Trial day 31: the defense continues it's case in chief #86

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I have to say out of the few cases I have followed this judge is by far, with all due respect, the worst.
She doesn't seem to have great concern for the jury's time. I don't believe I have ever heard her apologize to them for the multiple delays in this trial.
She allows speaking objections. Allowed witnesses to speak over objections and even after substained ones! JA did it dozens of times.
And needless to say she doesn't feel comfortable making a decision, on her own, without asking council to approach.

It's very frustrating!:banghead:

:moo:

I gotta tell you, The jury's comfort is not as important as someone on trial with a DP case getting every opportunity to defend themselves. IT is not a show it is someone's life. I think the Judge is making sure it can not be appealed because of a mistake she made. That is smart.

 

[StephanieHartPI]

Is this allowed or not?

Let's say Jodi murdered Travis. Thus begins the process. Once it's discovered who her expert is (Dr S. in this case) How about they send me in as a decoy. I present as a patient abused for years by my boyfriend who has now fled (because they won't be able to find him)

Dr S is so nice and treats me for years, totally taken in. Then I am a witness for the prosecution as I have never been abused. This to show he really can't tell real abuse from a patient putting on an act...

I love the idea. I could do it.

 

[rose222]

Is it just me or does Casey Anthony start to come off like an OK person in comparison to Jodi?

Will someone reassure me that these experts will be undermined by cross? I'm not an experienced trial observer, but I'm afraid these hired guns are going to sell the jury a bill of goods that (maybe the women) will buy.

I'm sure this has been already posted, but I just got to my computer. I think the Time magazine article was a "dumb down" approach to getting credibility of the jury. Unless there are any physicians on the jury, it isn't likely they are familiar with studies and abstracts. I think the DT thinks the jury will latch onto Time magazine because it doesn't make them feel dumb.


Also, Wilmott said psychologists study the brain. Derp. That is not true. They study psychology and personality. They are not brain scientists. If they were they would be called neurologists. If they were experts on brain chemistry they would be Psychiatrists.

WTF. That untruth made me mad.

There is no way that these experts (even if everything they want is allowed in) will influence this jury to such an extent that they vote for anything other than first-degree murder. This jury will hear again from JM (rebuttal and closing) about this woman who stabbed Travis 28 times, cut this throat from ear to ear and shot him in the head! That's all they will consider. I don't really worry about it all coming in. I just don't like such a wishy-washy Judge. Rule without so many breaks for heaven's sake! Anyway JM will hammer down a dozen experts without even reading half of the material. Go JM!

 

[basilcat]

Bye...have to log out....
Have to go to the theatre in "real life"....
I wonder if I can sneak my iPad under my scarf like a kid reading with a flashlight under the covers....?
Hoping the judge makes the right call on this one....

 

[snowcat]

Actually, this could be a good turn of events for the prosecution. The expert is trying to change his story just like JA changed hers. No one believes her anyway, and JM CAN impeach Dr. Samuels in a number of ways, one being that he does his research in Time magazine.

Not a very credible expert witness. :twocents:

Good point. Does anyone know if now that Samuels has changed report, can Juan impeach him by using earlier report and interview to state that his opinion has changed...recently...like since Cross!?

 

[beeshie]

It's sad that the defence is only interested in winning! Not justice! They know this inmate killed travis brutally! It's about winning!

When the evidence against the defendant is overwhelming, it's not about winning. It's about making sure the defendant's rights were preserved and ensuring a fair trial.

In this case it's a self defense claim. Would you rather they provide her with a crummy defense thereby ensuring a win on appeal and a new trial?

 

[Tipstaff]

IIRC the twinkie defense worked

This was Dan White who killed city officials in San Francisco. He got manslaughter and a lighter sentence via the "twinkie defense".

 

[BritsKate]

BritsKate - and other wonderful survivors,

I am SO happy you are here with us. I am in tears right now thinking of all you have gone through. My life hasn't been easy, but it has been a breeze compared to what you have had to endure. Thank you for being here and sharing with us. A BIG hug to you all!!!

:blowkiss: You really are such a honey, luv!

If I can be really real...we're very, very lucky. It may not always seem like it to others - but when we see the headstones of Venus Stewart, Michelle Young, Laci Rocha, Lori Hacking, Kitty Savio, Kathleen Peterson, Janet Abaroa, Nancy Cooper, Travis Alexander, and countless others it is very much our 'There But for the Grace of God' moment. It's why we follow these cases and it's why we speak out - to be the voice of those who didn't make it out - because we know too well how close we came to the very same fate.

It's our responsibility - to them and for them. (And I sincerely hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes in saying that. It's my 'poetic justice' of sorts.) I truly believe the people who will eradicate abuse for good are the very people who have endured it. Maybe I just have to, for my own well being.

Now off to feed now starving, haven't eaten in months, munchkins!

 

[Novice Seeker]

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/062011/m4776809.pdf

On 6/21/2011, Judge Stephens ordered for complete copies of Richard Samuels testimony to be turned over to prosecution's psych expert.

Almost 2 years later, the defense has added new evidence.

Sorry, I wasn't sure what thread to post this on, so I posted it here.

Is that all the information that's filed for hearings?

 

[sumbunny]

Is this allowed or not?

Let's say Jodi murdered Travis. Thus begins the process. Once it's discovered who her expert is (Dr S. in this case) How about they send me in as a decoy. I present as a patient abused for years by my boyfriend who has now fled (because they won't be able to find him)

Dr S is so nice and treats me for years, totally taken in. Then I am a witness for the prosecution as I have never been abused. This to show he really can't tell real abuse from a patient putting on an act...

I love the idea. I could do it.

You're hired! Wish you'd thought of this a couple years ago

 

[SusieD]

in my perfect world experts would be hired by the court and not know which side requested them. They would be given the questions that the attorneys want answered, some dummy ones so as not to give away the preferred result.

That would clean up so much bull. What would these people say if they didn't know what they were being paid to say?

 

[ctmom]

Sorry if this has been asked, but did anyone ask Jodi if the camera strap was around her neck, if there was one, did it break? if there was one. tia

The strap was in the unopened plastic in the camera case in the office

 

[donadenese]

We need the judge who presided over Phil Spector Trial #1 and #2. He was excellent. I remember when the defense tried these underhanded tricks and he busted them right in front of God and camera. Of course, he sustained them and/or didn't allow it to happen. He was long time judge who was once appellate judge so he knew the law!!!

O/T For gavel to gavel watchers of the Spector trial, you will recognize the Spector mansion featured in the new movie 'Gangster Squad'. The circular driveway, the fountain...I swear I could even see Lana Clarkson stretched out in the chair in the foyer. It was very eerie and very sad.

 

[Tipstaff]

Is this allowed or not?

Let's say Jodi murdered Travis. Thus begins the process. Once it's discovered who her expert is (Dr S. in this case) How about they send me in as a decoy. I present as a patient abused for years by my boyfriend who has now fled (because they won't be able to find him)

Dr S is so nice and treats me for years, totally taken in. Then I am a witness for the prosecution as I have never been abused. This to show he really can't tell real abuse from a patient putting on an act...

I love the idea. I could do it.

Not after the read all your Websleuths' postings! :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[Donnareit]

I thought Willmott said that PTSD led to JA's actions (killing Travis - as in 'reactive').

I'll have to go back and read wenwe4 and Kmouse's transcripts on this since video isn't available yet.

I may have misunderstood, but this is what I heard, and it made my ears perk up - incredulously.

That's what you heard. So that means they have to show PTSD from being "choked" into unconsciousness by Travis as the prior incident that leads to the trigger of him trying to choke her again. Flimsy at best but mostly doesn't explain the preplanning involved in getting from Yreka to Mesa.

So the defense against first degree would be: yes she is a known stalker who planned to take a gun, hide her identity, and be undetectable in Arizona, but if he had just not touched her neck none of this would have happened?

Hummm, something about calling her a 5 year old . . . Oh good grief . . . Where might she be going here?

 

[Zeno49]

I'm just not very impressed with this judge, at all!
Unbelievable!

I have always thought this judge is completely over her head in this case. She is feckless, irresolute, and has NO sense of court room discipline.
She does not rule consistently with respect to objections. Fear of making a mistake has reduced her to a quivering magistrate.
I honestly believe this lady judge belongs in traffic court where her skill set would better match the job demands. She is clearly the WORST judge I have ever watched on court TV.

 

[Tracey4AU]

Alright... the ignorance of the defense has become too much and brought me out of lurkdom.

Yes, you are EXACTLY right. Psychologists study the psyche, not the anatomy of the brain, like a neurologist. Their "psychologist" should know better, I am only getting my master's right now and I know better as does the astute laymen watching.

And if I EVER brought in a Time magazine article as a reference my professors would make me redo the assignment. This is not validated professional research, this is propaganda and hype, at best.

Furthermore, I suffered from PTSD in my late teens after seeing my boyfriend shoot/kill himself while I stood a foot away and had blood and brains all over me. NO FOG HERE. And I could remember every SINGLE minute detail for at minimum 5 years. Your adrenaline makes everything profoundly sharp and slow and the smells, feelings, and out of body experience stay with you for a lifetime. Anyone who has experienced ACTUAL trauma will tell you this.

So glad you joined us!!! So sorry for what you have been through! Many survivors here...you will love it!

 

[scorpio24]

I subscribe to Marie Claire and Vogue. If I'm on a jury, I don't want to hear an expert witness quoting from either of those publications. I LOVE my mags, but I would lose respect for ANYONE who tried to use snippets from an article in a death penalty case.

Unless that anyone is Tim Gunn. :twocents:

 

[Boytwnmom]

we only know what Juan was able to garner from his brief review of what he was handed before court this am. So now he has time to question the guy and then will argue the merits at 1 their time. But the presentation did involve TA"s brain, how the crime scene shows what kind of crime it was (which intrudes upon whether it was premeditated which the court has already ruled the expert cannot address).

From what Juan said the expert's testimony was supposed to be about Jodi having PTSD at the time she committed the crime. I don't even get where that could be true based on this guy's own writings but that's what it was supposed to be and what Juan examined him on in 2011. Now he has a brand new PP finished today that attempts to explain everything Jodi did during and after the crime and how it wasn't the type of crime scene that one could conclude showed a premeditated crime.

This is what the guy wrote about PTSD:

PTSD is
often the psychological manifestation of an accident or any trauma that is extremely intense or prolonged, and which is outside the range of normal human experience. It frequently occurs immediately after the occurrence of the trauma and often manifests itself through anxiety, depression, disturbed sleep patterns, flashbacks, and various somatic problems and can be triggered
by exposure to situations related to the original trauma.

I don't get how this comports with the 3 or 4 episodes of "violence" Jodi purportedly experienced which causes her to murder someone three different ways while in a "fog" and then lie about it to police, TV interviewers etc.

It lookd like this guy also testifies about people faking emotional problems when he works for the defense in personal injury cases:

Psychological experts are also called upon to determine if claims of emotional damage are exaggerated or are the result of deliberate manipulation by the victim. Here, the same evaluation procedures are called into play, with special emphasis placed on the detection of malingering. In recent years, new evaluation instruments have been developed that are more sensitive in detecting malingering than were previously available. Frequently, experts are called into play by the defense counsel who may be suspicious of certain claims of emotional damages. Expert psychological testimony used in such situations can often be helpful in reducing awards to plaintiffs when their claims are deemed excessive.

http://svpexpertwitness.com/articles/LatentEffect.pdf

Hopefully Juan has looked into cases where he has testified about fakers and can illustrate that for the jury and distinguish it here when the guy is paid to overlook anything being faked.

Thank you. So is this guy a neurologist? How the heck can he be an expert as to cross sections of brains and what they show? And is he trying to say that Travis' brain shows he was abusive or something? That is truly beyond the pale. The judge just cannot let that in.

I'd also like to see the proposed exhibit list. Was the judge flustered with the defense or the state?

 

[leebee52]

The strap was in the unopened plastic in the camera case in the office

Surprisingly, she didn't use it for a sex toy.