trial day 41: the defense continues its case in chief #121
- Thread starter nursebeeme
- Start date
- Status
Cracka*Jaxx
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2011
- Messages
- 1,075
- Reaction score
- 398
ALV is getting damn snippy! JM is going to be taking off the gloves VERY quickly!
elementary
No More Excuses
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,077
- Reaction score
- 1
She's arrogant.
TXProfessional
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2013
- Messages
- 729
- Reaction score
- 0
I just wanted to throw something out there for those rightfully upset with ALV's testimony. With genuine experts there are 4 crucial things to look for;
1) Balance, 2) Evidence-based theory,3) Veracity, and 4) a WIN/WIN communication style. None of which are present with her (or Samuels either)
A) she paints a picture of Jodi that is unrealistic, do you notice that according to AVL Jodi is never on the wrong side of anything--has no human imperfections despite this alleged abuse, rejection, and character assassination. This testimony is very remiscent of Borderline PD in that Travis is a perfect monster and Jodi is a perfect victim--trust me when I tell you that it is NEVER that cut and dry in Diagnostic Evaluations.
B) She used anecdotal and historic biographical information to construct and support her suppositions and opinions, i.e., expert testimony (this is very common in SA and DV fields). Most professionals know and accept that the history of SA and DV's theoretical foundation, however, it is explained in a court of law how this field arrives at its theoretical approaches and acknowledges its evidence-based shortcomings. This is why the field is so excited about the future of addiction with the movement of Neurobiology of Addiction and brain research.
C) She is restating or regurgitating Jodi Arias' testimony--There is no acknowledged COLLATERAL interviews/information to support her testimony, in fact it appears that each of the DT experts chose to forego the ever critical collateral information that helps MH professionals to determine the veracity of the defendants self-reporting (particularly in light of an admitted history of lying). The MMPI would have been an appropriate instrument to measure the defendants truthfulness IMO.
D) She has no integrity or committment to the field of psychology--it is our responsibility to educate and evaluate without spin or bias. This is an exercise in destroying one person to elevate the status of another person. Hence she communicates not as a professional but as a hack in which someone has to win and someone has to lose, thus signifcantly harming the profession itself. This is the most repulsive part because for the sake of the win she has disrespected and harmed the both the Alexander and Arias' families, dehumanized Travis to the tune of a win, and she has allowed her gender bias to negatively impact the slow growing acceptance that women are abusers as well.
I know I rambled on this but my frustration is great, however, on the flip side I would hope that the Prosecution has a real expert with all of these qualities.
1) Balance, 2) Evidence-based theory,3) Veracity, and 4) a WIN/WIN communication style. None of which are present with her (or Samuels either)
A) she paints a picture of Jodi that is unrealistic, do you notice that according to AVL Jodi is never on the wrong side of anything--has no human imperfections despite this alleged abuse, rejection, and character assassination. This testimony is very remiscent of Borderline PD in that Travis is a perfect monster and Jodi is a perfect victim--trust me when I tell you that it is NEVER that cut and dry in Diagnostic Evaluations.
B) She used anecdotal and historic biographical information to construct and support her suppositions and opinions, i.e., expert testimony (this is very common in SA and DV fields). Most professionals know and accept that the history of SA and DV's theoretical foundation, however, it is explained in a court of law how this field arrives at its theoretical approaches and acknowledges its evidence-based shortcomings. This is why the field is so excited about the future of addiction with the movement of Neurobiology of Addiction and brain research.
C) She is restating or regurgitating Jodi Arias' testimony--There is no acknowledged COLLATERAL interviews/information to support her testimony, in fact it appears that each of the DT experts chose to forego the ever critical collateral information that helps MH professionals to determine the veracity of the defendants self-reporting (particularly in light of an admitted history of lying). The MMPI would have been an appropriate instrument to measure the defendants truthfulness IMO.
D) She has no integrity or committment to the field of psychology--it is our responsibility to educate and evaluate without spin or bias. This is an exercise in destroying one person to elevate the status of another person. Hence she communicates not as a professional but as a hack in which someone has to win and someone has to lose, thus signifcantly harming the profession itself. This is the most repulsive part because for the sake of the win she has disrespected and harmed the both the Alexander and Arias' families, dehumanized Travis to the tune of a win, and she has allowed her gender bias to negatively impact the slow growing acceptance that women are abusers as well.
I know I rambled on this but my frustration is great, however, on the flip side I would hope that the Prosecution has a real expert with all of these qualities.
AnonymousD
Custom User Title goes here
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,480
- Reaction score
- 16
Oh my goodness.
Sunny_In_AZ
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2013
- Messages
- 357
- Reaction score
- 0
They need to throw that idiot that laughed out. I saw her shaking her head a lot earlier too.
uke:
wenwe4
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 9,499
- Reaction score
- 7,359
Bachelors in 1969, Masters in 1980, did not continue on to PhD . . .continues to get continuing education credits.
can't do testing, can't read psychological tests . . . . ALV has different training . . . doesn't do psychological tests but she might have more experience in other areas than PhD's. . . .she can't scrore tests
she is aware of DSM 4 . . . psychologists and psychiatrists use it and she says psychotherpists use it too.
no diagnosis of battered woman in that text DSM 4 - correct
objection
approach
DSM 4 no diagnosis of battered woman . . .
you have experience in dealing with battered women . . . I do . . . what available to you are clinical interviews . . . you sit across from the person who may or may not be a victim of battering . .. one of the things - main instrument . . . not main one of the items ALV uses\
44 hours of interview . . .clinical interview - clinical aspect of practice - . . . clinical aspect of this eval . .
clinical interview . . . interview, ask questions,
Mr. Martinez are you angry @ me?
laughter
is that important to you . . . make any difference yes or no
makes a difference how I am spoken to . . .I would like you to speak to me
does that change if it is battering situation?
yes or no?
can't say . . . if someone question in that way lost the question
sway you will answer questions based upon demeanor
no
speak to defendant across table about issues in this case - spent 44 hrs . . . you looked @ a lo of other collaterals . .. journals one of the things . . .writings and interviews done by others, text, IM's eamails . . . . evals in this case
other than talk to JA didn't talk to anyone else yourself
correct
sort of left to read what someone had written synopsys
your approach - no diagnosis in DSM 4 - no guide out there to tell you battered individual or abused individual
that is not correct!
#558 - ended your testimony this particular continuum of aggression and abuse . . .JA was a victim of abusive relationship
not a yes or no . . . do you want the truth Mr. Martinez/
do you want to spar with me
objection argumentative
approach
can't do testing, can't read psychological tests . . . . ALV has different training . . . doesn't do psychological tests but she might have more experience in other areas than PhD's. . . .she can't scrore tests
she is aware of DSM 4 . . . psychologists and psychiatrists use it and she says psychotherpists use it too.
no diagnosis of battered woman in that text DSM 4 - correct
objection
approach
DSM 4 no diagnosis of battered woman . . .
you have experience in dealing with battered women . . . I do . . . what available to you are clinical interviews . . . you sit across from the person who may or may not be a victim of battering . .. one of the things - main instrument . . . not main one of the items ALV uses\
44 hours of interview . . .clinical interview - clinical aspect of practice - . . . clinical aspect of this eval . .
clinical interview . . . interview, ask questions,
Mr. Martinez are you angry @ me?
laughter
is that important to you . . . make any difference yes or no
makes a difference how I am spoken to . . .I would like you to speak to me
does that change if it is battering situation?
yes or no?
can't say . . . if someone question in that way lost the question
sway you will answer questions based upon demeanor
no
speak to defendant across table about issues in this case - spent 44 hrs . . . you looked @ a lo of other collaterals . .. journals one of the things . . .writings and interviews done by others, text, IM's eamails . . . . evals in this case
other than talk to JA didn't talk to anyone else yourself
correct
sort of left to read what someone had written synopsys
your approach - no diagnosis in DSM 4 - no guide out there to tell you battered individual or abused individual
that is not correct!
#558 - ended your testimony this particular continuum of aggression and abuse . . .JA was a victim of abusive relationship
not a yes or no . . . do you want the truth Mr. Martinez/
do you want to spar with me
objection argumentative
approach
LizardQueen74
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2013
- Messages
- 671
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm delayed bc of HLN, but my coworker just told me there is JM today!!!!!!
- Status