trial day 48: REBUTTAL #147

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
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!

BBM

I had to laugh yesterday.... the dude who runs the courtroom camera clearly has reached the same conclusions about Jodi that we all have..... as Dr.D was describing the "attributes" you listed, camera dude kept switching camera views to zoom in on Jodi acting them out.
 
Did anyone catch that big smile from Dr. DeMarte when JW asked her a really stupid question about the "Fellow" designation on her CV and DD realized JW didnt know what the heck she was talking about. It was priceless !
 
Hopefully the (our) saving grace today will be that JW is smart enough to go nowhere near Demarte's diagnosis of Jodi.

We didn't hear all the details of the MMPI and if JW chooses to stumble into that, I doubt any additional information will be favorable to Jodi.

Hopefully she sticks with her pathetic attempt to discredit the witness via credentials and that lasts another 10 minutes max. (That's all I can stand)

Oh she's going to do it. We're going to be here a long time.
 
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.
Mike the Court Reporter: Is that you?

:D
 
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.

BBM
And yet, how does one explain ALv. The span of her experience in the field of DV is indisputable. All that experience and still the jury found her opinion to be unreasonable, preposterous and one dimensional: Travis bad man, Jodi battered girl with heart of gold. I dare anyone to tell me that is not what she said without using those exact words.

No jury will care about experience if the information is so slanted it feels like they have to land a triple backward summersault on a mental balance beam to believe it. Puh-leeze. When any opinion is that skewed all people see is a crusader, not an expert. In my opinion, ALv expert testimony was so clouded in her personal evangelism it made the jury recoil.

I don't think that will happen with JD. Her presentation to the jury is to show how she reached her professional opinion, and further, that it can be tested and retested with nearly identical results.

She has a stellar CV for one as young as she is. There is nothing the DT can throw at her that will make one believe that she is not completely qualified to make her opinion based on her academic and evaluative background.
 
Did anyone catch that big smile from Dr. DeMarte when JW asked her a really stupid question about the "Fellow" designation on her CV and DD realized JW didnt know what the heck she was talking about. It was priceless !

I'm just now listening to the cross of Dr. D. Man JW does not come across smart at all.

JW: "So your education doesn't matter?"

JD: "Of course it matters."

JW: "Well you just said your experience matters."

Are you kidding JW? Both can't matter in your mind? :banghead:
 
Some of you are too funny-I have a sick 8yo daughter home from school today-I am LOL'ing a lot and she keeps saying "mom, what's so funny?"

Off to get some lunch before testimony starts today!

:seeya:
 
Yes, raisincharlie, I saw a couple of exchanges. I think JA worked on ALV from the beginning. I mean nothing ugly by this, just what I noticed -- I think ALV may have been a bit smitten by JA -- I feel sure JA was on her best behavior and doing her best to show those type "problems" that she thought were appropriate to whatever JA thought was the most mitigating persona to project. I have no idea what that might have been. And ALV's questions or observations to JA may have given JA hints of what dx ALV was trying to construct. And yes, I mentioned a tell earlier, and I really thought I saw a couple.

Knowing which 4-5 books ALV gave JA might be enlightening.
 
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'm closer to ALV's age than Dr.D's. That said, I would much rather my practitioner in a field such as psychology or psychiatry have been recently trained and current in their practice. When ALV graduated, homosexuality for example was a classified mental illness. I also think it's a better fit for JA that she be evaluated by a peer than a peer of her Grandparents.
Let's hope the jurors aren't ageist. Dr. D clearly did the most thorough and relevant assessment and in a fraction of the time it took the others to produce no report or pencil scrawls on lined paper. I don't care how old and experienced you claim to be, if you're incompetent all the gray hair in the world won't buy you professional respect.
 
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

Very good explanation. And never the twain shall meet...in a court of law. Therein lies the reason most moral people see what happens in a courtroom as a travesty.

Not that I don't agree - especially when it comes to trashing a voiceless, dead victim who cannot speak for themselves.

But I guess it is just like separating church and state. Sorry if this sounds stupid.
 
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.

Awesome post!! I loved when ALV had the audacity to answer a jury question about if she thought Travis suffered the most domestic violence being murdered. She said "no." THAT was the truth--she will side with Jodi no matter what the reality is.
 
BBM

I had to laugh yesterday.... the dude who runs the courtroom camera clearly has reached the same conclusions about Jodi that we all have..... as Dr.D was describing the "attributes" you listed, camera dude kept switching camera views to show Jodi acting them out.

Jodi was telegraphing a lot. At specific testimony her eyebrows would arch, her nostrils would flare, her lips would tighten, etc. Suppressed rage live and in person.
 
It's one of the many commercials repeatedly aired on HLN during the trial broadcast. It's a hose that expands when the water is turned on and contracts when off. It goes from limp to rigid. It's a penis hose.

My husband has a thing for gadgets and actually bought one. When he hooked it up to try it use it, there was a pretty hilarious malfunction.:floorlaugh:
 
i'd like to think willmott went home last night and re thought her cross strategy of dr demarte but i can't see it.

she will keep on trying to discredit her CV,i'd much rather have drd demarte as my doctor than dr samuels or ALV.

i can't see what they can do with the diagnosis,she followed protocol etc and imo came to the right conclusion
 
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.

oh jury! we surely hope you feel this way. :moo:
 
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.

GREAT post. Dr.Samuels especially, forming a hypothesis and looking for clues to prove you were right just seems wrong! You have to go there with an open mind instead of going there looking for anything to fit what you think is wrong with someone!
 
During Dr D's testimony yesterday, JA spent the entire time with her face down copying material from one book to another. She appeared to never stop writing. I kept wondering what book that was she copied from. She completely disregarded Dr. D. It may have been at the advise of DT. It may have been her own craziness.
 
I'm just now listening to the cross of Dr. D. Man JW does not come across smart at all.

JW: "So your education doesn't matter?"

JD: "Of course it matters."

JW: "Well you just said your experience matters."

Are you kidding JW? Both can't matter in your mind? :banghead:

I bet Dr. D has already diagnosed JW. Adolescent behaviour indeed. Well at least she didn't try and flirt with Dr. D they way she did with the ME.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
110
Guests online
1,729
Total visitors
1,839

Forum statistics

Threads
606,879
Messages
18,212,364
Members
233,992
Latest member
gisberthanekroot
Back
Top