Book released by Defense Atty Nov 2015 #1

[Hope4More]

I don't know how to multiquote.

Zuri, I LOLed at three "whole" wonder. I had never seen that before. But yes, on page 185, he mentions that TA calls her a "3 whole wonder."

H4M, I am not sure who the intended audience is, truth be told. I think he is trying to do a pre-emptive strike of when JM shows the world what a terrible attorney/person he is. The book jumps around a lot. I don't think it is intended to be a book for those who know nothing about JA, though. The book is very condescending. A lot of "if you don't know what I mean by that, let me try to explain" followed by two pages of explanation most people could have handled in 2-3 sentences.

Steve44, you are making me LOL.

So. For those of you with access to BK's site, what is it that people think is so great about this book? It is really just a the world according to KN book, nothing more than that.

About the opinion of BK posters....trying to think of a way to say this that won't trigger scissors.

Read between the lines: sometimes folks have such a high opinion of someone they become virtual groupies. What the someone says can never be contradicted, even in the most minor of ways or on the most minor of matters. To contradict is to be promptly corrected, and if no apology or retraction by the offender is offered, ostracized.

If the someone says both sides of a matter need to be given equal weight and respect, then such must be done.

Does that answer yr question?


((That's why after I read BK's exceptional note taking during trial, or the docs she's posted that aren't available anywhere else, I click my ruby slippers 3x and skedaddle.

 

[Hope4More]

Still...not likely imo. He's already held back citing A/C privilege, and for at least some of what he said he indicates she waived confidentiality by speaking in public.

She may want attention and publicity, but she would want to be in control. She wouldn't accept him speaking for her and not saying exactly what she wanted, no more and no less.

Nurmis book is Nurmis book, everyone is fair game, except himself. He's relatively forgiving of anyone who would reflect back on him, and holds ridiculously degrading opinions of everyone else.

Thanks. Im sure you're right. Had forgotten the posted snippets saying he writes he can't tell (blah blah blah) because of AC priv.

 

[atthelake]

I don't know how to multiquote.

Zuri, I LOLed at three "whole" wonder. I had never seen that before. But yes, on page 185, he mentions that TA calls her a "3 whole wonder."

H4M, I am not sure who the intended audience is, truth be told. I think he is trying to do a pre-emptive strike of when JM shows the world what a terrible attorney/person he is. The book jumps around a lot. I don't think it is intended to be a book for those who know nothing about JA, though. The book is very condescending. A lot of "if you don't know what I mean by that, let me try to explain" followed by two pages of explanation most people could have handled in 2-3 sentences.

Steve44, you are making me LOL.

So. For those of you with access to BK's site, what is it that people think is so great about this book? It is really just a the world according to KN book, nothing more than that.

Are you on computer ? if so hit the far right quotation icon button vs the quote button on left for the first multi-quote (while you are on the post of the first one you want to multi-quote)... that will put a hold on that one while you continue through the thread to the next one you want to multiquote and hit that same button again that is under the next post you want ..and then your last quote of multiquote (to finalize ) hit the normal quote button and all of them will come up with the screen you are familiar with, and you can then insert your reply under/between each one.

Voila ..multiquote.. test it out.. you can always delete a test

 

[Steve44]

Please forgive the off-topic content

The following poem was written by a Boston housewife who had never written poetry before. It was written in a moment of inspiration, on a torn-off piece of a brown paper grocery bag, while trying to console a young Jewish girl who had fled Germany and had just learned that her mother had been killed in the Holocaust, and was crying because she could not visit her grave. I thought of Travis when I read it.


Do not stand at my grave and weep
by Mary Elizabeth Frye

Do not stand at my grave and weep:
I am not there; I do not sleep.
I am a thousand winds that blow,
I am the diamond glints on snow,
I am the sun on ripened grain,
I am the gentle autumn rain.
When you awaken in the morning’s hush
I am the swift uplifting rush
Of quiet birds in circling flight.
I am the soft starshine at night.
Do not stand at my grave and cry:
I am not there; I did not die.

 

[lewcch3]

Given that Nurmi's regurgitation of her lies gives them a facade of believability she never achieved on her own, and given that his book is giving her lies voice when at long fricking last she's been silenced, I'm thinking she may well have waived AC privilege....may have been willing to risk Nurm's badmouthing her in exchange for another chance to inflict pain and to be spoken about...

Or maybe in her Einstein Brilliance she just didn't know how speaking publicly was sinking her own ship and just kept talking. Also, thinking that she could continue to blackmail him and have him blackballed to ruin his career that he wouldn't DARE criticize or talk about her - she had his number! After all, he didn't have time to teach her many years of legal schooling!

IMO she is too smart for her own good! LOL

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

This portion of a paragraph is in the chapter entitled "Trying to Settle." It shows the writing style, the talking down to people, and the overall tone of I'm right and I'm surrounded by idiots.

". . . My thinking was that if I disclosed some information to the State that I was not otherwise obligated to disclose, that Mr. Montgomery might then share my vision that it would be best for all involved if the case went away quickly and quietly. Now before all of you 'tough on crime' types get all upset about me holding onto secrets or being a 'sleazy defense attorney' you might want to review the 5th and 6th Amendments to the Constitution as they provide the authority for defense attorneys to hold back certain information. As it relates to the Arias case specifically, things that Ms. Arias said about the crime to her experts were things I could have hid from the State under the rules of Arizona. I chose not to keep things hidden or interfere with Dr. DeMarte asking similar questions. Why? I wanted Mr. Montgomery to know exactly where this case was going to go. To be clear, this was not an attempt to intimidate him or threaten him with the reality but to make sure he understood where this case was going to go so he could decide if he really wanted to travel down this road. I wanted him to know that Ms. Arias was going to claim that her victim was an abusive pedophile against whom she had to defend herself. . . . "

I cannot be the only one who thinks this was indeed a threat and posed as such.

KN makes it clear to me that he thinks Montgomery was "intimidated" by JM and that a first degree charge was overcharging. And that but for JM this case could have settled. So it is JM's fault all the pedo lies were out there (because, according to Nurmi, he knew they were lies but since the state couldn't prove 100 percent that TA wasn't a pedo, well he was obligated to go with the argument that he was one).

In the same chapter he whines that he had to put in a lot of hours because this remained a capital case. How he couldn't go to a matinee on a Saturday or follow through with his mid week dinner plans (he actually says these things). How he had to work long hours. How he sometimes had to put a few hours in on weekends. Hey, buddy. It's called being a lawyer.

 

[Hope4More]

Why does BK think JM's book - but NOT Nurmi's - might help the killer's appeals?

She has explained that she thinks Nurmi writing a book now is unusual, but that he hasn't violated any ethical rules and is allowed his opinion.

JM writing a book is different because he's a state prosecutor (inference definely is that he's to be held to a higher standard). She says that he'd be in trouble if he negotiated a book contract while the trial was ongoing (she says she doesn't believe that) but that even emails exchanged with a publisher would be very problematic. About the latter she says "we'll likely never know (if he did).

Directly related to appeals, she says that the killer could use JM's book (but somehow, not Nurmi's) to argue about pre-trial publicity tainting that new trial of hers.

Note to BK. Read the COA's DENIAL of the killer's motion against JM's book that included a specific argument on exactly that point.

 

[nrdsb4]

Have there been any professional reviews of KN's book yet?

 

[Hope4More]

This portion of a paragraph is in the chapter entitled "Trying to Settle." It shows the writing style, the talking down to people, and the overall tone of I'm right and I'm surrounded by idiots.

". . . My thinking was that if I disclosed some information to the State that I was not otherwise obligated to disclose, that Mr. Montgomery might then share my vision that it would be best for all involved if the case went away quickly and quietly. Now before all of you 'tough on crime' types get all upset about me holding onto secrets or being a 'sleazy defense attorney' you might want to review the 5th and 6th Amendments to the Constitution as they provide the authority for defense attorneys to hold back certain information. As it relates to the Arias case specifically, things that Ms. Arias said about the crime to her experts were things I could have hid from the State under the rules of Arizona. I chose not to keep things hidden or interfere with Dr. DeMarte asking similar questions. Why? I wanted Mr. Montgomery to know exactly where this case was going to go. To be clear, this was not an attempt to intimidate him or threaten him with the reality but to make sure he understood where this case was going to go so he could decide if he really wanted to travel down this road. I wanted him to know that Ms. Arias was going to claim that her victim was an abusive pedophile against whom she had to defend herself. . . . "

I cannot be the only one who thinks this was indeed a threat and posed as such.

KN makes it clear to me that he thinks Montgomery was "intimidated" by JM and that a first degree charge was overcharging. And that but for JM this case could have settled. So it is JM's fault all the pedo lies were out there (because, according to Nurmi, he knew they were lies but since the state couldn't prove 100 percent that TA wasn't a pedo, well he was obligated to go with the argument that he was one).

In the same chapter he whines that he had to put in a lot of hours because this remained a capital case. How he couldn't go to a matinee on a Saturday or follow through with his mid week dinner plans (he actually says these things). How he had to work long hours. How he sometimes had to put a few hours in on weekends. Hey, buddy. It's called being a lawyer.

Overcharging? So he doesn't think she premeditated the slaughter?

Or overcharging as in, if JM could just have overlooked the fact she committed a crime the law deems DP eligible and had understood how slimy I was willing to get, then this could have been settled without JM making me get slimy?


And I'm confused about whether or not he's saying he believes T was a pedophile. Does he?

 

[samspace070]

* Didn't Dr. D say something like she didn't consider Travis' words as being truly abusive because she didn't see a consistent pattern of use? (only in that one text/chat fight?)

I just think she got under Knurni's voluminous amount of skin because she didn't "return his salute" that one morning. I don't remember if his childish "so you're sort of a Dr. Death" remark to her came before or after her not saying "good morning" back to him, but it seemed to me like one was payback for the other.

I also think what really ticked-off Knurmi was he couldn't rattle Dr. D. She had JA's number in a third the number of hours as the two defense experts who spent time treating, I mean interviewing, I mean testing the killer, and everyone in court knew it. Even Jodi herself, who put her blinders on and colored while Dr. D was on the witness stand testifying.

La la la la la la la la... I don't hear you... la la la la....

You are so right on Wing Ding. When he called Dr. D, "Dr. Death", it showed his petty nature. This was not because he was forced to defend CMJA, this was his own petty nature that came out. It proves his book is a bunch of words to try to redeam himself, but in actuality it proves the opposite. Nurmi hasn't changed one bit. He is still the slim merchant and still attacking Travis and the Hughes. No apology to anyone. His remarks about Yrika, and the Arias family is entertaining but VERY unprofessional. I can't imagine Juan trashing a whole town or the defendants family. We all knew the family wasn't the dream family, but he sure put them in the trashy category.

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

The pedo lie is so hard to flesh out because I think KN is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He thinks TA is an abusive pedophile. I believe that he thinks that. But that info came from the questionable letters, which KN wants you to know he saw right through. But, since his client said TA was an abusive pedophile, the state is required to prove with 100 percent certainty that he wasn't or he must have been one. His reasoning doesn't make any sense to me. In the paragraph I quoted KN, to me, was trying to prove what a Class A guy he was, sparing the world from hearing about TA the pedo. I don't think he was trying to say he that TA wasn't a pedo.

Gah! I know I'm not explaining myself well.

 

[Steve44]

Why does BK think JM's book - but NOT Nurmi's - might help the killer's appeals?

She has explained that she thinks Nurmi writing a book now is unusual, but that he hasn't violated any ethical rules and is allowed his opinion.

JM writing a book is different because he's a state prosecutor (inference definely is that he's to be held to a higher standard). She says that he'd be trouble if he negotiated a book contract while the trial was ongoing (she says she doesn't believe that) but that even emails exchanged with a publisher would be very problematic. About the latter she says "we'll likely never know (if he did).

Directly related to appeals, she says that the killer could use JM's book (but somehow, not Nurmi's) to argue about pre-trial publicity tainting that new trial of hers.

Note to BK. Read the COA's DENIAL of the killer's motion against JM's book that included a specific argument on exactly that point.

He could be in trouble if he..blah blah blah, but I don't think he did....but we'll never know...OK, thanks.Next.

No ethical violation?
Martinez and Nurmi were both acting in a professional capacity, but the nature of their relationships with the defendant were different.

Martinez's relationship was not personal per se, it was about the crime, the facts, and the defendants involvement and connection to them. He was seeking justice on behalf of the public.

Nurmis relationship was much more personal. He was defending her, her life, and was therefore closer to her personally.

Martinez's approach was from the crime, to the defendant.

Nurmis approach was from the defendant, to the crime.

Nurmi is far more bound to rules of ethical disclosure concerning personal information about the defendant than Martinez is, because his job required him to be closer to her personally.

As the COA said, Martinez has no ethical restrictions connected to writing about the case. He must respect court-sealed information, of course.

Nurmi, in the course of his duties, learned much personal information about the defendant, her family, etc. He is now airing some arguably dirty laundry about these things, for no good discernible reason, yet, there are no ethical violations??

As far as Martinez's book tainting a jury for 'the new trial', it's not likely that anything Martinez writes will rise to the level of 'taint' that Nurmi already has.

 

[Steve44]

The pedo lie is so hard to flesh out because I think KN is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He thinks TA is an abusive pedophile. I believe that he thinks that. But that info came from the questionable letters, which KN wants you to know he saw right through. But, since his client said TA was an abusive pedophile, the state is required to prove with 100 percent certainty that he wasn't or he must have been one. His reasoning doesn't make any sense to me. In the paragraph I quoted KN, to me, was trying to prove what a Class A guy he was, sparing the world from hearing about TA the pedo. I don't think he was trying to say he that TA wasn't a pedo.

Gah! I know I'm not explaining myself well.

Well, just look at what you have to work with! You're doing fine.

 

[G&AMom]

Overcharging? So he doesn't think she premeditated the slaughter?

Or overcharging as in, if JM could just have overlooked the fact she committed a crime the law deems DP eligible and had understood how slimy I was willing to get, then this could have been settled without JM making me get slimy?


And I'm confused about whether or not he's saying he believes T was a pedophile. Does he?

Wilmott said the same thing at Jodi's sentencing, that the case was Second Degree Murder, at worst. I honestly began to wonder if she'd paid any attention during the trial at all.

 

[samspace070]

About the opinion of BK posters....trying to think of a way to say this that won't trigger scissors.

Read between the lines: sometimes folks have such a high opinion of someone they become virtual groupies. What the someone says can never be contradicted, even in the most minor of ways or on the most minor of matters. To contradict is to be promptly corrected, and if no apology or retraction by the offender is offered, ostracized.

If the someone says both sides of a matter need to be given equal weight and respect, then such must be done.

Does that answer yr question?


((That's why after I read BK's exceptional note taking during trial, or the docs she's posted that aren't available anywhere else, I click my ruby slippers 3x and skedaddle.

Which is precisely what happened to me. Retreat is the better part of valor in the case of the BK site. Do not comment on the book unless it agrees with the moderator and other groupies. I made that mistake. I commented I didn't read the book but from the reviews of others I decided I made the right decision and saved money and aggravation. I was attacked, politely but aggressively, and often. When I tried to respond I was blocked. So much for dialogue. I haven't been back, but basically I have read all I intended to. I will not renew my subscription. Very disappointed in BK site.

 

[samspace070]

This portion of a paragraph is in the chapter entitled "Trying to Settle." It shows the writing style, the talking down to people, and the overall tone of I'm right and I'm surrounded by idiots.

". . . My thinking was that if I disclosed some information to the State that I was not otherwise obligated to disclose, that Mr. Montgomery might then share my vision that it would be best for all involved if the case went away quickly and quietly. Now before all of you 'tough on crime' types get all upset about me holding onto secrets or being a 'sleazy defense attorney' you might want to review the 5th and 6th Amendments to the Constitution as they provide the authority for defense attorneys to hold back certain information. As it relates to the Arias case specifically, things that Ms. Arias said about the crime to her experts were things I could have hid from the State under the rules of Arizona. I chose not to keep things hidden or interfere with Dr. DeMarte asking similar questions. Why? I wanted Mr. Montgomery to know exactly where this case was going to go. To be clear, this was not an attempt to intimidate him or threaten him with the reality but to make sure he understood where this case was going to go so he could decide if he really wanted to travel down this road. I wanted him to know that Ms. Arias was going to claim that her victim was an abusive pedophile against whom she had to defend herself. . . . "

I cannot be the only one who thinks this was indeed a threat and posed as such.

KN makes it clear to me that he thinks Montgomery was "intimidated" by JM and that a first degree charge was overcharging. And that but for JM this case could have settled. So it is JM's fault all the pedo lies were out there (because, according to Nurmi, he knew they were lies but since the state couldn't prove 100 percent that TA wasn't a pedo, well he was obligated to go with the argument that he was one).

In the same chapter he whines that he had to put in a lot of hours because this remained a capital case. How he couldn't go to a matinee on a Saturday or follow through with his mid week dinner plans (he actually says these things). How he had to work long hours. How he sometimes had to put a few hours in on weekends. Hey, buddy. It's called being a lawyer.

Funny, he mentioned DINNER, that must have been really, really, hard for him to miss? not to be too nasty but it doesn't look like he missed too many dinners. (just had to do it for TA)

 

[pinkandgreenmom]

"The sex tape also made me consider the fact that Mr. Alexander might have had a sexual interest in children because in this tape he compared Ms. Arias' orgasm to that of a 12 year old girl. He also talked about corking the pot of a 12 year old girl. It never made any sense to me why he would say such things if he did not have such an interest. With my experience as a sex crimes attorney and my knowledge of his background I felt that if he had such an attraction he had likely been a victim of sexual abuse as a child. Could I conclude any of this definitively? No, but the evidence pointed in that direction." p. 280

 

[samspace070]

He could be in trouble if he..blah blah blah, but I don't think he did....but we'll never know...OK, thanks.Next.

No ethical violation?
Martinez and Nurmi were both acting in a professional capacity, but the nature of their relationships with the defendant were different.

Martinez's relationship was not personal per se, it was about the crime, the facts, and the defendants involvement and connection to them. He was seeking justice on behalf of the public.

Nurmis relationship was much more personal. He was defending her, her life, and was therefore closer to her personally.

Martinez's approach was from the crime, to the defendant.

Nurmis approach was from the defendant, to the crime.

Nurmi is far more bound to rules of ethical disclosure concerning personal information about the defendant than Martinez is, because his job required him to be closer to her personally.

As the COA said, Martinez has no ethical restrictions connected to writing about the case. He must respect court-sealed information, of course.

Nurmi, in the course of his duties, learned much personal information about the defendant, her family, etc. He is now airing some arguably dirty laundry about these things, for no good discernible reason, yet, there are no ethical violations??

As far as Martinez's book tainting a jury for 'the new trial', it's not likely that anything Martinez writes will rise to the level of 'taint' that Nurmi already has.

Thank You Steve, you have nailed it. Nurmi is the unethical attorney and why BK doesn't think so, brings up a lot of questions I would like her to answer. But of course she won't or else she will give a wordy Nurmi answer that doesn't answer at all. The COA said it all: Martinez has no ethical restrictions about discussing the arias case, just as the spokesman from MCAO said. What part of that response from the COA does BK not understand????

 

[Steve44]

"The sex tape also made me consider the fact that Mr. Alexander might have had a sexual interest in children because in this tape he compared Ms. Arias' orgasm to that of a 12 year old girl. He also talked about corking the pot of a 12 year old girl. It never made any sense to me why he would say such things if he did not have such an interest. With my experience as a sex crimes attorney and my knowledge of his background I felt that if he had such an attraction he had likely been a victim of sexual abuse as a child. Could I conclude any of this definitively? No, but the evidence pointed in that direction." p. 280

His book is making me consider the 'fact' that he seems to see child sexual abuse everywhere he looks.

 

[Hope4More]

........He hints at some later falling out between him and JW. He calls her Jennifer instead of Ms. Willmott in his book because friends call each other by their first name and he hopes "someday" JW will come to see him once again as a friend. Same with MDLR. Oh and trial watchers are not allowed to judge either of these women because we don't know them like he does.

HOPING the fallout came when Nurmi was forced to tell investigators what he knew about the duo's role in facilitating improper or illegal contact between the killer and fans or witnesses.

GUESSING that bad feelings arose when Nurmi thought he was being singled out by haters and fans to hate and the rouged duo were being increasingly idolized by fans?

Or the rouged duo tsked- tsked him for not being appropriately worshipful of the goddess and he blew up at them?