Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #8

Impressive typing from a mobile phone (cell phone to Americans ).

Yes, I too would point to Jodi for the monstrous paedophilia strategy. That Nurmi specialised in defending sexual predators must have delighted her initially. Someone she could glean information from and manipulate is always a bonus.

The death of the Freeman's brother may have been a source for her sick imagination to mine. I thought Desiree Freeman's testimony in court was peculiar.

As for how evil she is, I have no doubt about that whatsoever. Heaven knows what nonsense she will come up with next. She still chills me to the bone.

Also related to appeals, as well as the civil suit: again, those pedo letters....

I've done the whole tick tock of all things related to the pedo letters, though will have to wait until my computer wakes up from it's deep slumber to post the remainder).

But....

On the question of whether or not the has any possible legal grounds for appeal/civil suit damages as relates to the letters...

It is so amazingly clear in retrospect how much the relied upon those 10 forged letters being introduced into evidence. As JM wrote in his book, her self-defense claim was greatly weakened when the DT decided against trying to have them introduced, but by that point, the had no alternative but to proceed with her flimsily supported defense of self defense.

The letters not coming in was a big deal.

The question: did Nurmi have the (legal) right to defy the 's wishes and withdraw his motion to have the letters admitted?

Because defy her on this he most certainly did. He first defied her by searching for the originals & Bob White in 2010 (he says that was "the beginning of the end" for what had been "a relatively harmonious relationship" until that point).

Nurmi in fact did NOT need to obtain the originals in order to have the letters introduced into evidence at trial. AZ law is clear on that point. Absent the originals, though, he did need to produce a witness who could authenticate them by testifying he had seen them first hand and had been in possession of them.

The obviously believed (imo) she could produce just such a witness- Matt McCartney.

If MM's testimony as to their authenticity would have sufficed, why did he go in search of Bob White?

But a'searching did Nurmi go. To no blessed avail, of course. So....at some point (I've pinpointed when, actually), Nurmi had to abandon that fruitless quest and to interview MM, which he did, about a month before the oft-rescheduled and thought to be final evidentiary hearing on the letters' admissibility.

Sadly for the , this was the meeting during which MM "f-cked up" and told Nurmi something different than what she had been saying "for over a year."

The pedo letters & Nurmi, continued.

Nurmi's chapter on the letters & another on the going pro per for that evidentiary hearing are 2 of the most convoluted chapters in his entire book, which is really saying something.

A genuine nugget of info may be found , though, tucked away in his scathing rant about how absurd & dreadful was 's attempt at pro per:

(paraphrasing): that had it been up to him, he would have moved to withdraw his motion to have the letters introduced "weeks before" the evidentiary hearing was scheduled to be held.

In other words: he knew during/after his interview with MM that the had lied to him about the letters, and that he was going to have a big, big, problem if he put MM on the stand to authenticate the letters.

JM says in his book that he informed Nurmi "days before" the hearing of the smuggled magazines attempt and of the 3 x 5 cards found in the 's cell that the had obviously been using to practice forging TA's handwriting.

Nurmi says in his book that upon hearing about the mags & cards, he strongly suspected that the had forged the 10 letters. Hmm. Either he's abysmally slow, or he is deliberately muddling just when he knew the letters were a lie.

The point, though, is this: Nurmi WAS her attorney those weeks before the evidentiary hearing, and yet he did not move to withdraw his motion to have the letters introduced. Methinks that is because the was fighting him with full fury against his trying to tell her why it would be a terrible idea to rely upon MM's testimony.

Thus, her wonderfully ill-fated and assinine attempt to make it all better by telling MM, via the magazines, what lies he needed to tell in order to have those precious letters admitted.

Ah, what Nurmi must have thought when JM informed him that his client had been caught trying to tamper with a defense witness...the only witness Nurmi had who could authenticate the letters OR provide testimony supporting the 's claims of being physically abused by Travis.

Nurmi, the , pro per, and the pedo letters, continued.

The evidentiary hearing had been scheduled months ahead. JM and Nurmi both planned on having their respective handwriting experts testify. There is nothing on the available, unsealed record that proves MM had been scheduled to testify during the hearing, but....JM has all but said exactly that, both at trial and in his book.

MM didn't testify, of course, and no MM testimony- if not then, well then, at some point- definitely meant there was little to no possibility of having the letters introduced into evidence (insufficient authentication).

Why did the go pro per, then, if it wasn't to try to bring in MM's testimony, over Nurmi's objections, or even his refusal, to be blunt, to subourn perjury?

Who knows what the was thinking, really, but what is crystal clear is that Nurmi was FURIOUS with her by this point. IMO it's likely the thought by putting on the clown show of having a cellie take the blame for the mags, she could remove the witness tampering obstacle to having MM testify, and all would be peachy.

Nurmi to : so not going to happen.
to Nurmi: fine, then, i'll go pro per, and do better than you ever could anyway.

The fails, magnificently, epically, even. On this, and seemingly only on this do Nurmi and JM agree, though JM's account is both humerous and poignant ( targeted Deanna at the hearing), and Nurmi's is just plain nasty and dismissive.

Hope4More said:

The question: did Nurmi have the (legal) right to defy the 's wishes and withdraw his motion to have the letters admitted?

Because defy her on this he most certainly did. He first defied her by searching for the originals & Bob White in 2010 (he says that was "the beginning of the end" for what had been "a relatively harmonious relationship" until that point).

Nurmi in fact did NOT need to obtain the originals in order to have the letters introduced into evidence at trial. AZ law is clear on that point. Absent the originals, though, he did need to produce a witness who could authenticate them by testifying he had seen them first hand and had been in possession of them.

The obviously believed (imo) she could produce just such a witness- Matt McCartney.

If MM's testimony as to their authenticity would have sufficed, why did he go in search of Bob White?

But a'searching did Nurmi go. To no blessed avail, of course. So....at some point (I've pinpointed when, actually), Nurmi had to abandon that fruitless quest and to interview MM, which he did, about a month before the oft-rescheduled and thought to be final evidentiary hearing on the letters' admissibility.

Sadly for the , this was the meeting during which MM "f-cked up" and told Nurmi something different than what she had been saying "for over a year."

Click to expand...

The 'Bob White' saga was important. Arias insisted that Nurmi did not search properly for the mysterious man that witnessed the bruises all over her body. Immediately after her conviction in the interview with Fox 10 - it's one of the first things she focuses on. Her hatred of Nurmi can't be contained any longer. From 15 minutes in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFIfLA0LmbM

Her acting is terrible. Nothing she says makes sense. Everyone betrays Arias, from Travis to matt to Nurmi.

Last on trying to get the forged letters admitted, and legal significance, if any.

The abandoned her pro per ship (largely her metaphor) after trying to explain away the smuggled magazines fiasco and before the multi-day evidentiary hearing had concluded.

Nurmi refused to take immediate control of the (sinking) defense ship. Instead, he spent some time researching what pro se rights the was entitled to, and then some more time explaining to the judge that he didn't think he could provide the effective counsel if she was allowed to go pro per whenever she disagreed with him on trial strategy, and in going pro per, was allowed to mess up the defense case, forcing him to clean up after her (his words are these, but even harsher).

THEN he signed back in as 's counsel, and the very first thing he did? He withdrew his motion to have the letters admitted into evidence.

The relationship between the two was rather shipwrecked after that, and plunged further into the deep blue sea a few months later when Nurmi first tried to withdraw, escape, be released, set himself free, salvage his bruised ego, distance himself from what he very likely believed was certain defeat at trial, best case, and worse case, a whupping both at trial and of his professional reputation, whatever that actually ever was in reality and not just in his own mind.

Objectively:

:

1. He theoretically could still have called MM to testify as to the letters' authenticity, but didn't.

2. He seems to have withdrawn the motion to have letters admitted against his client's will.

3. Nurmi could have called MM to testify that he'd seen bruises on the , but didn't. Nurmi says he was concerned that if he called MM about the bruises that JM would go after MM about the forged letters. Eh? JM couldn't, not if the letters hadn't been admitted into testimony.

So, do Nurmi's decisions about the letters and whether or not to call MM to the stand AFTER the tried her hand at witness tampering provide her any grounds for appeal?

Timed out for editing...

Could his decisions about letters & not calling MM as a witness provide her grounds for appeal?

The answer is....NO. The Supreme Court is clear on this matter as well. A defense attorney has the constitutional right to decide on trial strategy. A defendants has no such right. She's entitled to the defense of her choice, and to decide how to plead (innocent or guilty), and whether or not she wants to take the stand. That's it.

The could theoretically claim that Nurmi's decisions about MM and the letters were based on his own interests, not hers (arising out of his alleged conflict of interest). The problem with any such argument by her on that score is that she would first have to prove that Nurmi had a conflict of interest, and second, that her own strategy about continuing to try to have the letters introduced, and to have MM testify, was a viable strategy.

Again- NOT. As we all know, including Nurmi, JM would have eviscerated MM. Just for starters, MM would have been forced to admit he'd told JM he was willing to lie for the . Nurmi acknowledges this inevitability in his book, explaining why he didn't call on MM.

Long story long, IMO it is impossible for the on this matter to prevail against Nurmi or on any of her appeals/PCR.

Nurmi, on the other hand, almost certainly has stories he wouldn't mind telling about Bob White and what the told him about where the pedo letters were supposedly stored, and how it was that the original letters were so unfortunately destroyed.

TrialWatcher said:

The 'Bob White' saga was important. Arias insisted that Nurmi did not search properly for the mysterious man that witnessed the bruises all over her body. Immediately after her conviction in the interview with Fox 10 - it's one of the first things she focuses on. Her hatred of Nurmi can't be contained any longer. From 15 minutes in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFIfLA0LmbM

Her acting is terrible. Nothing she says makes sense. Everyone betrays Arias, from Travis to matt to Nurmi.

Click to expand...

Twice (at least) did the describe TA as having hurt HIMSELF when he lost control in anger. Once, at trial, in the alleged confrontation the day after she spied on him "making out" with a woman, when she says she saw him repeatedly banging his ahead against an upstairs closet door, and second, in her vile letter to TA's family, in which she tells of a "come clean" conversation shortly before she left Mesa, during which she says Travis hit himself in the head so hard he injured his neck.

That alleged second occasion happened at the exact time she'd testify at trial that TA left bruises the never-found PPL'ers saw and joked about.

Ever since we spent so much time dissecting things post-trial, I've thought it not impossible that Travis DID leave bruises on her....bruises that resulted from him trying to restrain HER from banging her head against that closet door, and from hitting herself in the head so hard she hurt her neck, that day Travis told her he was glad she was leaving Mesa because it would make it easier for him to convince Mimi to marry him.

((IMO, the dates she chose for the forged letters in which TA "confessed" to physically abusing her are anything but random. All 3 letters we know the dates of reflect days on which Travis "rejected" her, big time. I'm guessing the dates were chosen by her out of her customary penchant for instinctive, reflexive, vindicative, targeted revenge.

Which makes it all the more hilarious that she chose those dates for the letters without checking whether or not the text or phone records or her own journals supported the lies she was telling in each and every letter)).

IMO although perhaps having a female detective try to interview the killer to appeal to her woman to woman to insert a level of compassion or kinmanship ( or maybe “kinwomanship”, it turned out to be a huge misstep through noone’s fault as the police could not have realized the killer felt more comfortable with speaking to males vs females. When you listen to Rachel B’s conversation, the killer picked up many ideas to begin to formulate more lies in her defense and to have the basis for to blame someone else, thus again, deflecting responsibility for her actions. For instance- the disgusting letter she wrote to Travis’ family (dated on his birthday). Rachel gave the killer the idea to write them a letter.
There were, for me, several cringe worthy moments in that interview where Rachel provided food for thought for the killer to “chew on”.
Another example of the shell of the killer’s personality, her ability to mold herself using the good intentions or words of others to justify her own evil self.
Also I knew the Freeman’s brother killed himself but not why. Yet another example of what I mean above.
Her appeal will be denied. There were no procedural errors made in her trial. Nurmi did not provide ineffectual council. They can’t prove this if only on the basis of the killed being saved from death row. There could have been no better outcome for the killer; there was more than enough evidence to convict.
Killer will do anything to stay in the spotlight.
Karen Clark’s motive, IMO, is setting up the killer’s PCR case. Wonder if Clark is representing the killer pro bono. Maybe Clark is using the killer for her own notoriety to present herself in the community as an esquire brave enough to take on the case of those who think they had ineffective council & she can take in money for her practice.
What would motivate Clark? Narcissism? Money?

I agree with the posters above. There were no procedural errors made in the trial. Arias had a defence that worked hard. She herself stated that.

Hope4More said:

Ever since we spent so much time dissecting things post-trial, I've thought it not impossible that Travis DID leave bruises on her....bruises that resulted from him trying to restrain HER from banging her head against that closet door, and from hitting herself in the head so hard she hurt her neck, that day Travis told her he was glad she was leaving Mesa because it would make it easier for him to convince Mimi to marry him.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is possible that Travis may have had to restrain the lunatic from self-harming. Yet if there had been bruises she would have catalogued them. When she cut her finger it was photographed. Arias destroyed her hard drive as she didn't want the police to find incriminating evidence. I bet there was lots. She took care to save any evidence that helped her. Why not any bruises?

The evidence suggests that Arias was preparing to blackmail Travis. I have long thought that her rage led to the formulation of blackmail plans around sexual fantasy and violence way before the murder. Arias presented plan A - innocence. To have gone straight to 'abuse' would have pointed the murder at her doorstep. That would have provided motive. The interviews with Detective Flores show how desperate Arias was to prove she had no motive. She genuinely thought she could lie her way out of it.

salberg7 said:

IMO although perhaps having a female detective try to interview the killer to appeal to her woman to woman to insert a level of compassion or kinmanship ( or maybe “kinwomanship”, it turned out to be a huge misstep through noone’s fault as the police could not have realized the killer felt more comfortable with speaking to males vs females. When you listen to Rachel B’s conversation, the killer picked up many ideas to begin to formulate more lies in her defense and to have the basis for to blame someone else, thus again, deflecting responsibility for her actions. For instance- the disgusting letter she wrote to Travis’ family (dated on his birthday). Rachel gave the killer the idea to write them a letter.
There were, for me, several cringe worthy moments in that interview where Rachel provided food for thought for the killer to “chew on”.
Another example of the shell of the killer’s personality, her ability to mold herself using the good intentions or words of others to justify her own evil self.
Also I knew the Freeman’s brother killed himself but not why. Yet another example of what I mean above.
Her appeal will be denied. There were no procedural errors made in her trial. Nurmi did not provide ineffectual council. They can’t prove this if only on the basis of the killed being saved from death row. There could have been no better outcome for the killer; there was more than enough evidence to convict.
Killer will do anything to stay in the spotlight.
Karen Clark’s motive, IMO, is setting up the killer’s PCR case. Wonder if Clark is representing the killer pro bono. Maybe Clark is using the killer for her own notoriety to present herself in the community as an esquire brave enough to take on the case of those who think they had ineffective council & she can take in money for her practice.
What would motivate Clark? Narcissism? Money?

Click to expand...

About what might be motivating Karen Clark, Esquire...

Nothing has changed my opinion that Ms. Clark genuinely feels righteous contempt & anger for attorneys she believes have acted unethically.

IMO, holding attorneys accountable for unethical conduct is both honorable and necessary. Prosecutors wield the fearful power of the State to deprive defendants of their liberty, and even of their lives. Dirty prosecutors represent an intolerable abuse of power by the State.

Defense attorneys have the solemn obligation to defend clients against the State's attempt to deprive the accused of their liberty or lives. Unethical defense attorneys not only fail their own clients and violate their due process rights, but as do dirty prosecutors, they erode the public's trust in our judicial system. (Climbs down off soap box. ).

But....that said, I'm thinking Clark's actions over the past year are more than a tad over zealous, and seem to reflect more than largely justifiable pursuit of attorney conduct she finds wicked.

In writing the book that he did, Nurmi disgraced himself and his profession, and Clark was right to accept nothing less than his disbarment. Her civil lawsuit against him, though, goes so far beyond that severe punishment as to be inexplicable, especially given the many frankly bogus charges and allegations she flings, wildly, for no less than over 40 pages.

Same thing with her pursuit of JM. JM made some not very smart personal choices during trial, including communicating with juror #3 in the retrial. Bringing that conduct to the Bar's attention wasn't an out of bounds decision by Clark. But.....accusing JM of leaking #17's name to the public, and of using sex with trial watchers/blogger to influence public opinion? That isn't only overreach by Clark, but egregiously unethical, as the charges are baseless (as multiple investigations and the Bar have concluded).

I don't think Clark has succumbed to the 's manipulations or that she necessarily believes the 's lies. Sooooo....all I can conclude is that Clark may well have political aspirations, or has dreams of judge-ships dancing in her overheated mind, and/or she, like so many others, is using the notoriety of this case as springboard.

(PS. Every single time I've spoken to COA clerks or Maricopa County law librarians, every single one of them has expressed grim humor or just plain exasperation about how long and how resource-consuming and how ridiculously messy 's trials and appeal have been.

When I spoke with a COA clerk this past week, for example, and told him it looked like 's attorneys weren't going to delay filing their opening brief yet again, his immediate reply was an emphatic "THANK GOD!"

(Sorry for the O/T....)

We received a message from my DS's school principal a few hours ago warning that a credible school-shooter at his school threat has been made online. Police are investigating, and the principal promised that LE would be there tomorrow to provide "security."

How messed up is that?! DS's school is the best, most academically demanding, "safe" public school in our city, and our choices for tomorrow are to keep him home, just in case, or to send him into a LE guarded school in which someone wants to commit a massacre.

We are keeping him home, of course, but my God, this non-stop insanity of the past year or so is exhausting, scary, and incredibly troubling.

Any thoughts on Clarke asking the AZ Bar to reconsider dismissing the charges against Juan's?
http://chopperrose.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Juan-Martinez-Bar-Complaint-Appeal-1.pdf

Colie said:

Any thoughts on Clarke asking the AZ Bar to reconsider dismissing the charges against Juan's?
http://chopperrose.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Juan-Martinez-Bar-Complaint-Appeal-1.pdf

Click to expand...

Thanks for providing a link to Clark's remarkably uninformed dive into the bitter, juvenile, extremely nasty , and entirely irrelevant spats between peripheral trial followers so long ago.

As a legal matter, the only relevant question is whether or not the Bar committee abused their discretion in dismissing the charges after their investigation concluded, rather than forwarding them to the Bar's Probable Cause Committee.

Here's some helpful context on whether or not it's likely the Bar committee abused discretion and "gave (JM ) a pass " multiple times on multiple matters & procedures:

This would be the very same Bar committee that is appealing to the AZ Supreme Court to reverse the dismissal of yet another Bar complaint against JM.

And we are supposed to believe that the AZ Bar is so biased in favor of JM members would abuse their discretion in order to protect him?

Pffffffffffffffffttttt.

The 's ability to contaminate or destroy everyone and everything she comes in contact with is mind boggling. And Tammy Rose is a more flagrant liar & twisted than I realized.

My favorite: that SHE was the more experienced journalist and out of the goodness of her heart decided to "show JWoods the ropes"?!!! LO frikking L.

Rose wasn't and isn't a journalist of any kind. She's a traffic & weather watcher who flies about in a helicopter for a local news channel & who has a miniscule SM following. JWoods was and is a trial watcher & blogger who EARNED her large SM following in her own right, not by trading sex for info.


The allegations crusader Clark swallowed whole from Tammy Fly in Circles Rose are off-base, untrue, and dripping with that special venom unique to woman on woman warfare.

I could not read the entire 36 pages of that new “please I insist you must do something to punish Juan” dribble. Sounds like it was written by high schoolers, sort of how the killer writes.
So Clark insists the Bar subpoena Juan’s phone records.
And Tammy Rose is on Twitter preening about being the ultimate truth teller.
Give me a break.

It's opening briefs day....

Just spoke with a COA clerk. Not there yet. We'll know by 5PM (MST) whether or not 's attorneys will be filing a motion to seal along with the brief itself, because if they want it sealed they have to deliver the brief by hand, in person, by 5, at the very latest.

(The clerk didn't sound like the Court would be very patient about 's attorneys traisping in with the thing at literally the very last minute, lol).

If the brief isn't in the clerk's hand by 5 (I'll be calling a few minutes after 5), then the brief won't be sealed and I'll be calling the clerk tomorrow first thing to have her email it to me.

Reminder- having the brief emailed is no special thing I've worked out with the COA clerk. Anyone can call to make the same request. Here's the phone number: 602-452-6700. (Then press "1 " to speak to the Court's clerk).

salberg7 said:

I could not read the entire 36 pages of that new “please I insist you must do something to punish Juan” dribble. Sounds like it was written by high schoolers, sort of how the killer writes.
So Clark insists the Bar subpoena Juan’s phone records.
And Tammy Rose is on Twitter preening about being the ultimate truth teller.
Give me a break.

Click to expand...

I'd be judgemental about Clark being incapable of brevity, but that would definitely be the pot calling the kettle black.

She does go on, though, eh? And on and on, and the problem with that I've seen in both her 40 plus page civil case filing, and now in this Bar appeal, is that she tends to lose track of what she wrote 10 pages earlier on, and ends up either contradicting herself on facts and/or on argument, sometimes, it seems, as a function of getting carried away in her own floods of indignant self-righteousness.

In her Bar appeal, for example, she loses track from one paragraph to the next.

At the end of the thing she writes (paraphrased) "Even if you (the Bar's Probable Cause Committee) don't accept my argument that the Bar abused it's discretion, the very least you absolutely MUST do is further investigate the accusations I made and and am repeating to you now."

Next paragraph (literally): "There is no need for further investigation. I've provided you with all the information you require to overturn the Bar's decision to dismiss my complaint, as well as all the information you could possibly require to find JM guilty of jury tampering, conspiring to issue death threats against my witnesses, conduct unbecoming to the profession, and gawd knows how many ethical violations."

Good lordy.

And as far as Tammy Rose- a pesky swarm of tweeters have, over the past many months, caught her out telling many a flat out lie, lies that once exposed she immediately deleted, then claimed they were never told (Debbie Maran did the best & most thorough job of debunking many of Tammy's tales).

Like attracts like, and oh my has the attracted some doozies, along with so many more who hoped to capitalize on her infamy , but who have instead crashed & been burned.

In one way, I'd rather that a crowd of WS'ers, at least, had gathered together here waiting to know if we'll see the opening brief today, or tomorrow, or no time soon at all.

On the other hand, if her appeals are already such a matter of indifference, I can only imagine just how close the is to being altogether erased- at long last- from the memory or interest of virtually everyone.

If felled by seal & a year's wait, will the sound of her appeal being denied be heard?

The brief hasn't been delivered. Yet? 10 more minutes. The COA's clerks are uniformly awesome- willing to make yet one more run down to the lobby to check.