trial day 31: the defense continues it's case in chief #88

[KMouse]

I totally agree with your second point and totally disagree with your first point. I was just diagnosed with PTSD last year stemming from an event that occurred when I was 11. So the diagonosis may be decades following the trauma incident. Shocked the hellio out of me since I really don't consider myself to fit the stereotype (war vets, rape victims, etc). I still don't fully understand the implications and have a stack of books the shrink gave me that were identified courses of treatment.

PTSD is much like spectrum autism in that it is not as uniformly manifested from person to person, trauma to trauma. There are 6 different categories and you may exhibit all 6 or you may top the charts for just 3 or 4. You don't have to exhibit all 6. That leaves a LOT of room for variety. My effects of PTSD molded me into what the call "caretaker". Sounds charitable, but actually can be life threatening if hooked up with an abuser.

However, I've been seeing a therapist for a year and a half, two times a month and only a few months ago he zoned in on PTSD.

I am highly suspect of the docs hasty assessment. I think Nurmi knew EXACTLY what the docs specialty was LONG before he ever brought him in to see Jodi and in fact, very likely his only goal was to help add supporting data to a strategy he knew could win a case.

We now know from the docs testimony that Nurmi never believed the ninja story and knew the State would fry her and his whole point of hiring Dr Love was to CONVINCE Jodi (which they did after only TWO meetings according to testimony) that she needed her to help give them something better for them to work with - to give them something more sellable.

Jodi is a chameleon and an exceptionally detailed person. Artists usually are. Ive taken the "official" PTSD test which was 10 or 12 exhausting pages. Jodi took some stupid cliff notes version that was only 49 questions. Trust me, a person keen on details CAN easily lie on that test and fool the test into false readings. If you already understand a little bit about PTSD prior to taking the test then you can falsely answer based on what you know it is looking for. And if you are good with details you can remember how you answered in previous sections so when they repeat the question but word it differently, you can keep your FAKE answers consistent - thereby giving the appearance of not lying on the test.

I am not saying that a person cannot be diagnosed with PTSD unless they are seen immediately after an incident. I was thinking more about persons such as police officers who are involved in a shooting and what the process is for them and how their brain and body respond to a critical incident. I am familiar with critical incident stress management and these exact types of situations.

What I was trying to say, and obviously didn't word it properly, is that if JA had seen health professionals immediately after the murder she would not fit into the typical response that people have.

 

[Harmony 2]

FYI Some posts were moved to the 'Sidebar' thread. Please check there if you are missing a post... :tyou:

 

[Arishia]

I second that.. I doubt there was ever an open discussion about how she planned this and got her grandpa's gun then a knife and went there.

The first meeting she may have had with an attorney, would be based on the Ninja story after her first Version 1.0 I was not in the state of Arizona...

Enter...the Attorney's. First she represented herself but had some "advisers" (at some point that was Nurmi and Willmott after going through a slew of others per the records, she changed Attorneys like undies.. if she has those)

When they came on board (no pun intended) They were presented with the Ninja story, that then morphed to the "he tried to attack me...so, I cut him all up, shot him, and put him in his shower, and my finger hurts? it stings"

Then a great fog rolled in and I awoke in the desert.

They would then say....(as that was the time they all came on board because of a hearing that informed them they would seek the death penalty and she might want an actual attorney besides her smart self)

Some type of conversation would take place along the order of:

"if you stole your grandfathers gun, borrowed gas cans and drove to Arizona and killed him, they will get a conviction and you will probably be put to death? Jodi, that's premeditated 1st degree murder? On the other hand, if you were just trying to defend yourself, like, let's say he attacked you, you had no choice, well then, that would be self defense. So what happened, you need to tell me exactly which is it?"

"he attacked me...that's all I remember, he threw me down, well first up then down...I tried to get away, I don't know where the gun or knife came from, it's all a blur..."

"Like a fog?" Attorney said..

"yes, a fog, that's exactly what it was" Jodi exclaimed...

Ta da! A bit of role play back and forth, no overt suggestion to lie or make up a story.. Just give her a Menu with a few choices and the consequences for the various scenarios then ask her what the heck happened? and we want the truth (uh huh) There might even be hints from the Attorney's that they DON'T want to know, uh hum...any other story.. This is it, it's the truth, we all go with it. They really cannot have discussions of a totally fake story, then allow her on the stand.. This girl would rat them out, she would be on 48 hours telling the world how they told her what to say...

Perhaps this is where Gus 2.0 (Samuels) comes in. He could be the one that helped her concoct her story, as per DT guidance. I can imagine all manner of sleazy ways he could accomplish that.

 

[KMouse]

I am absolutely convinced psychopaths specifically target the world's most compassionate, kindest, trusting people deliberately. Very few would tolerate the things a psychopath puts you through.

I've said before of my own psychopath that the things he seemed to love most about me became the very things most reviled. Psychopaths and narcissists need to devalue anything they envy or admire within others.

Travis was so deeply loved, respected, and admired. He could make an entire room of strangers laugh with him. His generosity knew too few bounds. He had friends literally everywhere and even more who met him just once and yet will forever remember the immediate impression he left. He was a very magnetic, powerful personality. And psychopaths destroy everything around them.

I couldn't agree with you more, Katie...but it makes this case all the sadder for me too - what she stole away from the world.

(I think I need to go find kitty vids now too! :hug

JA is a predator and you described her relationship with Travis perfectly. Also with his life history there may have been co-dependancy on his part.

 

[Nosey Parker]

I bet Mr. Martinez will spend most of the weekend in consultation with his own expert (the lady who had the laptop stolen, I believe), to gear himself up to challenge Samuels' diagnosis.

These are some of the points I think he will use to destroy Samuels' credibility:

1. Samuels' 1970/80 training, with no documented 'continuing education' since.

2. The ethical reprimand and fine in New Jersey and subsequent move to Arizona to become a hired gun.

3. Samuel's web page boast of being able to 'get anyone off' (not a verbatim quote by me).

4. Mention of his upcoming book on the stand (self-promotion), and hopefully Juan will slip in that Samuels was speaking of same in the hallway Thursday. Of course, Wilmott will object vigorously, but just to get the fact known to the jury will serve his purpose.

5. When did Samuels last have an actual client? (slipping in reminder that he is "over them").

6. Lack of Samuels' own published papers; relying on articles such as that published in Time magazine, dated January 2013, written by a non-accredited author on the subject of school shootings.

7. Samuels' dependence on reading criteria and diagnosis from a non-current copy of the DSM, coupled with his memory problem, or lack of organisation, concerning the criteria the defendant purportedly met, both in his notes and on the test papers.

8. Draw attention to the caveat on the PTSD test sheet regarding no built in protection against false answers and conclusions (not a verbatim quote on my part).

9. The coincidence in the mutual use of buzz words used by Samuels and Arias. i.e. computer/brain analogy, foggy memory, etc.

10. Did Samuels recommend counselling for Arias' purported PTSD condition? If not, why not?

... Then on to the ripping apart of his diagnosis and opinions.


I predict Samuels will start out hostile and defensive, followed by stuttering and stammering confusion, culminating in whimpish surrender!

 

[JRS_JD2L]

All these witness experts from the DT doesn't matter. The case in front of the jury at this time is whether this was premeditated not why she can't remember.
It's bullchit and it should never be allowed.
(The public defenders gets paid per hour so there's an incentive to prolong this!!)

What's next?.....Jodi's elementary school-mates?....so they point out how she was an ugly duckling and wanted the attention of boys?

I mean, when does the psyche of Jodi end and the PREMEDITATED aspect of this murder of Travis begin?

She was medically, emotionally and mentally cleared to stand trial so pointing out her imperfections is a waste of Arizona's tax monies!!


PS. Why did she talk to an attorney from June 4th thru June 10th? Isn't that a bit telling? (even though we know it's a lie)

http://youtu.be/NnA-vrYcDBQ?t=56m1s

I agree. All of this expert testimony, unless it goes directly to the self-defense claim, is irrelevant to the charge. The PTSD resulting from HER actions seem to be only relevant at sentencing to mitigate why she's not the monster the jury thought she was when they convicted her :behindbar

It's simply not relevant that she can't remember that she sliced him up as she did, and that PTSD caused her to cover it up. The only thing it can do is perhaps mitigate some of the eye rolling the jury must be doing when she talks about Mr. Fog. Unless this doc can say she stole a weapon and created this elaborate and premeditated secret trip to AZ because she was under PTSD, then I can't see why we're listening to this at this point.

And..Ah...yes, she claims she talked to an attorney between June 4-10 before telling the detective that Travis didn't have a gun, but this "attorney" then tells her it's just fine to have two 6 hour interrogations with Flores without counsel? inocchio:

 

[leebee52]

Samuels was so sickening to me yesterday...just listening to his voice. Sounded like he was reading an article out of Psychology Today. I took a long nap instead. His drone reminded me of the DNA testimony in the OJ trial.

 

[Nezumi]

That is what it is really all about, he traded testimony for dental work. All the BS about him bartering treatment for dental work is just that, bull@$#!.

it's sleazy.

Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2

Very sleazy. It's also very telling that this was the best they could do.

 

[StephanieHartPI]

$$$$$$ and is he running from something? Can't wait til he gets the Juan treatment.

I am anxious for cross and the Jury's questions!

I was disgusted that he actually said he won't treat patients in Arizona because the reimbursement is too low (from insurance companies)

I got the distinct feeling he was the "never ending" student, in school, going for this "paid" membership or that...then teaching. His claim to fame is being caught up in the 70's Sex Therapy free love decade which is NOT helpful and fake therapy, just stuff to titillate a Therapist and good cocktail party stories for him to tell his friends... Seeing an occasional patient as an "expert" but he never once came across as a "doctor" the warmth, the good listener skills...I know plenty of Psychiatrists and a dear friend of mine is a Psychologist (Psychotherapy) 40 years. He is 85 years old and has a full patient load. The minute you sit with him, you just calm down (they are friends of mine, they have 2 dogs from me)

There are Therapists, and there are paid Experts that don't exude any "concern" at all. She was a "job" he got paid to do. And holy cow, 12 visits?

For her "issues" any Psychologist worth their salt would have the 12 visits done inside 3 months. Not 4 years. That is nothing. There is no way to examine her, diagnose her "properly" and render some professional opinion with such limited visits with her. He can't know her. His hourly rate to see her can't be more than $200 per hour (that's the high side) Mr Nurmi is getting paid $255 an hour from the State of Arizona. He has put a motion in to seal all his billing records from the Public. I wonder why. I calculate he has made nearly half a million or more already working her case. Given that estimate of hours, x 4 years, he could well afford $250.00 a WEEK to pay the Psych to visit once a week and give up 1 hour of his salary if he had the Defendants best interest at heart. I am sure he didn't want her examined too much because she could decide to kill again and he would lose the only Therapist that agreed to see her...

And after testifying she did GREAT on the test that tells him if she is a Liar.. She passed that in his opinion, it was all over for me LOL

Your test is flawed? wow...very flawed.

 

[Schuby]

Here is one link on Samuels, not sure if there are others.
http://svpexpertwitness.com/evaluations.asp

 

[Cricket99]

I hardly ever sign in but I am always on here, LOL I am at work so try to take shortcuts.

Anyway, I think she had supposedly left Travis House when he went to take the shower. Went out to the car to get the knife and gun, came back in and convinced him to let her take the pics which he really had no choice sense he was already in the shower. Somehow convinced him to sit down for a pic (last one showing him alive) and started stabbing him in the head, as soon as he tried to stand, got him in the chest - he made it to the sink and she is stabbing him the whole time, also when he crawls down the hall, and cuts his throat. Then, picks up the gun and shoots him. Drags him back to the shower to wash HER blood off of him. Shower is running the whole time with the glass door open soaking the bathroom floor. I don't know how else it could happen that fast. I actually don't see how any scenario could happen that fast though. I do believe she was in a fog during and after, how else could you do that to someone? However, it was pre-meditated in the event things did not go her way. In his mind and I am sure he made it clear to her also, they were just friends with benefits. She pretended to go along with that but really could not live with it as she is extremely jealous and possessive.


On another note, does anyone know if we get to see the evidentiary hearing with the lawyers this morning?

 

[Linda7NJ]

what trouble did Dr. Samuels get into in New Jersey?

 

[G&AMom]

I bet Mr. Martinez will spend most of the weekend in consultation with his own expert (the lady who had the laptop stolen, I believe), to gear himself up to challenge Samuels' diagnosis.

These are some of the points I think he will use to destroy Samuels' credibility:

1. Samuels' 1970/80 training, with no documented 'continuing education' since.

2. The ethical reprimand and fine in New Jersey and subsequent move to Arizona to become a hired gun.

3. Samuel's web page boast of being able to 'get anyone off' (not a verbatim quote by me).

4. Mention of his upcoming book on the stand (self-promotion), and hopefully Juan will slip in that Samuels was speaking of same in the hallway Thursday. Of course, Wilmott will object vigorously, but just to get the fact known to the jury will serve his purpose.

5. When did Samuels last have an actual client? (slipping in reminder that he is "over them").

6. Lack of Samuels' own published papers; relying on articles such as that published in Time magazine, dated January 2013, written by a non-accredited author on the subject of school shootings.

7. Samuels' dependence on reading criteria and diagnosis from a non-current copy of the DSM, coupled with his memory problem, or lack of organisation, concerning the criteria the defendant purportedly met, both in his notes and on the test papers.

8. Draw attention to the caveat on the PTSD test sheet regarding no built in protection against false answers and conclusions (not a verbatim quote on my part).

9. The coincidence in the mutual use of buzz words used by Samuels and Arias. i.e. computer/brain analogy, foggy memory, etc.

10. Did Samuels recommend counselling for Arias' purported PTSD condition? If not, why not?

... Then on to the ripping apart of his diagnosis and opinions.


I predict Samuels will start out hostile and defensive, followed by stuttering and stammering confusion, culminating in whimpish surrender!

Excellent analysis. No continuing education and no publications. Plus did you notice that he DID include some degree as a radio engineer or something from the 1960's? I get that he changed careers, but why include it at all? Very odd.

 

[Lorelilly]

BBM

Oh right. I had almost forgot that he said that, right upfront. He said he never records his sessions, and he takes notes, BUT he doesn't always write fast enough, so it takes a few sessions to get it all...:waitasec:

That sounded so weird to me. Here he says he relies upon all of this court sanctioned trial work, yet he keeps very shoddy records, and no audio tape.

Also, he was very proud of himself when he explained that he didn't need to get a second opinion, to verify his diagnosis. His explanation was that he gave a 45 question, self- taken multiple choice test to 'confirm' the diagnosis. :cough:

Many times the Defense Team doesn't want reports, notes or audio tapes. Any documentation would require they be "shared" with the prosecution. The less written info available the better chance the DT can slip stuff in that never would have been allowed if they had shown their "hand" so to speak.

 

[callyn]

Just an observation and it has probably been said before, but I don't understand how JA remembers every little detail of her sex life with TA and others when sex causes memory loss.

Oh, if only. I can't even forget sex that I wish I could forget. Sigh :waitasec:

 

[fifteen89]

Me thinks this defense 'expert' needs to do a bit more research on fauxnesia so he can see more clearly exactly who it is that he's dealing with here.

I hope Martinez comes up with one single, simple question to erase every word he says on the stand and show all of his testimony was worthless.

 

[Dmacky]

I heard that caller and she sounded like she was 95 years old and most likely hasn't been following the trial as much as us or the jury. It was poor logic to insinuate that because someone likes anal sex they must be a pedophile.

And guess WHO said this EVEN happened? I don't believe it for a minute. I'm not saying it never happened at all, but not as much as Jodi would like everyone to believe. We know JA did it with previous boyfriends, so if it did happen, it was HER that initiated it. Now changing the subject a little,
I believe JA went to Mesa WITHOUT TA knowing she was coming. He is such as nice person, of course he is going to let her in, It's 4 in the morning! And
I don't know of ANY man in his 20's or 30's that would turn down ANY kind of sex with someone they were familiar with. Unfortunately for him, she had an ulterior motive. There is no way he EVER thought she would be capable of murder. MOO

 

[Tracey4AU]

I thought court was supposed to start about now? No?

 

[Schuby]

I've thought since early in this trial that she has an eididic memory.

 

[Schuby]

I thought court was supposed to start about now? No?

9:30 AZ time.