635 users online (80 members and 555 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 4 of 21 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 307
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by YESorNO View Post
    How have you been my dear Becky?

    And a Happy Thanksgiving to you (and to all on this thread)

    Thanks, YorN! I'm well and I hope you are, too.

  2. #47
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,273
    Yawn @ Nurmi's book.

    I mean objectively, he's correct in that he was legally bound to provide a defense if his client wanted (nee demanded) one. That or he could have risked disbarment. And his hands were somewhat tied by the client's demands and stories. Even if he never believed them for one minute he had to fight for her according to the oath he took. Either that or leave the legal profession or risk disbarment.

    This is the catch22 I think of being a defense attorney. Especially if you don't get to pick your clients -- you gotta 'dance with who brung ya' or try to get tossed off the case, as he did. The court doesn't care that one's client is an evil, conniving, manipulative, psycho beyotch. That pesky Constitution gets in the way, affording everyone rights, even the most evil of evil clients. And if you work for the state's public defender's office you certainly have no say.

    Where I part ways is many of his tactics during the trial. He did not have to keep the murderess on the stand for 18 days. He did not have to do many of the things he did. Well, he did manage to keep his client off death row, which was really the only goal there was. He knew full well she was going to prison for life -- everyone sane involved knew that, although it seemed many here thought she'd be dancing her way out of that jail, free as a bird, that was never going to happen.

    Anyway, he made a lot of $$$ off this case but he also made a lot of enemies too. Double-edged sword for sure.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Avalon
    Posts
    16,689
    Trapped with Ms. Arias

    Chapter 16

    The Letters


    (that Ta "suppositly" wrote to the murderer)

    State kept them out of evidence (after a hearing)

    received "The Letters" April, 2010 by email from " a person named 'Bob White' "

    subject of email: "you might be interested in these"- contained attachment which contained 10 letters in PDF form (appeared to be scanned copies of original or scans of a copy)

    after verdict and before sentencing murderer released letters on her fan page

    letters contained admissions by TA "about his sexual interest in children and in particular his sexual interest in the son of his friends Chris and Sky Hughes...and apologies from 'Mr. Alexander' for breaking Ms Arias' finger" (pg 87)

    discussed with his team
    and the murderer: "Why would Mr. Alexander hand write letters and mail them to you when you corresponded so much via computer?"- can't divulge her answer- client confidentiality

    "Who is Bob White and how did this person get these letters? I didn't realize it at the time but my efforts to answer the latter question through my own investigation was the moment in time that served as a beginning of the end of the relatively harmonious relationship I had with Ms. Arias." (pg. 88)

    couldn't ignore letters- investigate, if real, would use them in court- "duty-bound" as her atty to

    needed to know who Bob White was and get original copies for handwriting expert to authenticate- needed originals

    L had questions for the murderer: where did the murderer last see the originals? where stored? who could have found them?

    knew the answers- they are privilege info

    analysis of letters were not privileged tho'- the murderer allowed him to tell Shy Hughes of results and gave report to State

    his expert said it "was highly probable", highest level of proof in handwriting analysis, that TA wrote them , but really needed the originals to confirm authenticity
    if they were confirmed as fake by his expert, they "never would have seen the light of day"

    "With the 'highly probable' analysis in hand I decided to disclose the letters to the State because at the time it was my intent to use them at trial as the content supported
    Ms. Arias' claim of physical abuse and her claim that Mr. Alexander has a sexual interest in young children"
    (pg. 88)

    L felt that Chris/Sky Hughes should see 1 letter before "the world" did because of the sexual interest in their son- to learn in the privacy of home

    Sky is claiming that L claimed he had absolute proof that letters were genuine

    Sky claiming "I disclosed this letter to her so that she and her husband would testify for the defense. Let me clear that neither of these claims reflect my true motivations for sending the letter to her" (pg. 89)

    because Shy was "understandably emotional" when she saw letter- L does not blame her "for recalling that I claimed to have absolute proof" that TA wrote them
    what L "actually said was that the analysis performed was as close to absolute proof as the field of handwriting analysis can offer"

    L states that he doesn't understand the claim that he wanted to "trick her or induce her into testifying for the defense. I am not sure why she feels as if she can read my mind and thus know my intentions"

    L's intentions: that the Hughes wouldn't hear/see the letters for the 1st time at the trial

    Sky sent a follow-up email to him in response where she "expressed the fact that she knew Mr. Alexander had problems but not to this extent"

    L didn't reply to her email to find out TA's problems

    what the Hughes have said publicly: "I have yet to hear Ms. Hughes discuss how grateful she was at the time that i sent the letter to her and how that at no time did I ask her to testify for the defense" (pg, 90)

    L explained to Sky , to calm her, that this didn't mean that TA actually "touched her son" and "perhaps" they should talk to her son/seek counseling

    L said that Sky sent him email stating that she knew TA had problems "but she was unaware that he was dealing with this issue"

    L said if he wanted Sky as a witness he could have call her as one- did not need her permission

    "At the time I spoke to Ms. Hughes, I had no reason to believe that Mr. Alexander did not write the letters....expert had said that it was 'highly probable' that Mr. Alexander was the author"

    later L became suspicious about letters when he received more info ( the murderer's cell was searched- pens were found- against rules- 3x5 cards were found with handwriting on them)

    State said handwriting "was an attempt to stimulate the hand writing of" TA- L didn't understand conclusion "sounds more like mind reading than handwriting analysis but... it would have been his testimony and the link would be obvious" that the murderer wrote the letters

    L wondered hwo she write them, get them out of jail, and have emailed to him (everything she sent out was inspected/phone calls were all recorded) - reviewed TA's journals? "still tuff"

    once cards were found, L believed that murderer wrote the letters

    wouldn't be hard for the State to convince the jury that she did- as a way to "defame" TA

    "Once [the jury] convinced that Ms. Arias wrote these letters to defame Mr. Alexander the jury would then have yet another reason to detest Ms. Arias and the more they detested Ms. Arias the more motivated they would be to sentence her to death" (pg. 92)

    L wonders if the State could prove that letters were forgery? concluded- "they could not"- States expert could not because the letters were copies- just could give opinion- State wanted them "excluded"

    L thinks this was mistake- State could have convinced jury that they were forged- " I believe if they had Ms. Arias would be on death row as you read this"
    ================================================== ============

    Chapter 17

    The Phone Sex Tapes


    the murderer lost her Helio phone- stolen from her grandfather's car in Yreka, Spring 2008

    (Gus Searcy gave her new one)

    2010- phone found by family member- not stolen, but lost in car

    L had phone sent to his investigator and to computer expert- recover evidence from phone

    no nude pics on phone

    "What I got was unbelievable"

    "This was a recording of a conversation Mr. Alexander had with Ms. Arias, the woman who would wind up killing him within a month of having this conversation with him"

    L thought would provide "insight into the relationship.. just before the killing took place"

    L also received notes on phone conversations

    talk was about "mundane things" in beginning (traveling, business, etc)- TA said he had intentions to visit the murderer in Yreka ("Does one visit their crazy ex-girlfriend who is stalking them?")

    their conversation-talked about Abe -"someone who likely dated" the murderer and kissed her- TA not happy- Ta wanted to "whip Abe's 'A'" because kissed "his girlfriend"

    "The fact that Ms. Arias was not Mr. Alexander's girlfriend at the time of the kiss didn't seem to matter to Mr. Alexander"

    this part of "the sex tape" was very important to L

    "..because it told me that Mr. Alexander seemingly had a violent streak because he had expressed a desire to be violent with Abe."

    L thought- " He was either a jealous person when it came to Ms. Arias or he viewed her as a possession, perhaps both were true."

    conversation went to sex- went from "mild argument about Abe to talking about sex in graphic terms." (pg. 96)- L was shocked

    L talking about "howling"- "F***fest"- reminded him 1982 movie "Porky's"

    TA said something in tape unbelievable to L- "He said that Ms. Arias' orgasm sounded like a 12 year old girl having her first orgasm...Ms. Arias was shocked as well"- then "Mr. Alexander repeated himself" and then said "something to the effect of 'it was like corking the pot of a 12 year old' "

    L said, before trial, before everyone hated the murderer, "What would you think if you heard Mr. Alexander saying this on tape before he had been killed?... about anyone who said this? Would you think they were a pedophile?"

    L talks about Jared Foggle - woman reported that he made similar commenst to her

    "If someone made these comments to you would you let them be alone with your daughter?"

    "facts are stubborn things"

    "It is a fact that Mr. Alexander said these things on tape."

    L had voice on tape verified that it TA and the murderer talking

    L said he had the tape (evidence) "that supported Ms. Arias' contention that Mr. Alexander had a sexual interest in children...exhibited some violent tendencies." (pg. 97)
    evidence that "had to be used, regardless of who it upset."
    ================================================== ========

    Next:

    Chapter 18
    Learning more about Mr. Alexander

    Chapter 19
    Ms. Arias' Jail Calls

    Chapter 20
    Ms. Arias' "Ninja Story"
    ================================================== =========
    ----------------------

    Travis Alexander (1977-2008)

    Teghan Alyssa Skiba (RIP sweet baby)
    -------------------------
    No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. -Eleanor Roosevelt

    Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. - Ian MacLaren

    The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it - Flannery O'connor

  4. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by YESorNO View Post
    Trapped with Ms. Arias

    Chapter 16

    The Letters


    (that Ta "suppositly" wrote to the murderer)

    State kept them out of evidence (after a hearing)

    received "The Letters" April, 2010 by email from " a person named 'Bob White' "

    subject of email: "you might be interested in these"- contained attachment which contained 10 letters in PDF form (appeared to be scanned copies of original or scans of a copy)

    after verdict and before sentencing murderer released letters on her fan page

    letters contained admissions by TA "about his sexual interest in children and in particular his sexual interest in the son of his friends Chris and Sky Hughes...and apologies from 'Mr. Alexander' for breaking Ms Arias' finger" (pg 87)

    discussed with his team
    and the murderer: "Why would Mr. Alexander hand write letters and mail them to you when you corresponded so much via computer?"- can't divulge her answer- client confidentiality

    "Who is Bob White and how did this person get these letters? I didn't realize it at the time but my efforts to answer the latter question through my own investigation was the moment in time that served as a beginning of the end of the relatively harmonious relationship I had with Ms. Arias." (pg. 88)

    couldn't ignore letters- investigate, if real, would use them in court- "duty-bound" as her atty to

    needed to know who Bob White was and get original copies for handwriting expert to authenticate- needed originals

    L had questions for the murderer: where did the murderer last see the originals? where stored? who could have found them?

    knew the answers- they are privilege info

    analysis of letters were not privileged tho'- the murderer allowed him to tell Shy Hughes of results and gave report to State

    his expert said it "was highly probable", highest level of proof in handwriting analysis, that TA wrote them , but really needed the originals to confirm authenticity
    if they were confirmed as fake by his expert, they "never would have seen the light of day"

    "With the 'highly probable' analysis in hand I decided to disclose the letters to the State because at the time it was my intent to use them at trial as the content supported
    Ms. Arias' claim of physical abuse and her claim that Mr. Alexander has a sexual interest in young children"
    (pg. 88)

    L felt that Chris/Sky Hughes should see 1 letter before "the world" did because of the sexual interest in their son- to learn in the privacy of home

    Sky is claiming that L claimed he had absolute proof that letters were genuine

    Sky claiming "I disclosed this letter to her so that she and her husband would testify for the defense. Let me clear that neither of these claims reflect my true motivations for sending the letter to her" (pg. 89)

    because Shy was "understandably emotional" when she saw letter- L does not blame her "for recalling that I claimed to have absolute proof" that TA wrote them
    what L "actually said was that the analysis performed was as close to absolute proof as the field of handwriting analysis can offer"

    L states that he doesn't understand the claim that he wanted to "trick her or induce her into testifying for the defense. I am not sure why she feels as if she can read my mind and thus know my intentions"

    L's intentions: that the Hughes wouldn't hear/see the letters for the 1st time at the trial

    Sky sent a follow-up email to him in response where she "expressed the fact that she knew Mr. Alexander had problems but not to this extent"

    L didn't reply to her email to find out TA's problems

    what the Hughes have said publicly: "I have yet to hear Ms. Hughes discuss how grateful she was at the time that i sent the letter to her and how that at no time did I ask her to testify for the defense" (pg, 90)

    L explained to Sky , to calm her, that this didn't mean that TA actually "touched her son" and "perhaps" they should talk to her son/seek counseling

    L said that Sky sent him email stating that she knew TA had problems "but she was unaware that he was dealing with this issue"

    L said if he wanted Sky as a witness he could have call her as one- did not need her permission

    "At the time I spoke to Ms. Hughes, I had no reason to believe that Mr. Alexander did not write the letters....expert had said that it was 'highly probable' that Mr. Alexander was the author"

    later L became suspicious about letters when he received more info ( the murderer's cell was searched- pens were found- against rules- 3x5 cards were found with handwriting on them)

    State said handwriting "was an attempt to stimulate the hand writing of" TA- L didn't understand conclusion "sounds more like mind reading than handwriting analysis but... it would have been his testimony and the link would be obvious" that the murderer wrote the letters

    L wondered hwo she write them, get them out of jail, and have emailed to him (everything she sent out was inspected/phone calls were all recorded) - reviewed TA's journals? "still tuff"

    once cards were found, L believed that murderer wrote the letters

    wouldn't be hard for the State to convince the jury that she did- as a way to "defame" TA

    "Once [the jury] convinced that Ms. Arias wrote these letters to defame Mr. Alexander the jury would then have yet another reason to detest Ms. Arias and the more they detested Ms. Arias the more motivated they would be to sentence her to death" (pg. 92)

    L wonders if the State could prove that letters were forgery? concluded- "they could not"- States expert could not because the letters were copies- just could give opinion- State wanted them "excluded"

    L thinks this was mistake- State could have convinced jury that they were forged- " I believe if they had Ms. Arias would be on death row as you read this"
    ================================================== ============

    Chapter 17

    The Phone Sex Tapes


    the murderer lost her Helio phone- stolen from her grandfather's car in Yreka, Spring 2008

    (Gus Searcy gave her new one)

    2010- phone found by family member- not stolen, but lost in car

    L had phone sent to his investigator and to computer expert- recover evidence from phone

    no nude pics on phone

    "What I got was unbelievable"

    "This was a recording of a conversation Mr. Alexander had with Ms. Arias, the woman who would wind up killing him within a month of having this conversation with him"

    L thought would provide "insight into the relationship.. just before the killing took place"

    L also received notes on phone conversations

    talk was about "mundane things" in beginning (traveling, business, etc)- TA said he had intentions to visit the murderer in Yreka ("Does one visit their crazy ex-girlfriend who is stalking them?")

    their conversation-talked about Abe -"someone who likely dated" the murderer and kissed her- TA not happy- Ta wanted to "whip Abe's 'A'" because kissed "his girlfriend"

    "The fact that Ms. Arias was not Mr. Alexander's girlfriend at the time of the kiss didn't seem to matter to Mr. Alexander"

    this part of "the sex tape" was very important to L

    "..because it told me that Mr. Alexander seemingly had a violent streak because he had expressed a desire to be violent with Abe."

    L thought- " He was either a jealous person when it came to Ms. Arias or he viewed her as a possession, perhaps both were true."

    conversation went to sex- went from "mild argument about Abe to talking about sex in graphic terms." (pg. 96)- L was shocked

    L talking about "howling"- "F***fest"- reminded him 1982 movie "Porky's"

    TA said something in tape unbelievable to L- "He said that Ms. Arias' orgasm sounded like a 12 year old girl having her first orgasm...Ms. Arias was shocked as well"- then "Mr. Alexander repeated himself" and then said "something to the effect of 'it was like corking the pot of a 12 year old' "

    L said, before trial, before everyone hated the murderer, "What would you think if you heard Mr. Alexander saying this on tape before he had been killed?... about anyone who said this? Would you think they were a pedophile?"

    L talks about Jared Foggle - woman reported that he made similar commenst to her

    "If someone made these comments to you would you let them be alone with your daughter?"

    "facts are stubborn things"

    "It is a fact that Mr. Alexander said these things on tape."

    L had voice on tape verified that it TA and the murderer talking

    L said he had the tape (evidence) "that supported Ms. Arias' contention that Mr. Alexander had a sexual interest in children...exhibited some violent tendencies." (pg. 97)
    evidence that "had to be used, regardless of who it upset."
    ================================================== ========

    Next:

    Chapter 18
    Learning more about Mr. Alexander

    Chapter 19
    Ms. Arias' Jail Calls

    Chapter 20
    Ms. Arias' "Ninja Story"
    ================================================== =========

    There's no point in responding to Nurmi's factual and interpretative errors.

    What I find most despicable here is Nurmi's vile insinuations that Travis was a pedophile.

    What does it say about this man's character and integrity? That on the one hand he professes to be so disgusted and appalled by his client that even though he's anti-DP he thought she deserved to be given that penalty, that he was willing to give up his job in order to escape representing her, that he knew from the beginning her story was BS, knew from discovery who Travis was , how universally beloved and respected he was- --vs. not being able to locate a single friend of the killer's, and hearing little about her except she was a creepy unlikable solitary stalker--and yet.......he believed that Travis wrote those letters?

    Believed them enough and her enough to tell Sky and Chris that Travis may have molested their son???? And even if T hadn't touched their son that counselling was in order because maybe their son had been harmed by Travis simply by being in the company of a pedophile???

    And after the fact, now, instead - at the bare bones minimum- of apologizing to the Hughes for telling them their child might have been molested (OMG!!!! what a nightmare that would be to hear!!!!!!) he instead blames them for not understanding him, and is angry with them for not being grateful he didn't call them to the stand??

    Un frikking believable.
    RIP, Cassini. To her tireless overseers- job well done.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    982
    Quote Originally Posted by Hope4More View Post
    There's no point in responding to Nurmi's factual and interpretative errors.

    What I find most despicable here is Nurmi's vile insinuations that Travis was a pedophile.

    What does it say about this man's character and integrity? That on the one hand he professes to be so disgusted and appalled by his client that even though he's anti-DP he thought she deserved to be given that penalty, that he was willing to give up his job in order to escape representing her, that he knew from the beginning her story was BS, knew from discovery who Travis was , how universally beloved and respected he was- --vs. not being able to locate a single friend of the killer's, and hearing little about her except she was a creepy unlikable solitary stalker--and yet.......he believed that Travis wrote those letters?

    Believed them enough and her enough to tell Sky and Chris that Travis may have molested their son???? And even if T hadn't touched their son that counselling was in order because maybe their son had been harmed by Travis simply by being in the company of a pedophile???

    And after the fact, now, instead - at the bare bones minimum- of apologizing to the Hughes for telling them their child might have been molested (OMG!!!! what a nightmare that would be to hear!!!!!!) he instead blames them for not understanding him, and is angry with them for not being grateful he didn't call them to the stand??

    Un frikking believable.
    DJ Kinky Kirk (was it halloween when that interview took place!? ) is as delusional as his client. The public and jury (both!) rejected his "theory" outright. He wants so badly for people to change their minds about him, but all he does in this book is cement the knowledge that he is a creep. And proud of his creepiness. I'm beginning to have a theory that KN is the one that was abused as a child and it has shaped him from that moment on (and not in a good way).

  6. #51
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,273
    I read the above and what I am taking away from that is he claims an expert told him it was possible/probable that TA wrote those letters. IF I understand it correctly and IF he's telling the truth, that's all he had to go on at the time they surfaced. I'm reading that he was not convinced and then eventually learned the murderess had implements found in her cell (pens, etc) and she was likely the author of those letters. Before he learned JA likely authored those letters, he showed one of them to Sky Hughes. Remember, this is allegedly before it was discovered that JA likely penned those letters herself (again, if he's telling the truth).

    So if you're a defense attorney, and "letters" like these emerge, what do you do? Ignore the letters altogether? Try to get them verified? (it appears an attempt was made on some level to do this). Not tell anyone or show them to anyone? I'm trying to think like a professional here, not from an emotional (OMG how disgusting they/she/it is). You are duty-bound as a defense attorney to defend your client or get in trouble with the bar.

    If I were in a similar spot I think I would attempt to have them verified using 1 or 2 handwriting experts (they're out there for hire, I assume). Of course the FBI has handwriting experts but only the state can approach the FBI. As part of discovery rules I'd turn the letters over to the state and hope (expect) they'd also be having them tested. I would not show the letters to anyone else and certainly not until they were verified as authentic by more than 1 expert. TA was dead, so there was no impending harm to anyone's child (assuming there ever was, which we know there wasn't), and no reason to upset anyone at that point or point fingers.

    IF the letters were verified as authentic by whatever expert is qualified to do so, then they are fair game to be used, although even the content of those letters really had nothing to do with TA's murder -- the stretch is too far.

    So once again Nurmi is trying to split hairs here. His actions were not totally pure. He had some suspicion the letters might not be real but he acted as if they were absolutely real. He wanted the letters out there because they were like little bombs to deflect attention from the killer. I gave Nurmi a #fail on this.

  7. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    I read the above and what I am taking away from that is he claims an expert told him it was possible/probable that TA wrote those letters. IF I understand it correctly and IF he's telling the truth, that's all he had to go on at the time they surfaced. I'm reading that he was not convinced and then eventually learned the murderess had implements found in her cell (pens, etc) and she was likely the author of those letters. Before he learned JA likely authored those letters, he showed one of them to Sky Hughes. Remember, this is allegedly before it was discovered that JA likely penned those letters herself (again, if he's telling the truth).

    So if you're a defense attorney, and "letters" like these emerge, what do you do? Ignore the letters altogether? Try to get them verified? (it appears an attempt was made on some level to do this). Not tell anyone or show them to anyone? I'm trying to think like a professional here, not from an emotional (OMG how disgusting they/she/it is). You are duty-bound as a defense attorney to defend your client or get in trouble with the bar.

    If I were in a similar spot I think I would attempt to have them verified using 1 or 2 handwriting experts (they're out there for hire, I assume). Of course the FBI has handwriting experts but only the state can approach the FBI. As part of discovery rules I'd turn the letters over to the state and hope (expect) they'd also be having them tested. I would not show the letters to anyone else and certainly not until they were verified as authentic by more than 1 expert. TA was dead, so there was no impending harm to anyone's child (assuming there ever was, which we know there wasn't), and no reason to upset anyone at that point or point fingers.

    IF the letters were verified as authentic by whatever expert is qualified to do so, then they are fair game to be used, although even the content of those letters really had nothing to do with TA's murder -- the stretch is too far.

    So once again Nurmi is trying to split hairs here. His actions were not totally pure. He had some suspicion the letters might not be real but he acted as if they were absolutely real. He wanted the letters out there because they were like little bombs to deflect attention from the killer. I gave Nurmi a #fail on this.

    I understand he had to consider them, get them analyzed, etc. for her trial. I don't have any problem with that whatsoever.

    The problem I have is in what he told the Hughes. I find that unforgivable, and think he's compounded his sins now by blaming them and for thinking them ungrateful.

    Again, whatever his expert told him about the letters, there was simply no other evidence he had to support that vile accusation that was being spatted out by his forked tongued client he knew to be a liar intent upon destroying T's reputation.

    And yet he was willing to torment the Hughes with that nightmare "proof" that their son might have been molested?

    And now, after the trials, after he and his experts used their emails against Travis,--exploited and distorted those emails --- for days and days and days....he thinks the Hughes owe him a thank you card??
    RIP, Cassini. To her tireless overseers- job well done.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Land of Ago
    Posts
    15,651
    Quote Originally Posted by Hope4More View Post
    There's no point in responding to Nurmi's factual and interpretative errors.

    What I find most despicable here is Nurmi's vile insinuations that Travis was a pedophile.

    What does it say about this man's character and integrity? That on the one hand he professes to be so disgusted and appalled by his client that even though he's anti-DP he thought she deserved to be given that penalty, that he was willing to give up his job in order to escape representing her, that he knew from the beginning her story was BS, knew from discovery who Travis was , how universally beloved and respected he was- --vs. not being able to locate a single friend of the killer's, and hearing little about her except she was a creepy unlikable solitary stalker--and yet.......he believed that Travis wrote those letters?

    Believed them enough and her enough to tell Sky and Chris that Travis may have molested their son???? And even if T hadn't touched their son that counselling was in order because maybe their son had been harmed by Travis simply by being in the company of a pedophile???

    And after the fact, now, instead - at the bare bones minimum- of apologizing to the Hughes for telling them their child might have been molested (OMG!!!! what a nightmare that would be to hear!!!!!!) he instead blames them for not understanding him, and is angry with them for not being grateful he didn't call them to the stand??

    Un frikking believable.
    I'm beginning to believe that these books he's writing are his own personal manifesto against charges he thinks he'll face of ineffectual counsel; like the trial(s), he's going to defend himself in public and throw so much bullcarpery out there in hopes of muddying that water, but he really must be fearful she could prevail on that during the appeal process.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Land of Ago
    Posts
    15,651
    L Kirk is wondering how she got the fake letters out of jail - he has only a couple options as to who can take things out that are not inspected (her legal/mitigaton team?), I also wonder who was giving her the 3x5 cards and pens to practice with, might be a fairly good clue as to who secreted them out.

  10. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by geevee View Post
    I'm beginning to believe that these books he's writing are his own personal manifesto against charges he thinks he'll face of ineffectual counsel; like the trial(s), he's going to defend himself in public and throw so much bullcarpery out there in hopes of muddying that water, but he really must be fearful she could prevail on that during the appeal process.


    She stands no chance of winning a new trial based on ineffective counsel. None. The earliest she could even accuse him of that would be in a post conviction relief petition which would take forever to be heard by JSS, and which she hasn't even filed yet.

    And yet he's rushed this sorry thing out now. IMO he feels personally damaged by the trial, but rather than take any responsibility for anything at all that happened he's simply blaming every single person who has made him feel bad about himself.

    BTW, MDLR has tweeted about his book, denigrating him as unprofessional for writing it and for dissing their peach of a client-killer. So much for Kirk's dreams of being buds with her again....
    RIP, Cassini. To her tireless overseers- job well done.


  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    Yawn @ Nurmi's book.

    I mean objectively, he's correct in that he was legally bound to provide a defense if his client wanted (nee demanded) one. That or he could have risked disbarment. And his hands were somewhat tied by the client's demands and stories. Even if he never believed them for one minute he had to fight for her according to the oath he took. Either that or leave the legal profession or risk disbarment.

    This is the catch22 I think of being a defense attorney. Especially if you don't get to pick your clients -- you gotta 'dance with who brung ya' or try to get tossed off the case, as he did. The court doesn't care that one's client is an evil, conniving, manipulative, psycho beyotch. That pesky Constitution gets in the way, affording everyone rights, even the most evil of evil clients. And if you work for the state's public defender's office you certainly have no say.

    Where I part ways is many of his tactics during the trial. He did not have to keep the murderess on the stand for 18 days. He did not have to do many of the things he did. Well, he did manage to keep his client off death row, which was really the only goal there was. He knew full well she was going to prison for life -- everyone sane involved knew that, although it seemed many here thought she'd be dancing her way out of that jail, free as a bird, that was never going to happen.

    Anyway, he made a lot of $$$ off this case but he also made a lot of enemies too. Double-edged sword for sure.
    If he had gone with just BPD and tried to prove diminished responsibility, he would have achieved the same result most likely without boring the world to tears for months and making himself a laughingstock. I guess if your client insists it was self defense and is so deluded as to think someone might buy it you would have to go with it, but for heavens' sake.
    Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small.

  12. #57
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Cailin Rua View Post
    If he had gone with just BPD and tried to prove diminished responsibility, he would have achieved the same result most likely without boring the world to tears for months and making himself a laughingstock. I guess if your client insists it was self defense and is so deluded as to think someone might buy it you would have to go with it, but for heavens' sake.

    I think you've hit the nail on the head here. As an attorney, you have to work with your client and if your client is dead-set on presenting a certain type of defense (one of self-defense) versus mental illness, you don't have the ability to override them.

    Look, I'm no Nurmi sympathizer, but for just a minute, put yourself in the place of being an attorney who works in the state's public defender office. This is an important function since we have an adversarial system in this country. Accused people do need representation and the constitution enforces this. So by 'luck' of the draw you get stuck with an evil whackjob like Arias, a manipulating she-devil who is very much about being in control and pulling the strings. Yeah, the Constitution protects even them and gives them certain rights even if you know with all your heart that evil person doesn't deserve any rights.

    Seriously, what do you do? Are you really going to throw away your entire career, 3 yrs of law school, whatever else you've done to get yourself educated and into your career just to get away from this one whackjob client? Remember: you have no choice but to represent them. The judge doesn't care. The Bar Association doesn't care. The client is (to an extent) in control and you have to do your very best to defend them in the way *they* want and you are held to those rules -or- you will be sanctioned and face likely disbarment. Your hands are tied, at least to some degree. Your client refuses to allow you to present a diminished capacity/mentally ill/Borderline PD type of defense. WHAT do you do?
    Last edited by Madeleine74; 11-27-2015 at 05:13 PM.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    280
    At least Juan going after her on the stand was entertaining!

    I do understand his position. Wilmott's too. She's the client and they work for her, boom. I think Nurmi would have been more effective with a less drawn-out, crawling style of questioning and I wouldn't want him defending me b/c I think he bored the jury to tears with all that "How did it make you feeeeellll...."
    Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small.

  14. #59
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,273
    The way I see it is Nurmi feels attacked, and rightfully so, he was indeed under attack. He also brought a lot of it on to himself through his own actions. Some things were out of his control, but how he comported himself in the courtroom and how he treated witnesses, all of that was in his control. I'm not shedding any tears for him or Wilmott. They made a ton of $$$ off this one whackjob. And yeah, it's a polarizing case for sure.

    He's trying to make himself the victim here and he is but only to an extent. He's not "the victim," only "a" victim affected by the ripples that spew forth from the evil murderess. He did himself no favors though. Instead of crying "poor me, me, me" he could have written a book in which he basically apologized for having to take the case and he could donate all his profits to TA's foundation. Small measure of comfort, maybe, but it would be better than playing the role of victim.

    You don't always have control of the situation that befalls you (and often have no control whatsoever), but you always have control over how you choose to behave in any given situation. In the end that's the only thing any of us can possibly control. He needs to take responsibility and ownership of that which is his, which is his own behavior and strategies/tactics he chose to use during these years. The rest, well, it is what it is, and it wasn't in his control.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,490
    Quote Originally Posted by Hope4More View Post
    She stands no chance of winning a new trial based on ineffective counsel. None. The earliest she could even accuse him of that would be in a post conviction relief petition which would take forever to be heard by JSS, and which she hasn't even filed yet.

    And yet he's rushed this sorry thing out now. IMO he feels personally damaged by the trial, but rather than take any responsibility for anything at all that happened he's simply blaming every single person who has made him feel bad about himself.

    BTW, MDLR has tweeted about his book, denigrating him as unprofessional for writing it and for dissing their peach of a client-killer. So much for Kirk's dreams of being buds with her again....
    BBM - That tweet was so funny in that she spelled unprofessional wrong!
    Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans - John Lennon

Page 4 of 21 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 238
    Last Post: 02-28-2016, 01:46 PM
  2. Book released by Defense Atty Nov 2015 #1
    By KateB in forum Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias
    Replies: 1104
    Last Post: 11-22-2015, 10:17 AM
  3. WA - Attorney General - Sex Offender must not be released!
    By cocomod in forum Past Trial Discussion Threads
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-29-2013, 03:11 AM
  4. If you were the defense attorney...
    By RainbowsAndGumdrops in forum Janet Christiansen Abaroa
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-23-2008, 09:02 AM