Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #8

[Hope4More]

I wholeheartedly agree H4M regarding Karen Clark & these absurd charges against Juan.
And what really gets my goat as well is that all juror names from the guilt phase were posted on JAII soon after the guilty verdict and no one ever mentions how that may have happened. That was truly despicable.
How ridiculous of Tammy Rose, another “fame wh*#e” like the killer. She is still a “has been” reporting traffic from a helicopter in another city.

What the heck, right?

Apparently Clark took the time (after the complaint was dismissed? Before it was?) to independently investigate her allegations against JM, including interviewing (at the very least) Tammy Rose, Juror #3 from PP2, and the blogger's ex-husband.

In her 37 page objection to the Bar's dismissal, Clark apparently also included workplace complaints of "inappropriate" or "unprofessional" behavior towards secretaries by JM that were put on his record in 1990 and 1991.

How in the world did Clark get access JM's personnel record? More to the point, how in the world is his alleged workplace conduct decades ago possibly relevant to a 2017 bar complaint about his alleged ethical violations during trial in 2013-2015?

And about charge #4 in the original bar complaint: unethical contact between JM and dismissed juror #3, as part of a pattern by JM of using sex & flirtation to obtain & disseminate information.

Juror #3 was kicked off the PP2 jury in late November or early December, IIRC, after she was arrested the day after Thanksgiving for passing one or more bad checks.

According to Clark:

** The blogger (not JM) approached #3.

** #3 told the blogger she wanted to speak to JM. (weird)

** The blogger gave #3 JM's cellphone number (with friends like that....)

** JM admitted to the Bar that he did speak with #3. (pass)

** #3 told Clark she had " 4-5 conversations" with JM. (this is supposed to represent extensive contact between JM and 3).

** #3 told Clark that JM flirted with her, and at some point said " I'm a breast man myself." (really?)

** #3 told Clark she texted JM nude photos of herself (of her *advertiser censored*). (seriously really? who does that?! especially in the middle of a DP trial in which sex, not murder, is the primary theme? thank goodness this one was booted from the jury, eh?)

#3 told Clark that both the blogger and JM repeatedly tried to get information from her about the remaining sitting jurors (Keiffer-twit says and about jury deliberations as well).

**Clark obtained texts that were sent between the blogger and good 'ole Tammy Rose (or was it the blogger's extremely bitter ex-partner? either way). The blogger says in those texts that she's worried #3 might blab about her contact with JM, but JM told her he wasn't worried.

Also in those texts, the blogger says JM isn't returning #3's calls to him.

---
How high school-y, style, sex-lies-exaggerations drama it all sounds.

The bottom line is that the second party texts Clark has aren't proof of anything; she couldn't produce texts between 3 and JM; whatever was allegedly said in phone conversations can't be proven or used against JM; JM didn't lie to the Bar about being in contact with 3; and, JM said he quickly terminated contact with 3 (no doubt when she sent him frikking pics of her *advertiser censored*, fgs.

Last, but the only thing that matters in terms of an ethics complaint..

 

[Hope4More]

The #3 thing, continued (timed out)

Whether or not JM's contact with #3 was an ethical violation, the only question relevant to the Bar, comes down to Clark's allegation that JM tried to solicit information about other jurors from dismissed for an arrest juror #3.

What kind of information? What jurors preferred to eat for lunch? How much Christmas shopping they still had to do? Whether or not jurors were getting restless? (that they were was obvious to every trial observer-tweeter in the courtroom, [snark alert] perhaps even to Tammy Rose).

Reality is, the jury hadn't begun deliberating, and would not for months yet. Unless they had violated the admonition, they hadn't discussed anything at all about the trial.

So, what information that #3 could possibly provide him would JM be willing to risk his law license and his years-long quest for a DP verdict to obtain?

Right. Nothing. The charge is as absurd as it is unsupported by the evidence.

 

[Nosey Parker]

No, no, no! Post on this thread--please! I really enjoy reading what you find and your thoughts on that. It really is instructive.

Yes, please keep us updated Hope. Your interpretations are the only way I can make sense of all this!

 

[RickshawFan]

Question about latest Juan Martinez accusations: Could somebody please :tantrum: tell me what is going on? What is with the "social media blogger" etc?
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2018/02/13/arizona-state-bar-complaint-jodi-arias-prosecutor-juan-martinez/332195002/

Russian bots sowing discord?

 

[Wing Ding]

Juror #3 was kicked off the PP2 jury in late November or early December, IIRC, after she was arrested the day after Thanksgiving for passing one or more bad checks.

Oh my God don't tell me Juror #3 was replaced by the now-infamous Juror 17 who essentially gave Jodi a "Get Out Of Death Row" free card.

How in the world did Clark get access JM's personnel record?

Maria de la Cucaracha? Everyone on that defense team was dirty and crooked. They give defense lawyers a bad name.

 

[Hope4More]

About Clark’s civil case against Nurmi, and whether or not the charges in it are potentially relevant to the ’s inevitable filing for post- conviction relief (PCR), or even, somehow, to her COA appeal.


Clark alleges in the civil that Nurmi was determined from the first to write a book about the trial, and that his animosity towards the caused him to make strategic decisions that were in his own self- interest, rather than in the best interests of his client.

It seemed possible, IMO, that Clark is laying the groundwork for the to argue in her PCR that Nurmi’s alleged conflict of interest deprived her of a fair trial because her 6th amendment right to effective counsel had been violated.

I finally found an exactly on-point Arizona Supreme Court case, which IMO very likely supplies the answer of whether or not the could prevail (have her conviction overturned) on such a claim.

The answer is NO. Or at minimum, NOT VERY LIKELY WHATSOEVER.

Here’s a link to the Arizona Supreme Court case that I think puts that concern to rest:

https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1986/6612-pr-2.html

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

In plain words: The Arizona Supreme Court specifically addressed the issues relating to what burden of proof the would need to meet to prevail on a claim that Nurmi’s conflict of interest deprived her of a fair trial:

What the ASC ruled:

A defendant must show first that there was an actual conflict, and second, that the conflict had an adverse effect.

On the matter of what defines an “actual conflict, “the ASC says this:

“The Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 1.7) define conflict of interest as:

(….) when a lawyer cannot consider, recommend or carry out an appropriate course of action for the client because of the lawyer's other responsibilities or interests."

A finding that there was a conflict of interest under the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct does not mean there is an actual conflict of interest for the purposes of determining ineffective assistance of counsel in a criminal case.

(((So, even if Nurmi is found “guilty” in the civil case of breaching his fiduciary and ethical duties to the because he hated her guts and plotted a best seller tell all book, neither the breaches or his dark thoughts & plans are sufficient to prove a constitutionally relevant conflict of interest.)))

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

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that to prove “an actual conflict,” the defendant has to demonstrate that another defense strategy was possible (doesn’t have to prove it could have succeeded, only that it was strategically viable), AND that her attorney didn’t pursue the strategy solely because it was inimical to his own self-interest.

((IMO, there is little to no possibility that the could prove either of those things)).
-------------------

Hopefully not, anyway, because step 2 sets a pretty low threshold (quotes from the AZC case):


“Once (IF!) defendant has shown an actual conflict, he must then show adverse effect."

“ Adverse effect and prejudice are distinctly different; adverse effect is a significantly easier standard for a defendant than prejudice."

" To establish prejudice, a defendant would have to show that the attorney's conflict reduced his effectiveness so severely that it resulted in or contributed to defendant's conviction. "

"To establish adverse effect, a defendant would only have to show that his attorney's conflict reduced his effectiveness. "

"The fact that counsel might have performed better at trial does not rise to adverse effect. "

"The negative impact must be substantial although it need not have caused defendant's conviction. "

"Whether an adverse effect has had a substantially negative impact must be determined on a case by case basis.”

 

[Hope4More]

(Warning: very long posts follow )

RECAPPING THE CHRONOLOGY OF HOW HER DEFENSE EVOLVED, LOOKING FOR THE PROOF THE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT SHE HAD A VIABLE DEFENSE STRATEGY THAT NURMI, ACTING IN HIS OWN SELF-INTEREST, OVERRULED : (modified, corrected, and with addition info to my recent related posts in the Appeals thread)


2009. THE IS STILL CLINGING TO HER PREFERRED STRATEGY OF BLAMING THE NINJAS.

’s original mitigation specialist and 1st chair attorney Schaffer interview ’s family, former employers & boyfriends looking for helpful mitigation evidence. According to JM, the interviews instead almost uniformly reveal strikingly negative information & perceptions about the .

May 22, 2009, the tells Judge Duncan she wants to go pro per because she’s unhappy with Schaffer. Nurmi writes that the was also angry with her mitigation specialist, and implies the didn’t like her first defense team because she couldn’t manipulate them.

August 10, 2009. Both Schaffer and second chair Gregory Parzych withdraw. Before they do so, Schaffer turns over to the State all the mitigation witness interviews she and the MS (over 400 pages) have conducted.

Included in the interviews Nurmi know JM has access to are statements by potential defense witnesses that the was never abused as a child, and that she had a history of playing the victim.

Also, at some point in their brief tenure, Shaffer and Parzych ask for and are given access to T’s computer, which they turn on, destroying evidence. (This mattered, not least because Nurmi needed *advertiser censored* found on TA’s computer to buttress the ’s pedo lie testimony.)

September 2009. Nurmi takes over first chair, Washington is second chair. He writes that although he thinks ’s ninja story is ridiculous and unsupported by the evidence, he can’t dissuade or prevent the from telling it. Her defense. Her choice.

Nurmi also writes that Schaeffer had developed a defense strategy, but that it wasn’t one he felt obligated to present. He says his first read through of the evidence and his own encounters with the convinced him the was mentally disturbed.

His preferred strategy already is to present a heat of passion, second degree murder/manslaughter case. Although the still clings to the ninjas (absolving herself of all responsibility for T’s murder), Nurmi immediately begins pursuing evidence to support his own strategy.

((Trial looms. A defense must be presented. Nurmi hoped to convince the to drop the ninjas, and he began preparing for an alternative narrative and strategy, but his doing so didn’t deny her a ninjas defense. The proper term for what he was doing is: being effective counsel.

Pursuing evidence that could support heat of passion didn’t prevent him from seeking evidence that the ninjas did it. There was no way any such evidence could be searched for, much less found, and the ’s first team had already searched, in vain, for folks willing to say under oath anything positive about the .

In any case, by all accounts the hadn’t turned on Nurmi yet, nor he on her, and Nurmi’s alleged book dreams were still in the future. SO: through 2009: NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF "ACTUAL CONFLICT."
------------------------

October 2009. Nurmi begins entering motions to have the State turn over forensic exams of all electronic media, including T’s phone. He will continue filing motions demanding discovery of all things electronic throughout 2009-2012.

JM writes that upon seeing Nurmi’s slew of phone/computer evidence motions he assumed the DT was going to drop the ninjas story to pursue a self-defense case.

 

[Hope4More]

PART 2. RECAPPING THE CHRONOLOGY OF HOW HER DEFENSE EVOLVED, LOOKING FOR THE PROOF THE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT SHE HAD A VIABLE DEFENSE STRATEGY THAT NURMI, ACTING IN HIS OWN SELF-INTEREST, OVERRULED ...


December, 2009. Dr.Samuels interviewed the for the first time.


January, 2010. Samuels administered a PTSD test to the .

Feb 2-3, 2010. Karp interviewed the . Afterwards, she produced a written report for Nurmi. Her report includes a denial by the that she was ever abused as a child. It also includes the ’s first version of the pedo lie: that on January 21, 2008, the saw TA masturbating to images of little boys on his computer.

Karp’s report notes that the told her Travis broke her finger on February 5, 2008, the day she was fired from her job at Mimi’s, in response to her being fired. Notice that the didn’t tell Karp her finger was broken on January 22, 2008, as she would later testify to at trial.

In other words, as of early February, 2010, neither the or Nurmi had yet tried to link her physical abuse lies with her lie that Travis was a pedophile, a linkage that would become the foundation for her self-defense case at trial.

And not irrelevant: Nurmi had Karp administer the a test for PTSD, and a self-report test for DV. The pedo lie didn’t figure in Karp’s results for either test. Rather, what Karp reported was that yes, the had PTSD, and that it resulted from having been in an extraordinarily violent relationship with Travis, during which he had physically assaulted her 40-50 times.


Oops. What a mess for Nurmi. Trial is due to start in a few months. The expert psych testimony he now has rests upon Dr. Samuels’ conclusion that the had PTSD, and that it was caused by the witnessing 2 ninjas murder Travis, not by anything related to DV.

And, he has his expert DV witness’s conclusion that the had PTSD, caused not by witnessing ninjas murder Travis, but resulting from an astounding number of incidents of physical violence by Travis, a number that, awkwardly for Nurmi, contradicted every other physical abuse narrative the had spewed after her interrogation by Flores, during which she had not accused Travis of any kind of abuse at all, not to mention her journals and the texts he had reviewed to that point, which likewise, spoke not a peep about Travis physically abusing the .

Nurmi also is dealing with a client who (out of the blue?) has told his DV expert that the man she murdered was a pedophile, an accusation he believes will earn her a DP verdict if it can’t be defended with actual evidence, not just his lying client’s word.

What is a defense attorney to do?

(BTW...as early as January of this year 2010, when the ninjas and not the are being blamed for TA's murder, Nurmi was clearly intent upon "proving" that the suffered from PTSD. Why was that? To explain that convenient fog of hers she would later peddle? In the pursuit of a mitigating factor, hoping a jury would believe the was traumatized by TA's murder?)
----------------------------------

 

[Hope4More]

PART 3. RECAPPING THE CHRONOLOGY OF HOW HER DEFENSE EVOLVED, LOOKING FOR THE PROOF THE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT SHE HAD A VIABLE DEFENSE STRATEGY THAT NURMI, ACTING IN HIS OWN SELF-INTEREST, OVERRULED ...




Still 2010.


April 11, 2010. Ten forged letters are sent to Nurmi via email; all are copies of copies. At least 2 of the 10 letters relate to pedo. Others are “confessions” about physical abuse, including of punching her in the face; at least one is intended to harm/hurt Deanna).

In one of the pedo letters, dated March 2008, TA says he wants to marry the because he thinks marrying her will help prevent him from continuing to molest little boys.

The most vile pedo letter was dated January 21, 2007. The letter’s pedo lie narrative:

Travis writes her to express his horror that she has uncovered his dark secret.

TA confesses that: he has sexually molested little boys for years; he knows he is evil; he’s afraid he won’t be able to stop himself from molesting Sky & Chris Hughes’ son; that having sex with women lessens his need to molest boys; that the has already helped him contain his evil urges “via the fantasy enactments,” and that his pedophilia explains why he likes anal sex and seeing her in little boy undies.

He says: “please give me a chance to explain what you saw. I know it looks bad (…) but your (sic) probably the only person on the planet who has the capacity to understand and the compassion to try.

(….)I want to kill myself! I want to blow my f-cking head off.”

He asks her not to judge him and tells her to call him as soon as she reads the letter. He says: “I need to know that I can trust you. I know I can trust you. “
-----

((Note that there is nothing in this forged letter about the witnessing Travis masturbating to images of little boys on the computer, though the ’s story to Karp had already linked Jan 21 to pedo and the lie of seeing *advertiser censored* on TA’s computer)).

April 29, 2010. Dated, handwritten notes by Karp include the pedo lie, but her notes contradict what she said in her February written report: the *advertiser censored* is now on paper, not on the computer, and Travis isn’t on his computer, he’s on his bed.
(Perhaps the story changed this early on because Nurmi looked at Schaffer’s notes and there was nothing there about seeing *advertiser censored* on TA’s computer? Dworkin would later testify at trial (2013) at the DT never asked him to look for *advertiser censored* of any variety, much less pedophilic *advertiser censored*).


June 22, 2010. Nurmi files a justification defense based on alleged DV, asserting in essence that the killed Travis because based on the DV Travis had inflicted upon her, she reasonably feared for her life that day, and defended herself.

((To prove that this change in defense was an “Actual Conflict,” the would have to prove that Nurmi forced her to drop the ninjas and agree to a strategy of self-defense AND that the ’s ninja defense was a viable alternative, AND that Nurmi chose to pursue self-defense to advance his own self-interests. No, no, and not. NO ACTUAL CONFLICT.

From June 22, 2010 through trial’s end, what followed were decisions about how to put on an effective case for self-defense, and according to Nurmi, how to weave mitigation into the guilt phase of trial, given (reading between the lines) he knew he had precious little to offer as mitigation during the sentencing phase.

The , not Nurmi, first inserted accusations of pedophilia into her case. The content of her forged pedo letter dated January 21, 2007 makes it pretty obvious that the had already thought through how she could use pieces of what she knew existed in texts and on the sex tape to sell her pedo lie, in addition of course, to having TA helpfully confess in writing that he was a pedophile.

She also knew that letters in which Travis confessed to physically abusing her would surely prove useful, since there was otherwise zero evidence other than her own word to support her claims of DV central to self-defense.

The invented the pedo lie before their attorney-client relationship became, to use Nurmi’s term, “toxic,” and before there is any suggestion he contemplated writing a book. It also defies common sense (and the trial record) that Nurmi believed the accusing Travis of pedophilia benefitted him in any way, or made his job of saving her from the DP any easier.

By June 22, when self-defense was filed, Nurmi knew he would have to present “evidence” at trial that the had been abused by Travis, and that he would have to convince a jury the was “justified” in killing Travis that day.

How he -or the - chose to go about proving either of those points wasn’t nailed down yet, nor had his choice of arguing a second degree “snapped” defense been precluded.

 

[Hope4More]

PART 4 . RECAPPING THE CHRONOLOGY OF HOW HER DEFENSE EVOLVED, LOOKING FOR THE PROOF THE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT SHE HAD A VIABLE DEFENSE STRATEGY THAT NURMI, ACTING IN HIS OWN SELF-INTEREST, OVERRULED ...




Plea Bargaining: The ’s “I win no matter what” strategy?


Perhaps the invented the pedo lie because she believed the very threat of it being aired in court would force TA’s family into accepting her “offer” of pleading guilty to second degree murder and avoiding trial.

Her anger that his family hadn’t capitulated and allowed her to escape the threat of a DP (in reality, that wasn’t their decision to make) was certainly evident throughout the trials. Even years later, at her sentencing hearing, the very first words out of her mouth to JSS, her voice shaking with rage, were that TA’s family bore the responsibility for her vile character-assassination of Travis, because they had repeatedly refused her generous offers to avoid trial.

Nurmi did not deprive the of the right to try to plea bargain her way out of a DP sentence. Three plea bargains were attempted pre-trial. At least one of those was authored by Nurmi, IMO reflecting his own willingness to try to coerce TA's family into accepting a plea.

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

October 26, 2010. The submits her first of 3 plea bargain “offers” to the State (2nd: December 2010; 3rd: June 2011).

(Nurmi ‘s book discusses only one undated plea bargain attempt by the . It is therefore impossible to know which of the 3 plea bargain “offers” Nurmi tries to present as his own righteous effort to “warn” the State, TA’s family, and others how “out of control” and ugly a trial would be.


From the October 2010 plea (paraphrased unless in quotes):

“While felony murder is a legal and factual possibility, the probability is the State will have a difficult time convincing the jury to find Jodi guilty of capital murder. It will require quite the feat of mental gymnastics to get a conviction under this theory.”

“Understanding this dynamic, if the State focuses on the “easier” sell of premeditation. This too is a difficult sell and here’s why:”

Experts will testify that Travis’s behavior (towards the ) was extremely demeaning, abusive, and degrading, and what affect that had on Jodi’s psyche.

Travis’s own words will (destroy his reputation as a devout Mormon) and will paint him as a “playboy expert manipulator and sexual deviant.”

Even if the (forged) letters aren’t admitted, TA’s own words, through texts and voice recordings will “show the dynamic,” and if they are admitted, they will “add a layer of authenticity “ to the texts and (sex tape) “such that a jury will come to the conclusion this was not first degree murder.”

“Given the timeline of the incident, the premeditation angle becomes more difficult for the State to prove.”

The evidence (the ? Nurmi? believed at that point) cited “which supports a lesser charge such as manslaughter: “


** Text messages will prove that althoughTravis was upset with her and called her names, he also wanted to continue using her for sex.

** Flores in his 48 Hours interview “makes admissions that there is anger involved with this.”

**We have an email from Travis to Jodi telling her she was only good for oral sex and calling her a 3 hole wonder.


The plea also cites two Arizona cases in which defendants stabbed their victims to death, yet were “only” charged with second degree murder.
--------------------------------

The State did not reply, at all, to this plea offer. That suggests, IMO, the wrote the plea, not Nurmi, and that it wasn’t related to any formal & scheduled settlement conference.


December 2010. tries again to strike a plea bargain with the State.

This time she is even less subtle. She states that “it strikes her” the amount of “collateral damage” a trial will inflict, since exposing Travis’s “numerous” (sexual) relationships with other Mormons would “affect marriages, standings in the Mormon community, friendships, and “most of all, the very cherished and poignant memories of Travis would be tarnished.”


The State did respond to this second attempt to “settle” for a second-degree murder conviction: NO, . THAT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

Notably, what both plea bargains are proof of is that from October 2010-June 2011, the was ready and willing to present a defense that focused on attacking TA’s character and on sex. Curiously, there is no direct mention of physical abuse or DV in these pleas, and no emphasis whatsoever given to her alleged fear for her life on the day she slaughtered Travis Alexander.

 

[Hope4More]

Will conclude the defense opus thing tomorrow. Meanwhile- nothing new on either the COA docket for her appeal, or on the Superior Court docket for the civil case against Nurmi.

It really does look like 's opening brief will be filed by next Wednesday's due date (the 28th), if not before that. And..though her attorneys may wait until they file the brief to request that it be sealed, they haven't done so yet.

 

[Becky Sharp]

PART 4 . RECAPPING THE CHRONOLOGY OF HOW HER DEFENSE EVOLVED, LOOKING FOR THE PROOF THE WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT SHE HAD A VIABLE DEFENSE STRATEGY THAT NURMI, ACTING IN HIS OWN SELF-INTEREST, OVERRULED ...




Plea Bargaining: The ’s “I win no matter what” strategy?


Perhaps the invented the pedo lie because she believed the very threat of it being aired in court would force TA’s family into accepting her “offer” of pleading guilty to second degree murder and avoiding trial.

Her anger that his family hadn’t capitulated and allowed her to escape the threat of a DP (in reality, that wasn’t their decision to make) was certainly evident throughout the trials. Even years later, at her sentencing hearing, the very first words out of her mouth to JSS, her voice shaking with rage, were that TA’s family bore the responsibility for her vile character-assassination of Travis, because they had repeatedly refused her generous offers to avoid trial.

Nurmi did not deprive the of the right to try to plea bargain her way out of a DP sentence. Three plea bargains were attempted pre-trial. At least one of those was authored by Nurmi, IMO reflecting his own willingness to try to coerce TA's family into accepting a plea.

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

October 26, 2010. The submits her first of 3 plea bargain “offers” to the State (2nd: December 2010; 3rd: June 2011).

(Nurmi ‘s book discusses only one undated plea bargain attempt by the . It is therefore impossible to know which of the 3 plea bargain “offers” Nurmi tries to present as his own righteous effort to “warn” the State, TA’s family, and others how “out of control” and ugly a trial would be.


From the October 2010 plea (paraphrased unless in quotes):

“While felony murder is a legal and factual possibility, the probability is the State will have a difficult time convincing the jury to find Jodi guilty of capital murder. It will require quite the feat of mental gymnastics to get a conviction under this theory.”

“Understanding this dynamic, if the State focuses on the “easier” sell of premeditation. This too is a difficult sell and here’s why:”

Experts will testify that Travis’s behavior (towards the ) was extremely demeaning, abusive, and degrading, and what affect that had on Jodi’s psyche.

Travis’s own words will (destroy his reputation as a devout Mormon) and will paint him as a “playboy expert manipulator and sexual deviant.”

Even if the (forged) letters aren’t admitted, TA’s own words, through texts and voice recordings will “show the dynamic,” and if they are admitted, they will “add a layer of authenticity “ to the texts and (sex tape) “such that a jury will come to the conclusion this was not first degree murder.”

“Given the timeline of the incident, the premeditation angle becomes more difficult for the State to prove.”

The evidence (the ? Nurmi? believed at that point) cited “which supports a lesser charge such as manslaughter: “


** Text messages will prove that althoughTravis was upset with her and called her names, he also wanted to continue using her for sex.

** Flores in his 48 Hours interview “makes admissions that there is anger involved with this.”

**We have an email from Travis to Jodi telling her she was only good for oral sex and calling her a 3 hole wonder.


The plea also cites two Arizona cases in which defendants stabbed their victims to death, yet were “only” charged with second degree murder.
--------------------------------

The State did not reply, at all, to this plea offer. That suggests, IMO, the wrote the plea, not Nurmi, and that it wasn’t related to any formal & scheduled settlement conference.


December 2010. tries again to strike a plea bargain with the State.

This time she is even less subtle. She states that “it strikes her” the amount of “collateral damage” a trial will inflict, since exposing Travis’s “numerous” (sexual) relationships with other Mormons would “affect marriages, standings in the Mormon community, friendships, and “most of all, the very cherished and poignant memories of Travis would be tarnished.”


The State did respond to this second attempt to “settle” for a second-degree murder conviction: NO, . THAT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

Notably, what both plea bargains are proof of is that from October 2010-June 2011, the was ready and willing to present a defense that focused on attacking TA’s character and on sex. Curiously, there is no direct mention of physical abuse or DV in these pleas, and no emphasis whatsoever given to her alleged fear for her life on the day she slaughtered Travis Alexander.

It's been so long since I've replied to a post by quoting some of it, I've forgotten how to do it--doh!

Thank you Hope4More! I always appreciate your sharp analyses, and I'm glad you've gone down this rabbit hole. I wanted to especially agree with your bolded summation at the end of your post. I'm always amused by how this self-proclaimed genius is really quite stupid, and transparently so.

 

[salberg7]

Thank you H4M! Good to see you back in action.
If the killer’s appeal is not sealed, we the people can read it? Or must we wait until the COA responds?
I hope Karen Clark’s “appeal” disagreeing with the dismissal of the complaint against Juan is denied as well.
I’ve been re-reading Juan’s book again as I am out on medical leave of absence, as well as YouTubing parts of the trial, most recently jury questions to the killer.
She really does think she’s a genius and that every one of those jurors will believe her overt lies! One of the best questions was (paraphrasing) - because of all the lies you’ve told in the past, “why should we believe you now?”. And the killer replies something to the effect that she’s had an epiphany of some sort so the jury must believe that her testimony is nothing but the truth. Yeah, right.
The killer is so composed during those questions, and the lies just keep rolling off her tongue.
I always wonder why she waived her Miranda rights when she was arrested. But looking back, with her psychopathy as we know it now, she couldn’t resist talking, as she was so sure Flores (and the world) would believe her. I also wondered why she gave her DNA sample to the police when she was in Mesa for Travis’ Memorial Service after she refused once while on the phone with Flores.
Probably thought because she was at his house so much that was her excuse if the samples proved she was there.
I also re-watched her interviews with Flores on 7/15 & 7/16 - how badly she wanted to view the crime scene pictures - she asked Flores several times but he shut her down.
Again Hope, thank you very much for your research and writing the posts above.

 

[Hope4More]

(Interlude, on my phone posts until I can replace my laptop charger that gave up on me yesterday ).

As Nurmi said so often during trial....let's back up for a moment.

The last part of my timeline moved on from when the 10 forged letters were emailed to Nurmi in April, 2010, and ended in late 2010.

After rereading more sections of Nurmi's ghastly book in the context of the defense's evolution & who wanted what strategy when and why, sorry to say, I'm gonna back up to April 2010.

Inference is required, because Nurmi's account of what happened with the letters is self-serving, muddled, contradictory, and because of the vestiges of confidentiality he chose to honor, necessarily incomplete.

But... what he says he did after he received the letters sheds a lot of light on the overall question of whose strategy when, IMO.

Nurmi lists these questions he had about the letters: who is Bob White? Where are the originals? Where were the originals stored (they weren't found during LE searches)? How did Bob White obtain copies of the letters? And, how did this Bob White or anyone else who had been in possession of the letters know to contact him?


Nurmi said he asked the these questions within a day or two of receiving the letters, but that he can't divulge her replies.

(aaaarrrggggh! server crashed wiping out last paragraphs of one finger at a time typing...BBL).

 

[TrialWatcher]

Arias began formulating the 'Attack Travis' strategy very early on. Even when she was telling the media what a great guy he was the lies were bubbling underneath. You can see it clearly in this video from 2008:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaJmaW6YxuE

From 17:51 in above.


Interviewer, "Was the relationship ever violent?".

Arias, "Ummmmm... pass on that question".

Interviewer, "Some of the evidence that investigators have is damning. How are you going to get beyond this and prove your innocence?"

Um, that's a defence strategy that we'll have to work out"

On a side note, Arias' use of "proverbial duct tape" is especially sinister given the year - 2008.

 

[Hope4More]

Thank you H4M! Good to see you back in action.
If the killer’s appeal is not sealed, we the people can read it? Or must we wait until the COA responds?
I hope Karen Clark’s “appeal” disagreeing with the dismissal of the complaint against Juan is denied as well.
I’ve been re-reading Juan’s book again as I am out on medical leave of absence, as well as YouTubing parts of the trial, most recently jury questions to the killer.
She really does think she’s a genius and that every one of those jurors will believe her overt lies! One of the best questions was (paraphrasing) - because of all the lies you’ve told in the past, “why should we believe you now?”. And the killer replies something to the effect that she’s had an epiphany of some sort so the jury must believe that her testimony is nothing but the truth. Yeah, right.
The killer is so composed during those questions, and the lies just keep rolling off her tongue.
I always wonder why she waived her Miranda rights when she was arrested. But looking back, with her psychopathy as we know it now, she couldn’t resist talking, as she was so sure Flores (and the world) would believe her. I also wondered why she gave her DNA sample to the police when she was in Mesa for Travis’ Memorial Service after she refused once while on the phone with Flores.
Probably thought because she was at his house so much that was her excuse if the samples proved she was there.
I also re-watched her interviews with Flores on 7/15 & 7/16 - how badly she wanted to view the crime scene pictures - she asked Flores several times but he shut her down.
Again Hope, thank you very much for your research and writing the posts above.

Hi Salberg...

On availability of her opening brief. I just today double checked with a COA clerk about how that works.

COA opening briefs are considered public documents available to all, they just are not made available online. Anyone can call the Court and ask for the 's brief to be emailed to them. If it isn't sealed, anyway.

's attorneys haven't filed the brief yet, which the clerk thought means they will file it electronically. The exact due date is February 28th, by 11:59PM Arizona time, and if it's not sealed, it is technically available to the public that very minute.

If her attorneys want the brief sealed, they can file a motion to seal along with the brief (doesn't have to be filed ahead of time). And,sadly, if the opening brief is sealed so too will be the State's response, as well as the 's attorneys' reply to the State's response- all 3 briefs. Which means we wouldn't have access to the briefs until the COA rules, which will be.....well, sometime in 2019.

 

[Hope4More]

Arias began formulating the 'Attack Travis' strategy very early on. Even when she was telling the media what a great guy he was the lies were bubbling underneath. You can see it clearly in this video from 2008:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaJmaW6YxuE

From 17:51 in above.


Interviewer, "Was the relationship ever violent?".

Arias, "Ummmmm... pass on that question".

Interviewer, "Some of the evidence that investigators have is damning. How are you going to get beyond this and prove your innocence?"

Um, that's a defence strategy that we'll have to work out"

On a side note, Arias' use of "proverbial duct tape" is especially sinister given the year - 2008.

Yep- as JM said at sentencing, "out of one side of her mouth..... "

IMO she first got the idea of accusing TA of DV during her interrogation by the female cop, who asked her if she had been abused. And I think the idea appealed mightily to her, as it was one more way to smear TA, it allowed her to play victim, and not least, she knew the accusation would hurt TA's family and everyone who loved him (which is why she alleged DV in her letter to TA's family less than 2 weeks after she was arrested).

 

[TrialWatcher]

Arias never expected to be caught. She is that arrogant and stupid. The interview with the female police officer was fascinating, partly as Arias was so dismissive and unwilling to engage with a woman. Arias had banked on lying her way out of it by focusing on lack of motive. How many times did she insist that Travis was wonderful? Why would she ever have a reason to do such a thing? He never raped her (cringeworthy that she said that). Violence and abuse are the most common reasons women use as a defence. In jail she must have been aware of that but her arrogance drove her to double down on the 'No motive' strategy. So, the Ninja nonsense was offered in a panic when speaking to Detective Flores.

After she gave the Ninja tale, it must have been obvious to her and lawyers that it was a risible defence. She could use the female detective's suggestion as a bridge to a new strategy - blaming Travis. Block one of her defence was formed. Nurmi had sexual deviants as clients and was used to representing them. Next block - sexual abuse and paedophilia. All scrambled together by Arias - ever the opportunist.

 

[Hope4More]

Arias never expected to be caught. She is that arrogant and stupid. The interview with the female police officer was fascinating, partly as Arias was so dismissive and unwilling to engage with a woman. Arias had banked on lying her way out of it by focusing on lack of motive. How many times did she insist that Travis was wonderful? Why would she ever have a reason to do such a thing? He never raped her (cringeworthy that she said that). Violence and abuse are the most common reasons women use as a defence. In jail she must have been aware of that but her arrogance drove her to double down on the 'No motive' strategy. So, the Ninja nonsense was offered in a panic when speaking to Detective Flores.

After she gave the Ninja tale, it must have been obvious to her and lawyers that it was a risible defence. She could use the female detective's suggestion as a bridge to a new strategy - blaming Travis. Block one of her defence was formed. Nurmi had sexual deviants as clients and was used to representing them. Next block - sual abuse and paedophilia. All scrambled together by Arias - ever the opportunist.

Still on my phone, so am forced to aim for succinct, lol, so to reply to just one part of your post- the pedo lie.

(Sorry if I'm telling you what you already know). The very same day the was arrested in Yreka, just a few hours earlier, a brother of Daniel & Desiree Freidman (sp?) the too-loyal friends of she knew through Travis, killed himself, leaving behind a suicide note.

I've read the note (it can still be found online). He says in it that he was killing himself because he was afraid of his dark urges to molest little boys, afraid that he might give in to those urges and do the unthinkable, and that he he knew he was going to hell for even having the temptation, but that he chose to go to hell on his own terms, which was to kill himself rather than to risk at some point acting on those urges.

Sky Hughes believes the used this note and this suicide of a "friend" as the basis for her pedo lie. I do too, especially after reading it.

Consider just how evil that makes the , if true.

Not only was she willing to use the suicide of a "friend" to try to save herself, and to use that suicide to try to destroy the reputation of the man she had slaughtered in cold blood...

This "friend " said just having those urges was horrible enough to believe death was preferable (those feelings, btw, resulted from being sexually molested himself by a trusted neighbor).

The , though, went the malicious, twisted evil step further of having TA "confess" that he had actually ACTED on his urges, repeatedly, and had raped little boys.

Nurmi is responsible for many foul things that happened in both trials, imo, but not for being the source of her pedo lie.

 

[Hope4More]

(Still one finger typing posts, still the upside of necessarily succinct).

A question related not so much to the civil suit, but theoretically, to her COA appeal: did JSS make a reversible error/abuse her discretion in not removing/releasing Nurmi as the 's counsel?

Answer, from a constitutional viewpoint (based on my layman's reading of every available US Supreme Court case on that point I could find): NO.

The Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions, quite explicitly, that indigent defendants are in fact NOT entitled to counsel of their choice. That the didn't like or trust Nurmi meant and means squat, at least in terms of her constitutional rights to a fair trial, due process, & effective representation. No hope for her there.

And, even less so on that or on any other conceivable grounds, given that the did not ask for Nurmi to be removed until June, 2013, AFTER she was found guilty & the first jury hung on penalty.

And, interestingly enough (though tangential) in her Aug 2013 motion to fire Nurmi, she does NOT mention anything about Nurmi's plan to write a book, nor does she say peep about Nurmi forcing her into an unwanted guilt phase trial strategy of self-defense..

As for was it judicial error that Nurmi was not released....

The COA would have to find that TWO judges erred- both Duncan (multiple times in 2011) and JSS (several times in 2013).


I can't cut & paste to insert Duncan's rulings against Nurmi's release, but suffice it to say she was very, very, thorough in protecting & defending the 's right to hold onto Nurmi (lol), and equally thorough in laying down the law about what Nurmi had to do in order to be set free (he'd have to provide an alternative attorney who was conflict-free, available, and prepared enough to go to trial on the set date. So impossible).

As for JSS.

Nurmi made his final request to be released immediately after JSS sentenced the . In making his oral motion, he referred to Duncan's 2011 ruling that it would be "unethical" for him to be sprung, saying that the situation now was entirely different.

That Nurmi referenced Duncan,not JSS, strongly suggests that JSS denied Nurmi's requests to leave on the same grounds as had Duncan (though of course her thoughts on the matter were sealed back then & still are).