State rests rebuttal case - thread #168

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
here_now12 said:
So his opinion on whether or not Dr. D was qualified in her expert opinion is based solely on what the Defence team has told him about her testimony.
Bet JW didn't tell him about the part where Dr. DeMarte said "those scales can't be just read and interpreted that way" and JW replied "well, let's do it anyway".

IMO, as long as he hasn't heard or read her entire testimony and only relies on the (at times mis-)representation the Defense team gives, he has no place testifying about it in the first place.

Gosh, this whole testimony makes me angry.
Click to expand...


I've said it before and I'll say it now: The problem I have with this case and others like it is that the state and defense teams are, too often, more interested in being right than doing the right thing.

This combative posture discounts the real reasons for the court's existence. A man was killed, murdered.

Martinez is being a total jerk which may disturb members of the jury. They may tune him out just to protect themselves from the unpleasantness. Can he cross examine someone and have verbal discourse without being a bully?

The hysterical yelling and emotive assaults on the witnesses is so off putting!

Oh please make it stop! Finishing school. Please send him to finishing school for some polish. Because the roughness distracts badly from his good points.
:please:
 
I don't claim to know everything about psychology but let me regale you with my knowledge of medical science.
 
I can't do feeds on my home computer as I have no sound!!! And HLN is wayyyyy behind the 8 ball,,,I am so pissed!
 
I think Juan needs to slow down a bit-please don't throw things at me!!LOL
 
If I was being crossexamined by JM, I think I'd just wave a white flag and surrender.
 
in your assistance of the mother you provided an opinion without talking to the father . . .yes
back in 2010 right?
no sir
opinion dated 11/2010

when he testified . . . Feb couple years previous . . case in Texas - name of Clark - he knows he did according to the records . submitted affidavidt . . . the trial court found in the clark case you lack credibility. at that time you had number years as a psychologist . . plethora of experience . . . court found you were making things up right
no court didn't state that at all

you submitted affidavit saying things happened 5 years prior . . .you relied on records from Pennsylvania from 1976 and you wrote this in 1992 - don't remember

based on hearsay provided other people - yes sir
you had same experience in Hawaii didn't you
no Hawaii court didn't say I wasn't credible - they excluded one part of the timeony not the rest. so they did exclude part of your testimony yes

haven't worked with prosecutor or defense . . but you have worked with ALV - publications . . have talked in the past - you are colleagues - doing it out of the goodness of your heart
no i never used such terms

not get any more money on this case - nobody pays you . . .even though not getting money for this case - still same individual who will go to court and make things up right?

objection -
jury will disregard

come into cases like this . . right
yes
contacted last week sometime . . .
partially what i said . . i was contacted long ago but didn't know i would be testifying in this case until a week ago.

november of last year contacted . .. .

testifying and criticizing Janene Demarte work . . . a week ago
no sir if you want to keep guessing or i could answer

when was it you were contacted - monday was a week away when we met

you asked 2 different questions

you started reviewing less than 2 weeks ago
no you asked a different question

reviewing Janene Demarte work - started 2 weeks ago
you knew testify in this case 2 weeks

floating profile - you have many students part of this editorial board . . not many we have 4 . . articles submitted based upon research . . blind both ways . . . very familiar with state of research with regard to psychology

that is really broad . . i wouldn't say all the research in psychology

you meantion Dr. Gatchell - after a time he repudiated it . .
actually in 2008 . . .

actually in 2008 he indicated just the opposite?

rehabilitation psychology journal . . in 2008 . . . i thought that was refering to . . .

individuals involed in the floating profile frequently identified as having an axis 2 personality disorder.
i would have to look at that
didn't you do your research from Dr. Getchell
i did
what research are you quoting then
can we ask one person speak at a time and the prosecutor not interrupt him

counsel approach
 
Nhic said:
BBM

Unless they're the most obtuse attorneys in all of America, one has to wonder if the DT hasn't done that intentionally, so JA can appeal based on attorney incompetence....
Click to expand...

They're just trying to save her life. IMO they're failing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I really don't like this witnesses laughter. :notgood:
 
...."regaled" is so much better than "edified".....


these boys are sparring...and Juan is on the white horse!!!!!
 
Wilmott does not look happy.. I think this was not a smart move on their part because didn't The prosecution also get another witness??
 
Why on earth did this guy agree to testify in a case where he knows his reputation will be destroyed to bits?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 89 more.
Total: 2,579 (members: 90, guests: 2,489)

Online statistics

Members online
91
Guests online
2,489
Total visitors
2,580
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,476
Messages
18,109,165
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top