trial day 49: REBUTTAL; #148

[UESwifey]

Had to step away from the computer for a minute and came back to the seal... What caused JM's objection? What was JW trying to do? TIA!

 

[lil_buddy]

That's how it should be. However, some of the more pointless questioning often appears to me to be fighting just to fight. I honestly can't believe we even spent time on the copyright questioning. Showing it to Juan to discuss the meaning of the test would NOT be a copyright violation. To act as if it were, while placing it on the overheard, struck me as fighting just to fight. But, who knows, maybe I missed the higher purpose in that questioning?

u missed nothin'. :facepalm::banghead:

 

[nursebeeme]

the objection by Juan (rule 15 violation) was the report by Samuels that she was about to sneak in

 

[josie1986]

no wilmot wanted to ask her about something that they apparently with-held from the state (discovery violation)

She did say she was no provided with this information

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Breezy1]

If she wants to go off of evalated numbers, how about that 64 on antisocial? Shes trying to confuse the jury into thinking the results conclude or exclude a diagnosis depsite it's actual use, and it seems pretty bad to go down that road of trying to get a leg up on someone with a PhD when your not understanding how that test works.

So far today:
-Dr D. Does not pad her CV.
-Dr. D. does standard testing, so she's not assuming anything.
-JW does not understand diagnositic tools in forensic pscyhology.
-Dr. D does testing for all parties involving criminal court.
-Dr. D is apparently padding her bill, yet, spent rougly a few hours more total then ALV and RS spent just in clinical interviews alone.

Am I misinterpreting the testimony or is that what everyone else got too?

 

[JayB12]

Sounds like Dr. DeMarte was not privy to some information from Samuels.

She wasn't provided with questions to one test...sounds like she didn't get anything on whatever this other test is.

DT not fully disclosing...that does NOT sound like they are trying to hide anything to me.

 

[Liebchenmutti]

The DT didn't hand over all of RS's reports which they are required to do. JW just asked the expert a question in regards to a report which was a comprehensive review based on the test results of the MMPI that RS gave Jodi. However, the DT never turned this report over to the prosecution.

It was the Millon Test--MCMI (I'm not sure of the acronym); only DD gave JA the MMPI (which diagnosed her Borderline Personality Disorder)

 

[GaMom13]

The DT will probably lose this case, but it looks like JW is trying to personally win by learning from JM, lol. She will turn the jury off by her obvious attempts. I laugh every time she stomps/sashays up to the Judge!

 

[lib's mom]

BBM Mormon Attorney, not being an attorney, I am not worthy of even carrying your briefcase BUT I would guess attorneys don't fight just to fight -- they fight to win. Am I right?

I'm no attorney either but spent a lot of time in court working for DSS. It's been my experience that when they have the law on their side they argue the law. When they have facts on their side they argue the facts. When they have nothing on their side they just argue.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

I realized yesterday that I've been Juanified:

Me: Have you done your homework yet?
Daughter: I only have a little...
Me: Did I ask how much homework you have?
Daughter: You're creepin' me out Dad...

Are you a Junabe?
My husband answered a question last night with a do you have a memory problem when I forgot to crockpot on yesterday morning.

 

[Ladylub]

Would not surprise me at all but that's a bit like the blind leading the the blind:floorlaugh:

I bet the blind could lead the blind on a real busy highway with speeding cars all around them better ALV trying to help JW question this witness.

 

[ChinaBlue]

OK lawyers I am just coming in; how big of a deal is this copyright issue that JW spent and hour talking about?

INAL but a (retired) librarian and can't quite figure out where JW was/is going with this and IIRC, it was Samuels who photocopied or had a fax copy of one of the tests he used with JA, right?

 

[LambChop]

OK lawyers I am just coming in; how big of a deal is this copyright issue that JW spent and hour talking about?

Could not have been too bad she showed us she had a copy.

 

[Alexander family fan]

Before she goes on her copyright train, Jennifer should recall that her DOCTOR Samuels admitted to photocopying his tests over and over again, and reusing them, rather than buying a new one each time.

I am sure the jury is much more concerned about the witness tampering of sending self help books to the defendant to coach her on buzz words to use while testifying and being tested by the state.

On one hand you have a cut on a finger, on the other hand you have a man nearly decapitated.

Jennifer just keeps opening more doors for JM when he gets up again with his witness. If she were smart she would stick to main points and sit down. If one sees a jury member yawning.....that should be your clue.

 

[Mormon Attorney]

I'm no attorney either but spent a lot of time in court working for DSS. It's been my experience that when they have the law on their side they argue the law. When they have facts on their side they argue the facts. When they have nothing on their side they just argue.

Makes you wonder what they are doing there if neither the facts nor law is on their side, doesn't it??

 

[Whack A Mole]

no wilmot wanted to ask her about something that they apparently with-held from the state (discovery violation)

Could it be this?

b. Notice of Defenses. Within the time specified in Rule 15.2(d), the defendant shall provide a written notice to the prosecutor specifying all defenses as to which the defendant intends to introduce evidence at trial, including, but not limited to, alibi, insanity, self-defense, defense of others, entrapment, impotency, marriage, insufficiency of a prior conviction, mistaken identity, and good character. The notice shall specify for each listed defense the persons, including the defendant, whom the defendant intends to call as witnesses at trial in support of each listed defense. It may be signed by either the defendant or defendant's counsel, and shall be filed with the court

 

[DairyGirl]

The DT didn't hand over all of RS's reports which they are required to do. JW just asked the expert a question in regards to a report which was a comprehensive review based on the test results of the MMPI that RS gave Jodi. However, the DT never turned this report over to the prosecution.

So basically JW just shot the defense in the foot by bringing up a report that they were supposed to turn over and didn't. Pretty much tattled on herself.

 

[lisalove]

I love that Wilmott tried to bring up JD billable hours...are you kidding me?? She spent 12 hours OH excuse me 12 1/2 hours with JA. ALV spent 44. How much was that bill??

 

[darcedarce]

Aaaaand we're late.

 

[StephanieHartPI]

OK lawyers I am just coming in; how big of a deal is this copyright issue that JW spent and hour talking about?

Without going into my background of copyright Law...

There was NO copyright violation. The test they are holding has to be purchased by the distributor or authorized vendor. You may not then copy it in your office 200 times so you don't have to buy it again (often times theses tests come in packs of 15 or 20 for $250) things like that?

You purchase them for patients. I will ASSUME Dr Samuels purchased the test to give Jodi. Dr Samuels is charged with the duty not to break the law with THIS particular test. He administered it, so he must obtain it legally.

All Dr Demarte was hired to do was REVIEW the test Dr. Samuels gave Jodi. What Dr Samuels chose to do is give Dr. Demarte the Test Answers, and not the Questions!

Dr. Demarte had ever legal right to simply ask anyone on earth if she might see the questions that correspond with the answers she is reviewing. I would guarantee you if she even called the company that sells it, they would NOT charge her and probably would e-mail them to her.

She is not Giving the test to a patient! She is reviewing a legally purchased test already given. She simply asked an associate to borrow the questions.

In a criminal case she was well within her rights to then show the Prosecutor, even copy the test for use in a Criminal Trial. They are NOT distributing this test free to colleagues!

The only person that might have violated copyright law would be Dr Samuels if he has this test by making several illegal copies of it because he didn't buy them as you are supposed to in packs from the company.

And he very well may have. But the Witness and Prosecutor sure did nothing wrong!