Post Verdict -Working Out The Unresolved Questions

[janx]

1. Is it rumor or fact that not only Nurmi this time, but both Nurmi and Wilmott have requested to withdraw from this case?

2. Could the phone recording request have something to do with that?

 

[Tuba]

Yea! The subpoena is of great interest. Arias is ordered to appear at 8:30 a.m. on August 30 with the entire archive of her phone call recordings from Jan. 1, 2013 to Aug. 1, 2013 and remain before the judge until excused.

Booking #P458434

 

[Tuba]

Janx, that's what we too want to know. Maybe Jane Velez-Mitchell will have something on this, as she was the first to mention it the other day (Monday).

 

[janx]

It looks as if this request for subpoena is coming from Wilmott's office...no?

Wilmott is listed as the attorney for the party requesting it.

 

[gcharlie]

Jails record them all. In murder cases they are eventually given to both sides before whatever trial date. If they haven't already been given to Juan, they would be before whenever the next phase starts, and he in turn would have to give them to defense. At least that is how it works here. Sometimes the jail gives them to both sides, and bypasses the middle step, which is helpful.

They are usually not good for the defendant. Even CMJA should know that, but obviously she didn't grasp the concept that she is not crafty enough to disguise misdoings.

Thanks for the info. I just did a web search and cannot come up with a clear answer as to how this is handled in AZ. It just intuitively makes sense to me that if the DT does not have these records, then the opposing side would not have them either.

People are speculating about twitter, which is the obvious, given the recent motions. If her tweets are not in her phone recordings, then the other places to look would be in the recordings of jail visits and copies of CMJA's mail.

IDK, my imagination just runs with this one. Remember when Juan kept throwing Matt McCartney's name out there, trying to get CMJA to shake in her boots over the prospect of him testifying? Did CMJA call him during trial and if so, what would that recording reveal. This is where my leads in terms of those recordings.

If this information is not normally available to counsel, it seems like a slippery slope for the DT to take.

 

[geevee]

It looks as if this request for subpoena is coming from Wilmott's office...no?

Wilmott is listed as the attorney for the party requesting it.

Yes, it came from JW's office. I can't imagine her wanting JM to know whatever is in those records, she has no idea, and isn't an atty's first instinct to ask no question they don't already know the answer to?

Unless she wants to use it as grounds to get off the case this just seems so dangerous for the defense. But they know many more things than I do, and I think JW is a smartie, so I guess we'll see.

 

[Tuba]

But geevee brought to our att'n an estrangement between Arias and Willmott~very, very prophetic, geevee! I think the teamsters would NOT have missed the opportunity to once more ask off the case. What do you think?

 

[geevee]

But geevee brought to our att'n an estrangement between Arias and Willmott~very, very prophetic, geevee! I think the teamsters would NOT have missed the opportunity to once more ask off the case. What do you think?

JW hasn't been the author of many motions, from what I've noticed; I think she aims her's like a laser, if there hadn't been so many motions filed over this long span I'd tally them up and see by how much Nurmi's outweigh her's.

But yes, I think severance may be occurring right in front of our eyes, and I wouldn't have even looked for it had you not mentioned it earlier. Too hard to tell with her and Nurmi, they seem to ignore each other as normal course, but her and JW seems splitsville.

 

[Tuba]

I do think the teamsters were raving furious about many of the tweets but at least those were available to monitor after the fact. What they don't know is the substance, if you can call it that, of C.M.'s phone calls and some of it could not only prove destructive to her own defense but could damage Willmott and Nurmi personally & professionally. Or betray the defense they are presenting. I'm really glad for this EXPOSE/, at last!

 

[gcharlie]

JW hasn't been the author of many motions, from what I've noticed; I think she aims her's like a laser, if there hadn't been so many motions filed over this long span I'd tally them up and see by how much Nurmi's outweigh her's.

But yes, I think severance may be occurring right in front of our eyes, and I wouldn't have even looked for it had you not mentioned it earlier. Too hard to tell with her and Nurmi, they seem to ignore each other as normal course, but her and JW seems splitsville.

I'm going to ask AZLawyer on the legal forum for thoughts on this. Perhaps the DT is trying to get evidence that their client will not follow their advice, and therefore they cannot provide effective counsel?

 

[MeeBee]

JW hasn't been the author of many motions, from what I've noticed; I think she aims her's like a laser, if there hadn't been so many motions filed over this long span I'd tally them up and see by how much Nurmi's outweigh her's.

But yes, I think severance may be occurring right in front of our eyes, and I wouldn't have even looked for it had you not mentioned it earlier. Too hard to tell with her and Nurmi, they seem to ignore each other as normal course, but her and JW seems splitsville.

Why do you feel this subpoena means Jennifer is getting out? Thanks geevee.

 

[LambChop]

Maybe they need to check on who she has been calling because I have a feeling the State may already know and not because they have the records. Maybe they have records from the person receiving the calls from JA? I can't think of any positives for JA especially if there is a hearing about those records on the 30th, which is unusual because they normally don't have court on Friday. jmo

 

[MeeBee]

Maybe they need to check on who she has been calling because I have a feeling the State may already know and not because they have the records. Maybe they have records from the person receiving the calls from JA? I can't think of any positives for JA especially if there is a hearing about those records on the 30th, which is unusual because they normally don't have court on Friday. jmo

The wording does sound serious, Jodi will appear in front of the judge regarding those calls until the judge lets her go. Sounds not so good for her.

 

[Tuba]

I'm going to ask AZLawyer on the legal forum for thoughts on this. Perhaps the DT is trying to get evidence that their client will not follow their advice, and therefore they cannot provide effective counsel?

We do know she has betrayed their counsel. Perhaps sly C.M. has been just clever enough to deceive the judge about this; the phone records could be SO useful in proving Willmott's and Nurmi's claim.

 

[geevee]

Why do you feel this subpoena means Jennifer is getting out? Thanks geevee.

For what gcharlie said above, JW knows they have to have solid proof JA is hurting their efforts to provide her with effective counsel and if she has been subverting that effort JSS (or the new judge, if they get the change of venue [unlikely]) may allow them finally to shed this albatross from their necks.

 

[janx]

Maybe they need to check on who she has been calling because I have a feeling the State may already know and not because they have the records. Maybe they have records from the person receiving the calls from JA? I can't think of any positives for JA especially if there is a hearing about those records on the 30th, which is unusual because they normally don't have court on Friday. jmo

True! I hadn't thought of that. They don't usually have court on Fridays.

 

[MeeBee]

Ahhhh...I see now. That makes complete sense. I wonder.

But I guess the question would be: would a change of counsel make any difference? Jodi would just continue to go against their advice, no matter who's representing her. So is this basically, I can't defend her, so make her someone else's problem?

 

[gcharlie]

Geevee, excellent catch yesterday noticing the subpoena line on the docket. Nobody else paid attention to it for a full day. Now twitter is lighting up like crazy.

You go, girl! Way to rock it!

 

[janx]

Does anyone have a link to the alleged Wilmott/Nurmi motion to withdraw? I'm very curious about this! :floorlaugh:

 

[geevee]

Geevee, excellent catch yesterday noticing the subpoena line on the docket. Nobody else paid attention to it for a full day. Now twitter is lighting up like crazy.

You go, girl! Way to rock it!

LOL! I think I looked at it twice before I noticed it.