1222 users online (222 members and 1000 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 4 of 92 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 1366
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Central Arizona
    Posts
    322
    Quote Originally Posted by ElleElle View Post
    Well. That is bogus. Paid for 1 month of BK, shows on PayPal, but still no access.
    I'm on month to month, and it always seems more complicated than it should, but emailing support gets things solved. I accidently paid 3 times because it didn't seem to go through, but they credited my account the next day.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,995
    Quote Originally Posted by ILikeToBendPages View Post
    You can see that she had a lazy eye very young. I guess no one got her any help.

    I don't think they liked her even as a child, that or Jodi (aka Linda Blair from The Exorcist) wouldn't let them.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    12,497
    Quote Originally Posted by ElleElle View Post
    Well. That is bogus. Paid for 1 month of BK, shows on PayPal, but still no access.
    I had the same problem last week, but I did a support ticket and they took care of it pretty quick.

    I also have the texts for each month on a different tabs somehow, and then I have Jodi's journals to compare in another tab. Makes it much easier LOL.


    All opinions expressed by me on Websleuths are my very own thoughts, not yours, and are to stay on this website

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    The Dark Side
    Posts
    7,491
    Quote Originally Posted by Hope4More View Post
    Are you sure? You don't get a log in page?
    Yes, its corrects now. The PayPal transaction is "on hold" apparently. But, I received an email stating it was paid. Weird.

    Off I go to read texts! Thanks Hope4Moreand iliketobendpages as i've been dying to read more texts.
    Last edited by ElleElle; 11-11-2015 at 11:04 PM. Reason: added other poster as getting mixed up !
    "One man's logic is another man's crazy" - Rossi (Criminal Minds)

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Central Arizona
    Posts
    322
    Quote Originally Posted by ElleElle View Post
    Yes, its corrects now. The PayPal transaction is "on hold" apparently. But, I received an email stating it was paid. Weird.

    Off I go to read texts! Thanks Hope4More as i've been dying to read more texts.
    I should have added in my previous post, if you have a tablet, prepair for trouble. I can only read all the stuff if I use a laptop or regular computer. If I use my samsung tablet, forget it.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,995
    I was looking for something else and ran across this article from 2008, so sad!!!


    http://www.azcentral.com/community/m...ictim0614.html

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,995
    Quote Originally Posted by ElleElle View Post
    Yes, its corrects now. The PayPal transaction is "on hold" apparently. But, I received an email stating it was paid. Weird.

    Off I go to read texts! Thanks Hope4Moreand iliketobendpages as i've been dying to read more texts.


    I had the same problem and they were quick to get me going.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Hope4More View Post
    He writes mockingly about the stupidity of the ninja lie, and of speaking to her about it??

    That really does seem like it crosses the line into a violation of attorney- client privilege. Minor? Batcall to AZL?

    He does despise her, right? And he despises her more than he wants to dirty up JM, right? And he despises her more than he'd love to be proven a wunderlawyer by winning her a new trial because of the unprecedented publicity which deprived her of a fair trial and which is evidenced still by the vehement reaction to his book. Right?
    Conversations with her would be protected by A/C privilege, but Arizona's ER (Ethics Rule) 1.6 goes much further than that, requiring the lawyer to keep basically everything about the representation secret. JA of course could waive this confidentiality requirement, but IMO she better have been represented by separate counsel if she did so. Also, any negotiation in this regard would have to have taken place after the case was over (per ER 1.8), so JA could not have been asked, e.g., to waive confidentiality in exchange for Nurmi staying on the case.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,439
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    Conversations with her would be protected by A/C privilege, but Arizona's ER (Ethics Rule) 1.6 goes much further than that, requiring the lawyer to keep basically everything about the representation secret. JA of course could waive this confidentiality requirement, but IMO she better have been represented by separate counsel if she did so. Also, any negotiation in this regard would have to have taken place after the case was over (per ER 1.8), so JA could not have been asked, e.g., to waive confidentiality in exchange for Nurmi staying on the case.
    So why would he be so blatantly violating the rules? Are there serious consequences or just a slap on the wrist?
    All of my posts are my opinion only, and reflect my point of view, and not necessarily objective truth.

  10. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    Conversations with her would be protected by A/C privilege, but Arizona's ER (Ethics Rule) 1.6 goes much further than that, requiring the lawyer to keep basically everything about the representation secret. JA of course could waive this confidentiality requirement, but IMO she better have been represented by separate counsel if she did so. Also, any negotiation in this regard would have to have taken place after the case was over (per ER 1.8), so JA could not have been asked, e.g., to waive confidentiality in exchange for Nurmi staying on the case.

    Thank you. So what is your take? Has Nurmi compromised his reputation with the defense bar? Crossed the line enough to warrant a bar complaint? Why in the world would he publish such a personalized attack on an ex-client?
    RIP, Cassini. To her tireless overseers- job well done.


  11. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve44 View Post
    So why would he be so blatantly violating the rules? Are there serious consequences or just a slap on the wrist?
    Quote Originally Posted by Hope4More View Post
    Thank you. So what is your take? Has Nurmi compromised his reputation with the defense bar? Crossed the line enough to warrant a bar complaint? Why in the world would he publish such a personalized attack on an ex-client?
    I have no idea if he's violating the rules or not. This is a very well-known rule, so I have to assume he got an informed waiver from his client (perhaps in exchange for a cut of the profits, perhaps not).

    I haven't read the posts detailing what's in his book. If he's bashing JA, I think it will hurt his reputation among other defense lawyers, but maybe he feels that his reputation with the general public will improve.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Central Arizona
    Posts
    322
    I was reading somewhere, that I can't find again, that JA's blabbing things she and her attourney talked about in trial strategy to SM had, in effect, waived her rights to them staying silent.

  13. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    I have no idea if he's violating the rules or not. This is a very well-known rule, so I have to assume he got an informed waiver from his client (perhaps in exchange for a cut of the profits, perhaps not).

    I haven't read the posts detailing what's in his book. If he's bashing JA, I think it will hurt his reputation among other defense lawyers, but maybe he feels that his reputation with the general public will improve.

    Another thank you. Of course we are all speculating and everything is a hypothetical, but....... what sense would it make for JA to consent to release this much disparaging info, unless it benefitted her?

    Is it legal (hypothetically) for Nurmi to share with her the profits of a book about her victim's murder? And PLEASE answer this...is there any possibility whatsoever that his book and her (theoretical) approval of it has anything to do with an appeal strategy?
    RIP, Cassini. To her tireless overseers- job well done.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Hope4More View Post
    Another thank you. Of course we are all speculating and everything is a hypothetical, but....... what sense would it make for JA to consent to release this much disparaging info, unless it benefitted her?

    Is it legal (hypothetically) for Nurmi to share with her the profits of a book about her victim's murder? And PLEASE answer this...is there any possibility whatsoever that his book and her (theoretical) approval of it has anything to do with an appeal strategy?
    I don't see any reason she would consent, unless she were sharing in the profits. It would be legal for her to share in the profits unless the book depicted the CRIME itself rather than the trial--and it sounds like it's about the trial. On the other hand, I saw on Nurmi's Twitter account that he says she's not getting a dime. In that case, I am puzzled why she would consent to his public discussion of the representation.

    I don't get the appeal strategy theory, sorry.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  15. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    I don't see any reason she would consent, unless she were sharing in the profits. It would be legal for her to share in the profits unless the book depicted the CRIME itself rather than the trial--and it sounds like it's about the trial. On the other hand, I saw on Nurmi's Twitter account that he says she's not getting a dime. In that case, I am puzzled why she would consent to his public discussion of the representation.

    I don't get the appeal strategy theory, sorry.

    Trying to say this as succinctly as I can, and hope to be told -- no, that's absurd.

    I'm connecting the dots of Nurmi's many motions etc. about excessive publicity denying her a fair trial with her appellate attys twice suggesting that the COA be disqualified because excessive publicity led to an appellate judge discussing her case before her appeal was heard , plus her attorneys going after JM and his book , again on the basis of excessive publicity potentially denying her the right to an untainted hypothetical retrial, and right on cue comes Kieffer, the DT's mouthpiece , with an article about how social media led to "over involved" trial watchers attempting to influence her juries, and now, this.....odd, over the top book by Nurmi.

    Translated, any possibility that all this is about a strategy to try to win a new trial based on some novel federal appeal about the saturation of social media coverage denying a defendant due process?
    RIP, Cassini. To her tireless overseers- job well done.

Page 4 of 92 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Sentencing and beyond- Jodi Arias General Discussion #4
    By KateB in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 1253
    Last Post: 02-11-2016, 09:48 PM
  2. Sentencing and beyond- Jodi Arias General Discussion #2
    By KateB in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 1462
    Last Post: 11-10-2015, 08:01 PM
  3. Sentencing and beyond- Jodi Arias General Discussion #1
    By Harmony 2 in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 1218
    Last Post: 06-21-2015, 12:42 PM
  4. Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - Day 15
    By LambChop in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 946
    Last Post: 12-16-2014, 09:15 AM
  5. Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias #6
    By LambChop in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 1155
    Last Post: 10-23-2014, 08:15 AM

Tags for this Thread