trial day 48: REBUTTAL #147

[SusieD]

I think her criminal-turned-tweeter friend Ms Donavan Bering, Matt McCartney or Gus Searcy was behind this theft.
Those would be my guesses unless of course it was a random theft.

Didn't seem to put a chink in her chain though, huh?

I don't see the burgulary being of any benefit to Jodi.

The theft was well after the evaluation, the reports would have been distributed already.

The defense would have recieved all of Demarte's info through discovery, I doubt they would resort to theft to see if the prosecution witness was going to say more bad stuff than they already disclosed. Or could possibly be hiding exculpatory evidence, as the defense knows as well as you and I that none could possibly exist.


Maybe someone else had a reason to target this particular individual, but I think suggesting the defense had anything to do with it is preposterous. Zero to gain and everything to lose, not even Nurmi woudl tke those odds.

ETA - I think you are suggesting Jodi was behind this, not the DT as I first read, and I can't see anyone risking big time jail for her.

 

[crimesnooper]

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. What worries me is there are many, many clinical psychologists and psychiartrists in the field of forensics as well as "regular" therapy. Why did the prosecution go with someon so inexperienced. Why did they not put up someone with a longer history in the field. I'm not saying she is wrong in anything she said or is not very capable but the expereince is not there. Could the jury conclude that the prosecution could not get an expereinced psych/psch to come to the same conclusion? I like the way she explained things and I can understand her being frustrated with the way JW poses Q's (She is just awful IMO, can't seem to string cohesive thoughts together) but I did think she is too inexpereinced. While I liked her straight forward approach she did come off a little too cold and clinical. Thay may work very well here. But I would never refer somone to her for therapy

 

[G&AMom]

I wanted to make a comment about the whole age/experience topic (not relating to anybody's post).

As someone who has seen more doctors than I like to think about for medical issues my entire adult life, there are times when you want a young doctor who has all the latest knowledge in his brain, and there are time when you want an older doctor with lots of experience who isn't, for example, going to order a lot of unnecessary tests, or can look at a much broader picture.

I think age is not the issue. There was nothing stopping ALV and RS from keeping up with the latest findings in their filed. They just chose not to.

 

[Chelly]

Good morning!

Ok, you've all read this before.....As I say every morning:
Never in my life supported death penalty (I am 67) . Always strongly protested it.........until now. Death Penalty for JA!

 

[kscornfed]

The university awards her a doctorate of philosphy in clinical psychology when she completes her coursework. She becomes licesned to practice as a clinical pshcholgist independtly after she passes her state exams. This is the same as JW. She was awarded a juris doctorate after she completed law school. But she was not licesned to practice law until she passed the bar. Why was this so hard for JW to understand??

JW made this sound complicated and it's not. it's exactly like a med student who becomes 'dr.' when he/she graduates from med school. then they're a resident. they work, they see and treat patients, but there is an attending physician (licensed) who has to co-sign all their orders and monitor what they're doing. when they complete their residency, they may do a fellowship in their specialty area, gaining more experience. but once they're licensed in a state, they can operate independently. but the entire time, they've been 'practicing', because they've been seeing and treating patients, developing a plan of care, diagnosing, etc.

JW made this sound like DD was intentionally being confusing. but IMO it was JW who was confused. it's not rocket science.

 

[Mykeru]

Dear Diary,

I haven't written because there's been nothing noteworthy to report. I tried falling asleep cuddled up to the WebSleuths pod, but when I woke up I still had fingerprints.

5...4...3...2...1...

 

[Sherbie]

Anything filed against her?
She(ALV) was ordered by Judge to appear Tuesday, what happened with that?

BunnyHop, because the hearing was sealed, we don't know the nature of it or what happened. It could remained sealed til after trial, but hopefully we'll find out before then.

 

[Isabelle]

The university awards her a doctorate of philosphy in clinical psychology when she completes her coursework. She becomes licesned to practice as a clinical pshcholgist independtly after she passes her state exams. This is the same as JW. She was awarded a juris doctorate after she completed law school. But she was not licesned to practice law until she passed the bar. Why was this so hard for JW to understand??

I don't think JW was sure of what she was asking DD, because she had not done her homework and was flying by the seat of her pants!

 

[AZWatcher]

She's drunk or on Xanax/pain medication in those interviews, maybe all three. I'm not saying that as a joke. It is clear she is medicated or on drugs/intoxicated.

Yeah, I think you're right ...or she is dumb as a door knob. Either way... She should stay In Hiding.

 

[bznbear]

I have wondered the same, but honestly, Juan is not going to leave the jury feeling sorry for Jodi, at all, by the time he completes his closing. He will leave the jury wanting to punish Jodi.

I've felt for the defendant a couple of times; not because she's on trial, but because of such a wasted life.

Dr. D on the stand yesterday brought home the stark reality of just how wasted that life is. She could have been up there, testifying as a professional, had she made better choices in life.

I found it incredibly sad.

 

[G&AMom]

I think her criminal-turned-tweeter friend Ms Donavan Bering, Matt McCartney or Gus Searcy was behind this theft.
Those would be my guesses unless of course it was a random theft.

Didn't seem to put a chink in her chain though, huh?

I don't know quite how to word this without getting into trouble, but . . .

I have a hard time picturing Donovan committing burglary without getting caught. Gus Searcy could have hired somebody to do it, I suppose. Don't know about Matt.

 

[Negative green]

Are we there yet Dad? Huh! Huh are we there?

My thanks key disappeared, so please everyone consider yourselves thanked.

 

[deb2e]

Can this go into the media/timeline thread?

I transcribed the text for people on mobile devices who won't be able to read the small text.


---
bit of loss for words. And perhaps a little bit intimidated, not necessarily because of how angry you were, but because I wasn't sure how you would react to me trying to comfort you. I compare it to my own experiences, and I know that sometimes, I don't want to hear it, I just want to yell and scream and vent (yes, I do on very rare occasions), and go through the motions until the situation plays itself out. Other times, I need comforting and to be told that everything is ok. I wasn't sure exactly what you were needing, so I just listened, and as the conversation evolved, my heart filled with compassion [] you.

However, you already know the Secret. I don't need to remind you. But you are so powerful, and you can turn this situation around at anytime [sic]. I found out, much to my regret, that my anger is very destructive. I've never beaten up anybody over it, but I've kicked holes in walls, kicked down doors, smashed windows, broken things. It hurts people [redacted?] and it hurts me. It lowers my vibration and attracts unwanted lower-vibrational situations and people into my life. So I strive every day to "be the bigger person" and be a living example and Choose the Right and see everything through a filter of love. But it doesn't always work that way! I mess up. Sometimes I forget who I am. But I will never stop striving to be Christ-like as much as I possibly can.

This morning, I woke up feeling awful. I called Darryl (only because I had to give him the phone number to our mortgage lender) and he said, "hey, I was just going to call you. Any change in your situation?" An that's all he had to say. I lost it
---

thank you for posting ..does anyone know what she is talking about or to who? whats the secret about and turn what around. ok im lost please help

 

[carnnell]

(just jumping off of your post)

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to trails but I don't get why things that sound prejudicial but are true can't be said in front of the jury. e.g. whatever Dr JD found through her testing or the tape of her own father saying she is a known liar. Yet the victim can be trashed from here to Sunday with no more proof than a proven liars word. It's frustrating to me.

There is a difference between moral truth and legal truth. The legal truth has to be on evidence w/o prejudice. Prejudices for the jury to focus re directs them away from the evidence they are (by law) to consider for impartial deliberations following the jury instruction (like the instruction in a recipe) to come to a verdict.

My unlegal degree Opinion but how my father the lawyer has always explained it to me over the years when I have asked the same question you have asked.

MOO

 

[ShadyLady]

My DS walked in with me watch trial yet again and told me "I need to get a life" I said, 'I'll get one when she's convicted'. He shook his head and walked away.

You're not the only one. Can't believe how much my life is on hold right now.

:what:

 

[cricket49]

Is Clancy Talbot, the friend of Travis's, going to be called as a rebuttal witness for Juan?

She is the woman Jodi confronted in the bathroom and told her to leave Travis alone. She said Jodi was shaking, very confrontational and blocked the exit door of the bathroom. Clancy's friend came into the bathroom which allowed Clancy to leave.

Clancy would make an excellent witness for the prosecutor. :rocker:

 

[nursebeeme]

mollyf,
I put your transcription in the timeline thread. Thank you! :rocker:

 

[Sleuth5]

Have to say that I dislike ageism in any flavor. While ALV seemed to be out of touch with technology, brazilian waxes, and the sexual behavior/practices common among some young (and not so young) people, I see this as a choice and not necessarily a factor of her age given what she does for a living. For all we know, some of what we saw from her on the stand was her playing a role, which worked under direct, but fell apart in a major way when challenged by JM. She destroyed her credibility when she was unwilling to answer the questions he asked, or to concede the most basic, common sense points and she looked like a fool and the bought and sold expert that she was. I see this more as a personal failing/shortcoming of Alyce's rather than a factor of her age. I've had the good fortune to work with many older professionals who keep up with the world around them (technology, culture, etc.) and with the ever-changing landscapes in their respective fields. You can find competent, professional, ethical, savvy, up-to-date people or the polar opposite in any age group. Unfortunately what we saw from the defense were two 60+ experts performing badly and giving mature professionals a bad name.

Well said. I agree that there were an awful lot of age-focused posts regarding Alyce that had nothing to do with the substance of her testimony and either implied or stated that she ought to have "retired" or something because they deemed her "over the hill". I'm sure their attitudes will be different when they're older. To assume that older people have nothing to contribute past a certain, arbitrary point is just as ridiculous as arguing that a woman isn't as qualified as a man to do a job for which both are equally qualified, or to suggest that someone's racial background should be a consideration in the same situation.

This was, as you perfectly stated, simply an example of two individuals who happened to perform rather poorly in this particular instance. They are not necessarily a representative sample even of their own peer groups. Age is not the problem.

:cow:

 

[AZWatcher]

I wanted to make a comment about the whole age/experience topic (not relating to anybody's post).

As someone who has seen more doctors than I like to think about for medical issues my entire adult life, there are times when you want a young doctor who has all the latest knowledge in his brain, and there are time when you want an older doctor with lots of experience who isn't, for example, going to order a lot of unnecessary tests, or can look at a much broader picture.

I think age is not the issue. There was nothing stopping ALV and RS from keeping up with the latest findings in their filed. They just chose not to.

I see where the concerns would come in ... she is young. I felt like she was strong in something her 2 opponents were sorely lacking. Relevance. This is an ever-changing world we live in ... technology is crucial. ALV and DS lack of continuing education spoke to their arrogance JMO. Scoring tests manually 3 times and not even writing a report... No Bueno.


PS thanks mollyf and Cinderella!

 

[Liebchenmutti]

I don't think JW will make much headway today--Dr. D. is too smart for her. JW tried unsuccessfully to challenge Dr.D's view that other people know when someone is a pedophile--because of their actions of being around children, behavior that comes to the attention of family, friends and police.

Travis was only called a pedophile by Jodi--AFTER she murdered him.

I love how DrD described Jodi perfectly--immature, strange, aggressive, liar, unstable, empty & violent. NOT a victim of abuse.

JW & JA both acted immaturely yesterday, IMO. JW was rude, condescending and flippant with the witness & showed she was out of her element dealing with a qualified expert. She did the same with the medical examiner MD.

JA couldn't have been more obvious in her pretending not to even notice Dr.D. describing her in unflattering terms. She actually acted out her diagnosis of BPD while Dr. D. was describing her immaturity, instability, strangeness, etc.

Let's hope JW keeps it short. She is not going to be able to score any points with this witness. It's painful to watch!