Does anyone know the details and the chronology of what Nurmi told Sky Hughes about the (totally fake) letters in which "Travis" (in fact Jodi) "confesses" to having a sexual attraction to children, and in particular to one of the Hughes's sons? If I recall correctly (and I probably don't):
• Long before trial, Nurmi told Sky what the letters said and told her that they had been authenticated. I assume this was more of him attempting to be clever by equating the State's "inability to disprove" (since the handwriting in the scanned then e-mailed copies, or whatever they were, could not be officially tested) with "proof of authenticity."
• Sky took it for granted that Nurmi was being straight with her, because surely an officer of the court wouldn't lie to a potential (and important) witness. Nurmi has a record of her saying or writing something to him along the lines of "I knew Travis had some psychological problems but I never realized they were so severe."
• At some point after Sky made that comment to Nurmi, she and Chris were told (probably by Juan?) that the letters were forgeries, that Nurmi knew they were forgeries, and that Nurmi planned to use Sky's comment as part of Jodi's defense. Chris, then, refers to Nurmi as a "snake," but I don't know where or to whom.
• All this comes up early on in a hearing to determine, possibly, the extent to which Chris and Sky were in some way, shape, or form in cahoots with the prosecution, and to what extent they could be treated as hostile witnesses for the defense. Of course I may be completely wrong.
• Has anyone read Chris and Sky's book? Does it talk about this? Do we know why neither of them testified for either side in any part of the main trial?
I have another question about the forged letters. I can understand why it's problematic to attempt to do handwriting analysis on electronic copies, but what about a forensic linguistic analysis? Both Travis and Jodi wrote badly, but they wrote badly in very, very different ways. Jodi is nowhere near as smart as she thinks she is, of course, she certainly lacks the linguistic sophistication to know what the myriad "tells" a forensic linguist looks for are, and both she and Travis left copious writings that the forged letters could be compared to. Does anyone know if this was done?
Thanks for any input.
