Book released by Defense Atty Nov 2015 #1

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.


He can be in major trouble with the Bar for putting someone on the stand he knows is lying. I know this for a fact, I've known several lawyers in my life on a personal basis, including a former close friend. The whole Dream Team knew OJ was lying, but you notice-he didn't testify in the criminal case, only the civil one. Many defense attorneys won't ask their clients if they are guilty, because they don't want to know.
 
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


So then, why did she write the 12-page letter to the judge to try to fire him then? Because he wanted to take on other clients as well? I'm glad he's bad-mouthing her, go to it Nurmi! He's confirming alot of what we already suspected. But he was professional and did his job, as much as he hated her and we hate him.
 
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????
Both sides knew the letters were forgeries. How would it benefit Juan to have false evidence admitted?? He'd have to shoot it down easily, but the proverbial "bell' would have been rung. Why plant the suggestion in the jurors minds that he was a pedo to begin with??
He had much bigger issues than Jodi being a forger. He didn't need them, just like he got her convicted without the stalker evidence. She is much more than just a murderer- she is a stalker, a forger, a con artist, a thief, a liar... but you can't give her more punishment than she received other than death.
 
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.


He says JM is dishonorable???? The gall.


Thanks. For bringing me back to my senses, for saving me hours of time, aggravation, and loathing, and from putting money in the pocket of an unethical and entirely unpitiable man.


Scew him. He and the monster deserved each other and he deserves every lashing past and future.
 
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.


Thank you for explaining that.
 
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.
He would be unlikely to apologize outright, imo.

Maybe he feels that getting the truth out there about the reasons behind the strategy is sufficient, and serves well enough those on the other side seeking vindication.
 
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.


Sorry to hear it Minor, we respect you here!
 
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.

Personally, I think ALV was more disrespectful of Juan than Fonseca- with her remarks about him needing a time-out. I wanted to slap her!!! Talk about disrespectful of a court official!!! Was so glad Juan threatened her with perjury.
 
Personally, I think ALV was more disrespectful of Juan than Fonseca- with her remarks about him needing a time-out. I wanted to slap her!!! Talk about disrespectful of a court official!!! Was so glad Juan threatened her with perjury.
ALV tried to veil her hostility with a sympathetic persona, while still trying to score points. Fonseca came to the stand with gloves off and openly goaded Juan. Both of them real pieces of.....work.
 
ALV tried to veil her hostility with a sympathetic persona, while still trying to score points. Fonseca came to the stand with gloves off and openly goaded Juan. Both of them real pieces of.....work.
I didn't see any sympathetic persona with ALV- she pissed me off worse! I thought she was goading him with the time-out comment. He was doing his job, and if it's with a "pitbull/bombastic" personality, so be it! He's excellent at his job, I love him. Best prosecutor I've ever witnessed.
I think Fonseca was the one hiding- she hid behind the language barrior, both of English being her 2nd language and her interpretation of Travis's words.
F.Y.I., I am a feminist and grew up in the 60's, but these two are just man-haters!
 
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.



This is where Nurmi got the necrophilia information.


"Also in 2005, Martinez obtained convictions and death sentences against Cory Morris, who killed five prostitutes in 2002 and 2003 and dumped their decomposing bodies in alleys. Martinez told the jury that Morris took them to the camper bus he parked behind his aunt’s house in the Garfield neighborhood of central Phoenix, strangled them during sex, and then continued to have sex with their bodies until they rotted and fell apart.

On appeal, Morris’ lawyers noted that Martinez and not the medical examiner had decided that Morris engaged in necrophilia. Once again, the Supreme Court justices wrote that prosecutors have “wide latitude.”

“While the evidence in this case does not compel the conclusion that Morris engaged in intercourse with the corpses of the victims, the record includes sufficient evidence to permit the prosecutor to make such an argument,” the justices wrote when affirming Morris’ death sentences. Furthermore, they pointed out, Morris’ trial attorney had not objected to the allegations during trial.

The high court did disapprove of Martinez singling out jurors in comments during his arguments, drawing comparisons to Morris and his victims, which it deemed misconduct. It found Martinez to have been inappropriate when at one point he took a jacket worn by one of the dead out of a plastic evidence bag for the jury’s “smelling pleasure.” The jacket filled the jury area with the smell of decomposition, but the justices said: “This single remark did not deprive Morris of a fair trial.”

Morris’ convictions and death sentences were upheld, but the allegations of necrophilia are being debated in Morris’ ongoing appeals. In its filings, the state reiterates the words of the Supreme Court that Martinez had “wide latitude” to deduce necrophilia from the facts at hand; the appeals judge felt there was room for argument and set an evidentiary hearing."



http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20131028jodi-arias-juan-martinez-conduct-day3.html




Adding this link even though it's O/T, but Kevin Horn did some of the autopsies. Sick case!!!

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-supreme-court/1115506.html
 
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.



I don't have questions about specific things, but after you finish I'd love to hear about your take on why you think he is writing this 1,000 page wonder.

Is it a hatchet job on JM? Primarily an angry rant about an ex-client he hates? Both? Regardless of what he says about taking the high road and other high faluting reasons for writing, what is the under tone? Do you think he is being honest with himself about why? Does he say why he's so bothered with and disgusted by her? Is it because she viciously brutally slaughtered another human being , feels no remorse and still wants T's family to suffer? Or because she didn't listen to his legal advice and didn't like or respect him?

Large perspective questions, please. :)
 
No, I am sure she dyed it as part of her premeditation plan, because noone in AZ knew her as a brunette, and even if she was spotted, she'd say she was Mimi or something. I believe the rental car guy.

When Scott Peterson tried to flee to Mexico when they arrested him for Laci's murder, he had dyed his hair orange- tried to claim it was the effects of Chlorine, LOL!!
 
This is where Nurmi got the necrophilia information.


"Also in 2005, Martinez obtained convictions and death sentences against Cory Morris, who killed five prostitutes in 2002 and 2003 and dumped their decomposing bodies in alleys. Martinez told the jury that Morris took them to the camper bus he parked behind his aunt’s house in the Garfield neighborhood of central Phoenix, strangled them during sex, and then continued to have sex with their bodies until they rotted and fell apart.

On appeal, Morris’ lawyers noted that Martinez and not the medical examiner had decided that Morris engaged in necrophilia. Once again, the Supreme Court justices wrote that prosecutors have “wide latitude.”

“While the evidence in this case does not compel the conclusion that Morris engaged in intercourse with the corpses of the victims, the record includes sufficient evidence to permit the prosecutor to make such an argument,” the justices wrote when affirming Morris’ death sentences. Furthermore, they pointed out, Morris’ trial attorney had not objected to the allegations during trial.

The high court did disapprove of Martinez singling out jurors in comments during his arguments, drawing comparisons to Morris and his victims, which it deemed misconduct. It found Martinez to have been inappropriate when at one point he took a jacket worn by one of the dead out of a plastic evidence bag for the jury’s “smelling pleasure.” The jacket filled the jury area with the smell of decomposition, but the justices said: “This single remark did not deprive Morris of a fair trial.”

Morris’ convictions and death sentences were upheld, but the allegations of necrophilia are being debated in Morris’ ongoing appeals. In its filings, the state reiterates the words of the Supreme Court that Martinez had “wide latitude” to deduce necrophilia from the facts at hand; the appeals judge felt there was room for argument and set an evidentiary hearing."



http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20131028jodi-arias-juan-martinez-conduct-day3.html


Ugh. A Kieffer article. He's not only biased and blinded by his anti-DP stance, but a journo with an intense snd personalized dislike of JM who has consistently demonstrated a penchant for twisting facts to fit his prejudices.

Even what he presents as "facts " are often anything but, especially if about JM.
 
This is where Nurmi got the necrophilia information.


"Also in 2005, Martinez obtained convictions and death sentences against Cory Morris, who killed five prostitutes in 2002 and 2003 and dumped their decomposing bodies in alleys. Martinez told the jury that Morris took them to the camper bus he parked behind his aunt’s house in the Garfield neighborhood of central Phoenix, strangled them during sex, and then continued to have sex with their bodies until they rotted and fell apart.

On appeal, Morris’ lawyers noted that Martinez and not the medical examiner had decided that Morris engaged in necrophilia. Once again, the Supreme Court justices wrote that prosecutors have “wide latitude.”

“While the evidence in this case does not compel the conclusion that Morris engaged in intercourse with the corpses of the victims, the record includes sufficient evidence to permit the prosecutor to make such an argument,” the justices wrote when affirming Morris’ death sentences. Furthermore, they pointed out, Morris’ trial attorney had not objected to the allegations during trial.

The high court did disapprove of Martinez singling out jurors in comments during his arguments, drawing comparisons to Morris and his victims, which it deemed misconduct. It found Martinez to have been inappropriate when at one point he took a jacket worn by one of the dead out of a plastic evidence bag for the jury’s “smelling pleasure.” The jacket filled the jury area with the smell of decomposition, but the justices said: “This single remark did not deprive Morris of a fair trial.”

Morris’ convictions and death sentences were upheld, but the allegations of necrophilia are being debated in Morris’ ongoing appeals. In its filings, the state reiterates the words of the Supreme Court that Martinez had “wide latitude” to deduce necrophilia from the facts at hand; the appeals judge felt there was room for argument and set an evidentiary hearing."



http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20131028jodi-arias-juan-martinez-conduct-day3.html
Classic Nurmi spin.

For those who bought the book, is there a packet of salt inside the front cover? It's not for the popcorn.
 
ALV tried to veil her hostility with a sympathetic persona, while still trying to score points. Fonseca came to the stand with gloves off and openly goaded Juan. Both of them real pieces of.....work.

My feeling was the ALV was a man-hater and pretty much sold herself a bill of goods by reading into Travis' texts and emails something that wasn't there. I thought Fonesca was just an egomaniac. Because the retrial was all by tweets it was often hard to know what exactly was going on, but I do remember that when Juan questioned Fonesca, she told the jury they shouldn't listen to the lawyer (Juan) they should listen to the expert (her).
 
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.

Very well stated. I, too, think she traumatized him and perhaps his writing about what he went through is a form of catharsis. To paraphrase something Travis Alexander said, who among us has met someone who is such a pure form of evil?
 
My feeling was the ALV was a man-hater and pretty much sold herself a bill of goods by reading into Travis' texts and emails something that wasn't there. I thought Fonesca was just an egomaniac. Because the retrial was all by tweets it was often hard to know what exactly was going on, but I do remember that when Juan questioned Fonesca, she told the jury they shouldn't listen to the lawyer (Juan) they should listen to the expert (her).
They were both man-haters at heart, with very similar world-views, and both of them in judging any conflict between a man and a woman, the woman would by definition be the righteous victim and justified, no matter the outcome. ALV could not hide her hostility, though she tried. IMO Fonseca didn't even try, and hoped to win influence with the jury solely on the strength of her personality and personal conviction.
 
I may come to understand Nurmi more from hearing snippets of his musings (would NEVER ever put a penny in his pocket), but I will never respect him or his choices. He took WAY too much pleasure in trashing Travis and trying to trash Deanna for me to ever believe he just did it to satisfy the sociopathic beast.
 
KN is convinced JA was sexually abused as a child/minor. He says he has no proof but that her demeanor and actions, to him, signal someone who was abused that way. He tries to say that JA's sister A (not sure if I'm allowed to print her name) went to drug rehab as a teen and that somehow in KN's mind shows JA may have been sexually assaulted as a kid. I have no idea how he gets to that.

He brings this "I think JA was sexually abused as a child" a lot. A real lot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
145
Guests online
624
Total visitors
769

Forum statistics

Threads
602,871
Messages
18,148,081
Members
231,562
Latest member
GemGemma01
Back
Top