Book released by Defense Atty Nov 2015 #1

[RickshawFan]

So before the trial started this is what KN thought happened. He does say that what he thought then and what he thought after two trials differed greatly so to be clear, this is what he thought before trial #1 started.

"...they did not have sex until they woke up early that afternoon. It is my belief that it was during this afternoon sex session that the nude photos of the two were taken. I also believed, without any physical evidence to support it, that they had a second sex session just before Mr. Alexander got into the shower. Why do I believe this? Because given the sexual appetite Mr. Alexander showed towards Ms. Arias it made sense to me that he would want to have sex again before she left. Certainly, the ultimate question is what happened after Mr. Alexander was in the shower. I believed that Ms. Arias went to say goodbye to Mr. Alexander and I believed that when she did so he made it obvious to her that he wanted her out of the house before anyone saw her. I believed that Mr. Alexander made it obvious to her that they were done having sex, so they were done hanging out. I believed Ms. Arias felt used by Mr. Alexander. I believed that she felt as if she blew her chances with Ryan Burns over this tryst and she had simply had enough. I believed she felt like this toxic relationship would haunt her for life if she did not put a stop to it. In my mind, she decided then and there, during a fit of rage, to put an end to this relationship."

He closes this chapter: "Is my thinking fool proof? No. In fact, I have another theory I will share in my final book that I believe is as close to fool proof as it gets. However, I think when you put aside whatever emotion you may have about the case and consider what I have said this theory makes a lot of sense."

Nurmi's projecting his own sex drive onto Travis... Sick.

 

[samspace070]

Let's see...and this is just a little part of the little bit we do know: she beat her little brother with a baseball bat and the babysitter knew to never allow the killer to be alone with a sibling; she abused and maybe killed family pets; she was completely out of control by the age of 14; she lied about her family to that one actual friend she seems to have made in her entire life ; she mocked her sister, corrected her mother's grammar, instructed her mother about anything she felt she more about--which was everything, grew pot in her parents house, quit school to shack up with a boy because she didn't want her parents telling her what to do.

The cause of constant endless painful family drama.

And after moving to Palm Springs? Telling her parents they couldn't visit because she didn't trust them to stay out of her stuff, "borrowing" huge amounts of money from parents and grandparents, calling her mother and screaming at her, kicking her...ETC.

Not to mention later still, draining her family financially before and during the looooong trials, opening the entire family up to public scrutiny and not least of all....does anyone think a single person in her family thinks she's innocent in any way? I'm willing to bet they all know she's a psychopathic killer and want little to nothing more to do with her.

Let's not forget that lovely letter that Sandy read at her sentencing. That was authored by none other than JA herself. "Beautiful Soul" only CMJA could come up with that. "She came into this world Kicking and Screaming" "Was wrongfully incarcerated" Classic CMJA. I knew the minute that mother started reading, it was not her words. Remember CMJA telling one of the reporters that her mother had a letter she wanted to read? I wonder if that nut job Nurmi will tell about that?

 

[RickshawFan]

"Nurmi couldn't believe that the killers family took all of her belongings and put them in a tool shed."



I'll bet they figured she was never coming home, they needed her room, and the only place they had left for storage was in the tool shed. Plus, the room had probably been trashed by law enforcement about 10 times over (not to mention the grandparents' house). Who wouldn't want to strip it all out, put on a fresh coat of paint, scrub the floors, and put the post-LE fragments of Jodi's ex-life not quite in a trash can on the curb, but the next best thing.

 

[Steve44]

This really starting to turn into a Nurmi bashing thread. I know alot of you don't like him, but I think it's good to attack personally because he was her defence attorney. It is his job to defend the worst of the worst. We all know he did not like JA, and as much as he's not my favourite, at least he is not BSing when he says he did not like her nor her family.

No one's attacking him because he was her defense attorney even though understandably no one liked him then either.

Criticism against attacking him personally would have made more sense if he had just been her attorney, done his job, and remained silent, but he has now put himself out there with a three volume diatribe criticizing just about everyone connected to this trial but himself, including 'trial watchers'.

It's true he doesn't like Arias, but who does? His shared dislike of Arias doesn't give him a pass on everything else he has to say, and in the way he's saying it. Do you think it's moral and ethical for him to be trashing Arias' family, and sharing personal information about them he only got because he was her attorney?

Nurmi is making a fool of himself eight ways to Sunday with this book, from his remarks about trial participants, the Arias family, his theory of the crime, and the character of the victim and other people. If he feels he is somehow justified in his widespread and far flung criticism, then why aren't we justified in commenting on how unprofessional and moronic it all looks?

People interested in this trial will read his book, because he is a source of inside information, apparently to the detriment of many innocent people, but surely you can't feel that he's somehow above reproach for his deliberate muckraking.

 

[samspace070]

Nurmi's so full of shitz I'm surprised he lost any weight at all.

Nurmi was obsessed with social media, and he was aware of all the derogatory remarks about his size and being the thin skinned animal he is, he knew he needed to lose weight before the next trial. I have never known of a professional being so obsessed with social media. He obviously doesn't have much of a life or he wouldn't be concerned about what a bunch of unknown trial watchers thought of him. He should have been more concerned about what his own peers thought of him. But maybe they don't think so much of him either. He picked his nose less in the re-trial but since I didn't watch the all the videos of this second trial and it wasn't filmed like the first one, you didn't get to see as much of him as before. But I did see him slouching. He thinks he is a stud now, but in actuality, he is still an overweight ugly man with no manners.:gaah:

 

[samspace070]

Then Nurmis got three volumes of worry.

That's right. Do you remember the movie "Fatal Attraction"? The woman, Glen Close played an editor for a publisher, and Michael Douglas, played an attorney representing the publisher. They have a scene where they are talking about a writer that may be involved in a lawsuit for writing about a senator in a negative context. But the writer used a different state the senator was from and thought this would keep her from being sued. Glen Close told them the writer told her it was in fact the same senator she was writing about but just changed his state to protect herself.

 

[Zuri]

IMO, when Nurmi tried to destroy Deanna and that which she held most dear on the stand, and then to write what he did in the book, is reprehensible. IMO she would not cower nor cede anything useful to the defense. She made Nurmi look in the mirror and he did not like what he saw, yet his ego prevented him from acknowledging his truth.

Same with the Hughes. Nurmi was rebuked by the three of them, and I am guessing he knew they were right and didn't like that very much. So he set out to impugn their reputations. And lost. IMO

 

[Steve44]

That's right. Do you remember the movie "Fatal Attraction"? The woman, Glen Close played an editor for a publisher, and Michael Douglas, played an attorney representing the publisher. They have a scene where they are talking about a writer that may be involved in a lawsuit for writing about a senator in a negative context. But the writer used a different state the senator was from and thought this would keep her from being sued. Glen Close told them the writer told her it was in fact the same senator she was writing about but just changed his state to protect herself.

But Nurmi's naming names, places, and times. I'm not sure if he can or will be sued for any of it, but for me that's not the main point, it's that he's coming across as a huge ego with a small intellect. Call it attacking, unfair criticism, or whatever, it it what it is, but in the end it's just my opinion, and if other people have a kinder gentler opinion, I'm not going to take offense, so why should anyone take offense to mine?

 

[samspace070]

No one's attacking him because he was her defense attorney even though understandably no one liked him then either.

Criticism against attacking him personally would have made more sense if he had just been her attorney, done his job, and remained silent, but he has now put himself out there with a three volume diatribe criticizing just about everyone connected to this trial but himself, including 'trial watchers'.

It's true he doesn't like Arias, but who does? His shared dislike of Arias doesn't give him a pass on everything else he has to say, and in the way he's saying it. Do you think it's moral and ethical for him to be trashing Arias' family, and sharing personal information about them he only got because he was her attorney?

Nurmi is making a fool of himself eight ways to Sunday with this book, from his remarks about trial participants, the Arias family, his theory of the crime, and the character of the victim and other people. If he feels he is somehow justified in his widespread and far flung criticism, then why aren't we justified in commenting on how unprofessional and moronic it all looks?

People interested in this trial will read his book, because he is a source of inside information, apparently to the detriment of many innocent people, but surely you can't feel that he's somehow above reproach for his deliberate muckraking.

Thank You Steve. You said everything I would have said. What's that old saying " don't throw stones if you live in a glass house" Someone needs to remind Nurmi of that. Like you said he attacked everyone, Deanna, and Dr. DeMarta, was a low blow for this A$$---e. He deserves all the criticism we can dish out. #1 Reason, I believe this obsessed unethical man is reading every blog he can find. He definitely reads twitter and Facebook, so I posted some really nice comments about him there. LOL:happydance:

 

[ElleElle]

No one's attacking him because he was her defense attorney even though understandably no one liked him then either.

Criticism against attacking him personally would have made more sense if he had just been her attorney, done his job, and remained silent, but he has now put himself out there with a three volume diatribe criticizing just about everyone connected to this trial but himself, including 'trial watchers'.

It's true he doesn't like Arias, but who does? His shared dislike of Arias doesn't give him a pass on everything else he has to say, and in the way he's saying it. Do you think it's moral and ethical for him to be trashing Arias' family, and sharing personal information about them he only got because he was her attorney?

Nurmi is making a fool of himself eight ways to Sunday with this book, from his remarks about trial participants, the Arias family, his theory of the crime, and the character of the victim and other people. If he feels he is somehow justified in his widespread and far flung criticism, then why aren't we justified in commenting on how unprofessional and moronic it all looks?

People interested in this trial will read his book, because he is a source of inside information, apparently to the detriment of many innocent people, but surely you can't feel that he's somehow above reproach for his deliberate muckraking.

BBM ~ NO
Fair enough! Carry on ...

 

[samspace070]

But Nurmi's naming names, places, and times. I'm not sure if he can or will be sued for any of it, but for me that's not the main point, it's that he's coming across as a huge ego with a small intellect. Call it attacking, unfair criticism, or whatever, it it what it is, but in the end it's just my opinion, and if other people have a kinder gentler opinion, I'm not going to take offense, so why should anyone take offense to mine?

Exactly. When I posted my opinion of Nurmi's book over on the BK site, they blocked me. So much for free expression. And I had to pay to get on the site. I will waste no more time or money on that bigoted site. Those people over there are sheep following the lead of the moderator and BK. I never was one to blindly follow anyone.

 

[RickshawFan]

IMO, when Nurmi tried to destroy Deanna and that which she held most dear on the stand, and then to write what he did in the book, is reprehensible. IMO she would not cower nor cede anything useful to the defense. She made Nurmi look in the mirror and he did not like what he saw, yet his ego prevented him from acknowledging his truth.

Same with the Hughes. Nurmi was rebuked by the three of them, and I am guessing he knew they were right and didn't like that very much. So he set out to impugn their reputations. And lost. IMO

The attempt to besmirch DR resulted in her getting support from thousands of well-wishers, 'cos it's clear she's a lovely person. Backfire big time, Nurms. Plus, the bishop did as much to rehabilitate DR as he did TA, by his insisting that no one is expected to be perfect. I'll bet JM asked his question exactly so DR would be covered by it and feel understanding from her church.

 

[ElleElle]

But Nurmi's naming names, places, and times. I'm not sure if he can or will be sued for any of it, but for me that's not the main point, it's that he's coming across as a huge ego with a small intellect. Call it attacking, unfair criticism, or whatever, it it what it is, but in the end it's just my opinion, and if other people have a kinder gentler opinion, I'm not going to take offense, so why should anyone take offense to mine?

BBM ~ He is still a slimeball IMO, I just think he is a public defender and volun-told to take her on as his client. He wanted out in 2011! Ultimately, his goal was to prevent her from getting the DP. IMO, he succeeded and is trying to redeem. I have somewhat respect for him for not being to stand her for more than 1 day in 10.

Now, JA will write about him and release it just like Paul Bernardo did.

 

[samspace070]

There is a glitch on Amazon with Nurmi's book. I clicked on the contents of his book and was able to read all I wanted. Try it Click on the look inside above the book, then open it and click on something in the contents and read away.

 

[ElleElle]

There is a glitch on Amazon with Nurmi's book. I clicked on the contents of his book and was able to read all I wanted. Try it Click on the look inside above the book, then open it and click on something in the contents and read away.

His book is not on Amazon Canada? Juan's is ready for pre-order. February 16, 2016.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Well, they seemed to fix the glitch at Amazon. I got a few chapters and that was it. LOL! I tried to read, but 1/2 page paragraphs are too much work to read.

I cringed at how it was written (former teacher of writing skills). Confuzzulating, to say the least!

 

[Steve44]

BBM ~ He is still a slimeball IMO, I just think he is a public defender and volun-told to take her on as his client. He wanted out in 2011! Ultimately, his goal was to prevent her from getting the DP. IMO, he succeeded and is trying to redeem. I have somewhat respect for him for not being to stand her for more than 1 day in 10.

Now, JA will write about him and release it just like Paul Bernardo did.

It would be one thing if he was just giving his view of the trial. A defense attorney does have a unique point of view that many people, particularly in a case like this, would love to hear, and if told in that spirit, as one point of view among many, could be of value. But Nurmi's book does not come across that way, he presents his point of view only at the expense of others, without humility, and using mean-spirited criticism to try to convince the reader that he's right and they're wrong. Some of his criticisms are outright childish (Dr. Horn expected people to believe him just because he was handsome), I could go on but you get the point.

In addition, his intellectual analyses and justifications are unimpressive and seem to show he actually believed a lot of the slime he was throwing during the trial. It's almost like he doesn't believe the trial is over, or at least his part in it, and he wants everyone to revisit it, and maybe they'll like him this time now that he's put everyone else in their place.

I had an open mind going into this, but I find Nurmi bizarre, tasteless, and intellectually boring.

I admit that his criticism of Arias is entertaining, but victimizing her family, even though no one feels they have been honest nor honorable to the victims family, can't be described as anything but low.

 

[Hope4More]

The attempt to besmirch DR resulted in her getting support from thousands of well-wishers, 'cos it's clear she's a lovely person. Backfire big time, Nurms. Plus, the bishop did as much to rehabilitate DR as he did TA, by his insisting that no one is expected to be perfect. I'll bet JM asked his question exactly so DR would be covered by it and feel understanding from her church.

What a lovely post.

It hadn't occurred to me that JM might have asked the bishop some questions in support of Deanna, but I can readily believe that's true.

 

[Night-owl]

Wow, as of this AM, Nurmi's book is the #1 new release in the "Murder and Mayhem True Accounts" category (what ever that is).

Can only hope that has kool-aid tinged froth in the mouths of certain supporters.



Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Hope4More]

It would be one thing if he was just giving his view of the trial. A defense attorney does have a unique point of view that many people, particularly in a case like this, would love to hear, and if told in that spirit, as one point of view among many, could be of value. But Nurmi's book does not come across that way, he presents his point of view only at the expense of others, without humility, and using mean-spirited criticism to try to convince the reader that he's right and they're wrong. Some of his criticisms are outright childish (Dr. Horn expected people to believe him just because he was handsome), I could go on but you get the point.

In addition, his intellectual analyses and justifications are unimpressive and seem to show he actually believed a lot of the slime he was throwing during the trial. It's almost like he doesn't believe the trial is over, or at least his part in it, and he wants everyone to revisit it, and maybe they'll like him this time now that he's put everyone else in their place.

I had an open mind going into this, but I find Nurmi bizarre, tasteless, and intellectually boring.

I admit that his criticism of Arias is entertaining, but victimizing her family, even though no one feels they have been honest nor honorable to the victims family, can't be described as anything but low.

I read his introduction, thanks to Sam's heads-up about Amazon book-peeping.

Nurmi says that he is writing his book because (listed in the order he presented these, IIRC):

1. For himself, hoping the process of writing will help him understand the "gift" in representing the killer.

2. For himself, as therapy.

3. Because he feels very misunderstood. It bothers him to be so disliked when people don't anything about him as a person or as an attorney.

4. Because he wants to help prevent another avoidable tragedy like this, and believes his extensive knowledge of criminal law and of psychology, as evidenced by his book, can contribute to that outcome .

5. Last, he says, is that he seeks redemption.


About his audience. He says if he wanted to make money off the book he would have directed it to Travis supporters and sold thousands and thousands of books, or have written it for her supporters and sold a couple of copies (zing, zing).

He says he wrote it for neither, believing "taking sides" is distasteful in such a tragedy.

Also, he says those who thought he was inept don't understand the magnitude of what he achieved. That he saved the life of "the most hated woman in America, " and indeed, maybe in the entire world.

His first chapter is titled: Who is Nurmi?