Book released by Defense Atty Nov 2015 #1

[pinkandgreenmom]

Hope4More, 60 pages in and I'm not sure of the motivation for the book yet. I don't think it will be a hatchet job on JM (the chapter on JM was one page, not sure if there will be more interwoven through the rest of the book). I don't get the feeling this is a "feel bad for JA" book either. If I had to guess at the moment I would say that he is trying to distance himself from JA. I am less sure as to whether he is going to smear TA or not. He says over and over and over that TA didn't deserve to die but it feels like lip service.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

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.

Yeah, he has a boner against Juan for sure. Maybe he should have read this from Appeals court....



"Thus, the proposition that Morris had intercourse with the corpses of Codman, Velasquez, Noah, and Castillo is a “reasonable inference” to be drawn from the evidence in the record, and the prosecutor did not act improperly in making this argument. - See more at:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-supreme-court/1115506.html#sthash.jHLBw07X.dpuf

 

[Steve44]

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.

He may be reading causes into her obviously disturbed personality. It's interesting that none of the experts alleged sexual abuse, physical abuse yes (I don't believe that either) but not sexual abuse.

Does he say if he thinks it was a family member?

If I had to guess, I'd be looking at the family dog.

 

[Hope4More]

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?

Thing is, he is not entitled to catharsis at others' expense. Not as a human being, and certainly not as an attorney.

Again. His chosen area of specialty is defending child molesters, pedophiles, and rapists. CMJA is plenty evil and ugly and no doubt a nightmare to be around, much less to defend. So what.

He feels more comfortable around child rapists? He's less angry about their crimes? Or is it that he didn't like being challenged and his wisdom ignored by his client?

I hated how low he was willing to go, but largely understood why he was wallowing in irrelevant filth. But he went further down still on too many occasions when he attacked JM and Flores directly and went way beyond the call of duty trying to dirty them too.

I want to give him the benefit of the doubt but can't. He hasn't earned it.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

He may be reading causes into her obviously disturbed personality. It's interesting that none of the experts alleged sexual abuse, physical abuse yes (I don't believe that either) but not sexual abuse.

Does he say if he thinks it was a family member?

If I had to guess, I'd be looking at the family dog.

I choked on a pretzel reading that, LMAO

 

[RickshawFan]

Something else I want to know and maybe Hope4More or RickshawFan can answer. Does a potential witness have to talk to the Defense before trial or give a deposition? I testified once in a civil trial and when the opposing Attorney called me for a deposition I refused and my attorney said I didn't have to give him a deposition. Is it the same in a criminal trial?

I have no clue. I'm not sure I even know what a deposition is or why a person would want one. I just know that ALV got deliciously tangled in one. I'm assuming a deposition is what Martinez refers to when he says, "Remember when we talked on blabadidbla date, you said [insert Old BS that conflicts with new BS]....That's what you said, right? Yes or no."

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

He may be reading causes into her obviously disturbed personality. It's interesting that none of the experts alleged sexual abuse, physical abuse yes (I don't believe that either) but not sexual abuse.

Does he say if he thinks it was a family member?

If I had to guess, I'd be looking at the family dog.

It is sort of hard to follow (surprise! It's Nurmi). He talks about JA saying (at trial) that she was molested when she was a child by a slightly older family member. He says that he isn't sure JA is telling the truth but that kids who molest were usually molested themselves. Therefore if a JA family member was molested as a child (most likely by another family member) it stands to reason that JA could have been molested similarly. But that there is no evidence she was molested.

Just about every undesirable trait she has he seems to be saying "that reminds me of someone who was abused as a child."

 

[Hope4More]

Hope4More, 60 pages in and I'm not sure of the motivation for the book yet. I don't think it will be a hatchet job on JM (the chapter on JM was one page, not sure if there will be more interwoven through the rest of the book). I don't get the feeling this is a "feel bad for JA" book either. If I had to guess at the moment I would say that he is trying to distance himself from JA. I am less sure as to whether he is going to smear TA or not. He says over and over and over that TA didn't deserve to die but it feels like lip service.

He has a one page chapter? You're getting the feeling he thinks Travis was a terrible enough person that he can't just say straight out that Travis was an innocent butchered by his client??


Sounding again like he's more pissed at her than revolted by her and what she did.

 

[RickshawFan]

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.

Nurmi had an expert witness who he knew was lying, 'cos it was so obvious: ALV. Nurmi knows perfectly well what domestic violence is—he has clients accused of it and he's been around the block a few times—and ALV's domestic violence diagnosis was obviously not grounded in fact. If he believed ALV, he would have been able to get a real expert to come up with the same diagnosis.
Same with the 2 Phuddy Duds, whose names I've already forgotten. He had to have known they were lying otherwise he'd have got some real experts.

 

[ElleElle]

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.

This is a good flashback.

[video=youtube;bvv-ZwcyID0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvv-ZwcyID0[/video]

 

[Hope4More]

It is sort of hard to follow (surprise! It's Nurmi). He talks about JA saying (at trial) that she was molested when she was a child by a slightly older family member. He says that he isn't sure JA is telling the truth but that kids who molest were usually molested themselves. Therefore if a JA family member was molested as a child (most likely by another family member) it stands to reason that JA could have been molested similarly. But that there is no evidence she was molested.

Just about every undesirable trait she has he seems to be saying "that reminds me of someone who was abused as a child."

Kids who molest? So who did she molest? Or in Nurmi -reality she was molested but didn't molest because......

 

[Steve44]

It is sort of hard to follow (surprise! It's Nurmi). He talks about JA saying (at trial) that she was molested when she was a child by a slightly older family member. He says that he isn't sure JA is telling the truth but that kids who molest were usually molested themselves. Therefore if a JA family member was molested as a child (most likely by another family member) it stands to reason that JA could have been molested similarly. But that there is no evidence she was molested.

Just about every undesirable trait she has he seems to be saying "that reminds me of someone who was abused as a child."

Interesting that he seems to have knowledge of the effects of child sexual abuse yet he defends those accused of perpetuating that very abuse.

Since no expert has alleged such abuse, he may be trying to explain her psychopathological traits with the only knowledge of psychology that he has, but I've never heard child sexual abuse put forth as a cause of pyschopathy. Plenty of other disorders, but not that.

Doesn't matter really, he's entitled to his opinion.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Kids who molest? So who did she molest? Or in Nurmi -reality she was molested but didn't molest because......

Freudian slip perhaps? :thinking:

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

Kids who molest? So who did she molest? Or in Nurmi -reality she was molested but didn't molest because......

He seems to be saying "IF" she was molested by a young relative the young relative was most likely molested by another relative and if this other relative molested this other child chances are JA could have been molested by this older relative. Or something like that. Honestly the writing is not very good.

 

[Steve44]

This is a good flashback.

[video=youtube;bvv-ZwcyID0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvv-ZwcyID0[/video]

She conceded much more to Martinez than Fonseca ever did. As I recall, he really didn't get anywhere with Fonseca and had to leave her snotty attitude and biased testimony as is to sit with the jury and speak for itself.

 

[RickshawFan]

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.

Excellently said. This elaborates nicely on what I was trying to get at on earlier posts, namely that Nurmi could actually have been traumatized from doing the Jodi gig. Plus, he had staked his professional future on being an attorney and having his own practice; then Jodi came along and blew it all up. Everything he expected out of life and that he'd worked hard for (even if we think it's despicable.) She blew it up before the first day of the first trial, as he seems to be making clear now in his book.

Nurmi might even have a therapist who suggested that he write about it as part of the healing process.

I could see an opera being made out of this cast of characters—gosh the sturm und drang—but the most delicious libretto would have no Jodi. She'd be erased as a person, and just be a mirage that all the other characters make their drama around. Websleuths could be the opera chorus, with timely jabs and analysis. There's the great duel, JM vs. KN, Flores as JM's wise and unflappable foil, There's the aria with computer gobbledygook that goes like a patter song and makes absolutely no sense and goes on and on, the clueless minor characters, the sources of wisdom who surprisingly and dramatically alter the plot (DeMarte) duking it out with a hopelessly incompetent meanie (JW), no sex at all (typical opera), since Jodi was the only one having sex worthy of pubic display. Then there's the judge.... maybe a conductor who can't keep on score so you have to sit there for 4 hours? And, ahhhh, the orchestra warming up: the chit chat, farts, "Newsflash tonight!" that were the background to the whole event...

 

[Hope4More]

He seems to be saying "IF" she was molested by a young relative the young relative was most likely molested by another relative and if this other relative molested this other child chances are JA could have been molested by this older relative. Or something like that. Honestly the writing is not very good.

Why am I not surprised the writing isn't good? Right. Read his truly crappily written motions.

Don't understand what he is saying about molestation. Either he believes she was and writes of it for a reason he explains, or he doesn't think she was and calls her out, or he doesn't bring it up at all because of AC privilege or whatever.

Choose.

 

[LinTX]

Something else I want to know and maybe Hope4More or RickshawFan can answer. Does a potential witness have to talk to the Defense before trial or give a deposition? I testified once in a civil trial and when the opposing Attorney called me for a deposition I refused and my attorney said I didn't have to give him a deposition. Is it the same in a criminal trial?

No, they don't have to talk to anyone until they take the stand...unless the court orders it. Both prosecution and defense are req'd to furnish a list of witnesses along with any reports or recordings of information furnished by them. At that point though, either side can ask the judge to make the witness available for an interview, which is normally done. I still can't get over the trouble JSS gave JM about JA's witnesses. Getting angry again just thinking about how she protected those poor, scared witnesses from the mean ole JM!

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

I have moved on to section three, which is obviously the "TA was a horrible sex fiend" portion of the book.

A direct quote (talking about the text messages): "These messages also revealed the clear reality that Ms. Arias was not his only sexual partner and that if he had it his way Ms. Arias would be just one of many." He says TA was much more active with the opposite sex than was JA. Mind you, he only has TA's phone at this point, not JA's, but he fails to mention that (meaning he is making this leap without having seen JA's communication devices so how the hell does he know what she is doing on her own time). And while we may say "so what" the Supreme Court says it is important to the relevant circumstances and to not have gone into detail would have surely been a reversal.

Riiiiiggghhht. There are no legal citations to this broad statement. Oh, and if you question Nurmi's tactics you are ignorant (there has been a lot of this talking to readers directly saying "if you thought I was wrong for doing x you were clearly wrong". Oh and the state didn't turn over things they were supposed to until Nurmi filed tons of motions.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

By now I am sure #281129 has heard that the book is "all about her" (well mostly).I wonder how the butchering murderess is taking all this? Is she throwing temper tantrums, doing headstands to clear her mind of Nurmi outing her, or is she singing Christmas carols to herself? I'll bet she is pissed, but there is NOTHING she can do to shut him up... now everyone has heard that she didn't smell like the "goddess" she proclaimed. With her limited access to the phone, she probably knows very little though.. I LIKE IT!!! :jail: