Book released by Defense Atty Nov 2015 #1

[samspace070]

If Nurmi is writing this time for redemption in the eyes of the public, IMO he has failed from what I have read here. There is no justification for the tactics he took during both trials.

During my brother's murder trial, I asked the Defense Attorney how he could represent the murderer. He told me that the way he could live with himself was to approach each trial like a chess match, with points of law as the moves. He said that every person deserved a defense according to the constitution and that was his job. Occasionally, he had a client who was truly innocent. I respected him for that.

Nurmi dragged these trials through the gutter. I do not believe he had to go to the extent he did to trash Travis and pursue the false allegations Heinous had made against Travis. I believe in a vigorous defense, but not at the expense of good, decent people who were caught in the fallout. There were ways to accomplish those goals without inflicting the damage he did.

Water seeks its own level. IMO, Nurmi became obsessed with being "right" and justified in the way he handled this case in light of the huge amount of public criticism. IMO, he has a very poor self image and thin skin and this attempt to rehabilitate his character through this book is failing miserably.

He may have PTSD from representing such evil, however IMO he would be better served seeking therapy quietly and pursue building his practice that was put on hold for so long. I would much rather hear or read that he does volunteer work for the homeless or works with kids to keep them from becoming his clients later down the road. So far, I have read nothing of the kind. IMO

:goodpost::goodpost::goodpost:

 

[Night-owl]

I don't think he has many supporters. Going over to the other side, it seems they are not happy with either Juan or Nurms releasing a book, due to this:

State Bar of Arizona - Rules of Professional Conduct

<snip for space>

No idea of what agreements were made or what kind of repercussions there may be on either book. Hey, I'm not going to tell two lawyers what the law says. I'll presume they have counsel of their own that knows how to traverse the territory they are in.

Totally unlike others, who are experts on law, physiology, psychology and social media, all rolled up in one fun nutter shaped package.

[emoji57]



Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Frigga]

^^^ Ditto! Excellent post and points Zuri. I have enjoyed reading here so much the past several days- so many intelligent, insightful people. I love WS!

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

Is there any info about when the other two books are going to be released? I ask, because it's occurred to me that if the others are similar to the first, we're going to hear a lot of JM & Flores bashing and misrepresentations once he gets to the trial itself. I might need to schedule an extended vacation, for health reasons.

I was gone all day so this may have been answered but throughout this first book he says several (dozen) times that his second book will come out sometime next year. I think he said either early or first half of 2016.

 

[geevee]

Pink- because you asked...

BYE

in large (font).


thanks again for all the excerpts.

Is Pink going somewhere?

ETA: Guess not, as she posted right above me. LOL

 

[Hope4More]

Is Pink going somewhere?

ETA: Guess not, as she posted right above me. LOL

Twas about her pondering what Nurmi's "by in large" meant , silly. Though I see now I misspelled by. Lol

 

[Quiet Time]

Been wanting to reply for a few pages now, but haven't been able to...
My comments hopefully haven't lost their flavor. Regarding post # 720, abt removing her things to the tool shed:

My thought abt that is...'out of sight, out of mind'. And good riddance!! from her parents

Also it seems at times that Nurmi is sounding like a big ole whiner. imo
But hey, you know what they say about paybacks...!

 

[geevee]

Twas about her pondering what Nurmi's "by in large" meant , silly. Though I see now I misspelled by. Lol

Hahaha, very good!

 

[geevee]

Been wanting to reply for a few pages now, but haven't been able to...
My comments hopefully haven't lost their flavor. Regarding post # 720, abt removing her things to the tool shed:

My thought abt that is...'out of sight, out of mind'. And good riddance!! from her parents

Also it seems at times that Nurmi is sounding like a big ole whiner. imo
But hey, you know what they say about paybacks...!

IMO they knew she was never coming back so didn't care if they got damaged being in a shed, but maybe promised her (under threat of another screaming tantrum) not to throw her things out.

 

[nrdsb4]

I don't think he has many supporters. Going over to the other side, it seems they are not happy with either Juan or Nurms releasing a book, due to this:

State Bar of Arizona - Rules of Professional Conduct

http://www.azbar.org/Ethics/RulesofProfessionalConduct/ViewRule?id=29

"ER 1.9. Duties to Former Clients

(a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

(b) A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously represented a client:

(1) whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and

(2) about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by ERs 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter;

unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:

(1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information has become generally known; or

(2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client.

How do these relate to Juan Martinez? He didn't represent JA. As long as he sticks to facts which arose during the trial, and avoids talking about anything sealed, etc., how is he making a breech of ethics?

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

So one second to last page, KN gets to what this trial is all about. Sex. He maintains that these two were having regular, wild, every which way sex. Often. And that TA was just using JA for sex. He didn't love her, he just wanted her for sex. He said he thought this was important because even if the jury didn't connect with JA they might spare her life because she was used by a man who called her a stalker.

To those of us who would say he dragged Travis' good name through the mud he offers this, "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."

 

[Hez]

How do these relate to Juan Martinez? He didn't represent JA. As long as he sticks to facts which arose during the trial, and avoids talking about anything sealed, etc., how is he making a breech of ethics?

BBM - He's not, it's just wishful thinking on the part of the killer's supporters, Michael Keifer and Beth Karas. :moo:

 

[NotMyselfNEMore]

Twas about her pondering what Nurmi's "by in large" meant , silly. Though I see now I misspelled by. Lol

Thanks, Hope - I had to read that several times, and thought I missed something. I just saw the edited post, and I got it, LOL!

 

[Quiet Time]

So one second to last page, KN gets to what this trial is all about. Sex. He maintains that these two were having regular, wild, every which way sex. Often. And that TA was just using JA for sex. He didn't love her, he just wanted her for sex. He said he thought this was important because even if the jury didn't connect with JA they might spare her life because she was used by a man who called her a stalker.

To those of us who would say he dragged Travis' good name through the mud he offers this, "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."

Geez, how could he not have sex w/her! She was throwing herself at him every which way. When a girl is always hanging around, making herself available to you, whatdya gonna do? She tempted him, and lured him into her va jaja. You guys get weak from time to time, don't you??? lol...imo

 

[NotMyselfNEMore]

So one second to last page, KN gets to what this trial is all about. Sex. He maintains that these two were having regular, wild, every which way sex. Often. And that TA was just using JA for sex. He didn't love her, he just wanted her for sex. He said he thought this was important because even if the jury didn't connect with JA they might spare her life because she was used by a man who called her a stalker.

To those of us who would say he dragged Travis' good name through the mud he offers this, "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."

My thanks freeezes me, and though I got a few in there, I wanted to give an extra special thanks to you, Pink, for your take on this (and for 'taking one for the team'). To you, and all trhe other posters filling us in - Thank You!

Re: the above portion, about Nurmi's take on Ms Arias being made to seem a 'horrible *advertiser censored*' , and his justification of dragging Travis through the mud because he was having sex with her - in my opinion he makes no sense.

In my opinion, his statement is essentially calling Travis a 'horrible *advertiser censored*' because Nurmi believes he still had sex with his murderer (and I do doubt that it even a fraction of what CMJA said). For that matter, I for one, never felt JA was a 'horrible *advertiser censored*', whether or not they had sex on the day she murdered him, or any other day, but a horrible person for her brutal murder of her victim.

Nurmi is a piece of work, in my opinion. It seems as if he is trying to argue both sides of arguments, and justifies neither position.

-He knew the 'letter' was false, but wrote to, and questioned Skye Hughes in an evidentiary hearing about his writing to her that he had 100% proof.

-He feels JA was '*advertiser censored* shamed' because she was sexually active, but was justified in dragging TA 'through the mud' becuase he had sex with JA

- He felt DR lied because his former colleague asked her questions too tactfully (really???).

-He wants to redeem himself (etc, etc, etc), but feels it necessary to point out petty things about CMJA's family and town? As much as I dislike them (and I do), pickin CMJA's family and the town they live in is uncalled for, just because he felt they hadn't properly prepared for his visit. I wonder if he was able to refrain from picking his nose during the visit, as he noted what a dump the town was?

- He says he saw JA's room. and how juvenile it was, but was surprised that the family had put all her belongings into a shed? If her belongings were in a shed, how did he look at the room to see how juvenile it was? I remember seeing photos of her room, and how tiny that house was - why wouldn't they store things she couldn't possibly use in the near future?

A lot of what he says is illogical, but so was his questioning, IMO. He wants to argue both sides of the same argument, and does neither, again JMO.

Sorry for the long post, I was reading through the thread, and had all that stored up. Gah!

 

[LinTX]

So one second to last page, KN gets to what this trial is all about. Sex. He maintains that these two were having regular, wild, every which way sex. Often. And that TA was just using JA for sex. He didn't love her, he just wanted her for sex. He said he thought this was important because even if the jury didn't connect with JA they might spare her life because she was used by a man who called her a stalker.

To those of us who would say he dragged Travis' good name through the mud he offers this, "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."

Wow, what an insufferable, delusional way to end it. The man deserves to lose his license if that's what he thinks this trial was about or that somehow TA's sex life gave him the right to falsely label him a pedophile and abuser. Especially when he admits knowing his client was a liar with a vendetta who tried more than once to falsify evidence and/or suborn perjury.

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

Wow, what an insufferable, delusional way to end it. The man deserves to lose his license if that's what he thinks this trial was about or that somehow TA's sex life gave him the right to falsely label him a pedophile and abuser. Especially when he admits knowing his client was a liar with a vendetta who tried more than once to falsify evidence and/or suborn perjury.

Adding insult to injury, the quote goes on to say "It was the undeniable reality of the 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."

Yuck.

NotMyselfNEMore, I think your entire post a few above this one was 100 percent right on target.

 

[Hope4More]

So one second to last page, KN gets to what this trial is all about. Sex. He maintains that these two were having regular, wild, every which way sex. Often. And that TA was just using JA for sex. He didn't love her, he just wanted her for sex. He said he thought this was important because even if the jury didn't connect with JA they might spare her life because she was used by a man who called her a stalker.

To those of us who would say he dragged Travis' good name through the mud he offers this, "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."

RAnT ALERT

Whatever, Nurmi. Yep, you sure did prove Travis had sex with the client you describe elsewhere in your book as "highly sexual...acted like she was in heat." And you surely did prove your point that it is bad for unmarried Mormon men to have sex, even if you had to drag a bishop into court, read him the rape fantasy email she sent to herself, and accuse the Bishop of lying. Yep, put him in his place for daring to destroy the lies of your shadow fan-wingnut, too cowardly to face JM in court witness.

Regular wild sex, yep, the kind she had to beg him for by sneaking through his doggie door and getting naked into bed with him, completely uninvited, or with unsolicited and often unwanted texts to him telling him how dirty she wanted to be with him. The kind where she couldn't even commit to a work schedule or ultimately , any job, because she was too busy stalking him or making herself completely available to him every minute of her empty soulless days, and if he didn't call- no worries, she knew the doggy door was always open to her to make sure he couldn't avoid her.

Yep, as JM said, what was a girl to do in the face of this over-sexed kinky man who pled with her go on dates with other men, who broke up with her only to have her move into his backyard, who told her he was looking for a wife and that IT WASN'T HER.

She writes this herself, Nurmi, or are those the parts you decided not to believe or to omit, because hey, context is a relative thing, eh? One man's murder victim is another man's sex addict pervert, right? And who could really be surprised that poor little killer snapped and tried to decapitate him because he used her one too many times for sex. Right?

Yep, you probably did target #13, and if so you chose well, as he belonged to the small subgroups of "The Trial Watchers"who think Travis didn't actually deserve to die, maybe, but that he had it coming because he was just so toxic, and that she deserved nothing harsher than a long time out. If that. But..wait. That's YOUR belief, isn't it? I can't understand why her fans aren't kissing your feet. How ironic.

I know this is very inconvenient for you to remember, Nurmi, but even #13 found her guilty of 1st degree PREMEDITATED murder. She didn't "snap" that day, and if you really believed that you wouldn't have spent 4 pages in your book declaring how glad you are that you never found the murder weapons. You know she had to drive over one thousand miles to slash Travis and shoot him the head. You KNOW.


Spin spin spin your way out of your own webs of self-deception. The only reason sex was part of the trial is because YOU made the choice for it be the core of your defense, not because it had any significance in reality, and the fact you don't feel the slightest bit of regret or remorse for causing Travis' family and legions of friends unnecessary pain for years is astonishing.

How you could have spent 7 years learning everything there was to know about Travis and yet be able to walk away without any insight into who he was or compassion for him is utterly beyond me.

 

[GigiG]

My thanks freeezes me, and though I got a few in there, I wanted to give an extra special thanks to you, Pink, for your take on this (and for 'taking one for the team'). To you, and all trhe other posters filling us in - Thank You!

Re: the above portion, about Nurmi's take on Ms Arias being made to seem a 'horrible *advertiser censored*' , and his justification of dragging Travis through the mud because he was having sex with her - in my opinion he makes no sense.

In my opinion, his statement is essentially calling Travis a 'horrible *advertiser censored*' because Nurmi believes he still had sex with his murderer (and I do doubt that it even a fraction of what CMJA said). For that matter, I for one, never felt JA was a 'horrible *advertiser censored*', whether or not they had sex on the day she murdered him, or any other day, but a horrible person for her brutal murder of her victim.

Nurmi is a piece of work, in my opinion. It seems as if he is trying to argue both sides of arguments, and justifies neither position.

-He knew the 'letter' was false, but wrote to, and questioned Skye Hughes in an evidentiary hearing about his writing to her that he had 100% proof.

-He feels JA was '*advertiser censored* shamed' because she was sexually active, but was justified in dragging TA 'through the mud' becuase he had sex with JA

- He felt DR lied because his former colleague asked her questions too tactfully (really???).

-He wants to redeem himself (etc, etc, etc), but feels it necessary to point out petty things about CMJA's family and town? As much as I dislike them (and I do), pickin CMJA's family and the town they live in is uncalled for, just because he felt they hadn't properly prepared for his visit. I wonder if he was able to refrain from picking his nose during the visit, as he noted what a dump the town was?

- He says he saw JA's room. and how juvenile it was, but was surprised that the family had put all her belongings into a shed? If her belongings were in a shed, how did he look at the room to see how juvenile it was? I remember seeing photos of her room, and how tiny that house was - why wouldn't they store things she couldn't possibly use in the near future?

A lot of what he says is illogical, but so was his questioning, IMO. He wants to argue both sides of the same argument, and does neither, again JMO.

Sorry for the long post, I was reading through the thread, and had all that stored up. Gah!

Well put. Thanks for your post.

 

[MsJosie]

So one second to last page, KN gets to what this trial is all about. Sex. He maintains that these two were having regular, wild, every which way sex. Often. And that TA was just using JA for sex. He didn't love her, he just wanted her for sex. He said he thought this was important because even if the jury didn't connect with JA they might spare her life because she was used by a man who called her a stalker.

To those of us who would say he dragged Travis' good name through the mud he offers this, "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."

And all his sources are from the felon that indicates there was wild sex all the time? It was proven the felon was a liar....IMO I cannot and will not believe KN, who believes a lying felon.

His practice must not be doing well at all.

Back to lurk mode.