Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #5

[TrialWatcher]

I still saw them in the video shots, and they are curved arcs- not straight like the glare lines, and they only occur in 3 photos, and only across his shoulders. That's too coincidental to be glare.

LinasK, the arc glare shapes dance over the pics, as seen in the two examples/videos by contributors on Websleuths. TexMex even showed an arc on Travis' flip flops. On one sitting photo I saw of Travis, the arc was travelling off the border. Is it feasible that no one (Juan, Police, Defense, Experts) would have seen huge marks when examining these pics? Or never mentioned them?

 

[geevee]

I tried rotating the picture (to the right), but somehow it won't save it for me - so if you rotate, okay - are those the bathroom drawers now on the right (opposed to on top of the picture)? And a window with light coming in? It looks like his shoulder with a BIG cut in it, and the top left looks like a big cut and the thing you have circled to me looks like just a shadow when you rotate the picture. Hoping you understand what I'm trying to say! LOL!

Yes, I had rotated it to the left, here it is without the circle or being rotated, there's definition to whatever it is, doesn't appear to be a reflection of or from anything:

 

[Caylee Advocate]

What a damned hypocrite!!



http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/prosecutors-prohibited-profiting-cases-article-1.2557648

 

[Wing Ding]

What a damned hypocrite!!



http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/prosecutors-prohibited-profiting-cases-article-1.2557648

Naturally!

Now what I want to know is... did L Kirk Nurmi write the caption to this photo which appears on the very same page as his article?

O.J. Simpson holds up his hands before the jury after putting on a new pair of gloves similar to the infamous bloody gloves in this television image courtesy CNN, during his double-murder trial in 1995. Prosecutor Marcia Clark looks on at right.

Umm... gloves similar to? For cripes sakes, OJ tried on THE bloody gloves for the jury! Doesn't anyone have an editor anymore or even a flunkie to do some fact-checking? Sheesh!

And by the way, the gloves look like they fit to me in that pic!

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Naturally!

Now what I want to know is... did L Kirk Nurmi write the caption to this photo which appears on the very same page as his article?

O.J. Simpson holds up his hands before the jury after putting on a new pair of gloves similar to the infamous bloody gloves in this television image courtesy CNN, during his double-murder trial in 1995. Prosecutor Marcia Clark looks on at right.

Umm... gloves similar to? For cripes sakes, OJ tried on THE bloody gloves for the jury! Doesn't anyone have an editor anymore or even a flunkie to do some fact-checking? Sheesh!

And by the way, the gloves look like they fit to me in that pic!

Lol, not sure who captioned it. Yeppers, they fit like a glove lol. Besides, he spread his fingers when trying to put them on "If the gloves fit, you should not acquit"

 

[TexMex]

First gloves. Actual gloves in evidence




The prosecution bought another pair...

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-06-22/news/mn-20476_1_simpson-murder

Seeking to recoup from a major setback last week, Deputy Dist. Atty. Christopher A. Darden went hand to hand with O.J. Simpson one more time Wednesday in a bid to show that gloves found at the crime scene and his mansion could have fit Simpson.

With jurors watching, Darden asked the defendant to slip on a pair of leather gloves of the same style and size as the bloody ones that Simpson told jurors last Thursday were "too tight." Although the gloves appeared snug, Simpson was able to get them on both hands without much trouble.

"I think they fit quite well," glove expert Richard Rubin testified.

 

[La Louve]

What a damned hypocrite!!



http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/prosecutors-prohibited-profiting-cases-article-1.2557648

Agreed, but I do wonder if Juan had to get permission to have the book published while he is still in the prosecutor's office. Or it might be that Arizona is not as strict in this type of situation. In some states though, a public servant profiting from work done at the behest and expense of the taxpayers is a big no-no.

Example: I work for a state agency and our executive director was asked to contribute a chapter to a book a few months back and he was expressly forbidden by state law (Washington) from accepting any sort of monetary payment or any other tangible personal benefit.

But yeah, Nurmi's a pathetic sore loser who hates letting Juan have the last word. IMO

 

[b_lab7410]

Agreed, but I do wonder if Juan had to get permission to have the book published while he is still in the prosecutor's office. Or it might be that Arizona is not as strict in this type of situation. In some states though, a public servant profiting from work done at the behest and expense of the taxpayers is a big no-no.

Example: I work for a state agency and our executive director was asked to contribute a chapter to a book a few months back and he was expressly forbidden by state law (Washington) from accepting any sort of monetary payment or any other tangible personal benefit.

But yeah, Nurmi's a pathetic sore loser who hates letting Juan have the last word. IMO

I too couldn't shake the feeling Nurmi put out his book primarily because Juan had his coming out. Other reasons being he is fighting cancer, details are fresher immediately after the trial, and it was some form of therapy for being shoulder to shoulder with Arias every day...

IMO, he may have put something out whether or not Juan was prosecutor. I think Jodi and her defense team & the mitigation 'specialist,' are all narcissistic types. They are quick to 'defend their honor' when there was none to be had... There might have been more of a pony show if JM hadn't been the prosecutor though. He brought the sanity back into the courtroom, at every turn that was possible. They could not pull a creepy Mark O'Maria type charade.

Anyway, whatever, I like how JM kept his wits about him and that's pretty darn admirable...

 

[Tiger09]

I honestly think Nurmi put his book out because he got diagnosed with cancer and the stress of keeping everything in got to him. Dude had to get it all out.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

 

[salberg7]

Ok Kirk, you've convinced us you have principles and believe that every client is entitled to a defense within the US Constitution. But you seem to forget that victims have rights too - the right not to have their character totally demolished, the right to privacy, the right to maintain their pride and I could go on and on. Victim's families have rights too, but that doesn't count because the criminal has more rights than any victim according to you. Now take your toys and go home.
Oh what a beacon of justice he is! And now I see what a hypocrite too. He had to get the first of three books out right before Mr Martinez released his.
There was nothing in either book that affected her conviction. Everything discussed was evidence presented in court. Of course Juan had to get permission- he discussed that process during one of his interviews (Dr Phil, I think).
Pot meet kettle.
Wah wah wah.... Me thinks he doth protest too much.

 

[Hope4More]

What a damned hypocrite!!



http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/prosecutors-prohibited-profiting-cases-article-1.2557648

So Mr. Nurmi is opining again that constitutionally guaranteed 1st Amendment rights are optional, to be granted or withheld at will.

For Mr. Nurmi, the due process rights of a convicted murderer that aren't being threatened (just the murderer inconvenienced by being required to lie in public) trump state law and the media's 1st amendment right to be present at a public trial.

And, for Mr.Nurmi, public employees shouldn't be allowed, as private citizens, on their own time, to exercise their 1st Amendment right to free speech by writing a NYT best selling book receiving great reviews, especially when that book demonstrates utmost class, unlike the sewage spewed by Mr. Nurmi's exercise of his own 1st amendment rights, aka, his own self-published book.

And, Mr. Nurmi, last I checked, you WERE on the public payroll for the years of 's trial, yes? Too funny. The very source of so much of your rage---I tried to leave!! I was TRAPPED by her (wasn't that the title of your book??) was the fact you couldn't leave public practice and go off to defend pedophiles for profit, because, as you say on your selling-me page, it is a horrible thing for an innocent man to be assumed guilty of such a horrible charge simply because a hateful raging person in his life wants revenge.

 

[LinTX]

What a damned hypocrite!!



http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/prosecutors-prohibited-profiting-cases-article-1.2557648

Vinnie Politan's response to Nurmi is titled "SHUT UP Kirk Nurmi". Comments on the above article begins at 28:30 (click on "shut up" link to listen)

 

[La Louve]

I honestly think Nurmi put his book out because he got diagnosed with cancer and the stress of keeping everything in got to him. Dude had to get it all out.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

I don't disagree with that.

It's one thing to get it all out - which can be very healing. It's another thing to turn around and peddle that spewage for a profit and to salve one's ego.

I go to Burning Man every year. While I'm there I walk to the Temple every day and journal on the Temple walls, expressing whatever my focus is for that year. Sometimes it's anger and hurt, sometimes it's grief, sometimes it's forgiveness, sometimes it's gratitude. Everyone's pain, rage, anger, grief etc. are there on display at the Temple for everyone to see and hear and feel.

And on the last night of the festival, we watch the Temple go up in flames, to release all of those deep and powerful emotional expressions to the heavens. It's the most therapeutic journaling I've ever done.

Nurmi should try that.

 

[Hope4More]

Vinnie Politan's response to Nurmi is titled "SHUT UP Kirk Nurmi". Comments on the above article begins at 28:30 (click on "shut up" link to listen)

Would that he would. Sadly, I think Nurmi's made it clear his anger and spite and petulance and belief he's been wronged can't be sated. Not even venting for 300 plus pages or battling cancer into remission seems to have given him any sense of peace, or to have provided him reason enough to experiment with honest introspection.

Sorry, but I think the dude was who he is now going in.....just more so, and that he sees no irony whatsoever in playing out his grudges on the SM media platform he otherwise blames for so very much.

 

[Midnight Rambler]

Stun gun. A stun gun only emits an electrical charge once it is pressed against the body and the trigger is pulled. It only takes a couple of seconds to have an affect on the body. There are two small prongs on the end of a sun gun. These prongs must be in contact with the body for any arching to occur. Even then it's very minimal. Jodi would have needed to hold the camera in one hand and the stun gun against his body. What we are seeing in some of the photos are called artifacts which include quick movements of the camera and lighting. Artifacts also appear on monitors and movie projectures.

 

[Hope4More]

By Nurmi:


“…..my point is that if prosecutors were restricted from authoring books and/or profiting in any way from a case they tried, we would not have to wonder. We would know that the prosecutor's sole motivation throughout any case is the interest of justice.”


To Nurmi:

“We” are not wondering what motivated JM. That his sole interest was in seeking justice for the family of the man your client tormented and so brutally slaughtered was clear from start to finish.

Who can forget that he left the courtroom immediately after she was found guilty, by himself, and was stumbled upon by a trial watcher, alone in an elevator, with tears in his eyes?




(Even after all this time, Nurmi never ceases to irritate...)

 

[kmp3]

Ok Kirk, you've convinced us you have principles and believe that every client is entitled to a defense within the US Constitution. But you seem to forget that victims have rights too - the right not to have their character totally demolished, the right to privacy, the right to maintain their pride and I could go on and on. Victim's families have rights too, but that doesn't count because the criminal has more rights than any victim according to you. Now take your toys and go home.
Oh what a beacon of justice he is! And now I see what a hypocrite too. He had to get the first of three books out right before Mr Martinez released his.
There was nothing in either book that affected her conviction. Everything discussed was evidence presented in court. Of course Juan had to get permission- he discussed that process during one of his interviews (Dr Phil, I think).
Pot meet kettle.
Wah wah wah.... Me thinks he doth protest too much.

[FONT=&quot] So, I’m going to preface my post by saying I hate Jodi Arias, and I hate that Travis’s character was so brutally butchered in that courtroom. While watching the trial, I was so furious for Travis and his family. It was painful to listen to. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Buuuut, I’m probably one of the few who feels badly for Nurmi. It’s clear he did NOT want to defend JA, and in fact, made several attempts to pull off the case—which was shot down each time by the judge. So, barring that, Nurmi had a legal and ethical obligation to put forth the best defense he could. Everyone, including Jodi Arias (gag!), has the right to a defense. Yes, the victim and family have legal rights as well, but within our justice system, butchering the character of the deceased is not a violation of those rights—sad as that fact may be. It’s actually a very common strategy—and not something Nurmi pioneered. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Think of it this way, Nurmi HAD to do his due diligence, otherwise, JA could claim misconduct which would warrant a retrial—NOT something any of us want. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So, anyway, I can’t find Kirk’s original post about this, but I’m inclined to agree. Everyone, including murderous skanks, have the right to a proper defense. Even if that defense is based on fairytales and lies. Thankfully most of the jurors saw right through that. [/FONT]

Kate

 

[FinallyRegistered]

[video=youtube;CPM8QrDHXkU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPM8QrDHXkU[/video]

In the collage, I see four pictures with the white lines/arcs.

Pic 5:23:30, Exhibit 146, shown on video at 32:33
Pic 5:26:56, Exhibit 152, (not found yet/will edit)
Pic 5:27:28, Exhibit 156, shown on video at 40:29
Pic 5:28:54, Exhibit 157, shown on video at 40:16

The white lines/arcs move in the video.

 

[kmp3]

[FONT=&amp] [/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]So, anyway, I can’t find Kirk’s original post about this, but I’m inclined to agree. Everyone, including murderous skanks, have the right to a proper defense. Even if that defense is based on fairytales and lies. Thankfully most of the jurors saw right through that. [/FONT]

Kate

For some reason, I can't edit my post, but it just occurred to me that it was Kirk Nurmi being referred to, and not someone posting here. LOL Duh. Omg, I need more coffee...

Kate

 

[TexMex]

[video=youtube;CPM8QrDHXkU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPM8QrDHXkU[/video]

In the collage, I see four pictures with the white lines/arcs.

Pic 5:23:30, Exhibit 146, shown on video at 32:33
Pic 5:26:56, Exhibit 152, (not found yet/will edit)
Pic 5:27:28, Exhibit 156, shown on video at 40:29
Pic 5:28:54, Exhibit 157, shown on video at 40:16

The white lines/arcs move in the video.

Great work!