I'm puzzled about why anyone thinks she would accept a deal for LWOP, even if it were offered? The best outcome she could get is life with possibility of parole after 25 years and to hope AZ brings back parole - the 2012 statute that eliminated it doesn't apply to her, as I understand it. I would be surprised to see that sentence, especially since Judge Stevens knows the statute now reads only DP and natural life, but it is still on the table and JA is delusional. Remember, this is the woman who thought as late as 2011 that the jury could find for manslaughter, bargained for 2nd degree several times, and sees Travis' murder as a result only of his abuse - she's a victim, remember? This is from Nurmi's 2011 motion re: a deal and her thinking of DP possibility:
She still thinks of herself in that way, thinks the DP is unlikely, if not impossible - she now has her family collecting $ for appeals, and playing up her innocent act to her followers because she thinks the current conviction was wrong. She's arrogant enough to blame that on her defense team and wants to represent herself now, probably with hopes of introducing something she can use on future appeals. She thinks somehow, some way, she's going to be free - but not if she can't appeal. And she can't appeal if she accepts a plea. Nope, she's going to court, and will probably enjoy playing victim/lawyer, believing the jury will not only like her, but sympathize with her 'plight'. Right up to the minute they turn the lock on her prison cell door, and hopefully one that is on death row so her ability to communicate with anyone is severely restricted.