SIDEBAR #56 - Travis Alexander forum

[Caylee Advocate]

Oh please don't go! Come over here for awhile instead. Sometimes we all just need a break.

Oh sweetie, I was not asking for myself. I am sorry I wasn't clearer, but thanks for the invite.. I always read on this thread though.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

1979 - Loverboy plays their first ever concert, opening for Kiss at The Coliseum in Vancouver.


[video=youtu;TnHm4ro_l8s]http://youtu.be/TnHm4ro_l8s[/video]

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

2007- At Caroline Kennedy's 50th birthday party, guest performer Neil Diamond reveals that his 1970 hit "Sweet Caroline" was actually written about her.


[video=youtu;YdW69V34GfY]http://youtu.be/YdW69V34GfY[/video]

 

[Tulessa]

Hi all! :wave:

We watched "The Ed Sullivan Show", so yes - I know "who" they are! Remember seeing the Beatles and Elvis on his show!!



Wow! How scary for you and your family!! YIKES!! So GLAD I don't leave near a BIG city - love it here in the country.



Hmmm.... :thinking: I thought I DID finish my Mamma's story?? :thinking: again... didn't I? :waitasec:

And Good for Little Mamma!! Glad she has a direction to go in. What a cutie!! :hug:

Zuri - :hug: and JINGLES!!!!!

and yes I am so glad we have each other! - Me too!! First place I come in the mornings when I log on!

Yes, getting old is a b*tch, coffeejunkie!!

I'm :laughing: at the cartoon of veryyyyy windy! :lol:

Love the panda!!



I'll have to read this - I've been getting calls ALL week from this one company that says there is a problem with my computer! In fact, just the other day they call at 7am!!!! I do NOT get up at 7am!!! And than the other morning - 3 calls in a row from them. I put them on the "Do Not Call List", but will read the article for any other solutions...

Okay - I'm not going to "refresh" to "see" if there are any more posts... don't want to screw this up! LOL!

:seeya:

Yes Niner, we went from banning below the waste to naked and afraid. Who would have thunk it?

 

[YESorNO]

I received Lawrence's book today from Amazon.

Here's what I picked up from the Forward- by Caroline Aeed (fellow student at law school)

----------------------------------------------------

Met at University of Wyoming College of Law

Lawrence passionate and very serious about studies

Was funny

As a student argued in front of the Wyoming Supreme Court several times

Caroline and Lawrence applied for position at the Maricopa Co Public Defender's office after graduation and studied for the bar (L failed 1st time by "only a few pts., but passed second time)

L took on cases that no one else wanted- child molesters, rapists

L was "balanced, serious, and a methodical organized trial lawyer"

L can "stay in 'lawyer mode' with his clients and not get personally involved"

Caroline left to open up private practice and L was to follow her

Plan L had to go into private practice was put on hold because of the murderer's case
----------------------------------------------------------------

That's all I have read so far tonight, but, if anyone is interested, I'll post what he has to say in the next chapters, Introduction and Section 1- Chapter 1 "Who is Nurmi", tomorrow.

 

[GigiG]

Malaysia's new baby panda makes her adorable debut

"Malaysia just trotted out its newest baby giant panda, and like all other baby pandas, she is incredibly adorable.

The yet-to-be-named female cub was born to father Xing Xing and mother Liang Liang in "record time" after the pair was loaned to the Malaysian zoo in May 2014.
The 3-month-old baby will have to return to China within two years.."

http://mashable.com/2015/11/18/malaysia-baby-panda/#Sie.MBdI6sqw

Cutest. Thing. EVER!

 

[GigiG]

I received Lawrence's book today from Amazon.

Here's what I picked up from the Forward- by Caroline Aeed (fellow student at law school)

----------------------------------------------------

Met at University of Wyoming College of Law

Lawrence passionate and very serious about studies

Was funny

As a student argued in front of the Wyoming Supreme Court several times

Caroline and Lawrence applied for position at the Maricopa Co Public Defender's office after graduation and studied for the bar (L failed 1st time by "only a few pts., but passed second time)

L took on cases that no one else wanted- child molesters, rapists

L was "balanced, serious, and a methodical organized trial lawyer"

L can "stay in 'lawyer mode' with his clients and not get personally involved"

Caroline left to open up private practice and L was to follow her

Plan L had to go into private practice was put on hold because of the murderer's case
----------------------------------------------------------------

That's all I have read so far tonight, but, if anyone is interested, I'll post what he has to say in the next chapters, Introduction and Section 1- Chapter 1 "Who is Nurmi", tomorrow.

Please do! I'd appreciate reading your insights...

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

1964 - Bobby Goldsboro records "Little Things."


[video=youtu;mHI6sJpiDsA]http://youtu.be/mHI6sJpiDsA[/video]

 

[Spellbound]

I am too cheap to buy Nurmi's book, so post away about what is in it. I just don't understand how a lawyer can do this, though. But my nosey side wants to know ..... details!

 

[YESorNO]

Link: https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/...2B9okvtzrGPcP8htsZnLt064lIcxk78hjXA0O53DsIV8n
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge bars Rachel Fryer from writing letters to her children

"The woman who adopted three of Rachel Fryer's children has convinced a judge to stop Fryer from writing jailhouse letters to them.
They are witnesses in her murder case...

Fryer, 34, is charged with murdering her 2-year-old daughter, Tariji Gordon, on Feb. 6, 2014..."

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-rachel-fryer-injunction-20151119-story.html

WS thread: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ariji-Gordon-2-Sanford-10-February-2014/page7
-------------------------------------------------

Jodi Arias prosecutor, defense lawyer write tell-all books

"...A spokesman for the State Bar of Arizona, which disciplines lawyers for violating ethical rules, said organization would not comment because it does not know the details in the book and members do not discuss things that could potentially come before them.

"Taxpayers should care because they're paying him [Martinez] a salary to do a job of being a prosecutor, and part of the job of being a prosecutor here is not doing things that would endanger upholding the conviction of Jodi Arias.".."

http://www.kpho.com/story/30488150/jodi-arias-prosecutor-pens-tell-all-book

Jodi Arias update: Prosecutor Juan Martinez releasing book on convicted killer

"County Attorney Bill Montgomery is finally speaking out on a controversial book written by one of his deputy prosecutors...

Many are wondering if the book is even ethical since Arias is currently appealing her conviction and sentence.

But County Attorney Bill Montgomery said every possible guidance was given.

"Part of the guidance provided was to ensure that no conduct and this goes for any employee could negatively impact the work of this office," assured Montgomery.

As for the time Martinez will take to promote his book, Montgomery said prosecutors all take time off for vacations and what they do with that time is their own decision..."

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-ph...-martinez-releasing-book-on-convicted-killer-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

America’s Deadliest Prosecutors
The last stubborn, bloodthirsty devotees of the death penalty.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...h_penalty_sentences_in_louisiana_florida.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Arkansas Judge Accused Of Trading Sentence Reductions For Sex

Judge Joseph Boeckmann also may have had child on his computer, a state committee alleges.

"rkansas state judicial regulators are trying to unseat a judge who they accuse of trading court favors for sexual favors with defendants.

In a shocking statement of allegations filed Tuesday, the state Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission accused Cross County District Judge Joseph Boeckmann of giving preferential court treatment to "young Caucasian male litigants" that he had sexual relations with, and using their community service hours for work at his own home..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...de4b045bf3df198a9?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000024
-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[YESorNO]

Jeffrey Evan Gold ‏@jeffgoldesq 7h7 hours ago
NIH Ends All Research On Chimps, Sending Last 300 To Sanctuary
http://flip.it/WCJsb

"Washington (AFP) - Chimpanzees will no longer be used for US government research and the remaining 50 chimps in federal custody will be sent to a sanctuary for retirement, health authorities said.

The decision by the National Institutes of Health came two and a half years after the agency announced it would phase out most of its biomedical research using chimpanzees, which are humans' closest living relative and share 98 percent of the same genes.

Since 2013, no new applications for research using chimps have been approved, and last year, captive chimps were listed as endangered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service..."

http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-us-government-ends-research-on-all-chimpanzees-2015-11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Out with the old when downsizing

"The payoff is often a fresh start, lower living expenses, less house-related work, a different lifestyle with more amenities and more freedom to travel...

You’re empowering yourself because you’re enabling yourself to make the decision about things,” said Gary W. Small, director of the UCLA Longevity Center and president of the American Society for Geriatric Psychiatry. “It frees us up when we discard things.”

But don’t discount the pain involved. The difficulty in discarding things can be rooted in mortality and the realization that no one lives forever. At a certain point in life, there is more past than future, and that, in itself, can be daunting.

“We’re all mortal,” Small said. “The issue is balance.”

Older people want to keep in touch with the past, he said. Yet, “you can’t hold onto all things. One of the upsides to downsizing is it allows us to live more in the present.”..."

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/out-with-the-old-when-downsizing/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should We Train Doctors for Empathy?

"...A 2011 survey of 800 recently hospitalized patients found that only 53 percent of them felt that their physicians were empathic and caring. And it’s not just in their heads: In one study where doctor-patient encounters were videotaped, researchers found that doctors often overlooked or dismissed signs of distress communicated by patients, providing empathic responses only 22 percent of the time. Other studies have found similar results.

These shortcomings have long dismayed patients like myself—but recently they seem to be troubling leaders in the medical profession as well. Following a wave of research suggesting the far-reaching benefits of emotionally attuned physicians, these leaders have been exploring ways to infuse more empathy into the medical field. That includes re-evaluating the criteria for who should get admitted to medical school in the first place, and what they should learn while they’re there..."

http://www.dailygood.org/story/1164/should-we-train-doctors-for-empathy-jill-suttie/

Empathy is seeing with the eyes of another, listening with the ears of another and feeling with the heart of another.
- Alfred Adler -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My kind of woman

This Teen Just Got Epically Owned by His Mom's Tough Love Letter

"...Aaron Havisham, a 13-year-old from Australia, learned to treat his mom Estella with kindness and respect the hard way, after she took a tough love approach to punishing his misdeeds...

Aaron lied about doing his homework and was rude to his mom's face — not cool at all. At some point during the argument, he even bragged that he was making his own money now. So Estella left him a note filled with epic tough love, explaining that he was going to act like a terrible roommate instead of a loving son, he could pay her like a roommate.

If Aaron wants to turn on his lights or have Internet access, he'll have to make monthly payments: $430 for rent, $116 for electricity, $21 for Internet, and $150 for food. (That adds up to more than $700 a month.) He'll also have to empty the trash, sweep, and vacuum every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday; clean his bathroom weekly; and prepare his own meals..."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/...wned-by-his-moms-tough-love-letter/ar-AAemTaH

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[YESorNO]

Something to make you smile this AM

After Couple Calls Police Because They’re Lonely, Cops Respond With Sweet Surprise

"...Police Constable Stu Ockwell and a colleague from the Greater Manchester Police in England, responded to a call earlier this week from 95-year-old Doris Thomson. The officers assumed that someone had fallen or gotten hurt, according to the Manchester Evening News, but when they arrived at the woman's house, they discovered that the Doris and her 95-year-old husband Fred Thomson, who's blind, just wanted someone to talk to.

So the officers did something perhaps not typically associated with those in law enforcement -- they brewed some tea for the couple and hung out with them for a bit, ITV News reported..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...786e4b060377347daca?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Link: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/98/b8/6a/98b86a2fdc8a139039a645b0d3face90.jpg

Link: http://photos3.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/4/c/7/4/event_175639572.jpeg

 

[coffeejunkie]

And a good morning to you, my SB friends Nothing much say today. :grouphug:

I will get Nurmi's book delivered on Monday. Personally, I'm just nosey and want too read what he has to say about 'IT'!

 

[Niner]

Hello all! :wave:

I, too, have not much to say this morning!

But YES!! :tyou: in advance YESorNO for posting snippets from Nurmi's book! :cheer: But you know, that some have already been posted on the other thread, right? :thinking: just sayin'!!!

Okay - off to do my errands for the day!

:seeya:

 

[YESorNO]

Trapped With Ms. Arias

I'm most interested in Lawrence"s motivation to write his book because I'm always interested in motivations that people have in what they do, in general- both good and bad parts) I'm also interested in why Mr. Barwood would change his mind on the "innocence" of the murderer as he was a staunch supporter of her (and that alone makes me glad that L wrote the book- gives me great satisfaction that a supporter has changed their mind).

I'm reading the book as I would read one of my college text books and pulling out parts I think are relevant to find the answers to my questions (they might not be what others are looking for tho') at least in the beginning- I don't know all that he will write about later on in the book, so I may change tactics down the road. He may just write about things that we all know about and there might not be any "bombshell tonight" thingys)

and there might be a test at the end- so good notes :facepalm:

(so I'm a college student again-I'm excited for this type of "research" - :floorlaugh

ETA: I know others are posting about L's book, but I haven't read them. I'm pulling out the things that I think are important to why he wrote his book and anything that I/we might not know about the case.

I don't want to rehash things, over and over- makes me crazy :scared: , but I will post whatever he writes about and will not leave anything out.

I'm not going to post whole chunks of his book.

I'm not reading his book to ridicule Lawrence ( that's not why I'm posting about his book either) or for other's to ridicule his life or what he wrote, but trying to interpret what happened at the trial in Lawrence's mind is one of the things I'm interested in (and his take on the murderer).
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

L had a daily calendar with teachings and philosophy's of Deepak Chopra

Kept one page of the calendar with this thought:

"The best thing that could happen to you is happening right now"

Kept it because "things happen for a reason and somewhere down the road you will discover the meaning"

"writing this book served as an exercise that I hope will get me to the answer of why"- ( why being the murderer's attorney) was "the best thing for me"

writing book is not about making money- it's "more about satisfying my own curiosities, it is also about aiding others"

will hope some readers " might learn something from the truth of what occurred between Ms Arias and Mr Alexander....there are lessons to be learned.. about the unhealthy relationship.. in hopes that they will get out of the relationship before they harm themselves or others.. I think I will anger many readers"

He calls the murderer's supporters "misguided"

doesn't understand why there are "sides" in the case- it's a tragedy that could have been prevented and will discuss how he thinks it could have been prevented
another reason for writing book "besides using it as a therapeutic tool, is redemption"

- took a lot of flak from supporters of both Travis ( "asserting" the murderer's defense) and the murderer's supporters ("not doing enough to show how she was truly innocent [their words not mine]")

- took flak from the media- saying he was a "poor lawyer"

knew exactly what he was doing in trial/case

will discuss: his background, what life and career was before the murderer became his client, how he was assigned to case- up to opening statements on 1/2/2013.

He stated:

"Describing these things may not redeem me in the eyes of some, but that"s okay with me, my true redemption comes from being judged on the truth of who I am and the course I took."

L talks about the "truth"

- according to L- this book will not be his "version of the truth"

- "when I speak of the truth it will be in objective verifiable realities"

- states that "facts are stubborn things"

- "when you put what you mean to believe up against what is actually true, what you want to believe may not be true"

his reasoning for title of book and picture of the handcuffs on cover: he felt trapped into representing the murderer when he couldn't get away from her ("trapped on the case" and "trapped with her")

calling her Ms Arias in the title: "trying to be professional" and "she screamed at me for calling her by her formal name", screaming "she would ruin my career if I didn't follow her commands"

he never called Travis, Mr Alexander "as an expression of disdain, but instead out of respect"

the handcuffs: are "golden" in color because "golden handcuffs" mean- "relates to a situation you do not wish to be in but the money is good"

didn't think the money was worth it

"representing Ms Arias...heck it may even prevent me from ever having a real practice"

=============================================================

My thoughts:

So what is the meaning of the word:

redemption-
noun

1. an act of redeeming or atoning for a fault or mistake, or the state of being redeemed.
2. deliverance; rescue.
4. atonement for guilt.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redemption

A search for redemption is, IMO, to find some resolution of the pain that you have caused others.

Redemption? ( but I think the truth of what one says lies in what one does....guess I will see).

And, to me, being sorry is a sacrament- it's an offering and a gift to others for the wrongs that have been done to them, but I don't think L is sorry.

Looks like L's redemption is #2 (of being "rescued")

He hopes he could redeem himself by making a difference with this book. Lawrence doesn't mean he wants redemption for any pain he has caused, but instead he means that he will be redeemed by what other's have thought wrong about him (because in his eyes, he has done no wrong).
=============================================================

Chapter 1

Who is Nurmi?

born in the South

father was in the Navy

moved to Seattle when he was young- all lived with grandparents

parents went to work and school, so grandparents really raised him and "became my parents in a sense"

L's grandfather came to America from Finland, served in WW 11, married a single- mother "when single motherhood was supposedly something to be ashamed of"

spent time fishing, washing car, watching sports with grandfather

spent time "hanging out in the basements of my friend's house and driving huge station wagons" in the '70s

"fondest memories" of his grandmother was watching "Gilligan's Island reruns while she ironed shirts"

loved playing soccer, watching sports, loved dogs and all animals

rescued a bunny from the school science lab snake and brought the bunny home- grandfather made a cage for it at home

loved school- favorite subject math

became a lawyer, in part, because he read a book about lawyers in grade school and because of an incident where a security guard falsely accused L and his friends of stealing candy (they had a receipt) "without any evidence to support their claim"

in high school worked in grocery store bagging groceries

graduated HS year early at 17- planned to become police officer

enrolled in community college- criminal justice courses- kept job at grocery store- sporadically attended the college

became union member grocery store manager - returned to college full-time while working all-night shift as store manager

graduated with BA in Criminal Justice- applied to several Law schools- didn't get in to any- devastated

had kept job as grocery store manager- realized that job was "like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole" and not for him

quit job and enrolled in Grad school to "boost my academic resume....have a better chance of getting into law school"

seeking Ma in History at Central Washington University in Ellensburg- decided not for him and decided on another BA (this time in Psychology)

met his wife in college- married to her since 1993

eventually received his Master's degree of Art in Criminal Justice from Wa State Univ ("go Cougs" he says- LOL)

after Master's had job as a counselor at a residential group home for delinquent youth (house got shut down- not up to code)

returned to retail job

applied to Law school again- accepted at Gonzaga School of Law and Univ of Wyoming- chose Wyoming because wife would be able to complete her degree in education

while attending, worked as the "student director" of the Defender Aid Clinic (students wrote appeals for those convicted of crimes in Wyoming)

graduated- job as law clerk at Maricopa Co Public Defender's office- received license

writes about his first trials

joined Maricopa Co Office of the Public Defender's Capital Unit as DP attorney

in July, 2009, he was 40, married for 15 years, played tennis, struggled with his weight, had 4 lb chihuahua (LOL), grandfather died, grandmother had Parkinson's disease and was dying

"So,having said all of this, whether you like it or not, I have gained a little of the redemption I spoke of in the introduction. Because after reading this chapter whether you love me or hate me at least you are basing your feelings on who I am not who you think I might be simply because in August of 2009, I was assigned by the Public Defender's Office to work as lead counsel to CR 2008-031021-001."
-------------------------------------------

My thoughts:

Sounds as if he had a good childhood, IMO, even tho' his parents were very busy- he had his beloved grandparents.

I don't see how his background has "redeemed" him in any way. I always thought he was a "real" lawyer and doesn't have anything to do with how he conducted himself at the trial for the murderer, but I can understand this as, I guess he is very defensive because many people/media ridiculed him as a defense lawyer for the murderer. We shall see......
------------------------------------------

Next chapters:

Chaper 2: The Ultimate Job of a Capital Defense Attorney
Chapter 3: The Defense Team
Chapter 4: Here is to Wishing That I Never Got the File

End of Section 1 (to page 32)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

1947 - A royal wedding this day, as Princess Elizabeth (who would be Queen in four years) and Lt. Philip Mountbatten were married.

Did you know Princess Anna, (Queen's only daughter) was married this week on the 14tf IIRC, and it was also Princess Charles's birthday.

[video=youtu;UHRK4knt7z8]http://youtu.be/UHRK4knt7z8[/video]

 

[GigiG]

Trapped With Ms. Arias

I'm most interested in Lawrence"s motivation to write his book because I'm always interested in motivations that people have in what they do, in general- both good and bad parts) I'm also interested in why Mr. Barwood would change his mind on the "innocence" of the murderer as he was a staunch supporter of her (and that alone makes me glad that L wrote the book- gives me great satisfaction that a supporter has changed their mind).

I'm reading the book as I would read one of my college text books and pulling out parts I think are relevant to find the answers to my questions (they might not be what others are looking for tho') at least in the beginning- I don't know all that he will write about later on in the book, so I may change tactics down the road. He may just write about things that we all know about and there might not be any "bombshell tonight" thingys)

and there might be a test at the end- so good notes :facepalm:

(so I'm a college student again-I'm excited for this type of "research" - :floorlaugh

ETA: I know others are posting about L's book, but I haven't read them. I'm pulling out the things that I think are important to why he wrote his book and anything that I/we might not know about the case.

I don't want to rehash things, over and over- makes me crazy :scared: , but I will post whatever he writes about and will not leave anything out.

I'm not going to post whole chunks of his book.

I'm not reading his book to ridicule Lawrence ( that's not why I'm posting about his book either) or for other's to ridicule his life or what he wrote, but trying to interpret what happened at the trial in Lawrence's mind is one of the things I'm interested in (and his take on the murderer).
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

L had a daily calendar with teachings and philosophy's of Deepak Chopra

Kept one page of the calendar with this thought:

"The best thing that could happen to you is happening right now"

Kept it because "things happen for a reason and somewhere down the road you will discover the meaning"

"writing this book served as an exercise that I hope will get me to the answer of why"- ( why being the murderer's attorney) was "the best thing for me"

writing book is not about making money- it's "more about satisfying my own curiosities, it is also about aiding others"

will hope some readers " might learn something from the truth of what occurred between Ms Arias and Mr Alexander....there are lessons to be learned.. about the unhealthy relationship.. in hopes that they will get out of the relationship before they harm themselves or others.. I think I will anger many readers"

He calls the murderer's supporters "misguided"

doesn't understand why there are "sides" in the case- it's a tragedy that could have been prevented and will discuss how he thinks it could have been prevented
another reason for writing book "besides using it as a therapeutic tool, is redemption"

- took a lot of flak from supporters of both Travis ( "asserting" the murderer's defense) and the murderer's supporters ("not doing enough to show how she was truly innocent [their words not mine]")

- took flak from the media- saying he was a "poor lawyer"

knew exactly what he was doing in trial/case

will discuss: his background, what life and career was before the murderer became his client, how he was assigned to case- up to opening statements on 1/2/2013.

He stated:

"Describing these things may not redeem me in the eyes of some, but that"s okay with me, my true redemption comes from being judged on the truth of who I am and the course I took."

L talks about the "truth"

- according to L- this book will not be his "version of the truth"

- "when I speak of the truth it will be in objective verifiable realities"

- states that "facts are stubborn things"

- "when you put what you mean to believe up against what is actually true, what you want to believe may not be true"

his reasoning for title of book and picture of the handcuffs on cover: he felt trapped into representing the murderer when he couldn't get away from her ("trapped on the case" and "trapped with her")

calling her Ms Arias in the title: "trying to be professional" and "she screamed at me for calling her by her formal name", screaming "she would ruin my career if I didn't follow her commands"

he never called Travis, Mr Alexander "as an expression of disdain, but instead out of respect"

the handcuffs: are "golden" in color because "golden handcuffs" mean- "relates to a situation you do not wish to be in but the money is good"

didn't think the money was worth it

"representing Ms Arias...heck it may even prevent me from ever having a real practice"

=============================================================

My thoughts:

So what is the meaning of the word:

redemption-
noun

1. an act of redeeming or atoning for a fault or mistake, or the state of being redeemed.
2. deliverance; rescue.
4. atonement for guilt.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redemption

A search for redemption is, IMO, to find some resolution of the pain that you have caused others.

Redemption? ( but I think the truth of what one says lies in what one does....guess I will see).

And, to me, being sorry is a sacrament- it's an offering and a gift to others for the wrongs that have been done to them, but I don't think L is sorry.

Looks like L's redemption is #2 (of being "rescued")

He hopes he could redeem himself by making a difference with this book. Lawrence doesn't mean he wants redemption for any pain he has caused, but instead he means that he will be redeemed by what other's have thought wrong about him (because in his eyes, he has done no wrong).
=============================================================

Chapter 1

Who is Nurmi?

born in the South

father was in the Navy

moved to Seattle when he was young- all lived with grandparents

parents went to work and school, so grandparents really raised him and "became my parents in a sense"

L's grandfather came to America from Finland, served in WW 11, married a single- mother "when single motherhood was supposedly something to be ashamed of"

spent time fishing, washing car, watching sports with grandfather

spent time "hanging out in the basements of my friend's house and driving huge station wagons" in the '70s

"fondest memories" of his grandmother was watching "Gilligan's Island reruns while she ironed shirts"

loved playing soccer, watching sports, loved dogs and all animals

rescued a bunny from the school science lab snake and brought the bunny home- grandfather made a cage for it at home

loved school- favorite subject math

became a lawyer, in part, because he read a book about lawyers in grade school and because of an incident where a security guard falsely accused L and his friends of stealing candy (they had a receipt) "without any evidence to support their claim"

in high school worked in grocery store bagging groceries

graduated HS year early at 17- planned to become police officer

enrolled in community college- criminal justice courses- kept job at grocery store- sporadically attended the college

became union member grocery store manager - returned to college full-time while working all-night shift as store manager

graduated with BA in Criminal Justice- applied to several Law schools- didn't get in to any- devastated

had kept job as grocery store manager- realized that job was "like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole" and not for him

quit job and enrolled in Grad school to "boost my academic resume....have a better chance of getting into law school"

seeking Ma in History at Central Washington University in Ellensburg- decided not for him and decided on another BA (this time in Psychology)

met his wife in college- married to her since 1993

eventually received his Master's degree of Art in Criminal Justice from Wa State Univ ("go Cougs" he says- LOL)

after Master's had job as a counselor at a residential group home for delinquent youth (house got shut down- not up to code)

returned to retail job

applied to Law school again- accepted at Gonzaga School of Law and Univ of Wyoming- chose Wyoming because wife would be able to complete her degree in education

while attending, worked as the "student director" of the Defender Aid Clinic (students wrote appeals for those convicted of crimes in Wyoming)

graduated- job as law clerk at Maricopa Co Public Defender's office- received license

writes about his first trials

joined Maricopa Co Office of the Public Defender's Capital Unit as DP attorney

in July, 2009, he was 40, married for 15 years, played tennis, struggled with his weight, had 4 lb chihuahua (LOL), grandfather died, grandmother had Parkinson's disease and was dying

"So,having said all of this, whether you like it or not, I have gained a little of the redemption I spoke of in the introduction. Because after reading this chapter whether you love me or hate me at least you are basing your feelings on who I am not who you think I might be simply because in August of 2009, I was assigned by the Public Defender's Office to work as lead counsel to CR 2008-031021-001."
-------------------------------------------

My thoughts:

Sounds as if he had a good childhood, IMO, even tho' his parents were very busy- he had his beloved grandparents.

I don't see how his background has "redeemed" him in any way. I always thought he was a "real" lawyer and doesn't have anything to do with how he conducted himself at the trial for the murderer, but I can understand this as, I guess he is very defensive because many people/media ridiculed him as a defense lawyer for the murderer. We shall see......
------------------------------------------

Next chapters:

Chaper 2: The Ultimate Job of a Capital Defense Attorney
Chapter 3: The Defense Team
Chapter 4: Here is to Wishing That I Never Got the File

End of Section 1 (to page 32)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two thoughts:

1) During the first trial, I think the fat-shaming and nose-picking things that went viral really got to Nurmi. It had to have hurt him on a personal level. Most people who live life in the public eye do so by choice and develop thick skins, but he had no experience or history of being a public figure, so those ad hominem attacks must have seemed like they came out of left field. I think he was blind-sided by them.

It seems evident that the insults hurled at him really stung. (To wit: the significant weight loss between the two trials). Thus, the "redemption" aspect to his motivations for writing the book. Suddenly, he was a major player in a media sensation, but not in a good way. How he looked, and everything he did (even small mannerisms) were fodder for an audience outraged by the horrific aspects of the crime, as they were witnessing a public trial where the defense tactics strained credulity.

He really wants people to understand that he's not the bad guy here. He was just doing his job with a very difficult and unlikable client. Even though I found his defense of JA (and the demonization of TA) repugnant, I recognize that it couldn't have been easy. And yes, I don't think he liked her at all and that he sincerely wanted out.

2) The other thing that intrigues me about his book is that it is almost unprecedented for a defense attorney to write a book slamming his/her client. I have searched and can't find much. It seems rather groundbreaking...

This is pretty much all I could find (though it's very dry/not a good read):

http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~idjlaw/PDF/18-2/18-2 Asimow.pdf

 

[YESorNO]

Two thoughts:

1) During the first trial, I think the fat-shaming and nose-picking things that went viral really got to Nurmi. It had to have hurt him on a personal level. Most people who live life in the public eye do so by choice and develop thick skins, but he had no experience or history of being a public figure, so those ad hominem attacks must have seemed like they came out of left field. I think he was blind-sided by them.

It seems evident that the insults hurled at him really stung. (To wit: the significant weight loss between the two trials). Thus, the "redemption" aspect to his motivations for writing the book. Suddenly, he was a major player in a media sensation, but not in a good way. How he looked, and everything he did (even small mannerisms) were fodder for an audience outraged by the horrific aspects of the crime, as they were witnessing a public trial where the defense tactics strained credulity.

He really wants people to understand that he's not the bad guy here. He was just doing his job with a very difficult and unlikable client. Even though I found his defense of JA (and the demonization of TA) repugnant, I recognize that it couldn't have been easy. And yes, I don't think he liked her at all and that he sincerely wanted out.

2) The other thing that intrigues me about his book is that it is almost unprecedented for a defense attorney to write a book slamming his/her client. I have searched and can't find much. It seems rather groundbreaking...

This is pretty much all I could find (though it's very dry/not a good read):

http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~idjlaw/PDF/18-2/18-2 Asimow.pdf

Great post GigiG. I agree with what you have stated.

Great article and not dry at all ("how to defend clients whom they knew
beyond any doubt were factually guilty of the crime but who insisted on a
vigorous defense? This ethical issue remains hotly debated to the present
day. ")

(The butler did it! :facepalm: - sorry- I couldn't help it. :blushing

This quote/passage is interesting:

"words of Lord Brougham in Queen Caroline’s Case in 1820:

'[A]n advocate, in the discharge of his duty, knows but one person in all
the world, and that person is his client. To save that client by all means
and expedients, and at all hazards and costs to other persons, and,
amongst them, to himself, is his first and only duty; and in performing this
duty he must not regard the alarm, the torments, the destruction which he
may bring upon others.'.."

And this:

"In his dissenting opinion in United States v. Wade,
Justice White restates the strong adversarial credo:
'[Unlike prosecutors,] defense counsel has no comparable obligation to
ascertain or present the truth. . . . [W]e also insist that he defend his client
whether he is innocent or guilty. . . . Defense counsel . . . need not furnish
any witnesses to the police, or reveal any confidences of his client, or
furnish any other information to help the prosecution’s case. If he can
confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear at a
disadvantage, unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course. Our
interest in not convicting the innocent permits counsel to put the State to
its proof, to put the State’s case in the worst possible light, regardless of
what he thinks or knows to be the truth. Undoubtedly there are some
limits which defense counsel must observe but more often than not,
defense counsel will cross-examine a prosecution witness, and impeach
him if he can, even if he thinks the witness is telling the truth . . . . [A]s
part of our modified adversary system and as part of the duty imposed on the most
honorable defense counsel, we countenance or require conduct
which in many instances has little, if any, relation to the search for truth.'...

The strong approach also recognizes that in many situations a lawyer
cannot be certain whether to take a client’s confession at face value. Nor
can the lawyer be certain whether the client’s direct testimony will be
perjured or whether the testimony of a particular witness is truthful. As a
result, strong adversarialists argue, a prudential approach requires them to
go all out in defense even when they feel sure the client is guilty."

And this stated by the author of the article:

"The issue of what good lawyers should do when they are certain that the client has
committed some form of misconduct has arisen repeatedly in film as well
as on television and in popular novels. The answer is clear. A good lawyer
should betray the client. The defense lawyer’s duty is to protect the public from the danger
that a wrongdoer might be acquitted. In civil cases, the defense lawyer’s duty is to make sure
the client does not escape either the dishonor resulting from its evil conduct or the
obligation to pay handsomely for its wrongs. "

Immediately I remember the book/movie The Lincoln Lawyer (and that's brought up in this article- LOL)

but this is said:

"In any system of justice worthy of the name—
adversarial or inquisitorial—there can be no normative justification for
lawyer betrayal. Such action breaches the lawyer’s fiduciary duty of loyalty
to the client and should never be tolerated. "
---------------------------------------------

A conundrum at best :scared: and something to think about.

Must be hard to be a defense lawyer, IMO. I wouldn't want to be one. :scared:

Again, thanks for the thoughtful article and your thoughts. :blowkiss:

 

[YESorNO]

Why dogs lives are shorter than ours

“Being a veterinarian, I had been called to examine a ten-year-old Irish Wolfhound named Belker. The dog’s owner, his wife, and their little boy were all very attached to Belker and they were hoping for a miracle. I examined Belker and found he was dying of cancer. I told the family there were no miracles left for Belker, and offered to perform the euthanasia procedure for the old dog in their home.

As we made arrangements, the owners told me they thought it would be good for the young boy to observe the procedure. They felt he could learn something from the experience.

The next day, I felt the familiar catch in my throat as Belker’s family surrounded him. The little boy seemed so calm, petting the old dog for the last time, that I wondered if he understood what was going on.

Within a few minutes, Belker slipped peacefully away. The little boy seemed to accept Belker’s transition without any difficulty or confusion.

We sat together for a while after Belker’s death, wondering aloud about the sad fact that animal lives are shorter than human lives.

The little boy, who had been listening quietly, piped up, “I know why.”

Startled, we all turned to him. What came out of his mouth next stunned me.

I’d never heard a more comforting explanation.

He said, “Everybody is born so that they can learn how to live a good life, like loving everybody and being nice, right?”

The boy continued, “Well, animals already know how to do that, so they don’t have to stay as long.” :heartbeat:

 

[GigiG]

Great post GigiG. I agree with what you have stated.

Great article and not dry at all ("how to defend clients whom they knew
beyond any doubt were factually guilty of the crime but who insisted on a
vigorous defense? This ethical issue remains hotly debated to the present
day. ")

(The butler did it! :facepalm: - sorry- I couldn't help it. :blushing

This quote/passage is interesting:

"words of Lord Brougham in Queen Caroline’s Case in 1820:

'[A]n advocate, in the discharge of his duty, knows but one person in all
the world, and that person is his client. To save that client by all means
and expedients, and at all hazards and costs to other persons, and,
amongst them, to himself, is his first and only duty; and in performing this
duty he must not regard the alarm, the torments, the destruction which he
may bring upon others.'.."

And this:

"In his dissenting opinion in United States v. Wade,
Justice White restates the strong adversarial credo:
'[Unlike prosecutors,] defense counsel has no comparable obligation to
ascertain or present the truth. . . . [W]e also insist that he defend his client
whether he is innocent or guilty. . . . Defense counsel . . . need not furnish
any witnesses to the police, or reveal any confidences of his client, or
furnish any other information to help the prosecution’s case. If he can
confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear at a
disadvantage, unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course. Our
interest in not convicting the innocent permits counsel to put the State to
its proof, to put the State’s case in the worst possible light, regardless of
what he thinks or knows to be the truth. Undoubtedly there are some
limits which defense counsel must observe but more often than not,
defense counsel will cross-examine a prosecution witness, and impeach
him if he can, even if he thinks the witness is telling the truth . . . . [A]s
part of our modified adversary system and as part of the duty imposed on the most
honorable defense counsel, we countenance or require conduct
which in many instances has little, if any, relation to the search for truth.'...

The strong approach also recognizes that in many situations a lawyer
cannot be certain whether to take a client’s confession at face value. Nor
can the lawyer be certain whether the client’s direct testimony will be
perjured or whether the testimony of a particular witness is truthful. As a
result, strong adversarialists argue, a prudential approach requires them to
go all out in defense even when they feel sure the client is guilty."

And this stated by the author of the article:

"The issue of what good lawyers should do when they are certain that the client has
committed some form of misconduct has arisen repeatedly in film as well
as on television and in popular novels. The answer is clear. A good lawyer
should betray the client. The defense lawyer’s duty is to protect the public from the danger
that a wrongdoer might be acquitted. In civil cases, the defense lawyer’s duty is to make sure
the client does not escape either the dishonor resulting from its evil conduct or the
obligation to pay handsomely for its wrongs. "

Immediately I remember the book/movie The Lincoln Lawyer (and that's brought up in this article- LOL)

but this is said:

"In any system of justice worthy of the name—
adversarial or inquisitorial—there can be no normative justification for
lawyer betrayal. Such action breaches the lawyer’s fiduciary duty of loyalty
to the client and should never be tolerated. "
---------------------------------------------

A conundrum at best :scared: and something to think about.

Must be hard to be a defense lawyer, IMO. I wouldn't want to be one. :scared:

Again, thanks for the thoughtful article and your thoughts. :blowkiss:

This passage [from above] speaks very prophetically about Kirk Nurmi's situation:

[A]n advocate, in the discharge of his duty, knows but one person in all
the world, and that person is his client. To save that client by all means
and expedients, and at all hazards and costs to other persons, and,
amongst them, to himself, is his first and only duty; and in performing this
duty he must not regard the alarm, the torments, the destruction which he
may bring upon others.'.."

So to that extent, Kirk Nurmi certainly did his job...

It is an ethical conundrum. I think that with his writings, Nurmi has figuratively fallen on his sword. Sobeit.

p.s. I LOVED The Lincoln Lawyer (movie), and appreciated the literary reference.

ETA: here is Nurmi in an interview: http://www.12news.com/story/news/lo...nse-attorney-talks-trapped-ms-arias/76133000/