Book released by Defense Atty Nov 2015 #1

[samspace070]

I don't know if the witnesses were imaginary so much as they would have been lying (Matt McCarthy). Numri put people on the stand who said things that were certainly not true, but since the witnesses believed what they were saying, no matter how ridiculous it was, you can't accuse him of suborning perjury. Witnesses to her "bruises" would have been.

I am not sure I agree with all of that. I think Nurmi put people on the stand he knew was lying (in essence suborning perjury) #1 witness he knew was lying JODI ARIAS. I think he would have put other witnesses on that he knew was lying except he knew Juan would impeach them easily and get more from them than he wanted. He knew how his pathological client would give Juan the run around with her aggravating non stop nonsense, just like she did him so he wasn't worried about her. Besides he couldn't control her. But the mother and sister were out of the question, they were obvious liars and easily impeached. Do more damage than good. The father, was just too honest for Nurmi's purpose. Matt McCartney had already been run over by the prosecutor and wanted nothing to do with testifying after that. So Nurmi had no noble purpose in not calling these witnesses.

 

[MaLou]

GREAT snippets from the book on the Official Super Duper yadda yadda FB page. Wow.

 

[LinTX]

More about the book from yesterday. I can't decide if I'm more shocked at JA or at Nurmi for publishing this :fence::

eta: removed all quotes other than this quote from the book...as mentioned above there is a lot on the Super Duper FB page

"A few days after Judge Duncan issued her ruling that kept me on the case, I went to visit Ms.Arias at the jail. I gave her my new business card and when I did I made some off-hand remark about how I was starting my practice. In response, Ms.Arias informed me in no uncertain terms that she was going to speak about me in very unfavorable terms at the jail so that none of her fellow inmates would want to hire me. She wanted all my time. In her mind, pursuant to Judge Duncan's ruling, I was to be her personal lawyer and she was not willing to share me with other clients even if she had to lie about me to keep other clients away. Ms. Arias also strongly implied that if I did not act according to her wishes she would bad mouth me when things were over. Her threat to me in essence was that I needed to do as she desired, period.
Given my failure to comply, I am not shocked to see the bad mouthing of me she did after the first trial and I suspect more will be coming in due time. Regardless of what is to come, back in April of 2011, the golden handcuffs were firmly around my wrists."

 

[samspace070]

Interesting. A poster on BK's site (she's read the whole book) says that Nurmi wrote he believed that CMJA would be on death row had JM tried and succeeded in having the pedo letters admitted into evidence. That the jury would have hated her because JM would have torn her apart on them.

I'd have to read that part (and others) for myself to be sure, I'm getting a sense that jabbing at JM and questioning his strategy is one of Nurmi's objectives......

I don't understand Nurmi's statement that "if Juan had succeeded in having the pedo letters admitted into evidence" doesn't make sense. I read the minute entry of 8/15/2011 where the court said the prosecution won the argument and the letters would NOT be brought into evidence. At that time the DEFENSE withdrew their motion to admit the letters. Does he think that evidence is not out there????

 

[samspace070]

Interesting. A poster on BK's site (she's read the whole book) says that Nurmi wrote he believed that CMJA would be on death row had JM tried and succeeded in having the pedo letters admitted into evidence. That the jury would have hated her because JM would have torn her apart on them.

I'd have to read that part (and others) for myself to be sure, I'm getting a sense that jabbing at JM and questioning his strategy is one of Nurmi's objectives......

Okay I found it. Minute Entry dated 08/15/2011 There is a lot in this minute entry, mainly IT IS ORDERED: granting State's Motion to Preclude the Letters.
Counsel for the Defense withdraws their objection to the State's Motion to Preclude. This proves Nurmi lied in his book. The state never wanted the letters in and made a motion to preclude them and won.

Also in these minutes, after CMJA questions Rosemarie Urbanski, (CMJA is acting as her own attorney pro sec) she asked to have her former attorneys reinstated as her attorneys of record (Nurmi and Washington)

Also, Defense wins motion to preclude the state from arguing the defendant's Pro Per Status, State had no objection and for the reasons stated on the record.

The State also won a motion to Preclude Defense Experts from Testifying regarding Victims Sexual Indiscretion (so how come all of them talked about his indiscretion with JA and others??????

 

[ElleElle]

When it comes out on Kindle I'm going to buy this first part of the trilogy after all.

I have no interest at all in what he has to say about the killer, but given the oddity of his writing this book at this time, I'm very curious what the book reveals about HIM.

Will post here (of course) after I've read it. I think it's supposed to be out on Kindle next week?

Yes, it's supposed to be out on Kindle next week.

I will be looking forward to your extracts from the book, and then i'll probably bite the bullet and buy it to.

Gotta admit, I do like the cover.

 

[minor4th]

Okay I found it. Minute Entry dated 08/15/2011 There is a lot in this minute entry, mainly IT IS ORDERED: granting State's Motion to Preclude the Letters.
Counsel for the Defense withdraws their objection to the State's Motion to Preclude. This proves Nurmi lied in his book. The state never wanted the letters in and made a motion to preclude them and won.

Also in these minutes, after CMJA questions Rosemarie Urbanski, (CMJA is acting as her own attorney pro sec) she asked to have her former attorneys reinstated as her attorneys of record (Nurmi and Washington)

Also, Defense wins motion to preclude the state from arguing the defendant's Pro Per Status, State had no objection and for the reasons stated on the record.

The State also won a motion to Preclude Defense Experts from Testifying regarding Victims Sexual Indiscretion (so how come all of them talked about his indiscretion with JA and others??????

Initially the state wanted to preclude the letters - at that time they didn't know for sure they were fake. Later in the trial, Juan did try to have them admitted and even started to reference them and Nurmi objected and argued that they had already been ordered precluded. In effect, after they were determined to be forgeries, Juan and Nurmi's positions reversed - Juan wanted them admitted and Nurmi didnt.

 

[ElleElle]

I don't understand Nurmi's statement that "if Juan had succeeded in having the pedo letters admitted into evidence" doesn't make sense. I read the minute entry of 8/15/2011 where the court said the prosecution won the argument and the letters would NOT be brought into evidence. At that time the DEFENSE withdrew their motion to admit the letters. Does he think that evidence is not out there????

I think the pedo letters were not admitted because MM would of had to testified to back it up, and Juan would of nailed him. It seems like they made a deal to keep them out due to lack of witnesses, ahem, MM.

 

[minor4th]

About Nurmi and his publication of the book: I think Nurmi was in a sense traumatized by having to remain counsel for Arias and in effect putting his new private practice on hold for years because of her. I think he is suffering from a severe case of burnout and disillusionment with his chosen profession. I believe the book for him was for therapeutic reasons, and he did i t knowing it could result in sanctions and even the suspension of his license. No one could have a doubt that Jodi will file a grievance against him and try to have his license yanked - I just think for Nurmi, that risk is outweighed by his need to respond to the lies that Jodi told about him, and if it results in the loss of his license, so be it.

I actually respect him for that if it is his motivation behind the book. I have been in a similar situation with a former client, and it is difficult to imagine the huge impact that can have on your entire life and your enthusiasm about practicing law. As a result of my experience, I actully took a sabatical from practicing law for a year, and at the time had no desire to ever return to practicing law. So I kinda feel like I can relate to what Nurmi's been through a bit - but his experience was so much more public, and he has been subject to so much ridicule and hate for years - and it still continues.

 

[samspace070]

Yes, it's supposed to be out on Kindle next week.

I will be looking forward to your extracts from the book, and then i'll probably bite the bullet and buy it to.

Gotta admit, I do like the cover.

I will be a hypocrite and read all the snippets from the book but under no circumstance will I put one thin dime in Numi's pocket. He took too much enjoyment in trashing TA with the abuse and pedo lies. If he would have just stayed with the sexual sin and his being a Mormon priest, I could have lived with his defense but suborning the lies about abuse and pedophilia went beyond the pale for me.

 

[samspace070]

Initially the state wanted to preclude the letters - at that time they didn't know for sure they were fake. Later in the trial, Juan did try to have them admitted and even started to reference them and Nurmi objected and argued that they had already been ordered precluded. In effect, after they were determined to be forgeries, Juan and Nurmi's positions reversed - Juan wanted them admitted and Nurmi didnt.

At sentencing that awful Willmott said the letters were never proved to be fakes and the state had no right to reference them. So are you telling me that the defense withheld the evidence of the 3x5 cards that proved CMJA was forging TA's handwriting? Are the Defense under the same Brady laws about turning evidence over to the other side?? One more question, do prosecution witnesses have to give depositions to the Defense?? I know they don't in Civil trials, at least I didn't. I testified in a civil trial and my attorney said I did not have to talk to the other side if I didn't want to.

 

[Steve44]

I am not sure I agree with all of that. I think Nurmi put people on the stand he knew was lying (in essence suborning perjury) #1 witness he knew was lying JODI ARIAS. I think he would have put other witnesses on that he knew was lying except he knew Juan would impeach them easily and get more from them than he wanted. He knew how his pathological client would give Juan the run around with her aggravating non stop nonsense, just like she did him so he wasn't worried about her. Besides he couldn't control her. But the mother and sister were out of the question, they were obvious liars and easily impeached. Do more damage than good. The father, was just too honest for Nurmi's purpose. Matt McCartney had already been run over by the prosecutor and wanted nothing to do with testifying after that. So Nurmi had no noble purpose in not calling these witnesses.

I think the expert witnesses for the defense, ALV and Fonseca, were deliberately lying in their portrayal of the relationship between Jodi and Travis, but I think on a basic level they believed he deserved what he got. They seem to be of a particular breed of radical feminist that are openly hostile to men, and carry a fierce resentment of the historically patriarchal structure of society. They fail to acknowledge that women have always had their unique sphere of influence, and more often than not the activities of men have served their purposes just as well. They also seem stuck in the past, and are reluctant to admit that society has changed and that women today function on much more equal ground in relationships and in traditionally male roles, and that with that equality comes an equal amount of accountability.

 

[samspace070]

About Nurmi and his publication of the book: I think Nurmi was in a sense traumatized by having to remain counsel for Arias and in effect putting his new private practice on hold for years because of her. I think he is suffering from a severe case of burnout and disillusionment with his chosen profession. I believe the book for him was for therapeutic reasons, and he did i t knowing it could result in sanctions and even the suspension of his license. No one could have a doubt that Jodi will file a grievance against him and try to have his license yanked - I just think for Nurmi, that risk is outweighed by his need to respond to the lies that Jodi told about him, and if it results in the loss of his license, so be it.

I actually respect him for that if it is his motivation behind the book. I have been in a similar situation with a former client, and it is difficult to imagine the huge impact that can have on your entire life and your enthusiasm about practicing law. As a result of my experience, I actully took a sabatical from practicing law for a year, and at the time had no desire to ever return to practicing law. So I kinda feel like I can relate to what Nurmi's been through a bit - but his experience was so much more public, and he has been subject to so much ridicule and hate for years - and it still continues.

Put like that, perhaps I can give him a marginal break, but he was so stuck on one tract with the pedo business and the so called abuse that he full well knew never happened. He went after witnesses like Deanna with a vengeance.

 

[samspace070]

I think the pedo letters were not admitted because MM would of had to testified to back it up, and Juan would of nailed him. It seems like they made a deal to keep them out due to lack of witnesses, ahem, MM.

Right after the court ruled the letter be precluded, CMJA decided not to be her own lawyer.

 

[samspace070]

I think the expert witnesses for the defense, ALV and Fonseca, were deliberately lying in their portrayal of the relationship between Jodi and Travis, but I think on a basic level they believed he deserved what he got. They seem to be of a particular breed of radical feminist that are openly hostile to men, and carry a fierce resentment of the historically patriarchal structure of society. They fail to acknowledge that women have always had their unique sphere of influence, and more often than not the activities of men have served their purposes just as well. They also seem stuck in the past, and are reluctant to admit that society has changed and that women today function on much more equal ground in traditionally male roles, and that with that equality comes an equal amount of accountability.

I agree Steve44. AVL was the worst for her outright lying, but Fonseca was just totally off the mark with her obvious hatred of men and she was so disrespectful of the court and the prosecutor.

 

[Steve44]

I agree Steve44. AVL was the worst for her outright lying, but Fonseca was just totally off the mark with her obvious hatred of men and she was so disrespectful of the court and the prosecutor.

I was particularly repulsed by Fonseca's attempt to use language to try to establish equivalence, and therefore to imply that Travis deserved his fate. "He gutted her", and there were others that I can't recall. I brought it up at the time but it was never discussed in detail. To me it was rather blatant and was very revealing as to her mind set.

 

[Hez]

More about the book from yesterday. I can't decide if I'm more shocked at JA or at Nurmi for publishing this :fence::

eta: removed all quotes other than this quote from the book...as mentioned above there is a lot on the Super Duper FB page

Wow. She basically extorted him to be her lawyer. If she put the lawyer defending her against the death penalty through this, imagine all the stuff she put Travis through to get him him to be her boyfriend, stuff nobody even knows about. She is absolutely sickening.

 

[Steve44]

About Nurmi and his publication of the book: I think Nurmi was in a sense traumatized by having to remain counsel for Arias and in effect putting his new private practice on hold for years because of her. I think he is suffering from a severe case of burnout and disillusionment with his chosen profession. I believe the book for him was for therapeutic reasons, and he did i t knowing it could result in sanctions and even the suspension of his license. No one could have a doubt that Jodi will file a grievance against him and try to have his license yanked - I just think for Nurmi, that risk is outweighed by his need to respond to the lies that Jodi told about him, and if it results in the loss of his license, so be it.

I actually respect him for that if it is his motivation behind the book. I have been in a similar situation with a former client, and it is difficult to imagine the huge impact that can have on your entire life and your enthusiasm about practicing law. As a result of my experience, I actully took a sabatical from practicing law for a year, and at the time had no desire to ever return to practicing law. So I kinda feel like I can relate to what Nurmi's been through a bit - but his experience was so much more public, and he has been subject to so much ridicule and hate for years - and it still continues.

Thanks for your insight. His motivations may be complex and deeply personal, and the obvious risks he is willing to take in relation to his career and reputation do indicate a depth to his character that may be worthy of admiration, as far as they go, though perhaps not far enough to cover his other life choices.

 

[LinTX]

Thanks for your insight. His motivations may be complex and deeply personal, and the obvious risks he is willing to take in relation to his career and reputation do indicate a depth to his character that may be worthy of admiration, as far as they go, though perhaps not far enough to cover his other life choices.

Exactly as many have said about his client. If she had taken responsibility and showed genuine remorse, she would not be so reviled. Have only read the snippets, but it sounds to me as if he's offering excuses for his behavior, primarily blaming JA for all of it. Maybe he'll come through in the other books, but until I hear something from him about regret for making the choices he made and an apology directed toward TA's family and friends, the rest just adds a bit of pity to my disgust. He didn't just defend his client, he allowed himself to be used as a puppet for JA's evil intentions toward TA's memory and those who he loved.

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

So I just got my book. I read the section where KN talks about his first impressions of JM.

I could barf.

He says JM is an "ends justifies the means" type of guy. Hello pot? It's the kettle....

Then he talks about some time JM supposedly made up a story that a defendant was a necrophiliac without any such evidence just so the guy would get the death penalty. Oh you mean like you, Nurmi, and your pedo lie? I don't believe it about JM but whatever.

And according to the foreword KN failed the bar exam the first time he took it. I did not know that.

Off to start at the beginning. Sigh. If there is anything anyone wants to know please let me know. THe book is in 51 chapters and the table of contents is petty detailed so I may be able to find info if you have a particular question.