Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #8

[geevee]

True enough about how little time or effort her attorney put into the brief. Each charge basically cited (moot) code, then generically referenced alleged supporting facts " as laid out throughout." Didn't even bother to restate her whoppers or specifically attach them to the charges.

BTw. I never have put much stock in Monica's legal opinions, in part because she never seems to have the fortitude to clearly state then defend them. Perfect example-- her assertion that the does have a case (bull), but also that the must be able to demonstrate that Nurmi's bad deeds caused her damage (true) and that it is ridiculous for the to assert Nurmi damaged her reputation (more true yet).

On that last note , it's especially humorous & galling is claiming that Nurmi damaged her by saying she is mentally ill & had been a victim of child abuse. I almost feel sorry for Nurmi. (.......) Nah.

Hugs to you, sis.

I'm not a fan of Monica's either, she seems to want to stay in the safe zone, that's a little too wimpy for me, esp.considering she's an attny. How do you fight for a client when walking the center line?

I wonder; if JA is so adamant that she didn't agree with what Nurmi was using as her defense, what pray tell would have been her defense? Not self-defense, not mental impairment, not previous victimhood/child abuse - so what reason could she have had for slaughtering Travis that wouldn't have led to her conviction and receiving the death penalty?

 

[Hope4More]

Thanks Y/N (and Hi!) I'll read through the suit (and pray for live streaming of this trial lol) but am already agape at her accusing Nurmi (or anyone!) of being obsessed with sex. I'm intrigued with Nurm saying he plans to clear the air about all the mud thrown at Travis, I realize he was only giving JA the defense she insisted upon but how does he keep his own butt out of that fire? Looking forward to reading his answer to the suit, should be a pretty good read.

I'm also looking forward to reading Nurmi's defense. He's allowed to break client- attorney privilege in order to defend himself against her charges, and he's obviously zeroed in on defending himself against the charge that it was his idea, not hers, to smear Travis.

Leaving aside the fact that the accused TA of abuse within one month of her being arrested, it is true that she clung to her ninjas story even after Nurmi came on board, and on through her first evaluation/testing by Samuels. I guess she's claiming that the ninjas were her preferred lie, and that if Nurmi had only believed she could convince the jury it was true, she would never have had to make up all those ugly lies about Travis.

My guess is she knows her COA appeal will be denied, and is trying to lay the groundwork to argue ineffective counsel for her PCR. She can't prevail on that issue using standard arguments (Nurmi was demonstrably effective), so she's going with a whopper claim of conflict of interest- that Nurmi intended from the get-go to write a book, and that the trial strategies he chose were based on his own self interest (book sales) and not his client's.

 

[Hope4More]

I'm not a fan of Monica's either, she seems to want to stay in the safe zone, that's a little too wimpy for me, esp.considering she's an attny. How do you fight for a client when walking the center line?

I wonder; if JA is so adamant that she didn't agree with what Nurmi was using as her defense, what pray tell would have been her defense? Not self-defense, not mental impairment, not previous victimhood/child abuse - so what reason could she have had for slaughtering Travis that wouldn't have led to her conviction and receiving the death penalty?

LOL. Just replied to your earlier post on this very topic.

Short reply: she wanted to stick with the ninjas lie. Not to spare TA or his family, but for herself, so she could claim she hadn't killed TA.

Adding: maybe the ninjas were always a plan B? And that she used both gun and knife thinking that would suggest more than one person killed TA?

 

[geevee]

LOL. Just replied to your earlier post on this very topic.

Short reply: she wanted to stick with the ninjas lie. Not to spare TA or his family, but for herself, so she could claim she hadn't killed TA.

Adding: maybe the ninjas were always a plan B? And that she used both gun and knife thinking that would suggest more than one person killed TA?

LOL I saw whatcha did there, you little mind reader you.

I had forgotten all about the ninja defense but I had wondered before if the two weapons might have been intentional for appearance purposes. I do think she had a predetermined plan of how she wanted the scene to look but either she was rushed or panicked or something because when viewed all you see is gruesome, not 'more than one person did this' or 'only a male could have accomplished this'. But the dragging marks on the baseboards of both sides of the walls leads me to believe she had a scenario in mind and wasn't able to complete it. Unfortunately for her the Oops hand print sealed her fate.

P.S. Sorry for getting graphic.

 

[Hope4More]

LOL I saw whatcha did there, you little mind reader you.

I had forgotten all about the ninja defense but I had wondered before if the two weapons might have been intentional for appearance purposes. I do think she had a predetermined plan of how she wanted the scene to look but either she was rushed or panicked or something because when viewed all you see is gruesome, not 'more than one person did this' or 'only a male could have accomplished this'. But the dragging marks on the baseboards of both sides of the walls leads me to believe she had a scenario in mind and wasn't able to complete it. Unfortunately for her the Oops hand print sealed her fate.

P.S. Sorry for getting graphic.

Have to say that rabbit holes are, mercifully, no longer irresistible. I agree she almost certainly had a scenario thought out ( to the smallest detail), and that she wasn't able to complete it as planned. My final guess has been that's because she expected TA to succumb without resistance to her manipulations, but that he didn't, and that it took unexpected hours for him to get into the shower (I don't believe he knew she was still there) where she always planned on killing him.

I'm sure the bottom line for her, whatever her intended plans (speeding past rabbit holes, lol), was that she never believed she would be caught, and if caught, never believed she couldn't lie her way all the way out of acknowledging any responsibility for TA's murder.

Nurmi's skepticism & scorn about her ninja story must have infuriated her. I wouldn't be surprised if she's convinced herself that she would be free today if only she could have told her ninja story to the jury. Free, with her "reputation" intact, and having never had her psycho self so thoroughly exposed.

I can't believe any judge or jury would find credible her charge that Nurmi refused to allow her the defense of her choice. I am curious about her accusation that Nurmi asked Wilmott to co-author a book about the trial BEFORE the trial began. Wilmott must have acknowledged such for Clark to include that in her brief.

 

[geevee]

Have to say that rabbit holes are, mercifully, no longer irresistible. I agree she almost certainly had a scenario thought out ( to the smallest detail), and that she wasn't able to complete it as planned. My final guess has been that's because she expected TA to succumb without resistance to her manipulations, but that he didn't, and that it took unexpected hours for him to get into the shower (I don't believe he knew she was still there) where she always planned on killing him.

I'm sure the bottom line for her, whatever her intended plans (speeding past rabbit holes, lol), was that she never believed she would be caught, and if caught, never believed she couldn't lie her way all the way out of acknowledging any responsibility for TA's murder.

Nurmi's skepticism & scorn about her ninja story must have infuriated her. I wouldn't be surprised if she's convinced herself that she would be free today if only she could have told her ninja story to the jury. Free, with her "reputation" intact, and having never had her psycho self so thoroughly exposed.

I can't believe any judge or jury would find credible her charge that Nurmi refused to allow her the defense of her choice. I am curious about her accusation that Nurmi asked Wilmott to co-author a book about the trial BEFORE the trial began. Wilmott must have acknowledged such for Clark to include that in her brief.

Ha ha, I've been shielding my eyes form the rabbit holes for months, now, get me near one and I just fall right in. lol

Since there were so many chamber conferences with JS throughout the trial, it seems to me if there were proof (or not) of her misgivings about "Nurmi's defense" JS would have known and it would be on record (although sealed). Maybe since Clark didn't have full access she didn't know what was in the record on those proceedings? Am I recalling right that she does have full access now but not when this was filed?

I am curious about the Wilmott accusation as well, I can't wait to read his answer.

I have a hard time believing JA actually belives anyone in the world would believe the ninja story (is there enough believing in that sentence? ). But, she never thought she'd be caught, so maybe one person in the whole wide world believes it could have worked.

 

[RickshawFan]

I almost giggled the number of times she railed that Nurmi could have quit whenever he wanted but hated her so much he stayed to suck up tax dollars and destroy her chance at winning her case. The 2nd trial was even more egregious than the first in lying about/bashing Travis, she expects any judge to believe she didn't agree with the defense twice?!

I don't know what she expects to get out of this either, nor why any attny would take the case. Well, maybe easy money, he only had to type up the charges, file it with her nonsense novella and wait for it to be dismissed.

So good to see you, Hope.

I think maybe we could look at it this way: JA must be going through her trust fund at a mind-splitting pace if she's paying attorneys to pursue cases that are vindictive and she can't win. As always, she's shooting herself in the foot: depleted treasure stash with which to hire attorneys for her federal appeal.

How can she be hiring lawyers for all these frivolous suits, anyway, when she's supposed to be indigent?

 

[Steve44]

Truly wish she had received the dp.

If she did, she would have had access to unlimited state funds for unlimited numbers of appeals for an unlimited amount of time until her sentence was carried out, which would have been after all the attorneys involved, the judge on the case, the entire current COA, all law enforcement involved, all reporters involved, and most of the interested public had already died natural deaths. Her unending appeals would have been a constant reminder, unending challenge, and source of stress for the victim family members for most of the rest of their lives.

Instead, she's on lockdown behind steel doors and concrete walls, restricted, subjected to discipline, as she telegraphs her broken personality and revolt against her fate to the world at large and against a less confused and ambiguous corner of the justice system on her own dime, and for only as long as her limited funds allow.

 

[Hope4More]

Well, heads up about how seriously we should ( perhaps) take the lawsuit against Nurmi.

I spoke with a clerk at the COA (anyone can) to ask what it means, if anything, that the 's civil attorney Karen Clark is now listed as "Special Counsel" on the 's COA docket.

It means something. According to the clerk (who is extremely familiar with the 's case & file), what it means is that the COA is anticipating a motion (logically, it would have to be by Clark or 's appellate attys) to have the charges against Nurmi be considered/included as part of her COA appeal.

I didn't think that was possible as a matter of law, but the clerk assured me it is. I've spoken with her several times before about 's appeal and she was generous with her time and very forthcoming. This time was different. She gave me the info I shared above , but beyond that said she couldn't discuss the how or when or why or the whats of it because of " pending lawsuits" (plural).

Dear lord.

 

[Hope4More]

Ha ha, I've been shielding my eyes form the rabbit holes for months, now, get me near one and I just fall right in. lol

Since there were so many chamber conferences with JS throughout the trial, it seems to me if there were proof (or not) of her misgivings about "Nurmi's defense" JS would have known and it would be on record (although sealed). Maybe since Clark didn't have full access she didn't know what was in the record on those proceedings? Am I recalling right that she does have full access now but not when this was filed?

I am curious about the Wilmott accusation as well, I can't wait to read his answer.

I have a hard time believing JA actually belives anyone in the world would believe the ninja story (is there enough believing in that sentence? ). But, she never thought she'd be caught, so maybe one person in the whole wide world believes it could have worked.

I'm pretty sure I remember this sequence accurately: insisted on ninjas, her first team of attys was replaced by first Nurmi and then Wilmott as second chair, still wanted ninjas, she was tested by Samuels for the first time, she told the first psych expert (who never testified) that TA had physically abused her numerous times. Several months after that first round of psych evals & testing the pedo letters magically turned up, and within days Nurmi filed an affirmative defense.

Not too long after that defense was filed was the first time the decided to go pro per. In other words, she had the choice at that early stage to present whatever defense she chose, no impediments. But....no. She wanted to go pro per in order to introduce the forged pedo letters into evidence, not to spin tales about ninjas.

Each time the played the pro per game, JSS made sure to get on the record that the knew the consequences of her decision (at least that much, likely much more discussion in those sealed chamber records).


I really don't believe anyone deliberating that charge will take it seriously (other than her attorneys. Maybe. )

-----

OK, one related rabbit hole. . I spoke to an attorney/researcher in the AZ Superior Court's law library, to get guidance about where to look up the rules about new civil suits/charges being attached/included in an existing criminal appeal.

The general gist (we don't have the info to make it specific): a civil charge can be bundled into a related grounds for appeal. So, for example, if 's attorneys plan to argue that she didn't receive a fair trial because of excessive publicity, Clark could try to insert that the excessive publicity was due in part to Nurmi deliberately sensationalizing 's defense to seek that publicity in order to enrich himself with booksales.

As the law librarian said so reassuringly- even if the COA agrees to wrap in one or more of the civil charges, that is not an indication the will prevail on anything, much less on having her conviction overturned.

 

[MsJosie]

IF a big IF the felon is ever tried again, all Judges and prosecutors will know her tricks big time. There will not be the playing around the second time. Her defense attorney will have a very hard time with her. The jury will find her guilty and I sure would like to see death penalty for the felon. No matter what she will never get out....she already admitted in the court room she did it....a great confession in front of the World.

 

[geevee]

I'm pretty sure I remember this sequence accurately: insisted on ninjas, her first team of attys was replaced by first Nurmi and then Wilmott as second chair, still wanted ninjas, she was tested by Samuels for the first time, she told the first psych expert (who never testified) that TA had physically abused her numerous times. Several months after that first round of psych evals & testing the pedo letters magically turned up, and within days Nurmi filed an affirmative defense.

Not too long after that defense was filed was the first time the decided to go pro per. In other words, she had the choice at that early stage to present whatever defense she chose, no impediments. But....no. She wanted to go pro per in order to introduce the forged pedo letters into evidence, not to spin tales about ninjas.

Each time the played the pro per game, JSS made sure to get on the record that the knew the consequences of her decision (at least that much, likely much more discussion in those sealed chamber records).


I really don't believe anyone deliberating that charge will take it seriously (other than her attorneys. Maybe. )

-----

OK, one related rabbit hole. . I spoke to an attorney/researcher in the AZ Superior Court's law library, to get guidance about where to look up the rules about new civil suits/charges being attached/included in an existing criminal appeal.

The general gist (we don't have the info to make it specific): a civil charge can be bundled into a related grounds for appeal. So, for example, if 's attorneys plan to argue that she didn't receive a fair trial because of excessive publicity, Clark could try to insert that the excessive publicity was due in part to Nurmi deliberately sensationalizing 's defense to seek that publicity in order to enrich himself with booksales.

As the law librarian said so reassuringly- even if the COA agrees to wrap in one or more of the civil charges, that is not an indication the will prevail on anything, much less on having her conviction overturned.

This is true, she could have asserted her own defense during any of her pro per stints, I suppose Nurm will work that into his response and with any luck there's evidence that she accused Trav of abuse before he came on board.

I recall posting way back that her only real chance for a new trial was due to excessive publicity (and I still believe that), but I never dreamed it could come about in this manner, with Nurmi possibly being the ultimate cause. I'm shocked I tell ya, shocked! lol Like you said though, just because she alleges something, doesn't mean the COA will buy it.

You really did some homework on this (and I thank you for the legal insights), this is getting extremely interesting, but, imo, she can have 10 trials and I think the outcome will always be the same, guilty of 1st degree with LWOP.

 

[geevee]

IF a big IF the felon is ever tried again, all Judges and prosecutors will know her tricks big time. There will not be the playing around the second time. Her defense attorney will have a very hard time with her. The jury will find her guilty and I sure would like to see death penalty for the felon. No matter what she will never get out....she already admitted in the court room she did it....a great confession in front of the World.

Not to mention her sentencing confession that Travis was alive when she plunged the knife in his neck, love to see how she tries to get out of that one.

 

[Steve44]

This is true, she could have asserted her own defense during any of her pro per stints, I suppose Nurm will work that into his response and with any luck there's evidence that she accused Trav of abuse before he came on board.

I recall posting way back that her only real chance for a new trial was due to excessive publicity (and I still believe that), but I never dreamed it could come about in this manner, with Nurmi possibly being the ultimate cause. I'm shocked I tell ya, shocked! lol Like you said though, just because she alleges something, doesn't mean the COA will buy it.

You really did some homework on this (and I thank you for the legal insights), this is getting extremely interesting, but, imo, she can have 10 trials and I think the outcome will always be the same, guilty of 1st degree with LWOP.

All it means is she can try to convince the COA that she didn't get a fair trial - and it's all NURMI'S FAULT!!! - nevermind that she went on a media blitz by her own choice both before and between the trial(s) with her feigned innocence and calm conviction that 'no jury will ever convict me', 'cause I didn't do it'.

 

[geevee]

Good Morning Arizona interview with Kirk Nurmi:

http://www.azfamily.com/clip/138821...irk-nurmi-speaks-out-about-jodi-arias-lawsuit

 

[b_lab7410]

I was gonna say... she wanted to stick with the ninja angle... :dunno:

I don't get it either, especially since she mischievously altered her diary entries...

 

[b_lab7410]

Not to mention her sentencing confession that Travis was alive when she plunged the knife in his neck, love to see how she tries to get out of that one.

Yikes... *edited* right... "He was still attacking me..."

 

[Hope4More]

I think I'm in a rabbit hole after all. Dang.

I went back through the timeline & trial summaries, etc. that I worked on a long time ago for the appeals thread.

I'd forgotten several things that may relate to the 's odds of success in prevailing in her civil case against Nurmi. Most relevant was her 12 page handwritten letter to JSS , written in October, 2013, demanding that Nurmi be removed as counsel.

She mentions in it that this was her second attempt, that she had first tried to get rid of Nurmi in June, 2013, and that Nurmi had disputed whatever allegations she levelled against him then. So, there are sealed records covering both attempts to replace Nurmi in 2013, after her conviction and before PP2.

Rereading the 's letter, it's obvious that much of what is alleged in Clark's new suit is a regurgitation of the 's complaints back then, including that Nurmi told MDLR to lie about his trip to interview whoever in Vegas, that he refused to allow her to leave messages for him, that he was rude to her, yada yada.

What isn't in the letter is any accusation about Nurmi wanting to write a book, or that he had refused to agree to a defense of her choice. Whoops.

 

[Hope4More]

Good Morning Arizona interview with Kirk Nurmi:

http://www.azfamily.com/clip/138821...irk-nurmi-speaks-out-about-jodi-arias-lawsuit

Just saw this. Thanks for the link- about to watch it (and relearn how to include respond to multiple posts in one reply).

 

[geevee]

I think I'm in a rabbit hole after all. Dang.

I went back through the timeline & trial summaries, etc. that I worked on a long time ago for the appeals thread.

I'd forgotten several things that may relate to the 's odds of success in prevailing in her civil case against Nurmi. Most relevant was her 12 page handwritten letter to JSS , written in October, 2013, demanding that Nurmi be removed as counsel.

She mentions in it that this was her second attempt, that she had first tried to get rid of Nurmi in June, 2013, and that Nurmi had disputed whatever allegations she levelled against him then. So, there are sealed records covering both attempts to replace Nurmi in 2013, after her conviction and before PP2.

Rereading the 's letter, it's obvious that much of what is alleged in Clark's new suit is a regurgitation of the 's complaints back then, including that Nurmi told MDLR to lie about his trip to interview whoever in Vegas, that he refused to allow her to leave messages for him, that he was rude to her, yada yada.

What isn't in the letter is any accusation about Nurmi wanting to write a book, or that he had refused to agree to a defense of her choice. Whoops.

I didn't think I remembered any accusation against Nurm about a book at any point, I'm at a disadvantage though as I had to replace my computer after the flood and lost all my links, pics, docs, etc. and have only my memory to rely on. :facepalm: I do have a lot of it saved on a thumb drive but I can't find it. :tantrum: