Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #8
- Thread starter Coldpizza
- Start date
- Status
3 guesses what their primary grounds for appeal will be:
1. didn't receive a fair trial & couldn't present a full case for mitigation (denied due process) because excessive publicity permeated & tainted every phase of trial, including the intimidation by SM of potential & actual guilt phase & mitigation witnesses (LaViolette; 's druggy friend; during PP2, those anonymous folks supposedly too afraid to appear in court). The Court erred in denying a change in venue and refusing to sequester the jury.
2. Brady violations: that LE /JM didn't turn over all of TA's emails & texts sooner.
3. Brady violations & prosecutorial misconduct & LE misconduct relating to TA's computer hard drive. That the jury might have returned a different verdict in the guilt phase had they been presented the evidence that TA had *advertiser censored* on his computer (pffft).
1. didn't receive a fair trial & couldn't present a full case for mitigation (denied due process) because excessive publicity permeated & tainted every phase of trial, including the intimidation by SM of potential & actual guilt phase & mitigation witnesses (LaViolette; 's druggy friend; during PP2, those anonymous folks supposedly too afraid to appear in court). The Court erred in denying a change in venue and refusing to sequester the jury.
2. Brady violations: that LE /JM didn't turn over all of TA's emails & texts sooner.
3. Brady violations & prosecutorial misconduct & LE misconduct relating to TA's computer hard drive. That the jury might have returned a different verdict in the guilt phase had they been presented the evidence that TA had *advertiser censored* on his computer (pffft).
Well, ain't that special. The 's attorneys did not file her appeal by the deadline last night, and still haven't, and neither did they submit a motion requesting more time, which they are legally obligated to do.
I can't imagine the COA doing so with this particular case, but because 's attorneys neither filed or requested an extension, the Court would be within it's rights to refuse to hear her appeal at all.
The COA clerk advised me to check back with her tomorrow AM. If the brief hasn't been filed by then or an extension requested, something very strange indeed would seem to be unfolding.
......
Remember her attorneys' demand way back when- made twice- that the entire COA recuse itself because of bias? That every single COA judge was necessarily tainted by the fact a single judge mentioned the 's case in one article about the cost of DP litigation?
But...nah. AZLawyer thought that manuever foolhardy & destructive enough. I can't imagine any strategy, even one intended to play in the theater of the absurd, that would include attempting to bypass the COA.
The delay must be due to either negligence or incompetence.
I can't imagine the COA doing so with this particular case, but because 's attorneys neither filed or requested an extension, the Court would be within it's rights to refuse to hear her appeal at all.
The COA clerk advised me to check back with her tomorrow AM. If the brief hasn't been filed by then or an extension requested, something very strange indeed would seem to be unfolding.
......
Remember her attorneys' demand way back when- made twice- that the entire COA recuse itself because of bias? That every single COA judge was necessarily tainted by the fact a single judge mentioned the 's case in one article about the cost of DP litigation?
But...nah. AZLawyer thought that manuever foolhardy & destructive enough. I can't imagine any strategy, even one intended to play in the theater of the absurd, that would include attempting to bypass the COA.
The delay must be due to either negligence or incompetence.
salberg7
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 614
- Reaction score
- 1,200
An Extension for the killers appeal was requested yesterday evening (March 1).
My guess is the killer and her team need to amend/edit/rewrite said appeal with bits and pieces of Nurmis motion to dismiss and/or info from Clarks initial bar complaint and her absurd request for the Bar Committee to rethink their decision and continue to pursue Martinez.
A perfect storm of poop - Bar Complaint against Juan, lawsuit against Nurmi and the piece de resistance, the Killers actual appeal.
So...I guess since JA and her crew is expecting to be given an extension at literally the last moment - court ordered date of February 28...& of course the killer is so special the state will acquiesce to her.
I do realize we are a nation of laws & thats a good thing, but how could JA & team blatantly thumb their noses at deadlines? What makes her different? She is a convicted felon - a jury determined the crime was pre meditated & first degree murder 5 years ago.
This so disgusts me at this point as it does appear the guilty party has more rights than innocent victims.
So, will the state bend over backwards, & amend their schedules? -meaning expend more time and effort to be paid for by AZ citizens to accommodate a felon that consistently ignores deadlines? Would we ordinary Joes be able to do that and get away with it?
If you ask me, her appeal should be denied as of midnight 2/28 due to her team failing to meet a deadline they knew about for months.
Wonder what happens now....
If anyone is interested search twitter to see Nurmis motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed against him by the killer and Clarks (the killers) response. You can see them on Twitter if you search the #jodiarias hashtag.
Travis was murdered close to 10 yrs ago and the justice system continues to deal with frivolous lawsuits initiated by the killer to avoid any accountability & most importantly stay in the news for her addiction to publicity. Funded ( on the state side) by the good people of Arizona yet again. Her hate continues unabated.
Clark apparently feels the Son of San laws do not include the killer, who feels that her (JA)s slimy murderous, psychopathic behavior and her Ego make her so special.
So now what? Ridiculous. And it continues.
My guess is the killer and her team need to amend/edit/rewrite said appeal with bits and pieces of Nurmis motion to dismiss and/or info from Clarks initial bar complaint and her absurd request for the Bar Committee to rethink their decision and continue to pursue Martinez.
A perfect storm of poop - Bar Complaint against Juan, lawsuit against Nurmi and the piece de resistance, the Killers actual appeal.
So...I guess since JA and her crew is expecting to be given an extension at literally the last moment - court ordered date of February 28...& of course the killer is so special the state will acquiesce to her.
I do realize we are a nation of laws & thats a good thing, but how could JA & team blatantly thumb their noses at deadlines? What makes her different? She is a convicted felon - a jury determined the crime was pre meditated & first degree murder 5 years ago.
This so disgusts me at this point as it does appear the guilty party has more rights than innocent victims.
So, will the state bend over backwards, & amend their schedules? -meaning expend more time and effort to be paid for by AZ citizens to accommodate a felon that consistently ignores deadlines? Would we ordinary Joes be able to do that and get away with it?
If you ask me, her appeal should be denied as of midnight 2/28 due to her team failing to meet a deadline they knew about for months.
Wonder what happens now....
If anyone is interested search twitter to see Nurmis motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed against him by the killer and Clarks (the killers) response. You can see them on Twitter if you search the #jodiarias hashtag.
Travis was murdered close to 10 yrs ago and the justice system continues to deal with frivolous lawsuits initiated by the killer to avoid any accountability & most importantly stay in the news for her addiction to publicity. Funded ( on the state side) by the good people of Arizona yet again. Her hate continues unabated.
Clark apparently feels the Son of San laws do not include the killer, who feels that her (JA)s slimy murderous, psychopathic behavior and her Ego make her so special.
So now what? Ridiculous. And it continues.
The 's attorneys are requesting a new due date of May 28 to file their opening brief. I wish I could believe the COA will say no, but the odds of that are about zero.
And,FWiW, the last COA clerk I spoke with says that Karen Clark is not/will not be involved in the 's direct appeal.
And,FWiW, the last COA clerk I spoke with says that Karen Clark is not/will not be involved in the 's direct appeal.
salberg7
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 614
- Reaction score
- 1,200
Ridiculous. Her team dropped the ball but, again, she gets more time.
So deadlines mean nothing?
Yet another pander to this piece of crap defendant. A waste of breath imo, but it seems that Traviss murder case is the case that keeps on giving but unfortunately the gets more attention to feed her self centered self as Travis is gone.
How could more time be provided to her appeal team? Isnt this her teams fault? Have they lost interest?
Just get all this appeal moving.
Our justice system moves so slowly but thats our system and so be it but what a waste of so many peoples time!!
So inefficient.
So deadlines mean nothing?
Yet another pander to this piece of crap defendant. A waste of breath imo, but it seems that Traviss murder case is the case that keeps on giving but unfortunately the gets more attention to feed her self centered self as Travis is gone.
How could more time be provided to her appeal team? Isnt this her teams fault? Have they lost interest?
Just get all this appeal moving.
Our justice system moves so slowly but thats our system and so be it but what a waste of so many peoples time!!
So inefficient.
Wing Ding
Trial Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2015
- Messages
- 770
- Reaction score
- 298
By requesting more time to file their appeal, it sounds to me like the defense team just doesn't have anything credible to go with and they're still trying to create something -- somewhere, somehow. If the defense team already had what they need, wouldn't they have filed their appeal already? But then again, what do I know?
geevee
Well-Known Stickie
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 17,616
- Reaction score
- 16,549
They filed for an extension after the deadline?! How arrogant are these folks? I'm so sorry you worked the phones so hard getting info and the promise of the filing only to be disappointed, Hope. 
I so enjoy reading your posts, they're so riveting and informative. Please never stop.
I so enjoy reading your posts, they're so riveting and informative. Please never stop. Karen Clark’s campaign against JM, the “Bad Boy 4 Book” (early 2017) Bar Complaint against JM. (notice the reoccurring themes of all her Complaints & of her civil case against Nurmi)
BACKGROUND
The Complaint alleged that (some specific) contents of the book are prejudicial to (might jeopardize) the ’s appeals and to a retrial, if granted; that JM disclosed in his book both testimony and exhibits sealed by the Court (JSS); and that his writing a book about ’s trial constituted professional misconduct.
A Bar Hearing panel reviewed the complaint and thought it had merit enough to warrant sending it on to the Attorney Discipline Probable Cause Committee of the AZ Supreme Court (ADPCC) (comprised of six attorneys and 3 members of the public; all are appointed by the Chief Justice of the AZ Supreme Court).
On April 3, 2017 the ADPCC dismissed all charges in this Complaint.
THE ADPCC’S FINDINGS
The Committee’s letter of dismissal says they reviewed the (5) charges on a single day, March 10, 2017, and found “insufficient evidence” to establish probable cause that JM had violated any of the three professional conduct rules related to the charges.
The vote was 7-1- 1 (one committee member didn’t participate.)
THE RULES RELATING TO DISMISSED CHARGES
1. Rule 42, ER 3.6 (a) ((ER 3.6 TRIAL PUBLICITY))
(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
2.. Rule 42, ER 3.4 -c- ((ER 3.4 FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL))
A lawyer shall not: (c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.
(Must relate to alleged use of sealed exhibits/testimony, and a very good guess is the exhibits/testimony Clark keeps referring to are pedo related, including those 3 by 5 cards the used to practice her forgery).
3. Rule 42, ER 8.4 (d). ((ER 8.4 MISCONDUCT))
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (d ) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
-----------------------------------
The ADPCC Chair included these comments in his letter of dismissal:
The Complainant (Karen Clark) claimed that (JM) “wrote a book, with his client’s consent, which made reference to the existence and content of certain exhibits previously sealed by Court order.”
(We are dismissing) because JM obtained permission from his employer (“client’ to write a book relating to his work on the ’s case. And, “while his book made general reference to the existence of sealed testimony and exhibits, the references did not contain specific content and was, in some circumstances, publicly available despite the Court’s sealings. “
(JM) “should be aware, however, that his decision and timing to publish the book is extremely concerning, as it contained a number of extrajudicial comments (that weren’t necessary to explain either his role or the legal processes of criminal trial). “
“(….. WHILE THERE IS CURRENTLY NO HARM TO THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, rule 3.6a and 8.4d ARE VIOLATED WHEN EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS ARE PUBLICALLLY DESSIMINATED AND THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF MATERIALLY PREJUDICING FURTHER ADJUDICATIVE PROCEEDINGS.
Also: ….”it is s very concerning when a prosecutor immediately attempts to profit from a high-profile case (as that) significantly risks undermining the public’s expectations of (State) prosecutors.”
BAR APPEAL
In December 2017, the State Bar appealed the Probable Cause Committee’s dismissal of the Complaint.
ENLEY is the attorney representing the State Bar, the same attorney Karen Clark is now accusing of abuse of discretion for his recent dismissal of the bogus “Juror 17 & sex sex sex charges” Bar Complaint she
brought against JM.
SUPREME COURT DOCKET /STATUS OF BAR’S APPEAL OF THE DISMISSAL
Here’s the mercifully skimpy Supreme Court docket for the State Bar’s appeal of the Bad Boy 4 Book dismissal: (spoiler: due dates are postponed & the clock frozen for now):
December 15, 2017. State Bar files appeal.
December 21, 2017, Court sets briefing schedule; opening brief by Bar due January 22, 2018; response brief by JM’s attorneys due no later than 30 days later after State Bar’s brief is filed.
January 16, 2017. The Bar’s counsel files Motion to Remand Hearing Panel’s decision for a Supplemental Decision Containing Formal Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Expedited Ruling is requested).
January 18, 2018. The Court grants Henley’s request, noting that JM’s counsel was consulted and had no objections to the Motion or it being expedited; and that AZC rules require that after an attorney disciplinary hearing the hearing panel must provide a written report to the disciplinary clerk that includes findings of fact and conclusions as to law for each count and each charge alleged in the complaint (as well as a record of the disciplinary proceedings).
The hearing panel did not provide the facts & conclusion, so Motion granted, as is the request to expedite.
The matter is remanded to the Bar hearing panel and stayed on the ASC docket (clock is frozen, due dates suspended).
BACKGROUND
The Complaint alleged that (some specific) contents of the book are prejudicial to (might jeopardize) the ’s appeals and to a retrial, if granted; that JM disclosed in his book both testimony and exhibits sealed by the Court (JSS); and that his writing a book about ’s trial constituted professional misconduct.
A Bar Hearing panel reviewed the complaint and thought it had merit enough to warrant sending it on to the Attorney Discipline Probable Cause Committee of the AZ Supreme Court (ADPCC) (comprised of six attorneys and 3 members of the public; all are appointed by the Chief Justice of the AZ Supreme Court).
On April 3, 2017 the ADPCC dismissed all charges in this Complaint.
THE ADPCC’S FINDINGS
The Committee’s letter of dismissal says they reviewed the (5) charges on a single day, March 10, 2017, and found “insufficient evidence” to establish probable cause that JM had violated any of the three professional conduct rules related to the charges.
The vote was 7-1- 1 (one committee member didn’t participate.)
THE RULES RELATING TO DISMISSED CHARGES
1. Rule 42, ER 3.6 (a) ((ER 3.6 TRIAL PUBLICITY))
(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.
2.. Rule 42, ER 3.4 -c- ((ER 3.4 FAIRNESS TO OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL))
A lawyer shall not: (c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.
(Must relate to alleged use of sealed exhibits/testimony, and a very good guess is the exhibits/testimony Clark keeps referring to are pedo related, including those 3 by 5 cards the used to practice her forgery).
3. Rule 42, ER 8.4 (d). ((ER 8.4 MISCONDUCT))
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (d ) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
-----------------------------------
The ADPCC Chair included these comments in his letter of dismissal:
The Complainant (Karen Clark) claimed that (JM) “wrote a book, with his client’s consent, which made reference to the existence and content of certain exhibits previously sealed by Court order.”
(We are dismissing) because JM obtained permission from his employer (“client’
to write a book relating to his work on the ’s case. And, “while his book made general reference to the existence of sealed testimony and exhibits, the references did not contain specific content and was, in some circumstances, publicly available despite the Court’s sealings. “(JM) “should be aware, however, that his decision and timing to publish the book is extremely concerning, as it contained a number of extrajudicial comments (that weren’t necessary to explain either his role or the legal processes of criminal trial). “
“(….. WHILE THERE IS CURRENTLY NO HARM TO THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, rule 3.6a and 8.4d ARE VIOLATED WHEN EXTRAJUDICIAL STATEMENTS ARE PUBLICALLLY DESSIMINATED AND THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF MATERIALLY PREJUDICING FURTHER ADJUDICATIVE PROCEEDINGS.
Also: ….”it is s very concerning when a prosecutor immediately attempts to profit from a high-profile case (as that) significantly risks undermining the public’s expectations of (State) prosecutors.”
BAR APPEAL
In December 2017, the State Bar appealed the Probable Cause Committee’s dismissal of the Complaint.
ENLEY is the attorney representing the State Bar, the same attorney Karen Clark is now accusing of abuse of discretion for his recent dismissal of the bogus “Juror 17 & sex sex sex charges” Bar Complaint she
brought against JM.
SUPREME COURT DOCKET /STATUS OF BAR’S APPEAL OF THE DISMISSAL
Here’s the mercifully skimpy Supreme Court docket for the State Bar’s appeal of the Bad Boy 4 Book dismissal: (spoiler: due dates are postponed & the clock frozen for now):
December 15, 2017. State Bar files appeal.
December 21, 2017, Court sets briefing schedule; opening brief by Bar due January 22, 2018; response brief by JM’s attorneys due no later than 30 days later after State Bar’s brief is filed.
January 16, 2017. The Bar’s counsel files Motion to Remand Hearing Panel’s decision for a Supplemental Decision Containing Formal Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Expedited Ruling is requested).
January 18, 2018. The Court grants Henley’s request, noting that JM’s counsel was consulted and had no objections to the Motion or it being expedited; and that AZC rules require that after an attorney disciplinary hearing the hearing panel must provide a written report to the disciplinary clerk that includes findings of fact and conclusions as to law for each count and each charge alleged in the complaint (as well as a record of the disciplinary proceedings).
The hearing panel did not provide the facts & conclusion, so Motion granted, as is the request to expedite.
The matter is remanded to the Bar hearing panel and stayed on the ASC docket (clock is frozen, due dates suspended).
Yes.......
Arguments in a direct appeal to the COA of a criminal conviction are based solely on the trial record (which in this case, includes transcripts of witness testimony, evidentiary hearings, sealed chamber powwows, sidebars, etc; exhibits introduced at trial; transcripts/records of Special Actions involving the COA and the AZ Supreme Court.....like that).
The only arguments 's attorneys are allowed to make are about the law, as in: that JSS abused her discretion by: granting (fill in the blank) Motion (or by denying XYZ Motion); by allowing XYZ into evidence (or by not allowing XYZ into evidence), etc., etc.;
AND that JSS's erroneous interpretation of law (attys must cite laws & rulings & precedents to support their arguments) deprived the of due process & a fair trial (additional on-point citations required).
-----
AND, her attorneys' arguments must be solely based on the trial record in a second way: the "mistakes" they allege JSS made at trial had to have been raised by the defense team DURING trial (by objections & Motions).
So.....that means the 's attorneys aren't asking for extra time to jin up new arguments or grounds for appeal.
The reason they've given for requesting extra time is that they have "computer problems," are short on staff, and that one of the attorneys has a "chronic health problem."
To play devil's advocate, the trial record IS absolutely & atypically enormous and complex (loooooooong trial, equally loooooong retrial, so many Motions & sidebars & allegations of misconduct & squabbles, and multiple appeals to higher courts before and during trial), and, given the extended snafu involving correcting & redoing the trial transcripts, it can be argued that her attorneys didn't have a full and accurate trial record until last fall.
Two last things before I go into hibernation (until other developments in civil case/bar complaints).
First, an update on the civil case against Nurmi. Adams (Clark's husband & 's attorney for the case) responded to Nurmi's request that the judge dismiss the case because the charges are too bogus to go forward.
I've read Adam's response to Nurmi's pfffft. Have to say the legal arguments (on both sides) are boring beyond all measure, and that I have zero inclination to delve into the merits of any of them.
A succinct recapitulation: Adams says, yes we have legal grounds, and the one we're sticking with is that Nurmi did a really really bad thing by spilling the beans on his client, and that the spilling means he breached his fidicuary duty (put his own interests above his client's), and for that misdeed he must pay. Literally. In cash. All proceeds from the book & media appearances.
Most of the rest of the back & forth is about whether or not the was harmed in a way the law cares about or can remedy, and whether or not as a convicted butcherer she is allowed to profit -in any meaning of that word - from her crime.
A judge will decide whether or not to toss the case in a trashbin upfront, or to allow it to go forward. If it goes forward, the case will almost certainly go to arbitration.
First, an update on the civil case against Nurmi. Adams (Clark's husband & 's attorney for the case) responded to Nurmi's request that the judge dismiss the case because the charges are too bogus to go forward.
I've read Adam's response to Nurmi's pfffft. Have to say the legal arguments (on both sides) are boring beyond all measure, and that I have zero inclination to delve into the merits of any of them.
A succinct recapitulation: Adams says, yes we have legal grounds, and the one we're sticking with is that Nurmi did a really really bad thing by spilling the beans on his client, and that the spilling means he breached his fidicuary duty (put his own interests above his client's), and for that misdeed he must pay. Literally. In cash. All proceeds from the book & media appearances.
Most of the rest of the back & forth is about whether or not the was harmed in a way the law cares about or can remedy, and whether or not as a convicted butcherer she is allowed to profit -in any meaning of that word - from her crime.
A judge will decide whether or not to toss the case in a trashbin upfront, or to allow it to go forward. If it goes forward, the case will almost certainly go to arbitration.
Second & last, about Willmott.
It's interesting, IMO, that after giving a single post-sentencing (nauseating) interview, Willmott seemingly distanced herself altogether from and the trials. Her attorney practice website doesn't even mention the trial or her role in it, for example, which is really pretty unusual.
I've wondered why she has been reticent & so thoroughly poofed from sight. But...here she is. Willmott IS talking about the trial. She seems to be talking about it to only two people, though, and both are attorneys for the .
To Adams, for the civil suit against her ex-co-counsel Nurmi, she has provided a statement saying Nurmi approached her about writing a book BEFORE trial began, and that she was extremely troubled by how Nurmi treated the before & during trial, treatment she thought both rude and hostile.
To Karen Clark, for the Bar complaint relating to juror #17 and JM's "affairs," Willmott had even more to offer. Willmott obliged Clark's request to read through Tammy the Chopper gal's text exchanges with JW the blogger (there are supposedly thousands of texts), looking for specific instances of JW telling Chopper gal about confidential or sealed info, which, Clark alleges could only have been given to JW by JM.
That "investigation" had to have taken Willmott quite a bit of time and effort. But....Willmott had even more to offer Clark.
According to Clark, Willmott supplied her with a statement, to be used as "evidence". In the statement Willmott asserts that JM's alleged affair with JW & his alleged playing manipulative tootsies with another trial watcher had a DIRECT affect on the outcome of "the trial."
Because, says Willmott, had JM just been honest and told JSS he was violating professional ethics and standards by having affairs with trial watchers during "the trial," SHE would have introduced a bazillion Motions- including one to have JM kicked out- that might have or would have changed the outcome of "the trial."
How fuzzy Clark's refrain about and references to "the trial" are, which is one thing, but those by Willmott are quite another.
No misconduct by JM occurred during the first trial that resulted in the 's conviction. Period. None, no matter how desperately Clark wants to muddy up the timeline with her scuzzy allegations.
Even if one believes JM dallied about with JW and whoever else, his accusers- Tammy the Chopper Gal & JW's bitter ex-partner & JW's excretable ex-husband, all say that the alleged dalliances began AFTER the first trial.
The second trial, PP2, ended with a hung jury, of course. How, exactly, could that trial have ended differently in a way that benefitted the , had JM confessed his alleged sins to JSS?
Right. Bumpkins difference.
Clark & Adams have their own reasons for going full tilt after JM and Nurmi, heck with whether or not they can support their increasingly wild allegations.
What the heck, though, is Willmott thinking?!
It's interesting, IMO, that after giving a single post-sentencing (nauseating) interview, Willmott seemingly distanced herself altogether from and the trials. Her attorney practice website doesn't even mention the trial or her role in it, for example, which is really pretty unusual.
I've wondered why she has been reticent & so thoroughly poofed from sight. But...here she is. Willmott IS talking about the trial. She seems to be talking about it to only two people, though, and both are attorneys for the .
To Adams, for the civil suit against her ex-co-counsel Nurmi, she has provided a statement saying Nurmi approached her about writing a book BEFORE trial began, and that she was extremely troubled by how Nurmi treated the before & during trial, treatment she thought both rude and hostile.
To Karen Clark, for the Bar complaint relating to juror #17 and JM's "affairs," Willmott had even more to offer. Willmott obliged Clark's request to read through Tammy the Chopper gal's text exchanges with JW the blogger (there are supposedly thousands of texts), looking for specific instances of JW telling Chopper gal about confidential or sealed info, which, Clark alleges could only have been given to JW by JM.
That "investigation" had to have taken Willmott quite a bit of time and effort. But....Willmott had even more to offer Clark.
According to Clark, Willmott supplied her with a statement, to be used as "evidence". In the statement Willmott asserts that JM's alleged affair with JW & his alleged playing manipulative tootsies with another trial watcher had a DIRECT affect on the outcome of "the trial."
Because, says Willmott, had JM just been honest and told JSS he was violating professional ethics and standards by having affairs with trial watchers during "the trial," SHE would have introduced a bazillion Motions- including one to have JM kicked out- that might have or would have changed the outcome of "the trial."
How fuzzy Clark's refrain about and references to "the trial" are, which is one thing, but those by Willmott are quite another.
No misconduct by JM occurred during the first trial that resulted in the 's conviction. Period. None, no matter how desperately Clark wants to muddy up the timeline with her scuzzy allegations.
Even if one believes JM dallied about with JW and whoever else, his accusers- Tammy the Chopper Gal & JW's bitter ex-partner & JW's excretable ex-husband, all say that the alleged dalliances began AFTER the first trial.
The second trial, PP2, ended with a hung jury, of course. How, exactly, could that trial have ended differently in a way that benefitted the , had JM confessed his alleged sins to JSS?
Right. Bumpkins difference.
Clark & Adams have their own reasons for going full tilt after JM and Nurmi, heck with whether or not they can support their increasingly wild allegations.
What the heck, though, is Willmott thinking?!
geevee
Well-Known Stickie
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 17,616
- Reaction score
- 16,549
Holy fricken cow, I imagined Willmott was bitter towards JM but aligning herself with the holier than thou dynamic duo of distortion? The defense team hit lows rarely seen in trials (and JW was batting just as often as Nurmi) but this is snake belly depth. I wonder if part of the scheme is to break JM with legal fees since Clark hasn't gotten far with her charges.
I'm just aghast about Willmott though, in league to help further destroy her former co-counsel, that just makes me queasy.
I'm just aghast about Willmott though, in league to help further destroy her former co-counsel, that just makes me queasy.
geevee
Well-Known Stickie
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 17,616
- Reaction score
- 16,549
Oh, and P.S. In her mind JM was the only prosecutor that could have gotten a conviction? Had he been tossed off the Queen of Mean would have been set free? And Willmott would want that murdering slasher walking the streets, free to turn her knife or gun on anyone she pleases? Is she off her kettle?
- Status