GUILTY MA - Colleen Ritzer, 24, brutally murdered, Danvers, 22 Oct 2013 #2

[NotMyselfNEMore]

Hmm.... I have a question regarding the psychological testing questions, and maybe some of you guys might know the answer (I hope!)... or can set me straight, if I'm just not understanding this.

It was my understanding that raw data, particularly information that included testing materials and instructions the psychologist on how the test is to be administered, scored, and interpreted were to be in the hands of Licensed Psychologists (or whoever else is licensed to give and interpret results), for just the reasons that are being argued about - to prevent them from becoming useless as evaluation tools for licensed professionals.

So in a trial (such as this) a Psychologist can give raw data info to another Psychologist, but they can only give something like a bubble sheet (without questions) so that the information can't be wrongly used.

Ms Reagan said she was emailed this information....she first said by ADA, then corrected herself and said just hat 'it was emailed to her' after it had been sent by the psychologist to the defense psychologist (which kind of says who sent it to her). The ADA said she did not have the raw data, herself (and it sounds as is she should not have it), if I'm understanding correctly - nor should the DT, Ms Reagan.

So my question (finally!) is : if Ms Reagan should not have this, why should she be able to ask verbatim questions she should have no knowledge of in open court? And what stops spectators, and later even the jury from repeating this information, even if the judge blocks cameras? Shouldn't the questions be either not asked, or summarized in different terms to preserve the testing process??? Am I totally off in my interpretation??

I didn't think Ms Reagan should have even said what she said about the 'ringing in the ears' question, because she shouldn't have seen that, IMO. Does anyone know?

 

[AnaTeresa]

I can't think of any case I handled where, with our own, hired, private defense experts, we had the raw data. Not one. :twocents:

Medical records, sure. Case records, of course. Some personal information that was relayed by family or the client to both us and the physician, often. But never the questions that were asked, or the answers. Sometimes an answer or two would be highlighted in a report to emphasize a point the expert was making, but we never had the raw data. Needless to say, we also did not have the raw data for state experts.

 

[NotMyselfNEMore]

Grr Duplicate Post!!

 

[jacct]

I could understand if jury members lose "interest and enthusiasm" in the case, it's becoming a bit tiresome. Why exactly does defense want to question the expert about those test questions?

It's interesting, the defense said they just want to read the questions and ask about them, they don't intend to talk about the answers or have testimony about Chism at all. I know there are 3 that the defense says are silly and want the jury to hear but I don't know why they want to ask about the other 10 questions. It sounds like the questions are only on 2 of the tests, the MFast and the SIRS (Sears?).

 

[Elainera]

Hmm.... I have a question regarding the psychological testing questions, and maybe some of you guys might know the answer (I hope!)... or can set me straight, if I'm just not understanding this.

It was my understanding that raw data, particularly information that included testing materials and instructions the psychologist on how the test is to be administered, scored, and interpreted were to be in the hands of Licensed Psychologists (or whoever else is licensed to give and interpret results), for just the reasons that are being argued about - to prevent them from becoming useless as evaluation tools for licensed professionals.

So in a trial (such as this) a Psychologist can give raw data info to another Psychologist, but they can only give something like a bubble sheet (without questions) so that the information can't be wrongly used.

Ms Reagan said she was emailed this information....she first said by ADA, then corrected herself and said just hat 'it was emailed to her' after it had been sent by the psychologist to the defense psychologist (which kind of says who sent it to her). The ADA said she did not have the raw data, herself (and it sounds as is she should not have it), if I'm understanding correctly - nor should the DT, Ms Reagan.

So my question (finally!) is : if Ms Reagan should not have this, why should she be able to ask verbatim questions she should have no knowledge of in open court? And what stops spectators, and later even the jury from repeating this information, even if the judge blocks cameras? Shouldn't the questions be either not asked, or summarized in different terms to preserve the testing process??? Am I totally off in my interpretation??

I didn't think Ms Reagan should have even said what she said about the 'ringing in the ears' question, because she shouldn't have seen that, IMO. Does anyone know?

I don't know, but good question!

The person who emailed them to someone not certified to have them could and should be in trouble. Are there laws governing this kind of breach?

 

[Elainera]

It's interesting, the defense said they just want to read the questions and ask about them, they don't intend to talk about the answers or have testimony about Chism at all. I know there are 3 that the defense says are silly and want the jury to hear but I don't know why they want to ask about the other 10 questions. It sounds like the questions are only on 2 of the tests, the MFast and the SIRS (Sears?).

Thank you. So the point defense will likely try to make is that those 'silly' questions can not prove that JC was malingering?

 

[NotMyselfNEMore]

It's interesting, the defense said they just want to read the questions and ask about them, they don't intend to talk about the answers or have testimony about Chism at all. I know there are 3 that the defense says are silly and want the jury to hear but I don't know why they want to ask about the other 10 questions. It sounds like the questions are only on 2 of the tests, the MFast and the SIRS (Sears?).

Bizarre - and weren't these two tests only given support the malingering evident on the first MMPI-A(adolescent?). Just as a follow up to make sure the results were what they appeared?

It seems like the defense just wants to point out the questions, because they have them - which is probably why they shouldn't have them - they aren't qualified to interpret their usefulness, even if they think they're 'silly'. IMO, JMO, MOO

 

[jacct]

Hmm.... I have a question regarding the psychological testing questions, and maybe some of you guys might know the answer (I hope!)... or can set me straight, if I'm just not understanding this.

It was my understanding that raw data, particularly information that included testing materials and instructions the psychologist on how the test is to be administered, scored, and interpreted were to be in the hands of Licensed Psychologists (or whoever else is licensed to give and interpret results), for just the reasons that are being argued about - to prevent them from becoming useless as evaluation tools for licensed professionals.

So in a trial (such as this) a Psychologist can give raw data info to another Psychologist, but they can only give something like a bubble sheet (without questions) so that the information can't be wrongly used.

Ms Reagan said she was emailed this information....she first said by ADA, then corrected herself and said just hat 'it was emailed to her' after it had been sent by the psychologist to the defense psychologist (which kind of says who sent it to her). The ADA said she did not have the raw data, herself (and it sounds as is she should not have it), if I'm understanding correctly - nor should the DT, Ms Reagan.

So my question (finally!) is : if Ms Reagan should not have this, why should she be able to ask verbatim questions she should have no knowledge of in open court? And what stops spectators, and later even the jury from repeating this information, even if the judge blocks cameras? Shouldn't the questions be either not asked, or summarized in different terms to preserve the testing process??? Am I totally off in my interpretation??

I didn't think Ms Reagan should have even said what she said about the 'ringing in the ears' question, because she shouldn't have seen that, IMO. Does anyone know?

The prosecution said (and Judge Lowey concurred) that they at no time had the raw data and were under a court order of how to handle getting the data from the prosecution psychologist to the defense psychologist. Defense hasn't said just how they got that data, or the handbook to interrupt the results. Judge Lowey should ask for the email and who sent it to the defense.

I agree, to me the judge should rule that the raw data cannot be discussed. But that leaves the defense wanting to talk about those 13 test questions but not the answers. I like the compromise he came up with, we'll see what the press thinks about it.

 

[jacct]

Thank you. So the point defense will likely try to make is that those 'silly' questions can not prove that JC was malingering?

I don't know, maybe that the questions are so silly JC answered in a silly way.

 

[jacct]

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 49s50 seconds ago Judge is back. Caruso says first amendment principle of open courtroom cannot be compromised

allison manningVerified account ‏@allymanning 40s40 seconds ago
Caruso: The gag order can't be agreed to. #PhilipChism Judge says he understands.

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 50s51 seconds ago
Lowy: "it's a prior restraint that puts the press in a difficult position."

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 47s48 seconds ago
Caruso: the @EagleTrib and the @salemnews cannot agree to any restriction.

 

[jacct]

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 1m1 minute ago Judge says he expects to close court for those 13 questions, impound transcript and then let papers challenge after trial.

allison manningVerified account ‏@allymanning 1m1 minute ago
Then as soon as the case goes to the jury, news orgs can hire witness to rebut testimony and petition for the transcript

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 2m2 minutes ago
Lowy also said that he will ask defense to segregate those questions

Prosecution corrects the judge, there are 25 questions defense wants to ask about.

Laura Crimaldi ‏@lauracrimaldi 2m2 minutes ago
Lowy says he is leaning toward closing courtroom when Regan poses questions about the psychological tests.

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 2m2 minutes ago
The closure means families will be excluded as well.

Julie Manganis ‏@SNJulieManganis 2m2 minutes ago
Judge will make a final ruling tomorrow.

allison manningVerified account ‏@allymanning 2m2 minutes ago
Now we're officially done for the day. See you tomorrow morning

Darn, nothing about the raw data.

 

[NotMyselfNEMore]

I think the questions, as well as the answers and specific instructions are all considered raw data.

 

[jacct]

Trial Day 12 - Part 6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKaPzECWuaY&feature=youtu.be&a

 

[jacct]

I think the questions, as well as the answers and specific instructions are all considered raw data.

Thanks! So the judge is going to let the defense talk about the questions with both Drs in their cross exam. It will be difficult for the prosecution to follow up since they don't have the tests or the handbook.

 

[Elainera]

I'm a but surprised Lowy is not questioning why the raw data was sent to the defense team in the first place. Presumably no laws were broken and these are just general guidelines academics and health care workers are asked to follow?

 

[jacct]

I'm a but surprised Lowy is not questioning why the raw data was sent to the defense team in the first place. Presumably no laws were broken and these are just general guidelines academics and health care workers are asked to follow?

Dr. Hebben said she had to sign a non-disclosure agreement in order to use the tests so I assume whoever sent them to the defense had to do the same. So the person in trouble is the person that sent them, not the defense. And I'm sure that's not something Judge Lowy wants to get into on the last day of the trial.

If the defense had disclosed everything they had and wanted to use for evidence at the beginning of the trial this would have been addressed then and it wouldn't be an issue now.

 

[NotMyselfNEMore]

Thanks! So the judge is going to let the defense talk about the questions with both Drs in their cross exam. It will be difficult for the prosecution to follow up since they don't have the tests or the handbook.

Agreed - it's almost as if the prosecution is being handicapped in order to let the defense ask some questions they should never have had.
I wonder why the Judge is allowing all this, including the media motion, and having to court order the psychologist to discuss what she's legally bound not to discuss? Why can't he just have the defense paraphrase, or otherwise get the spirit of the questions, if they feel so strongly that they need to ask them?

I don't understand why the court is willing to allow it. There must be a legal way to do this without causing all this trouble - especially when the questions the defense wants to ask about the protected questions are probably completely unnecessary, IMO.

 

[Greggy]

Yes, we will have to disagree on patents and diagnostics: Many diagnostics are protected through trade secrets; and in fact, it is very hard to get patents on diagnostics due to a couple of major decisions in the last few years, Mayo v. Prometheus Labs, AMP v. Myriad Diagnostics, and Bilski v. Kappos. For example, the primary protection that Myriad has now for its BRCA test is that it has the largest database of gene variants due to the sheer number of women it has tested. Those gene variants are not widely shared. However, data on increased risk of breast cancer when a mutation is found is available to the scientific community and I know of no one who questions the connection between a mutation and breast/ovarian cancer risk.

When it comes to psych instruments, what matters is whether the test measures what it's supposed to measure. The individual items (i.e., the questions) are not evidence of whether or not the test is valid (i.e., measures what it's supposed to measure). The only way to evaluate the validity of a psych instrument is to measure the results against a gold standard or an outcome. No one is prevented from measuring the results against a gold standard or a known outcome just because the general public can't scrutinize the individual items in the instrument.

Skigirl, you are quite right that the patentability of diagnostic tests based on naturally occurring genes/proteins is now off the table due to the Myriad BRCA1/2 test decision. But there will be patents issued in the future for diagnostic tests employing genetically engineered reagents and non-natural genes/proteins that possess unique properties (e.g.;unnatural super high affinity for a specific ligand) coupled with a detection technology. The Supreme Court decision in Myriad left that door open. Thank you for mentioning the Bilski v. Kappos decision in your post. I was unfamiliar with the reach-through implications into the diagnostic test market.

When it comes to psych instruments and deriving valid conclusions concerning them, I stand down because of your superior understanding of the area and am glad that you share your expertise with this forum. My PhD and expertise is in Pharmacology/Toxicology. From a scientific perspective, I can well see your point that you need to look at psych tests holistically to make a valid conclusion. But from the perspective of a Defense lawyer with a possibly malingering client, I can see why you would want to present individual test questions to the jury that might help dent the credibility of the conclusions.

 

[trixandhoney]

For anyone interested, this article discusses malingering as it relates to criminal cases and it references the tests given to PC. It's a quick read.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ychologists_detect_signs_of_malingering_.html

 

[Skigirl]

Skigirl, you are quite right that the patentability of diagnostic tests based on naturally occurring genes/proteins is now off the table due to the Myriad BRCA1/2 test decision. But there will be patents issued in the future for diagnostic tests employing genetically engineered reagents and non-natural genes/proteins that possess unique properties (e.g.;unnatural super high affinity for a specific ligand) coupled with a detection technology. The Supreme Court decision in Myriad left that door open. Thank you for mentioning the Bilski v. Kappos decision in your post. I was unfamiliar with the reach-through implications into the diagnostic test market.

When it comes to psych instruments and deriving valid conclusions concerning them, I stand down because of your superior understanding of the area and am glad that you share your expertise with this forum. My PhD and expertise is in Pharmacology/Toxicology. From a scientific perspective, I can well see your point that you need to look at psych tests holistically to make a valid conclusion. But from the perspective of a Defense lawyer with a possibly malingering client, I can see why you would want to present individual test questions to the jury that might help dent the credibility of the conclusions.

Not to belabor things, but my point was not that you have to look at things "holistically" but rather that the questions in and of themselves are not evidence for or against the instrument's validity or reliability, just as the reagents in a NGS assay do not tell one anything about whether or not an assay can distinguish between basal or luminal breast cancer. Validity is defined as "the test measures what it says it measures," not as, "the test measures what the defense thinks a certain question is capable of measuring."