From the depths of a sub-tunnel of my civil suit rabbit hole: about ’s/Clark’s accusation that Nurmi played the sex tape in open court for reasons that benefitted him, not his client (a breach of fiduciary duty).
Arguments about the tape’s admissibility into evidence were held in chambers on January 31, 2013. The tape was played in open court on February 12, 2013, on the ’s third day of direct testimony.
My guess/scenario about why Nurmi wanted the tape played in open court, inferring from everything we know (see below), and from Nurmi’s anecdote in his book about the having a screaming, crying temper tantrum during one of his visits to her relating to an unnamed (and likely never-materialized) motion (known facts are noted, everything else is inference/speculation):
I think it’s probable that after the Jan 31st chambers discussions, the tried to order Nurmi to enter a redacted version of the tape into evidence, one that edited out most of her side of the exchange.
Nurmi, on a visit to her in jail, tried to explain why that was impossible (the tape’s admission into evidence was partly contingent upon it NOT being edited). She responded with that huge temper tantrum, which he makes clear pissed HIM off, royally.
For Nurmi, the issue was settled. For the , not, as it never is unless & until she gets her way. The went on the stand for 2 days, smearing Travis as a sexual deviant and playing the meek, innocent victim, helpless in T’s clutches. She was loving it.
Then, the morning of her 3rd day on the stand arrived. Nurmi tells her, again, that today is the day. He’s going to play the tape. The whole tape. In open court. She freaks. JSS summons the whole crew into chambers (fact). She asks T’s family what they want (fact). They say they want the tape, the whole tape, played, and played in open court (fact). The freaks a whole lot harder.
JSS , being JSS, tries to accommodate the by offering to kick out the media & the public when the tape is being played (fact). How awful for the . The entire POINT of making the tape and having it played, on her terms, is to trash Travis to the largest possible audience, and to cause T’s family maximum pain.
Not only wasn’t she going to get her way on ANY of that, but the very tape she had put so much time and effort into creating to destroy T’s reputation was going to be used against HER.
So why did Nurmi decide to play the tape in open court? Unless we’re missing some great big & key piece of sealed info, I’ve concluded that he did so out of anger (“you’re not going to get your way by throwing a temper tantrum”
![Wink ;) ;)]()
, and maybe, in part, even for revenge, believing as he did that the cared more about her reputation than about saving her own life.
If that's true, even though I don't have one iota of sympathy for the , I actually can better understand why Clark the crusader would be outraged by Nurmi's conduct, and determined to hold him accountable.
Here’s what is on the record:
----------------------------------------
From the Complaint:
https://drive.google.com/viewerng/v...ral.com/persistent/icimages/news/2547_001.pdf
#136. Nurmi, not the , was intent upon “exposing T’s secret life.”
#137. Nurmi’s decision to play the sex tape in open court is an example of this. “ It was extremely embarrassing for her. Nurmi insisted. “
JSS offered to seal the court –to kick out the public and press- and to play the tape just to the jury . Nurmi wanted it played in open court, livestreaming to the entire world.
#139. Willmott asked Nurmi why Nurmi wanted to do so, given how much distress that prospect was causing , and because she couldn’t see any “legitimate legal benefit” in playing it in open court.
Willmott “clearly recalls “ his response: ‘She just needs to put on her big girl panties”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The , from her 12 page motion to have Nurmi fired:
http://archive.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/jodi-arias-nurmi-motion.pd
The court offered to play the tape in a closed hearing but my attorneys turned this down. Upon learning this, I had an emotional reaction such that the rest of the day’s proceedings were cancelled. I could not speak or be reasoned with or form rational thought beyond the horrors of exposing Travis and myself.
Other team members (tried to console me) saying that this decision wasn’t being made to humiliate me or T’s family, but that it backed up my testimony (that T was a pedophile and hyper-sexual, and that I wasn’t jealous about his “planned trip across the border”
Nurmi just said to me with contempt- you’re not going to get your way just because you throw a tantrum.”
-----------------------------------------------------------
Note:
** The “rest of the day’s proceedings” weren’t cancelled. Most of the morning session was spent sans jury, in chambers, then court was recessed until after lunch.
**On the allegedly being told that playing the tape wasn’t about humiliating T’s family.
TA’s family made it crystal clear that not only were they OK with the entire tape being played, but they WANTED it to be played in open court.
How that must have infuriated (and surprised) the . No doubt she interpreted that refusal by them to be bullied by her threats/attempts to “expose” Travis as instead, a desire by his family to destroy HER “reputation.”
“Losing” (again) to his family probably contributed in no small part to her immobilizing distress; not getting her way surely contributed as well.
---------------------------
Chambers hearing
On January 31, 2013, the DT and JM argued in Chambers about the tape’s admissibility into evidence. Nurmi indicated he wanted to play the tape in open court that day, following testimony by Nuemeiser and Dworkin as to the tape’s authenticity. (Remember- the tape wasn’t played until February 12, 2013).
http://archive.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0607arias-sex-tape-proceeding.pdf
---------------------------------------------------
JSS asked the DT: What benefit does the defense get in playing the tape?
They replied:
Nurmi (N): (arguing that the tape wasn’t hearsay): “…..it relates to the abusive and exploitative relationship which is relevant not only to her self- defense but also to anything than give rise to sudden heat of passion.
(Note that Nurmi thinks the tape would be useful to the contradictory strategies: both her chosen defense -self-defense--and his own, that of heat of passion).
Nurmi: It goes to the nature of their relationship, that it was abusive and that he used her, which is relevant to establishing (several legal elements) of a self defense case.
Nurmi: It’s evidence of how he treats he degrades her opinion. (Abusive relationship).
Nurmi: It goes to state of mind, and to the nature of their relationship: at the same time he’s saying she’s a crazy stalker and he doesn’t want around, he’s having phone sex with her and is talking about making *advertiser censored* videos with her in the future.
Willmott: It’s evidence of his sexual knowledge. He has to explain things to her. It proves he was not a virgin when he met her.
------------------
Note:
* Which defense counsel is emphasizing the sexual component of the tape? Willmott, not Nurmi. Nurmi is focused on using it as evidence of an abusive relationship, and of the difference between what Travis said and did about the .
** What is NOT being argued is that the tape would provide “evidence” that Travis was a pedophile, or that the was perfectly OK with Travis not taking her to Cancun, 2 of the 3 points thought most relevant about what the tape would “prove.”
* The either already knew on Jan 31 (if not before) that Nurmi planned on playing the tape-the whole tape-in open court, and in fact, on that very day, or Nurmi surprised her with his intentions that day in chambers. Yet…no meltdown. Nary even a protest by her. No discussion by anyone at all, or objections, to the tape being played in open court.
At least, not in the chambers transcript of that morning, which ended with JSS saying she needed to listen to the tape herself before ruling on admissibility.
If Nurmi had been a better attorney, and if Willmott had not been so convinced playing the tape meant jurors would hear Travis himself dooming the case against the , perhaps they would have reconsidered playing the tape after listening to JM in chambers.
JM seemingly objected to the tape being admitted into evidence at all, but argued that if it was going to be played, he had the right to cross examine the about not just what was on the tape, but about how and why the tape even existed.
-----------------
JM: (The tape shows that Travis) is not the aggressor, she js.
N and W: That’s for cross.
JM: I can bring it up on cross of the , or I can bring it up on cross of Mr. Alexander? Which of the two? Neither of which I have access to,
-------------------------------
JSS: did Travis know he was being recorded?
JM: No.
N: How can you know that?
JM: Because of the way he is talking. Who can tell us if he knew, other than the defendant? I mean, no one can tell us that.
N: Right. And no one can tell us that he didn’t. You seem to be saying you can conclude that.
JM: I am concluding that.
N: Based on what?
JM: On what I hear
N: (That's) so ridiculous.
JM: You brought it up. (LOL….)
-------------------------------------------------
((What I’ve always found ironic is that Nurmi and Wilmott seemed to have no clue how incredibly damaging the tape was to their own case & to their central narrative of as victim)).