Here is your post from page 28 of sidebar, Tuba (sorry, I am not sure how to actually move it but I agree that it belongs here).
----------------------------
Tuba
Registered User
It would be helpful & maybe interesting to know where Nurmi and Willmott and those others under contract with the Office of Public Defense Services diverge. It's a puzzle because the 1st & 2d chair were together in seeking a mistrial when Patti Womack bowed out as witness for Arias. From the convict's own mouth we know there is a conflict that she won't accept. Willmott may not see this the same way.
These experts that a defendant or convict calls are always brought in to humanize the criminal through some sympathetic narrative and to put her conduct into context. Maybe this woman behind the green baize door will evaluate Arias and conclude she has a difficult personal history that led to her criminal acts. She could say that there is an emotional and mental condition that requires consideration in determining what to do with her. Any of that strays perilously close to the testimony of Alyce LaViolette, which failed to impress the first jury. An analysis of why the convicted killer did her criminal acts fails to meet the case when you are dealing with a crime of intent as we are here. She stealthily planned every little move in Travis's murder, was armed with a weapon she stole & another she took from his residence and waited for the moment when he was particularly vulnerable. In advance, she curried his trust with intimacy. No one, even she remembering, disputes her premeditation consummated in the most extreme cruelty and viciousness. All the whys and wherefores are sure to be seen as self-serving, because they are. Maybe she does and did have the capacity to abide by the law but she chose not to and it could not have been more deliberate. No victimization in her past or present, whatever the nature and degree, impelled her to commit this monstrous violence on another human life and travel a thousand miles to do it.
