trial day 48: REBUTTAL #147

[Nali87]

:floorlaugh:

That only describes Jodi

LOL. Good one. I was tempted to leave it unedited. :floorlaugh:

 

[indycornstalk]

He said it yesterday when Dr Demarte was on the stand. There was a sidebar after. I do believe it was directed at ALV's comment on the stand. I think the court reporter caught it on his machine,when ALV said jerk. I am told the court reporting machines are very sensitive and pick up everything. Hope ALV got reprimanded for her jerk remark.

I have been trying to find where LaViolette calls Martinez "JerK" under her breath and can't locate it, if anyone who is more savvy at this kind of thing can help me out I'd appreciate it! AND the part where Martinez makes the "JerK" comment yesterday. I am terrible at remembering which testimony comes on what days! THANKS!!

 

[LambChop]

I think ALV and RS are too stuck in their ways with out-dated approaches. DD is clearly more in tune with the latest advancements in her field.

Didn't ALV say something along the lines that women are taught to be passive etc. I think she is a generation or two behind.

ALV is from my generation and, yes, women were pretty much passive and expected to stay that way. I was one generation beyond going on an interview wearing white gloves which was essential. lol It was my husband who taught me how to be more assertive and stand on my own two feet. He was very outgoing and never met a stranger, I was more inward and quiet. Before he passed away he said I use to worry about you being alone but now I know you will do fine. And I told him it was because of him and how he was always inspiring me to stand up for myself. Not all assertive men are abusive. Many of them try to bring the best out of others. Very much like Travis. I think he tried to do that for Jodi.

 

[Wake_me]

Several here had noted that ALV turned to the Jurors and she seemed to have mouthed the word "Jerk"...referring to JM of course. I don't know if that's been confirmed, and if it was loud enough for a, or several Jurors to hear

I also noticed ALV at least once look over to the jurors and kind of shrug/roll her eyes to try and give the impression that the questions she was being asked were ludicrous. Like saying "Can you believe he just asked me that?" I noticed Jodi do this as well. Perhaps a DT tactic.

 

[minazoe]

The only problem I'm having with DD is that she's not "quick on a comeback".
When Willmott was asking about her CV, she should have said a CV isn't a book. You don't put every single speech, class, case you've worked on....as some "other" witnesses did.
I've always followed the rule that a CV should be no longer than 2 pages, 3 tops.
It's a "brief" synopsis of your accomplishments, and in this case, tests/tools she's utilized in her experience so far. Just IMO.
I agreed with DD when she said she really didn't "use it" that much.
In my experience, most potential employers want to speak to you, as opposed to read your life history. In an interview you expound upon the brief highlights that are in the CV.
DD could have explained that point when Willmott was alluding to the fact that DD didn't feel these "other" courses, etc. she had taken weren't important enough to put in her CV. Also, when you get to a certain level and expertise, often "word of mouth" takes the place of a CV. DD probably had to make up one specifically for this purpose.
As far as the "compassion" part, I would have snuck in that she did NOT feel compassion for their client....so it was REALLY an unbiased assessment. Oh, and no books, cards, tender moments or APOLOGIES!!!

I think DrD is being careful not to be called hostile by the defense...or to look overly snarky or concerned about the cross to the jury while JW is trying hard not to look like a jerk which she knows she does, because the witness in unimpeachable and she just looks petty.

chick fight....so awesome.

 

[Softail]

I also wondered of these personality disorders would give the jury a reason NOT to give her death. Almost like an excuse. Not that I believe personality disorders in any way should excuse the offense of murder....but it did cross my mind.

Thoughts everyone?

I was thinking about that as well. I really hope they don't start thinking, she is somehow damaged, so we can't give her the DP. I'm hoping JM can point out that it should not be considered. :twocents:

 

[DebinGA]

I'm a visual learner, i.e. I understand something I see far more than something I hear. So, if JM wanted to show the list of BPD indicators to the jury [great idea], why not provide a clear, enlarged list on the screen, rather than his teensy, cramped handwriting? Can all the jurors read his writing on the scene, because I couldn't?

 

[G&AMom]

Really enjoying today's witness though I do disagree with one thing: her stance on the Law of Attraction.

Yes it is 'real.' It's one of the Universal Laws and is something recognized for many thousands of years. JA used it incorrectly and Travis did too for that matter. It's not a "think positive" thing at all--it exists whether anyone believes in it or knows about it. It's about energy. It's not a religion, just like physics isn't a religion. "The Secret" was a marketing exploitation of The Law of Attraction. The Universal Laws is as much junk 'science' as anything Stephen Hawking is working on...meaning...not junk at all.

It looked to me like Dr. DeMarte's knowledge of the Law of Attraction was based primarily on what her patients had told her and they were probably misrepresenting what it actually is. The patients were likely using it to hide from things they didn't want to face rather than following the principles of the Law of Attraction itself. JMO

 

[Boodles]

JW trying to attack this witnesses age is ridic and so obvious. I'm sure its not lost on the jury... The comment about how she couldn't have over saw Alyce L in 1980 was just a pathetic attempt at a jab.
JD comes across as unbiased and honest. She is talking about Jodi as she reviewed the evidence, not trying to manipulate the evidence to match a story of poor Jodi... KWIM? She is referring to Jodi as what she is, a defendant in a murder case... ALV and Doc Samuels referred to her as a victim, and instead put the actions of a murdered man on trial, with no proof of anything other than a well known liars word!!!

Lets hope JW don't spend the whole morning going over the CV. Get to the facts and lets go. I love how Juan had her on not even for a whole day and got all the things out that he did. It would be a bad move on the D if they kept on for the entire day today.

People here keep referring to age. I don't think it's age per se. I think JW is focused on experience, which can be a function of age. But she is right, dr d has fewer years of experience, and when she went through the CV, it surprised me a little compared to the vast knowledge she displayed on direct. However, her academic/educational background and training seem very impressive, and she is current on the science /protocols behind evaluation. She also seems to have moved very (unusually) quickly into managerial/supervisory capacities, which is interesting.

She knows her stuff, and is very confident. But I'm surprised most others didn't notice a perceptible change in demeanor once Juan was done and JW got up to bat. I felt immediate vibes, like a "prickliness" from Dr d. Nothing like the flagrant and bizarre behavior of ALV, but a definite attitude, which is not the end of the world as she's still extremely credible. But I found that bit of attitude disappointing, and hope it's gone today, especially when they "get into it" on substantive issues (if JW can get to any).

Did no one else notice?

 

[Karmady]

Just pointing out that 32 years old IS very, very young for a testifying "expert." Most experts are at least in their 40's and usually in their 50's and older. The idea being that one is not an expert until they've had quite a bit of practical experience and become established in their field. I didn't watch the testimony yesterday, so this isn't a commentary on how this witness did, at all. Just sayin'...I'm seeing posters get onto the defense for pointing out her age and lack of practical experience, but that IS what makes one an expert -- among other things. Any defense in any case would do this and it would be justified since experience is something the jury should definitely consider in evaluating an expert's testimony. Imo, particularly in a highly interactive and subjective field such as psych. All jmo.

 

[Wake_me]

Also by ALV saying she doesn't understand differences between texting, IM's, etc. since her testimony was involved so much in the written word and how they were exchanged you would think she would have researched that before testifying. It's not hard to understand the basics.

I can just picture ALV reading text messages from TA where he uses abbreviations like OMG, SMH, LMAO etc. and thinking "wow, he is so full of rage that he is 'typing in tongues'. Perhaps he is so angry he is just pounding random keys."

 

[Miss Chevious]

Did anyone get a screen capture of, or have a link to the MMPI results for JA?

Is this the test that identifies the personality disorders, in which Dr. DeMarte said JA showed an increase in 7 of the 10 criteria?

I'd like to see the scores and which tests she exceeded 65.
Edit/Delete Message

 

[DebinGA]

I also noticed ALV at least once look over to the jurors and kind of shrug/roll her eyes to try and give the impression that the questions she was being asked were ludicrous. Like saying "Can you believe he just asked me that?" I noticed Jodi do this as well. Perhaps a DT tactic.

I hope jurors didn't miss ALV turning away from Judge Stephens as she was still admonishing her to please answer the question asked if she could. IIRC, she didn't answer the judge at all, certainly not a "Yes, your honor."

 

[raisincharlie]

I also noticed ALV at least once look over to the jurors and kind of shrug/roll her eyes to try and give the impression that the questions she was being asked were ludicrous. Like saying "Can you believe he just asked me that?" I noticed Jodi do this as well. Perhaps a DT tactic.

JMO - that 44 hours included more than talking about domestic violence. There seem to be several responses and physical tells that are common between ALV and Jodi. Just sayin...

 

[Nali87]

People here keep referring to age. I don't think it's age per se. I think JW is focused on experience, which can be a function of age. But she is right, dr d has fewer years of experience, and when she went through the CV, it surprised me a little compared to the vast knowledge she displayed on direct. However, her academic/educational background and training seem very impressive, and she is current on the science /protocols behind evaluation. She also seems to have moved very (unusually) quickly into managerial/supervisory capacities, which is interesting.

She knows her stuff, and is very confident. But I'm surprised most others didn't notice a perceptible change in demeanor once Juan was done and JW got up to bat. I felt immediate vibes, like a "prickliness" from Dr d. Nothing like the flagrant and bizarre behavior of ALV, but a definite attitude, which is not the end of the world as she's still extremely credible. But i found that bit of attitude disappointing, and hope it's gone today, especially when they "get into it" on substantive issues (if JW can get to any).

Did no one else notice?

Dr.D and JW probably have had previous run ins. I know they've had hearings where JW has interviewed/crossed Dr.D before.

 

[Sleuth5]

I like DD very much and think she is a great witness and did a good job with JM. However, I became a little nervous when JW did her cross. Everyone knows JW was going to go after her about the length of her experience. She should have been prepared for this. She seemed nervous and a little combative on her answeres. True she does not have 30 yrs experience, but she should be proud of her studies and the years she does have and supply her answers with more confidence.

I have been at my job for 20 years. I have not done anything amazing in that 20 years. I have a director that started fresh out of college and moved up in my company in 4 years. Its not the years its what you learn in those years.

You certainly make a good point regarding achievement as opposed to longevity in a career, and I can agree that she did seem to be a little guarded initially when JW began questioning her experience. On the other hand, I think most of her "bristling", and it was minimal, came from the implied challenge to her professionalism. JW couched those questions in inquiries regarding experience versus training, but to a person with a doctorate, they would come across as condescending and obviously intended to be so.

You don't go through a doctorate program and then enter an "on-the-job-training" program. Once you receive the doctorate, you are considered prepared to enter the professional world as a peer and colleague. Naturally, you will develop skills and experience as time passes, but the doctoral program is not a "basic training" for your job. I think that is why she, or any professional, would bristle at the insinuation that there was something lacking in your professional credentials simply because you have less than a decade of active work in your field.

JW knows how grueling those programs are, but she also knows that average people have no idea of how difficult they are to get through. The attrition rate in most doctoral programs is over 50%. So, implying that receiving a doctorate doesn't really mean that much unless you can then point to decades of experience as well would be insulting at a basic level to most any professional. It's not going to make you come off the stand and snatch somebody's wig off, but it would make you a bit testy, that's for sure.

:cow:

 

[3trees]

I like DD very much and think she is a great witness and did a good job with JM. However, I became a little nervous when JW did her cross. Everyone knows JW was going to go after her about the length of her experience. She should have been prepared for this. She seemed nervous and a little combative on her answeres. True she does not have 30 yrs experience, but she should be proud of her studies and the years she does have and supply her answers with more confidence.

I have been at my job for 20 years. I have not done anything amazing in that 20 years. I have a director that started fresh out of college and moved up in my company in 4 years. Its not the years its what you learn in those years.

I think that she is a extremely qualified, hard working, knowledgeable doctor. She also has been in contact with the DT before and who knows what occurred in these contacts. She also has had her home invaded, burglarized in which her work laptop was taken in which law enforcement has deemed suspicious. She would have to have some raw feelings, she is human after all. I think she is doing a wonderful job and is showing much more restraint than ALV or DS. She hasn't spouted how dare you sir nor has answered any of JW questions in a condescending manner. In fact it seemed as though she started to actually feel bad for JW's stammering, bumbling manner. Also she has interviewed the worse of the worse in her career and has had to master the ability to set the tone of who is in charge. I think she is doing a good job in maintaining an even strain. <----The Right Stuff

 

[CoachSue]

Seems that JA is a bit intimidated by the good Dr. D, as she won't even look at Dr. D during the questioning by JM. Instead, JA seems to be much more intrigued with her own writing/drawing/coloring adventures...

And here's an interesting site with more info about Dr. D:
http://therapists.psychologytoday.com/rms/name/Janeen_DeMarte_PhD_Phoenix_Arizona_136525

 

[nursebeeme]

I have been trying to find where LaViolette calls Martinez "JerK" under her breath and can't locate it, if anyone who is more savvy at this kind of thing can help me out I'd appreciate it! AND the part where Martinez makes the "JerK" comment yesterday. I am terrible at remembering which testimony comes on what days! THANKS!!

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9221832&postcount=38"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - weekend discussion: discuss the trial here #139[/ame]

there is a post that has the ALV video

I cannot recall exactly which part of testimony Juan made the Jerk comment yesterday however... (I did post wenwe4's transcripts in the timeline thread... so you could perhaps check there?)

 

[Nali87]

Just pointing out that 32 years old IS very, very young for a testifying "expert." Most experts are at least in their 40's and usually in their 50's and older. The idea being that one is not an expert until they've had quite a bit of practical experience and become established in their field. I didn't watch the testimony yesterday, so this isn't a commentary on how this witness did, at all. Just sayin'...I'm seeing posters get onto the defense for pointing out her age and lack of practical experience, but that IS what makes one an expert -- among other things. Any defense in any case would do this and it would be justified since experience is something the jury should definitely consider in evaluating an expert's testimony. Imo, particularly in a highly interactive and subjective field such as psych. All jmo.

I agree but rewatching Dr.D testimony, what's she done is testify to the usual way things are done and who can perform certain tests and how they should be interpreted. I don't think you need a lot of experience to be able to do that. ALV didn't do any tests and Dr. Samuels with his masters degree wasn't even qualified to analyze the results of the tests he did.