Jodi Ann Arias shot and stabbed her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander to death (Part II)

[wasthinking]

[QUOTE=Morticia;3409947]

Makes me wonder if he's deliberately creating grounds for appeal. Between making a fuss about the Walmart store, saying TA was shot in his left temple, and getting the date of the car rental return wrong, it sure looks like a lot of errors in a death penalty case that even us hacks on a forum can see.

I don't see any atty ruining their own career just to 'deliberately' make appeal issues especially such unimportant ones such as this. The jury has the evidence, can check it out themselves, their notes, memory etc and have been told what the atty says is not evidence. It is 'harmless error' category and not appeals issue.

I think people misunderstand ineffective counsel often. It is rarely decided on appeals and not for anything minor.
And most often is from failure to do something, not investigating an obvious important part that could be easily found to help their client etc. Not on something they did while zealousy defending their client even if it includes minor date errors or something IOWs.

Note also, appeals are Justices that were attys first themselves. Another hint to always watch: You haven't heard a single experienced atty or media legal article indicate any ineffective counsel errors.

[Morticia]

@ WT....why do you think Nurmi fumbled so obviously on those issues? I understand that these errors are not grounds for appeal, but sheesh he is her attorney!! If it's sloppiness, that's pretty bad in a death penalty case.

[Angiebla]

Not to beat a dead horse here, but I guess I still don't understand Nurmi telling the jury he doesn't like Jodi. He has spent the last four months telling them Jodi was a battered woman, she had to kill someone in a fight for her life, she suffered PTSD, she has been incarcerated for almost five years, she's being falsely accused of premeditated murder, and she's been publicly called a stalker, manipulator and a liar. Nurmi is claiming she is not a liar, but is a victim, and that her story is true. I've tried to factor in the explanation of others that Nurmi was likely talking to undecided jurors, or basing his statement on juror questions. These are all good answers, and I take them to mean that there may be a juror or two who might not be convinced that the evidence adds up to premeditated murder, yet they don't like Jodi... and now they have her very own attorney showing them that he still did the right thing (defended an innocent person) despite his negative feelings about her, and they can follow his example and disregard their dislike for her and defend her in the jury room. But here's what I don't understand: If Nurmi believes (or is advocating as if he believes) that Jodi is telling the truth, what's not to like about her? How, exactly, is she unlikeable? The only way a juror would dislike her after knowing her these four short months is if they don't believe her. Nurmi claims to believe her, but he's also confessing that he doesn't like her. Yet, if she's telling the truth (which he says she is), then she's not unlikeable at all, but pitiable and deserving of sympathy. Who dislikes a true victim, especially when knowing them only a short time? The defense team hasn't named anything unlikeable about Jodi that Nurmi could be referring to. She would only be unlikeable if Juan is right about her. I just do not understand Nurmi's strategy. (I wish I could be more articulate in asking this. I should have gone to college...)

I understand what you are saying. You worded your post appropriately. I personally think that Nurmi realized at some point in time throughout the trial that jury doesn't believe that Jodi was abused. It was probably around the time that Laviolette was discredited that he came to this conclusion. If he was a good lawyer he would have stuck to the self defense story regardless of what he felt the jury believed, because this way he would have shown some consistency. He's a shitty lawyer so he emulated a defense lawyer who was in the same boat as he was in some point in time, and pulled a Jose Baez by saying he didn't like his client to try to appear to the jury that he is relatable and "honest" enough to tell them how he truly feels. This is going to backfire on him. By saying he doesn't like her the jury is going to conclude that he also doesn't believe her-and if he doesn't believe her then she must be lying-if she's lying she must be guilty.

[coconut]

I don't know why they keep billing that as a phone sex tape - I think Jodi premeditated the phone call also - Hey Coconut how many times was the word anul mentioned during the trial?

Anal sex was ratings gold for this trial. How many times was it mentioned? Not enough! I guess blame it on Jodi, it was all that nasty slut's idea!

Jodi is such a nutcase, watching this trial is a great example why travis didnt want to marry her and was trying to get away from her

My take is that they were actually a very good match for each other in many ways, some destructive. Travis especially did not want to admit to himself and his friends that he had strong feelings for someone he considered socially and morally inferior to himself. But he could not let go of her, even when he hated her.

I'm with you. She got him in the most relaxed state. After sex, hot shower. THE most vulnerable position. A naked unarmed man, unable to defend himself.

A man is most vulnerable sitting on the throne with has pants around his ankles, reading the latest issue of Guns & Ammo trying to get some quiet time from the family.

Geez guys, an IMPARTIAL observer CAN be critical of the prosecution AND point out the defenses strong points (& vice versa, which Coconut DOES do) without it having ANY bearing on their belief in the defendants innocence or guilt. That's what you're supposed to do if you're on a jury, aren't you? That's how our system works & I thought that was how your's did too. If you form an opinion that's weighted heavily for one side, it can skew your view of some evidence.

What are you, a troll from JAII???

Star, that was one of the most mature posts on this thread! We're all here for different reasons. Some people are HATE JODI hardliners and they see Jodi as the evil cause of everything bad in the relationship, and Travis as an angel who never hurt anyone's feelings. They give Travis a pass on everything and turn a blind eye to his faults which shaped his life and death in very complex ways. I expect some people to react that way, with emotion, and without a wider view of life... for example irrationally hating the defense attorneys who are doing their jobs. Their personal feelings do not enter into the case, only professional responsibility to their client who deserves a fair trial.

The most engaging people on the forum in my eyes are those who don't always agree but have the intelligence to say why and the maturity to find common ground in the spirit of friendship. We can talk, laugh, and share the experience of the trial without having the same viewpoint. I can't tell you how many funny messages I have gotten from charming people who don't always see eye to eye with me but still enjoy the back and forth. Some of us are more realistic and understand that nobody is all evil or all good, life is never that simple.

[wasthinking]

Not to beat a dead horse here, but I guess I still don't understand Nurmi telling the jury he doesn't like Jodi. He has spent the last four months telling them Jodi was a battered woman, she had to kill someone in a fight for her life, she suffered PTSD, she has been incarcerated for almost five years, she's being falsely accused of premeditated murder, and she's been publicly called a stalker, manipulator and a liar. Nurmi is claiming she is not a liar, but is a victim, and that her story is true. I've tried to factor in the explanation of others that Nurmi was likely talking to undecided jurors, or basing his statement on juror questions. These are all good answers, and I take them to mean that there may be a juror or two who might not be convinced that the evidence adds up to premeditated murder, yet they don't like Jodi... and now they have her very own attorney showing them that he still did the right thing (defended an innocent person) despite his negative feelings about her, and they can follow his example and disregard their dislike for her and defend her in the jury room. But here's what I don't understand: If Nurmi believes (or is advocating as if he believes) that Jodi is telling the truth, what's not to like about her? How, exactly, is she unlikeable? The only way a juror would dislike her after knowing her these four short months is if they don't believe her. Nurmi claims to believe her, but he's also confessing that he doesn't like her. Yet, if she's telling the truth (which he says she is), then she's not unlikeable at all, but pitiable and deserving of sympathy. Who dislikes a true victim, especially when knowing them only a short time? The defense team hasn't named anything unlikeable about Jodi that Nurmi could be referring to. She would only be unlikeable if Juan is right about her. I just do not understand Nurmi's strategy. (I wish I could be more articulate in asking this. I should have gone to college...)

It isn't complicated. Not to be condescending by see if this helps ... Stand away from emotions best you can and try to look at it with fresh eyes.
He had nothing to very little to work with. He tried for months a point by point shall we say of diversions, lies, every underhanded trick in the book.
Now it is time to 'close' .. aka time to summarize his own game!

This comes across weak and scattered because that is what grasping at straws looks like when you have to try and complie them to summarized into making sense.
One by one, isolated, they might look colorful, like sticks for pick up sticks game. But, throw them all together, and you see a tangled mess.
Add to this mess .. Nurmi does not have the talent to be articulate, greatly lacks orating skills. Some have this gift naturally, others work hard to acquire it.. both trains passed Nurmi by on the way to the station.

[wasthinking]

@ WT....why do you think Nurmi fumbled so obviously on those issues? I understand that these errors are not grounds for appeal, but sheesh he is her attorney!! If it's sloppiness, that's pretty bad in a death penalty case.

Honestly, I believe the guy is simply just a poor attorney. Meaning he has no talent for his own chosen field and doesn't appear to apply much in efforts to even know his own case. He is mediocre if not worse. It happens, know what I mean?

Think of other fields, doctors, bleeding heart liberals out to save the world .. except they barely got by the education, are slow minded, get lazy and just don't have the skill to investigate to the level of being a 'good' doctor to help pts past the most simple illnesses.

Or a fantastic teacher, has the knack, an almost gift and dreams of teaching. Then you have the one that dreams of some kind of self 'glory' to teach, but never seems to manage a way to apply themselves or has a talent in the arena to the level of a 'good' teacher.

[wasthinking]

ITA. He is totally devoid of ethics which is why I despise him. I found him repugnant in his direct exam of that creature with a tone that was intimate and creepy. He crossed the line defaming Travis' s name every day that he took the floor in the courtroom. His frivolous motions cost the state time and money. He is as vile as his client and will be forever tainted by his association with her due to his tactics. Putting her o n the stand for as long as he did was a very strategic blunder too (thank God)

He is disgusting, but in the big picture .. it's that very nature I bet that had JA insist on him staying :) Poetic justice.
She's about to find out this week (probably Monday) that her lies didn't shock but disgusted, the repetitive vomiting by her poor choice atty in such a crass vile manor only added to not believing her.

[TeamRenew]

Fuck, I hate those three twats.

Hopefully that's the last time that smug murderer ever fucking smiles. Rat-faced golddigging hobag.

[*crickets*]

What are you, a troll from JAII???

Star, that was one of the most mature posts on this thread! We're all here for different reasons. Some people are HATE JODI hardliners and they see Jodi as the evil cause of everything bad in the relationship, and Travis as an angel who never hurt anyone's feelings. They give Travis a pass on everything and turn a blind eye to his faults which shaped his life and death in very complex ways. I expect some people to react that way, with emotion, and without a wider view of life... for example irrationally hating the defense attorneys who are doing their jobs. Their personal feelings do not enter into the case, only professional responsibility to their client who deserves a fair trial.

The most engaging people on the forum in my eyes are those who don't always agree but have the intelligence to say why and the maturity to find common ground in the spirit of friendship. We can talk, laugh, and share the experience of the trial without having the same viewpoint. I can't tell you how many funny messages I have gotten from charming people who don't always see eye to eye with me but still enjoy the back and forth. Some of us are more realistic and understand that nobody is all evil or all good, life is never that simple.

I guess you must have thicker skin than some of us. Look what happens to anyone who dares to voice an objective opinion that goes against the 'party line' here. It's like a scene from the Hitchcock movie 'The Birds.' There is very little other than blind devotion (Juan Martinez walks on water and can do no wrong) and hatred for anyone defense-related. People have let their emotions run rampant and short-circuit their brains. Which is a real shame because this thread started out as a very entertaining place to discuss the trial, and degenerated into a love/hate fest. It's really become insufferable.

[coconut]

Not to beat a dead horse here, but I guess I still don't understand Nurmi telling the jury he doesn't like Jodi.

How, exactly, is she unlikeable?

Jodi is easy for the jury to dislike or be judgemental about. For a few reasons:

1. Aloof, distant, stickler for grammar and wordplay
2. Violated/abused her religion, could offend Mormons or religious people
3. Sexually active, shown naked during trial, many people are judgemental about sexuality
4. She lied
5. She talked about herself forever, seems a little self-obsessed and impressed with herself
6. Does not relate well to females
7. Has no relationship with her mom or family
8. Mental health issues, people with disorders are often shunned

Let's look at some of the jury questions that seem to reinforce a strong judgemental attitute towad Jodi as a lying, fornicating evil witch.

1. "What is your understanding of the word 'skank'?"
2. "You said you bought a gun to commit suicide but never ended up doing so. What stopped you from doing so?"
3. "Why did you feel so uncomfortable about anal sex with Travis when you had previously tried it?"
4. "Do you feel the Mormon Church encourages burying the truth about issues that may be considered embarrassing?"
5. "Did you ever seek medical help for your mental condition?"

Those questions are just some that show the jury did not believe her, objected to her sex life, thought she was a bad Mormon, and wished that she did kill herself. It doesn't get any worse.

Maybe the defense strategy was to admit to the elephant in the room. Most of the jurors showed a strong dislike for Jodi in their questions, a bias against her lifestyle and choices. Does that make her guilty of the crime? No, that must be judged on evidence, not on popularity. It was also an attempt for Nurmi to connect with the jury, to find common ground. Still a very controversial strategy...

[blighted star]

ETA HISSY FIT REMOVED.

[2StarsOnMyBack]

Hilarious! He looks like he just pooped a little.

[Brillig]

When Nurmi said he didn't like JA too bad she didn't stab him with her crayon .......

Or her "petit pencil".

don't forget "sucCAME"! she thought this was the past tense of succumb. lmao!

Nurmi had an hilarious one too, but I can't recall now what it was.

Ohh. Now let's be fair guys. You know his mum & his grandma's think this pic is just ADORABLE.

It would be totally adorable if he was 6 years old or less. As a adult attorney giving a closing argument in a death penalty case, I found it bizarre and off putting.

[TeamRenew]

Hilarious! He looks like he just pooped a little.

Pretty sure that when Nurmi poops, it ain't a little. That tub of goo has bacon pies in his undergarments, probably.

[blighted star]

Hilarious! He looks like he just pooped a little.

Only if most people giggle into their hands after bowel movements? I was thinking he looks more like an unusually large & giggly 5 yr old. But, I've been known to see things differently to most.






ETA - HISSY FIT REMOVED

[blighted star]

Not to beat a dead horse here, but I guess I still don't understand Nurmi telling the jury he doesn't like Jodi. He has spent the last four months telling them Jodi was a battered woman, she had to kill someone in a fight for her life, she suffered PTSD, she has been incarcerated for almost five years, she's being falsely accused of premeditated murder, and she's been publicly called a stalker, manipulator and a liar. Nurmi is claiming she is not a liar, but is a victim, and that her story is true. I've tried to factor in the explanation of others that Nurmi was likely talking to undecided jurors, or basing his statement on juror questions. These are all good answers, and I take them to mean that there may be a juror or two who might not be convinced that the evidence adds up to premeditated murder, yet they don't like Jodi... and now they have her very own attorney showing them that he still did the right thing (defended an innocent person) despite his negative feelings about her, and they can follow his example and disregard their dislike for her and defend her in the jury room. But here's what I don't understand: If Nurmi believes (or is advocating as if he believes) that Jodi is telling the truth, what's not to like about her? How, exactly, is she unlikeable? The only way a juror would dislike her after knowing her these four short months is if they don't believe her. Nurmi claims to believe her, but he's also confessing that he doesn't like her. Yet, if she's telling the truth (which he says she is), then she's not unlikeable at all, but pitiable and deserving of sympathy. Who dislikes a true victim, especially when knowing them only a short time? The defense team hasn't named anything unlikeable about Jodi that Nurmi could be referring to. She would only be unlikeable if Juan is right about her. I just do not understand Nurmi's strategy. (I wish I could be more articulate in asking this. I should have gone to college...)

You didn't need to go to college, you're already articulate. Let me just say though that I know quite a few trustworthy & unfailingly honest people who could also be described as insufferable pricks. Honesty doesn't make you likeable & I'm sure if we all put our minds to it, we can think of a time we've had someone like this in our lives - like that kid that ALWAYS tattled in first grade. (I was going to say more but my children seem to be throttling each other on the front lawn. Something to do with a Nerf war - do excuse me, I shall return...)

[Morticia]

@ Brilling "Nurmi had an hilarious one too, but I can't recall now what it was." Would that be "conversate"?

[TMY1]

LOL heehee at least I am not the only one! Everytime I hear it, it grabs my attention from something else I might be doing and I laugh. Kurt Nurmi -- Burt N Ernie!!

Burt n Ernie but he talks and moves more like Snuffleupagus!

[blighted star]

Fuck, I hate those three twats.

Hopefully that's the last time that smug murderer ever fucking smiles. Rat-faced golddigging hobag.

If you haven't already seen it, do NOT watch the last documentary made of Richard Speck unless you have a good supply of tv screens at the ready. Because if I was stunned speechless at the life he was able to lead after all those girls were left raped & slaughtered, you will put a boot through several TV's before the final credits roll.

[Missmandy9]

Not to beat a dead horse here, but I guess I still don't understand Nurmi telling the jury he doesn't like Jodi. He has spent the last four months telling them Jodi was a battered woman, she had to kill someone in a fight for her life, she suffered PTSD, she has been incarcerated for almost five years, she's being falsely accused of premeditated murder, and she's been publicly called a stalker, manipulator and a liar. Nurmi is claiming she is not a liar, but is a victim, and that her story is true. I've tried to factor in the explanation of others that Nurmi was likely talking to undecided jurors, or basing his statement on juror questions. These are all good answers, and I take them to mean that there may be a juror or two who might not be convinced that the evidence adds up to premeditated murder, yet they don't like Jodi... and now they have her very own attorney showing them that he still did the right thing (defended an innocent person) despite his negative feelings about her, and they can follow his example and disregard their dislike for her and defend her in the jury room. But here's what I don't understand: If Nurmi believes (or is advocating as if he believes) that Jodi is telling the truth, what's not to like about her? How, exactly, is she unlikeable? The only way a juror would dislike her after knowing her these four short months is if they don't believe her. Nurmi claims to believe her, but he's also confessing that he doesn't like her. Yet, if she's telling the truth (which he says she is), then she's not unlikeable at all, but pitiable and deserving of sympathy. Who dislikes a true victim, especially when knowing them only a short time? The defense team hasn't named anything unlikeable about Jodi that Nurmi could be referring to. She would only be unlikeable if Juan is right about her. I just do not understand Nurmi's strategy. (I wish I could be more articulate in asking this. I should have gone to college...)

I'm not sure if this has been posted yet (I can't keep up with the thread), but I know it has been mentioned that Nurmi's 'I don't even like Jodi Arias..." statement is a common tactic used in defense attorney's opening/closing arguments. I have heard this numerous times over the last couple of days. It was even used in the movie 'Devil's Advocate' as shown in the following clip (I saw this on one of the Travis supporter pages on FB, but can no longer find the exact post):



I personally think this tactic didn't fit very well with JA, but I'm obviously not on the jury, so it's hard to say. But one thing's for sure....her reaction definitely ruined it. Even JW didn't smile when he said it, so you know that was an improper response on her end.

[hatchan]

[QUOTE=Morticia;3409947]

Makes me wonder if he's deliberately creating grounds for appeal. Between making a fuss about the Walmart store, saying TA was shot in his left temple, and getting the date of the car rental return wrong, it sure looks like a lot of errors in a death penalty case that even us hacks on a forum can see.

Some of it could be deliberate but I think he is mostly, just inept. Using the word "conversating" in his closing was pretty telling. He is NO towering intellect, to be sure.

[hatchan]

Not to beat a dead horse here, but I guess I still don't understand Nurmi telling the jury he doesn't like Jodi. He has spent the last four months telling them Jodi was a battered woman, she had to kill someone in a fight for her life, she suffered PTSD, she has been incarcerated for almost five years, she's being falsely accused of premeditated murder, and she's been publicly called a stalker, manipulator and a liar. Nurmi is claiming she is not a liar, but is a victim, and that her story is true. I've tried to factor in the explanation of others that Nurmi was likely talking to undecided jurors, or basing his statement on juror questions. These are all good answers, and I take them to mean that there may be a juror or two who might not be convinced that the evidence adds up to premeditated murder, yet they don't like Jodi... and now they have her very own attorney showing them that he still did the right thing (defended an innocent person) despite his negative feelings about her, and they can follow his example and disregard their dislike for her and defend her in the jury room. But here's what I don't understand: If Nurmi believes (or is advocating as if he believes) that Jodi is telling the truth, what's not to like about her? How, exactly, is she unlikeable? The only way a juror would dislike her after knowing her these four short months is if they don't believe her. Nurmi claims to believe her, but he's also confessing that he doesn't like her. Yet, if she's telling the truth (which he says she is), then she's not unlikeable at all, but pitiable and deserving of sympathy. Who dislikes a true victim, especially when knowing them only a short time? The defense team hasn't named anything unlikeable about Jodi that Nurmi could be referring to. She would only be unlikeable if Juan is right about her. I just do not understand Nurmi's strategy. (I wish I could be more articulate in asking this. I should have gone to college...)

Good point. I knew NOTHING about the case or Jodi and saw the 48 hrs. piece in January. I found her "likable" enough... at first glance..... But she is so completely loathsome to me now. I think that is one of the reasons this case is so riviting. It makes me nervous because so much of what we know the jury does not. Hopefully wormi's comments will cause the jury some concern as it did you.

[blighted star]

Now I get it! Curiosity finally killed several cats at my house today. I gave in to the need to knowwww & googled "what the fuck is jinkasaurus?"

[hatchan]

Now I get it! Curiosity finally killed several cats at my house today. I gave in to the need to knowwww & googled "what the fuck is jinkasaurus?"

I had to do the same! It wasn't until I heard Nancy Grace say it....then I finally got it!

[I doubt it]

1. and no one knows if that one particular juror is in the final 12



2. first his legs are not crossed as some have said... they're just tightly tucked at a severe angle... what's seen in that photo is his right calf pressed against the upper part of his right leg. His arms are actually casually draped or resting over his bent knees. It's a shower stall his knees are probably pushed against the wall of the shower thus the "crouch" position. I agree Brillig, IMO this photo preceeds any injury.

He could be under duress/threat... that's possible...

What you said about the small amount of room in the shower causing his calves to be pressed up against his thighs, made me take another look at the photo. Is it natural for him to be slouching the way he is, or would a person keep their back straight against the wall in that tight space?