trial day 32: the defense continues it's case in chief #91

[Curious Me]

OK since we are again luxuriating in an exceptionally long lunch break after a tediously short period of testimony... Did anyone else watching azcentral notice JA doing a weird "counting" thing on the edge of her table with her left hand? It was during a sidebar, she went first-finger, second-finger (just enough to bring her cramped ring finger into view), then she made a fist and jammed it under her chin. Was I alone in catching that?

I missed that. I did see her pushing up her glasses in an odd full hand way like it was some kind of signal. Jodi looks especially impatient and antsy today.

Who pushes up their glasses with their whole hand like that?

 

[alwaysonmymind]

OMG... I laughed and snorted - my coworkers are wondering what I'm really up to at my desk!

Sing and stand on your head too.

They'll stay far, FAR away from you.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ctmom]

I like Beth's Royal Blue dress... alot!
Especially the folded triangles at the neck & arms.. Cute

 

[Davia18]

ideas on whether JM will get to cross today....

One can only hope lease:

 

[Boodles]

As a lay person, I don't see that what this Dr is saying is wrong. I'm just not understanding how it pertains to Jodi. There was a point I thought it sounded like he was describing Travis' state of mid while being murdered.

Right. I think TRAVIS was the one who suffered trauma!

 

[sammijo]

Noon recess .. . . . jury is excused.

Judge did not stand for the jury . . . . . she looks pizzed! Dr. Samuels you will step down - counsel I will see you in chambers.

My understanding is that the judge does not stand for the jury, and I've never seen her stand. :twocents:

 

[gitana1]

Isn't this unethical for him to be discussing case in a personal manner and given details, especially about the people involved. He is a doctor and should not have disclosed that information. Isn't it against the law????

No names have been given out so it's okay. We don;t know who he is talking about.

The complaint and disciplinary action against him is really not a big deal IMO and Wilmott is doing the right thing by getting this out there on direct.

I would imagine it is true that there are an unusually large number of complaints filed related to custody evaluations (which is probably why it's hard to find custody evaluators these days).

On its face it does appear that in that one case it might tend to show bias towards the father, but I bet if we knew the underlying facts of the case there was probably plenty of evidence to support his custody evaluation for the father. Based on experience I would also bet the mother who filed the complaint was personality disordered -- that's who typically files complaints when they lose.

He should have kept everything above board, but it does not mean his custody evaluation was flawed. JMO

Well, while it is true that it doesn't mean his evaluation was flawed, I disagree that it wasn't a big deal. he was formally disciplined as a result of this. And it appears he stopped doing evaluations afterward.

I personally would never hire a psych who has been disciplined for an ethical violation, to evaluate one of my clients custody cases and I don;t really know of an attorney who would. I think there is more to the story than the rules changed right when he was deciding to treat this guy and he was unaware of the change. I don't think he would be fined if it was that close and if that's all there was to it.

I also didn't appreciate his little dig about how the woman's attorney was also her boyfriend. That was a sneaky effort to get in an unsubstantiated allegation meant to undermine the credibility of people who complained about his own ethics. And his propensity to make a dig on the stand that is ultimately irrelevant to whether he breached the code of ethics, tells me a lot about his character. It's dirty pool.

 

[leebee52]

Don't like that if I leave my computer, I'm FORCED to watch HLN because there's no other choice when I leave this room and of course, there's no other TV channels covering. Wish that Beth K had her own channel and her own show.

 

[Ammonitida]

As a lay person, I don't see that what this Dr is saying is wrong. I'm just not understanding how it pertains to Jodi. There was a point I thought it sounded like he was describing Travis' state of mid while being murdered.

It's wrong to claim that Jodi has a shrunken hippocampus without any scientific evidence to back it up, like an MRI scan. It's wrong to associate reduced hippocampus with PTSD as a cause when studies have shown that it's related more to alcohol abuse as opposed to stress. It's wrong for him to compare Jodi's hippocampus to those of Vietnam vets who suffered months of trauma during the war as well as chronic alcoholism afterwards.

 

[pufnstuf]

Beth just said that good doc FORGOT to add that he was ordered to take and ethics class. I was reading the judge's bio last night, and she was on an ethics board for a number of years.

And I am certain that JM will refresh the good PhD's memory of this when he does cross.

 

[Veritas_Vita]

It looks like Beth Karas has been crying or is upset. Maybe they are cutting her salary back or she's just sick of listening to the JA trial. I hope not, Beth Karas is a class-act and deserves her own show.

Anyone else think she looks sad or upset?

 

[RadarLuv]

Minor4th- I know this should be in the lawyer thread, but you are here now. Why can they not trim down the lunch break, especially when starting late and ending early? 1.5 hours? Is this contractual?

Oh, I see Gitana1 is here, too. Any idea?

 

[norest4thewicked]

Hugh Heffner would prolly hire her!

I doubt Hefner would, but Larry Flynt would be all over it!

 

[debloree]

Thanks wenwee for the updates.

 

[twocuriouscats]

ideas on whether JM will get to cross today....

Another poster said the jury is preparing questions for the fine Dr. S. Will that happen before JM gets to question him?

 

[getReal]

Hugh Heffner would prolly hire her!

Hugh Hefner? Nuh-uh!
Larry Flynt? Oh yeah!

 

[krkrjx]

To be honest I haven't listened closely to his testimony but he has, in my belief, certainly implied he believes her account.

Evidence of that for me came last week when he was recounting for the jury how awful it would be to have a secret and not feel they could share it with anyone. He consistently discounts or dismisses her actions in such a manner to make the defendant appear sympathetic which certainly makes it seem as though he believes her.

Just my layperson's opinion though.

I have not listenend closely to his every word as well, but to me he is probably one of those "experts" who earns a fair amount of his income through testfying, and as such he appears to me to be one who will imply whatever he is paid to imply.

 

[AZWatcher]

It's wrong to claim that Jodi has a shrunken hippocampus without any scientific evidence to back it up, like an MRI scan. It's wrong to associate reduced hippocampus with PTSD as a cause when studies have shown that it's related more to alcohol abuse as opposed to stress. It's wrong for him to compare Jodi's hippocampus to those of Vietnam vets who suffered months of trauma during the war as well as chronic alcoholism afterwards.

This case has gone an' done broke my hippobullshiiiitimus!

 

[thefragile7393]

The extraordinary poor coverage of the JA trial by HLN never ceases to amaze me.
Here we have a questionable expert, Samuels, speaking to the issue of “memory”. Memory is the proper purview of a neuroscientist – such as a physiologist or a neurologist.
So what does HLN present? Attorneys weighing in as “experts” on memory. The guest attorney provides us commentary based an authoritative anecdote about memory loss from rodeo bull riding!!! Beth Karas as a memory commentator???

Give me a break.

The subject obviously is "memory" . . . . so get an expert on MEMORY rather than jawing endlessly on "memory" by people who have no clue about this topic.

Beth is showing how they are trying to apply it to this case. She isn't giving a professional opinion...she is doing her commentary job by showing how it ties in. She isn't giving testimony on subject itself. The other guy....who knows. It isn't any more ludicrous then people here giving commentary and opinions of how it applies in this case. We are doing the same thing they are, except not on TV
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

 

[MeeBee]

Another poster said the jury is preparing questions for the fine Dr. S. Will that happen before JM gets to question him?

No, the questions will be asked after the lawyers all finished with him.