death caused his family and loved ones....the killing of Mr. Alexander was a horrible tragedy and those who cared about him, particularly his family have my sympathy for their loss" (pg. 285-286)

2nd issue:

L "realizes" many people might think that the murderer "should not" be sentenced to die "inconceivable"- they might think "that anyone who feels to the contrary must be either insane or they must be in love with Ms. Arias (perhaps both)"

L states that many people "who do not like" the murderer "who do not support what she did...still believe that she should not have been sentenced to death for her crime.. many ..share my general opposition to the" DP "others might not share my firm opposition....also believe that " the murderer "should not be sentenced to death"

why L feels that the murderer didn't deserve DP: (2 things)

1--in his mind- she "did not meet the criteria for what a death penalty case should be....I saw inequity in the penalty that" the murderer "was facing and the penalty being sought out against others who had committed similar if not more horrific acts"

L states on "not meeting criteria"- DP case not typical case- "the worst of the worst"- if every murder eligible for DP "the death sentence becomes cruel and unusual punishment"

L explains "atypical murder"- eg. several victims and victim is child- the murderer's murdering TA not "fit the parameters..the murderer's crime and her personal history did not make her the worst of the worst"

2-- "the issue of disparity"- gives eg: (trials taking place same time murderer's case)

-man stabbed wife- about 27X- drove body to police station- turned himself in- man was not charged with 1st degree, but with 2nd degree- he pleaded guilty

- another about to be tried in Maricopa Co- Jerice Hunter- accused of killing her 5 yr old daughter Jhessye Shockley- beat the child, forced her to live in closet- little food- after she died- dumped her in landfill- when charged with murder, claimed someone kidnapped child and/or was missing...huge public search took place...marches- State charge 1st degree murder, but not DP "Why? I do not know"

L states that those who research DP would say review social science research

"That research would tell me that Ms. Arias was facing the death penalty and Ms. Hunter was not because of the fact that Ms. Arias killed a white male and Ms. Hunter killed a black girl" (pg. 288)

same research- man who killed wife, stabbed her 27X, didn't face death "because he killed a woman"

L states that (according to research) "who the defendant kills is the most prominent correlating factor that determines whether prosecutors seek the death penalty..it is not who is as a person or their history but who they killed:

"Those most likely to face a death sentence are those who kill white males...the inherent racism of the death penalty provided an explanation for this disparity...my opinion was that this had little if anything to do with race and more to do with the notoriety that surrounded the case" (pg. 289)

L's opinion- that media attention already paid to case, "motivated" State to seek DP for the murderer

L states that if DP not sought, attention to case wouldn've been that much- failure to obtain DP would "be a huge public failure...public embarrassment for the prosecutor and could result in a decrease in the value of the prosecutor's potential book deal. I was of the opinion that once death was sought against Ms. Arias, unfair and improper tactics might very well be used against Ms. Arias so as to avoid such an embarrassment" (pg. 289)

"In this, I saw injustice...I'm not going to let Ms. Arias receive an unjust sentence of death, period...because a prosecutor, any prosecutor wanted fame or adulation...or allow a prosecutor to send a client, any client of mine, to death row when they didn't deserve to be there "

"In this regard, it did not matter to me that the way I had to do this would not reflect well on me. It did not matter that i did not like Ms. Arias. It did not matter that I did not believe everything Ms. Arias was saying only that she didn't deserve to be on death row. This belief would serve as my rock, my foundation. when the world, including Ms. Arias herself was against me." (pg. 289)
=================================

Chapter 50

What Was My Plan?

Fall, 2012- L "collected and digested all the evidence from the case....had a theory...what happened June 4, 2008 and why it happened...had fairly good idea... what the State was going to argue....a virtual certainty that Ms. Arias would be convicted of First degree Murder ...that it would be unjust if my client were to wind up on death row.." (pg. 290)

L needed a plan "How was I going to save the life of my self-destructive client....whose goal seemed to have nothing to do with her future or her life and everything to do with vilifying Mr. Alexander?"

L states that if he had "complete control" and could have " 'designed' " defense, "it would have been much different"- the murderer would not have "told the stories she told about " TA..."In fact, she really would have no story to tell.. [she] would have sat silent during trial..never taken the stand....would not be in a position to make any accusations against Mr. Alexander"

L states that he would argue facts that demonstrated- killing done with no "significant or any premeditation"- that murderer was really guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter (argument he explained in Chapter 47)

"My argument would have been based on the idea that even if she had arrived at Mr. Alexander's home with the intent on killing him this intent went away when she saw him and that her intent to kill did not come to life again until moments before she actually killed him, hence the argument for second degree murder or manslaughter" Work? - he did not know - all he had to work with

L states that he felt the jury would have been more "open to the argument" if the murderer didn't make "the accusations she made against" TA

if the murderer was convicted of 1st degree murder, at the sentencing part, his argue the murderer's lack of criminal history, "dynamics of the relationship" with TA

L states that he thought that his "tactics" would save the murderer's life

but the murderer had "her own agenda"- he had to "play by those rules...had to figure out how to save her life despite the story she was going to tell"

L explains:

- lawyer cannot stop client from testifying- 6th amendment- client could testify "to anything they want and.... their lawyer cannot stop them...when a lawyer knows a client is perjuring themselves" lawyer can "withdraw from the case"- requests are usually denied

"However, when this happens a defendant usually testifies in the form of a narrative and the attorney resumes representation after the client's testimony is complete. However, the one important caveat to this is that in order to have a basis to withdraw, the attorney must know that the client is perjuring himself or herself.... the lawyer cannot merely suspect that their client might be lying. Doubt about the truthfulness of the testimony is also not enough. Instead what is required is that the attorney must actually know via objective evidence that the client is perjuring himself or herself." (pg. 282)

L gives hypothetical:

-"Frank.. is accused of armed robbery..holding up liquor store..wants to take stand ...say that at time of robbery, he was out of town visiting his mom at the nursing home..Mr. Brown (atty) uncovers a cell phone video given to him by one of Frank's friends...video shows Frank outside..liquor store wearing the same clothes described by..store manager who was held at gunpoint...video is date and time stamped....video recorded 5 minutes before the robbery"

-Frank's atty can "move to withdraw" because Frank wants to lie on stand- if atty didn't have cell phone video and just felt that client "was lying because Frank had a history of lying he could not withdraw. Under those circumstances "atty "...would..be required to help Frank tell his story because he had no proof that it was not true" (pg. 282-283)

- another story:

- this time "Frank" is charged 1st degree murder- State seeking DP

- he killed his uncle who was "popular person in town..loved him..outraged surrounded his murder"

- Frank tells his atty that he did kill his uncle and he molested Frank as a child- he never told anyone

-Frank saw uncle talking to young boy at store and was enraged- grabbed gun and shot him

- Frank says "I would do it again because I wanted to make sure he never touched another little boy like he touched me"

-atty has obligation to search for evidence, even if he didn't believe his client

"...let us say that" atty "finds no evidence whatsoever related to Frank's accusation....as time goes on" atty's "disbelief grows" but " has no actual proof that Frank is lying. A lawyer in " his "position has to aid his client in telling his story....particularly true in a capital case"- if he doesn't, reversal of death sentence "would be virtually automatic"

"The accusations that Ms. Arias wanted to level against Mr. Alexander was completely irrelevant as it related to the job I had to perform. Even if I thought these accusations amounted to nothing more than lies designed to assault Mr. Alexander's good name, I had no choice but to pursue any evidence related to them."

L states that he "was duty bound...to find any support for her claims and allow her to testify....I could not disprove them with actual evidence that proved these claims to be false...you [may] think these accusations are lies or perhaps it is more accurate to say that you 'know' that they are lies but the reality is there is no proof that these accusations were actually untruthful....your so-called knowledge is just your opinion.." (pg. 284)

L claims he had "some evidence supporting her claims":

-he had 2 experts tell him that she had "symptoms related to PTSD"

-he had 2 domestic violence experts tell him that she was a victim of domestic violence during relationship wth TA

-he had "emails from the Hughes to TA about how he abused women"

-there were "the comments from the Hughes made to Detective Flores about how they could see Mr. Alexander being physical with Ms. Arias"

-there were the sex tapes

"Now those of you who want to call me all sorts of names for supposedly calling Mr. Alexander a pedophile, something I never done, may not like facing a reminder of this particular fact."

L wants us to remember that TA reference 12 yr old girl having her 1st orgasm, "corking the pot" of 12 yr old girl during convo with the murderer

"...how do I save my client's life, knowing that I have, in essence, assist her in making these assertions against" TA? "her assertations will turn the whole jury against her [and me]?"

L stated he had to come up with strategy "that would result in a life sentence...even if the jury and the entire world would wind up hating us both" (pg. 285)

L had a plan that "might me look like a bad lawyer on worldwide television"

L states that plan worked- "I have not yet received a thank you card from Ms. Arias or her family...[or] an apology from any of my critics in the media..I'm not holding my breath.."

L states that he knew experts testifying relied, "at least in part", on what the murderer told them. "I suspected that these opinions would not be received well....knew that Ms. Arias was going to take the stand and gleefully make these accusations against" TA

L stated that that he had 2 options:

-"dive right into the fray merge whatever strategy I arrived at with Ms. Arias' claims..hope for the best"- didn't believe it would "lead to a life sentence"

-"alternative...do something unorthodox that might just save Ms. Arias' life"

The alternative: "to run as far away from her story as I could while still presenting the viable aspects of her story to the jury...in terms if most of the witnesses...meant letting them present what Ms. Arias told them and the conclusions that they made from testing her or whatever means they used...letting the jury absorb the idea that there was at least some merit to Ms. Arias' assertations that she suffered from symptoms of trauma and that she was a victim of domestic violence without fully embracing her claims that Mr. Alexander had a sexual interest in children" ( pg. 288)

L states "the plan"- to let Willmott handle witnesses "as thought these claims were the key to the case when I thought otherwise..." the murderer's story "would be embraced to some degree and I would be free to work on saving Ms. Arias' life"

L was to direct the murderer's testimony- to "make sure it was done right..consistent with my plan to run away from her story as much as possible at the same time she was telling it...to let Ms. Arias articulate her defense while at the same time slipping in some facts about the relationship that Ms. Arias shared with Mr. Alexander that was undeniable..I thought that this process would provide the jury to either make some sort of connection with Ms. Arias or provide them with the opportunity to see she is not right in the head" and " would be enough to cause at least one juror to spare Ms. Arias' life"

L states it "is harder to kill someone with whom one is familiar with [but] might lead to contempt"- risk he would have to take

another aspect of "plan"- that JM would cross examine the murderer "very aggressively"- the jury would feel sympathy for her

"risky" plan- not good for his "personal reputation"- had to keep what he was doing to himself- thought it was the "only way" the murderer "was going to 'get out of this alive'...turned out that gamble paid off for her.....this would come at great personal cost to the good reputation I had built over the years....okay with me because it is not the lawyer's job to put their reputation above their client's life...will talk more about implementing this strategy in my next book " (pg.288)

L "speculates about the questions you might have"

-- "..what were the inevitable truths that I felt I needed to get out of Ms. Arias in order to employ my strategy while she was trying to advance her agenda? "

-sex-

"an undeniable truth that" TA and the murderer " had an intense relationship..some call..kinky...[or] perverse..[or] normal but I don't see how anyone could quibble with the idea that it was intense...sex focal point...having all kinds of sex behind closed doors...unless Mr. Alexander truly loved Ms. Arias, he was using her for sex" the murderer "was his 'booty call'. Even Sky Hughes referred to Ms. Arias in this manner"

"..in my mind, it was the an undeniable reality that whether Mr. Alexander loved Ms. Arias or hated her he was never going to commit to her, however, as evidenced by his actions, he was more than happy to have sex with her"

"Why was this important to show this undeniable reality in court?"- if the murderer "failed to make a connection with her jury"- would be harder for jury to kill a woman.....had no prior criminal history...."characterized" as woman who fell in love with someone "using her for sex than" someone who was "obsessed former girlfriend that could not let the victim go" (pg. 288)

that was his "plan in a nutshell"

L states that "those who support" the murderer- upset- the plan did not prove the murderer " 'innocent' , something that could never be done...those who support Mr. Alexander believe this involved 'dragging him through the mud' "

"However, face it, no matter what kind of horrible *advertiser censored* you want to make Ms Arias out to be, Mr. Alexander was still having sex with her....undeniable reality of this case, like it or not and it was at the heart of my strategy, a strategy that worked and a strategy for which I will offer no apologies" (pg.289)
================================================== ========================

Chapter 51

New Year's Day

L talks about New Year's Day when he was younger...in 1970's college football games..only 3 major networks ..."all good games went all day long"- he was a "kid who loved football...was an awesome day"

"As a kid who loved his grandfather who himself loved football it was extra-awesome because we watched these games together, all day. Simply put, New Year's Day was one of the best days of the year for me as a child" (pg. 300)

L laments- now several college bowl games- are spread out- take place mid-December to mid-January..."not all good ones take place on New Year's Day"- now dozens of sports channels- hockey now- he still loves New Year's Day tho'- he spends much time watching football- thinks of his grandfather every New Year's Day

L states that he is telling all this to us because:

"...I can give you a sense of what it was like for me as I braced myself for the trial..New Year's Day ..2013...wanted to embrace the day without concern for the next day" but "could not do that.... 'Trapped with Ms. Arias' "

- while watching game "I could not help to think about the impending storm that would hit my life the next day...did not want to be part of, but had no choice. The best I could do.... was to allow Jennifer to do the opening so that I could cling to these last moments of peace that always comes to me while watching football on New Year's Day"

L thought about following New Year's Day without having to be concerned with the murderer's case "or her self-destructive ways"

" ...guess I was wrong about that one, but in fairness to me, I do not think anyone could have guessed that things would go the way they did. Heck if I had known...after January 2, 3013, I might have driven to the airport instead of the courthouse....flown to a country that didn't extradite runaway lawyers back to the United States. Instead, on January 2, 2013, I drove toward the courthouse, parked my car and took one last breath" (pg. 301)
================================================== =======

Coming in 2016

Trapped with Ms. Arias Part 11

"From Trial To Mistrial"

"January, 2013..beautiful winter's day in Arizona....scene outside the courthouse....several people, many reporters and other s who would be best described as groupies who want to be part of the show, and what a show it turned out to be..lived streamed to the world...capture the attention of millions.. to me, The State v. Jodi Arias, was more than a show, it was a trial, a serious trial where a person's life was at stake"

in L's next book he will tell what it was like for him to "live through this trial..share my thoughts with you and let you in on the things you did not see on television"
================================================== ================

Link: http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/563/d0...r-that-s-all-folks-have-a-nice-day-c548d7.jpg
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Hope4More]

Working with Y/N's book excerpts... please forgive awkward typing etc. Long posts are extremely difficult to work with on my cut and pasteless wee phone...
===============================================

Understandable:

"I truly believed that Ms. Arias did not deserve to be killed for her crime"

- "something more specific than" his belief about the DP, which he opposes- "willing to do what it took, within the bounds of my ethical duties, those ethical duties I have as a lawyer, to prevent this from happening" (pg. 285)

UNACCEPTABLE:

("The death of ) Mr. Alexander was a horrible tragedy."

No, it was a vicious and brutal act of premeditated murder.


UNDERSTANDABLE:

why L feels that the murderer didn't deserve DP:

1--in his mind- she "did not meet the criteria for what a death penalty case should be....I saw inequity in the penalty that" the murderer "was facing and the penalty being sought out against others who had committed similar if not more horrific acts"

L explains "atypical murder"- eg. several victims and victim is child- the murderer's murdering TA not .. crime and her personal history did not make her the worst of the worst."

GOING DOWNHILL QUICKLY:

"Those most likely to face a death sentence are those who kill white males...the inherent racism of the death penalty provided an explanation for this disparity...my opinion was that this had little if anything to do with race and more to do with the notoriety that surrounded the case" (pg. 289 . SO WHY BRING UP RACE?)


L's opinion- that media attention already paid to case, "motivated" State to seek DP for the murderer


AND DOWN ALL THE WAY HE GOES INTO THE GUTTER OF CHARACTER ASSASSINATION...

L states that if DP not sought, attention to case wouldn've been that much- failure to obtain DP would "be a huge public failure...public embarrassment for the prosecutor and could result in a decrease in the value of the prosecutor's potential book deal. I was of the opinion that once death was sought against Ms. Arias, unfair and improper tactics might very well be used against Ms. Arias so as to avoid such an embarrassment" (pg. 289)

"In this, I saw injustice...I'm not going to let Ms. Arias receive an unjust sentence of death, period...because a prosecutor, any prosecutor wanted fame or adulation...or allow a prosecutor to send a client, any client of mine, to death row when they didn't deserve to be there "

IN A NUTSHELL: JM IS TO BLAME FOR MY PAIN BECAUSE HE CONVINCED MONTGOMERY TO GO FOR THE DP, WHICH SHE DIDN'T DESERVE, AND JM DID SO ONLY BECAUSE HE SEEKS FAME.

AND JM WOULD BE WILLING TO BE UNETHICAL OR WORSE IN ORDER TO WIN, BECAUSE WINNING MEANT HE WOULD GET THE BEST BOOK DEAL AND MAX FAME.
-------------------------


THE BIGGEST LIE NURMI TELLS HIMSELF:

"In this regard, it did not matter to me that the way I had to do this would not reflect well on me. It did not matter that i did not like Ms. Arias. It did not matter that I did not believe everything Ms. Arias was saying only that she didn't deserve to be on death row. This belief would serve as my rock, my foundation. when the world, including Ms. Arias herself was against me." (pg. 289)

OBVIOUSLY IT MATTERS A GREAT DEAL TO YOU THAT FOLKS DIDN'T LIKE YOUR TACTICS. IF IT DIDN'T MATTER TO YOU, YOU WOULD HAVE DECLARED VICTORY WHEN SHE WAS SENTENCED TO LWOP AND GONE BACK TO YOUR LIFE.

--------------------



UNDERSTANDABLE STRATEGY:

L states that he would argue facts that demonstrated- killing done with no "significant or any premeditation"- that murderer was really guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter (argument he explained in Chapter 47)

"My argument would have been based on the idea that even if she had arrived at Mr. Alexander's home with the intent on killing him this intent went away when she saw him and that her intent to kill did not come to life again until moments before she actually killed him, hence the argument for second degree murder or manslaughter" Work? - he did not know - all he had to work with.


COMPLETELY WRONG, IMO, BUT REVEALING THAT NURMI THINKS THIS:


L states that he felt the jury would have been more "open to the argument" if the murderer didn't make "the accusations she made against" TA


------------------
UNDERSTANDABLE:

...but the murderer had "her own agenda"- he had to "play by those rules...had to figure out how to save her life despite the story she was going to tell"

L explains:

- lawyer cannot stop client from testifying- 6th amendment- client could testify "to anything they want and.... their lawyer cannot stop them...when a lawyer knows a client is perjuring themselves" lawyer can "withdraw from the case.......


PERHAPS HERE IS ONE CRUX OF THE MATTER. NURMI COULD BE DISBARRED IF IT COULD BE PROVEN THAT HE SUBORNED PERJURY (knew that she was lying on the stand).

HE DOES A GREAT DEAL OF THREADING THE NEEDLE OF--

1. I knew she was a manipulative liar more interested in vilifying Travis than in saving her own life

BUT

2. THERE WERE ENOUGH CRUMBS OF "EVIDENCE" AND ENOUGH "EXPERTS" WILLING TO SEE WHAT WE NEEDED THEM TO SEE FOR ME TO CONVINCE MYSELF THAT WHAT SHE TESTIFIED TO WASN'T DEMONSTRABLY ALL LIES.


"The accusations that Ms. Arias wanted to level against Mr. Alexander was completely irrelevant as it related to the job I had to perform. Even if I thought these accusations amounted to nothing more than lies designed to assault Mr. Alexander's good name, I had no choice but to pursue any evidence related to them."

L states that he "was duty bound...to find any support for her claims and allow her to testify....I could not disprove them with actual evidence that proved these claims to be false...you [may] think these accusations are lies or perhaps it is more accurate to say that you 'know' that they are lies but the reality is there is no proof that these accusations were actually untruthful....your so-called knowledge is just your opinion.." (pg. 284)

-he had "emails from the Hughes to TA about how he abused women" HE KNOWS BETTER.


"Now those of you who want to call me all sorts of names for supposedly calling Mr. Alexander a pedophile, something I never done (THERE'S THAT TOO CUTE BY HALF DEFLECTION) may not like facing a reminder of this particular fact."

L wants us to remember that TA reference 12 yr old girl having her 1st orgasm, "corking the pot" of 12 yr old girl during convo with the murderer..

(BUT, HONESTLY, HE NEVER CALLED T. A PEDO).

(And he genuinely is baffled why The Trial Watchers are offended he has the gall to repeat this carp in his book???)

---------------

"...how do I save my client's life, knowing that I have, in essence, assist her in making these assertions against" TA?

L had a plan that "might me look like a bad lawyer on worldwide television" . L states that plan worked- "I have not yet received a thank you card from Ms. Arias or her family...[or] an apology from any of my critics in the media..I'm not holding my breath.."

SO IT WAS HIS PLAN ALL ALONG TO LOOK LIKE A BAD ATTORNEY, BUT THE MEDIA OWES HIM APOLOGIES FOR...CALLING HIM A BAD ATTY? Oooook

-------
HIS "BRILLIANT" STRATEGY: Have your experts suggest in every way possible that T was a pedophile without ever using the term pedophile. And focus focus focus on the less vile lies about abuse.


"to run as far away from her story as I could while still presenting the viable aspects of her story to the jury...in terms if most of the witnesses...meant letting them present what Ms. Arias told them and the conclusions that they made from testing her or whatever means they used...letting the jury absorb the idea that there was at least some merit to Ms. Arias' assertations that she suffered from symptoms of trauma and that she was a victim of domestic violence without fully embracing her claims that Mr. Alexander had a sexual interest in children" ( pg. 288)

_--_--------------
UNDERSTANDABLE TRIAL STRATEGY, THOUGH PAINFUL..

. (Have his client) characterized" as woman who fell in love with someone "using her for sex than" someone who was "obsessed former girlfriend that could not let the victim go"

AND NURMI MISSES THE POINT ENTIRELY:


"However, face it, no matter what kind of horrible *advertiser censored* you want to make Ms Arias out to be, Mr. Alexander was still having sex with her....undeniable reality of this case, like it or not and it was at the heart of my strategy..."

 

[RickshawFan]

He also believes JA did not premeditate murder. According to him, if she premeditated, she would have killed Travis the moment she arrived at his house. This means he has disregarded all evidences of her wicked plan to murder, which JM painstakingly and meticulously produced to the Court. When JM was done, I had no doubt in my mind JA premeditated prior to her arrival at Travis's house.

There's no evidence about what time she showed up in TA's home, either. She could have shown up just before she killed him. This would meet KN's criteria for premeditation.

The sex photos do not have to have been taken on that day....

KN doesn't seem to have got into his head that there were a large number of jurors in this case, and a large number believed that Jodi is a callous, vindictive, vicious, and depraved murderer. KN is just kinda out there on his own with his "evidence".

KN likes to think he has escaped manipulation with his clever thinking. In fact, he's as much manipulated by Jodi as anyone else; he just fantasizes that he's been strong enough not to be.

KN also doesn't realize Jodi has manipulated him by creating "evidence." He seems to think he didn't fall into her traps, but he's quite obviously wrong, since he believes stories/emails/texts for which there was 0 corroboration and then he constructs a "reality" around it all.

Plus, KN doesn't apply any critical thinking skills to the "evidence" or "analysis" (e.g. ALV) he is presented with. From what he says, he's process was: get two of each, DV person (check) and PTSD person (check) who will evaluate in the positive. This will mean his client must have PTSD and be a victim of DV. He never looked at their evidence? This is not due diligence: it's checking off a to-do list so it can look like you've done your homework.

Being stupid does not qualify as a " strategy".

 

[RickshawFan]

From the entries I've read above....

KN knew that what Jodi was lying on the stand and he cherry-picked specialists so they could support those lies. He didn't care to apply any reasoning to those specialists' work or to evaluate their analysis, e.g. by looking at Samuels' nonexistent bubble sheets or the proximate cause of the "PTSD".

How is it not suborning perjury if you know your client is lying on the stand and you are deliberately not suspicious of analysis that supports the lies?

 

[RickshawFan]

KN's counter examples for why Jodi's crime should never have been a death penalty case...

For KN to have any kind of valid argument, he would have to show that he's comparing apples to apples. For instance, different states have different criteria for a death penalty charge, so comparing perps from different states is not a valid comparison. He would also need to reference and dismiss counter examples, where cases like Jodi's were prosecuted as DP cases (DeVault springs to mind).

But above all, he does not consider the reality that Jodi is a "one off" (unique) and that the case could be worthy of the DP not just because of what she did, but because of the way she did it, as well as the surrounding circumstances and contexts for her behavior. And that there is no other case quite like it.

And finally KN has no grounds to complain that JM was overreaching, because Jodi's first batch of jurors unanimously determined that she was eligible for the death penalty when they specified that the murder was especially cruel and the second batch reinforced that 11/12 by voting for the DP. This gives the lie to any argument KN might have about whether this was appropriately a DP case.

 

[Hope4More]

From the entries I've read above....

KN knew that what Jodi was lying on the stand and he cherry-picked specialists so they could support those lies. He didn't care to apply any reasoning to those specialists' work or to evaluate their analysis, e.g. by looking at Samuels' nonexistent bubble sheets or the proximate cause of the "PTSD".

How is it not suborning perjury if you know your client is lying on the stand and you are deliberately not suspicious of analysis that supports the lies?

His job wasn't to prove she was lying about pedo or abuse. That was JM's job, which he did very effectively.

As Nurmi explained, he couldn't prevent her from taking the stand, period. And he couldn't prevent her from spouting whatever lies she wanted to unless there was PROOF that she was lying. There wasn't. JM had to use circumstantial evidence to refute those lies (nothing noteworthy to report in journal, etc).

Nurmi's job was to dig for evidence and experts that supported the lies, however flimsy and unconvincing.

 

[Hope4More]

KN's counter examples for why Jodi's crime should never have been a death penalty case...

For KN to have any kind of valid argument, he would have to show that he's comparing apples to apples. For instance, different states have different criteria for a death penalty charge, so comparing perps from different states is not a valid comparison. He would also need to reference and dismiss counter examples, where cases like Jodi's were prosecuted as DP cases (DeVault springs to mind).

But above all, he does not consider the reality that Jodi is a "one off" (unique) and that the case could be worthy of the DP not just because of what she did, but because of the way she did it, as well as the surrounding circumstances and contexts for her behavior. And that there is no other case quite like it.

And finally KN has no grounds to complain that JM was overreaching, because Jodi's first batch of jurors unanimously determined that she was eligible for the death penalty when they specified that the murder was especially cruel and the second batch reinforced that 11/12 by voting for the DP. This gives the lie to any argument KN might have about whether this was appropriately a DP case.

I think Nurmi genuinely believes it shouldn't have been a DP case, as does Wilmott. IMO where he goes off the rails (and into the muck) is in claiming that JM made it a DP case to promote himself. In other words, JM was willing to have someone executed so he could get a good book deal.

That's a mighty ugly accusation to level. Actually, it is completely beyond the pale. Nurmi should be ashamed of himself.

 

[Hope4More]

In the middle of running an errand it hit me what Nurmi might be saying about his strategy of looking like a bad and unlikable attorney.

I'm guessing he's saying this- that he knew the killer wanted to destroy T with the pedo lie, and he was convinced she'd get the DP if he allowed her to dwell on the pedo while on the stand.

So his strategy was to drown out her pedo testimony, and the experts' references to it, with endless and repetitive testimony about sex sex sex sex.

The sex sex sex sex made him look bad (even dirty-minded), and it gave rise to the accusation he wanted to drag T through the mud, but it was worth it to him, and justifiable, because he knew that the alternative- which she was demanding- would mean the DP.

 

[G&AMom]

I'm sure everyone here joins me in thanking YorN for spending so much time and effort into synopsing this book. It certainly has been fascinating. Many, many thanks.

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

 

[Lilibet]

I think Nurmi genuinely believes it shouldn't have been a DP case, as does Wilmott. IMO where he goes off the rails (and into the muck) is in claiming that JM made it a DP case to promote himself. In other words, JM was willing to have someone executed so he could get a good book deal.

That's a mighty ugly accusation to level. Actually, it is completely beyond the pale. Nurmi should be ashamed of himself.

BBM

Nurmi finally lost me with that accusation. I've really been trying to look at his book objectively and give Nurmi the benefit of the doubt and a lot of leeway. But saying JM made it a DP case to get a better book deal is waaaaaay over the top. If he wants his book to be taken seriously by reasonable people, he needs to leave that stuff out. Even if he thought it, writing it is TMI and ugly. I hope Juan's book stays on a high road.

:juanettes:

 

[Caylee Advocate]

I think Nurmi genuinely believes it shouldn't have been a DP case, as does Wilmott. IMO where he goes off the rails (and into the muck) is in claiming that JM made it a DP case to promote himself. In other words, JM was willing to have someone executed so he could get a good book deal.

That's a mighty ugly accusation to level. Actually, it is completely beyond the pale. Nurmi should be ashamed of himself.

BBM:


I call BS if that is what he was implying. I believe this is Juan's first book, so with all of the other killers he managed to convict and sentence to death, WHY would he decide to author a book just off of this case? I think it is to let everyone know the TRUTH behind the lies. Nurmi needs to suck it up and realize he was out-lawyered. He isn't, wasn't, and never will be as impeccable and brilliant as Juan. That dude is a master in the courtroom.

 

[RickshawFan]

BBM:


I call BS if that is what he was implying. I believe this is Juan's first book, so with all of the other killers he managed to convict and sentence to death, WHY would he decide to author a book just off of this case? I think it is to let everyone know the TRUTH behind the lies. Nurmi needs to suck it up and realize he was out-lawyered. He isn't, wasn't, and never will be as impeccable and brilliant as Juan. That dude is a master in the courtroom.

I believe Jodi's became a death penalty case years ago. I can't imagine JM had any thoughts about writing a book in those days. It probably only occurred to him after the first trial was over.

 

[T-4-2]

Nurmi seems to be sticking to his "apples + oranges = bananas" approach to criminal profiling, and his conclusions are indeed bananas. There was no reason for Jodi to hide anything at any point on her trip except for the parts of it that were directly related to the murder. And what parts did she hide? The parts directly related to the murder! She could have flashed every security camera she passed on the "public" part of her trip, but so what? She still went to great lengths to hide the murder detour. That part was covert, and it's the only part that matters.

Nurmi, please stop telling us that Travis was verbally abusive to Jodi and that she was loyal and submissive. In Willmott's opening statement, IIRC, she went on and on about how we know that Jodi killed Travis but we need to understand what made her to do it. Back then, we were all supposed to believe that it was Travis's abuse and violence that forced Jodi to kill him. So how come now, and for the whole trial actually, we're supposed to look at Travis' angry outbursts without considering what pushed him to such fury? Stop quoting Travis' insults without acknowledging the behavior on Jodi's part that precipitated them. He wasn't abusive! He was pissed off! And Travis was loyal. Jodi was a stalker. He tried to help her, she tried to possess him and/or ruin his life. Maybe you're using "loyal" here as a euphemism for "relentless?" And I know you what what "passive-aggressive" means, so I really don't get what you hope to gain by giving examples of apparently "passive" behavior on Jodi's part. Once again you seem to be deliberately ignoring the context. And I know you know the importance of context because you seem to be trying really hard to contextualize your own behavior "A.J." (After Jodi)!

If Jodi had wanted to kill Travis as soon as possible after she got to his house, I'm pretty sure she would have. And I'm pretty sure (i.e. 100% positive) she waited because she wanted to wait. It's not a huge stretch for me to at least imagine that power-mad, manipulative psychopaths enjoy knowing what's about to happen. It's about power, Nurmi, you know, that thing Jodi had all of during your dealings with her? There is zero connection between waiting and un-premeditated-ness. She was taking her own sweet time because She. Wanted. To.

If the side trip to Mesa was a spur of the moment decision in response to Travis begging and pleading for a visit, why did Jodi pack the photo DVD? You know, the scratched one, that he threw at her... which seems to have disappeared. Maybe the "DVD" is in the same place as the "rope."

Also please stop trying to put some sort of definitive label on the nature of their relationship. If you need a label, how about Frenemies With Benefits? What possible difference does it make? Why are you still factoring anything Jodi told you into your overall understanding of her, her crime, her motives? And your understanding of Travis??? I get that you had to become the Mary Lou Retton of mental gymnastics in order to present an even remotely plausible defense... but you can stop now. Please stop now. Focus on your health, your family, your dog. Given the material and the defendant you had to work with, this was an unwinnable case from the outset.

You no doubt have a huge amount of fascinating information about this case -- but you're diluting the potential impact of your book by including so much Kool-Aid, which -- I'm sorry to say -- is what it looks like. There are fanatics on both sides of this case, but there are reasonable people also who recognize that you and Jennifer don't deserve demonization any more than Juan and Travis deserve deification. We get that you were in a truly hellish situation, but now you seem to be on a self-righteous quest for loop holes, half truths, remote possibilities, and positive spin... anything to add any credence whatsoever to the myth that somehow Travis gave as good as he got right up to the second when what he got was savagely butchered. Travis' flaws, bad behavior, and worse decisions are not the story here, any more than Jodi's astonishing list of non-mitigating mitigators.

You got stuck defending the indefensible and Jodi was clearly determined to take as many people down with her as she possibly could. By writing this book, are you trying to distance yourself from her? It's not exactly working so far.

ETA: Some points I forgot to mention -- from YESorNO:

L felt that it seemed to him that they were definitely addicted to each other - doesn't know why - "apart from" for the murderer "returning to Yreka, it seemed that neither of them took meaningful steps to end this addiction"

1. mutual addiction: Sure. Clearly. But it's disingenuous to imply that somehow they shared in the same addiction. The addiction of a normal, flawed human being is not at all the same sort of thing as the addiction of a psychopath. Travis lied to be with her -- compare that to what all she did to be with him.

2. Jodi moving back to Yreka was a "meaningful step to end this addiction?" Sure. Maybe if "ending the addiction" had anything whatsoever to do with her leaving Mesa. She moved because she was broke. Period.

3. Nurmi keeps saying "facts are stubborn things." Sometimes they are, depending on how much interpretation they leave room for. Still, they're better than opinions, and for Nurmi to say what seemed this or that, makes me believe he has no relevant facts, stubborn or otherwise.

4. Nurmi has seen the texts, he has seen the difference between Travis' minimal exchanges with Jodi and his lively exchanges with other people. Nurmi also knows that Travis was actively searching for a potential wife. For Nurmi to say that Jodi, and only Jodi, was trying to do the right thing is a misstatement of ALV proportions.