trial day 48: REBUTTAL #147

[deb2e]

BBM

I imagine that JW had told Jodi to keep herself occupied and not whisper and giggle with her because JW was really going to have to pay attention to this witness. :floorlaugh: I think that's the most note taking I've seen JW do since I started watching the trial. Sometimes she even forgot to do her "OBJECTIONRELEVANCESIDEBAR strut strut stomp stomp" routine.

it seemed yesturday wilmont was bothering ja more .

 

[mollyf]

This is my first post here and I wanted to share the Valentine email from Jodi that was shown in court today. Sorry if this is the wrong place. https://twitter.com/starknightz/status/324325054949257220/photo/1

Thank you for this! I'm not sure if it's in the right or wrong place, but it's great to refer to today. I wonder if Wilmott will refer to this message at all today?

I've been curious about what actually happened on Valentine's Day 2007. This doesn't tell a complete story, but I remain skeptical that JA got a "Travis Alexander's" t-shirt and melted Hallowe'en size chocolate that day.

 

[Tipstaff]

Slightly OT but not really. I am so freaking obsessed AGAIN with this case...yesterday I got home and tried to hurry up and pull up WAT on laptop....had my phone streaming and grabbed my Nook with headphones just in case....I was sitting there with THREE - count 'em -- THREE devices streaming the trial all at once.

My daughter said I need an intervention.

I do believe you forgot one thing.....turn on HLN (MUTE IT OF COURSE) then you can have yet another video feed that is hours behind, but you will be able to watch for anything you may have missed. With 1,000,000 commercial interruptions of course.

Should I be worried this seems normal to me. :great::great:

 

[teledude]

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.

Probably because of Dr. DrMarte's stellar educational record and amazing level of success and obvious communication skills.

For someone so young to have accomplished what she has in this field shows she is obviously very good at her profession.

She didn't get the position of supervising others upon gaining her license because she was "average" - she is very intelligent and "knows her stuff" forwards and backwards.

I think that speaks louder than the outdated pop psychology Alyce and Dr. Samuels tried to bamboozle the jury with.

IMHO

 

[jojomonkey]

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.

Why? Because"she" would get stuck in a window like Winnie the Pooh?

(Was that wrong? I know we aren't supposed to bash the people involved in the trial but that doesn't apply to Donovan does it?)

 

[kaki]

Just wondering if it is bad form for the cross to go much longer then the direct? Hoping JW doesnt blather on for days doing an excruciating and pointless cross?

JM spent less then a day on this witness ...the cross should be much quicker then the direct.. I hope anyway.

I'm anxious to see what is next!

 

[Hopeful One]

One of my faves from yesterday...

JW: So they called you a fellow?
DD: No, they called me Dr. DeMarte.

:floorlaugh:

 

[carnnell]

Yes. That's the point - these things should be known and practiced from the get-go, yet RS and ALV (after the oft-cited 35 yrs of experience) still seem unable to follow standards. By contrast, DeMarte seems to have been correctly following them all along, despite her relatively short experience.

So if the defense wants to point up DeMarte's short career vs. their own witnesses' lengthy ones, then I'd say that at least she knows what to do and how to do it - apparently RS's and ALV's years of experience don't guarantee that.

ALV didn't do testing. I don't know what ALV did. I really don't. Just so bizarre.

Samuels knows better. He was just incompetent or attempting to shove that square peg in that round hole to be paid the big bucks because he was under the almighty thumb of Nurmi!!

JMHO

 

[TotallyObsessed]

(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.

I couldn't agree more with this ^.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

One of my faves from yesterday...

JW: So they called you a fellow?
DD: No, they called me Dr. DeMarte.

:floorlaugh:

AND THE LOOK ON HER FACE when she said that was PRICELESS.

 

[outofstatelawyer]

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!

Yes, it certainly appeared that way. A good lawyer will have their cross prepared before trial. She had Dr. DeMarte's report and her CV months ago. Of course you add in stuff that came up on direct, but the basic cross should have already been prepared. That said, trials are a boatload of work for lawyers on both sides. It's incredibly stressful, which is perhaps why JW is losing her hair.

 

[kscornfed]

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

i disagree. i worked as an RN for 20 years, mainly in a teaching setting at large hospitals. i love young doctors. they READ, they're up on the most current things and they pay attention better than many older, more experienced physicians i've worked with. their knowledge is fresh and their approach usually is too. so i don't see any problem at all with her, because she actually has done, and sought out many things to gain knowledge in her field.
i think there's actually some danger with experts like ALV, with all this 'experience.' her ideas are ingrained and immovable, it seems to me. she only listens to herself and others who agree with her. that doesn't give you experience. it just reconfirms your set beliefs, and doesn't really mean you're right.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:seeya: Good Morning !

:great: Wow ... what a very impressive expert Ms. DeMarte is !

I am on the last video from yesterday afternoon's testimony, but wow, what a "breath of fresh air" to see an EXPERT witness who knows their subject ! Ms. DeMarte's testimony, knowledge, professionalism, etc etc etc was like "day and night" compared to ALV and RS.

Quick Questions :

- Does anyone think Ms. DeMarte's testimony will be completed today ?

- Does anyone know WHO will be next on for Rebuttal ?

TIA !

 

[Hopeful One]

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

She may not have years upon years of experience but she DOES have experience. She is obviously very intelligent and good at what she does (she was immediately hired as a director - that says a lot).

I would take that over 30 years of experience but obviously not 'current' any day.

 

[raisincharlie]

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.

respectfully snipped
:cow:

Let me preface this by saying that there are very few head doctors who appear as experts in trials that I find the least bit worthy of their titles alone. With that said here is what I heard:



Dr. Samuels: I formed a hypothesis and then selected the two tests I felt were applicable to my hypothesis. One of those tests, I wrote the defendent's answers down on a legal pad so I could later fill in the answers before scoring the test. Then I recalculated the test three times for several bs reasons. At the time I gave these tests, the defendent was lying about the circumstances of the alledged trauma. I concluded that even though she was lying about the key element concerning my hypothesis, that the test was still okay and valid. Perhaps I should have re-tested but I didn't bother because this baloney test verified my hypothesis and I won't discuss the other test at all.

Ms. ALV : First I apologized to Jodi. Men are perpetrators, it is all in the context, and it is a pattern of behavior that tells me Jodi was both abused and battered by a pedophile. I didn't rely on any tests, I didn't even acknowledge Lenore whoever's six diagnostic guidelines for determining if a person suffers Battered Woman's Syndrome. Travis was a liar, he was abusive and a pedophile and the patterns prove it and the frequency of abuse was increasing according to Jodi, the texts, the g-mail and then there is that awful sex tape where Travis proves he is a pedophile by characterizing Ms. Arias' faked orgasms as sounding like a 12 year old girl even though his preference was little boys. Jodi never said anything negative and though she may have lied about things, there is a difference between a good lie and a bad lie. If Jodi meant to kill her abuser she would have thought up a good lie, she didn't. After I met with the prosecutor, I ran right on over to the jail to speak with Jodi again for an unknown, unjustified reason.

Dr. DeMarte : I formed no hypothesis, I did not apoligize to Jodi. I administered a bunch of tests that she herself had to fill in the bubbles. I submitted her answer sheets to a computer for scoring, I did have to do that twice because the computer requires it to eliminate any error on my part. Jodi suffers from a borderline personality disorder based on the computer scoring - here are the behaviors, here are examples of Jodi's behavior that apply to the diagnosis. I found out she was reasonably smart, I also found out she told another Dr. there were far more instances of abuse than those she told me about or Dr. Samuels or ALV. I do not agree with the PTSD diagnosis and here are the reasons. I do not agree with the speculation of a battered woman as the information I obtained did not match up with the six guidelines prepared by the mother of domestic violence. And that pedophile thing, forget about it, it didn't happen and here is why.

If I had to see a shrink, guess who I would go and see. It isn't hard to figure out.

 

[Sleuth5]

I thought the same thing. "ummmm..... and ummmm..... ummmmm....." It's like listening to paint dry.

But not as much fun.

 

[Chelly]

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!

I concur. The more time JW spends with Dr D, the more damage she does to the defense. JW waaaaaaay out of her league with this strong, qualified witness.

 

[gcharlie]

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?

I will agree with you, as my read was JDM came off as slightly defensive in the beginning of the cross by JW. Watching this, mental note to self was hope JM talks to her and instructs her to be herself, confident and not get rattled.

IMO JDM did relax as JW went on, catching JW in errors in her line of questioning. I really liked the "I don't agree" answer as opposed to a yes or no.

 

[LambChop]

Thank you for this! I'm not sure if it's in the right or wrong place, but it's great to refer to today. I wonder if Wilmott will refer to this message at all today?

I've been curious about what actually happened on Valentine's Day 2007. This doesn't tell a complete story, but I remain skeptical that JA got a "Travis Alexander's" t-shirt and melted Hallowe'en size chocolate that day.

I think a lot of JW's questions will depend on what Jodi told DD about certain instances in her interview. I think it is also dangerous for JW to venture into an area where she does not know what DD's answer will be. DD demonstrated that yesterday during cross and it left JW pretty much speechless.

 

[DebinGA]

I know!
The first person to pretty much say to the jury 'I don't believe she doesn't remember the stabbing, she's just FOS' in so many words. :great:

And then listed examples of what Jodi did post-murder that indicated her memory was fine: deleting pics, cleanup, driving beyond a rote route, telling DD when she looked at her bloody hand hours later she knew she'd killed TA.. Looking forward to many more debunking examples today.