trial day 50: REBUTTAL; #153

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think you r are taking my quote out of context so I have quoted the full thread above.

I was specifically addressing the PDS test. It appears that the scoring of the PDS is independent of what the test taker says caused the trauma.

Clearly, manifestation of specific PTSD symptoms are going to be dependent on cause of trauma.

Like....If one was attacked by a Bear--she would NOT:please: have the trigger for her PTSD be from Tigers, or cats. It would be Bears or bear cubs, etc.

If Jodie has PTSD from being assaulted by a stranger (Ninja-like) then she would have triggers to People all in Black, or Kill Bill movies.

Samuels is saying she had PTSD from being attacked by Travis , who she knew and was naked--no reminder of Ninja's. It does not work that way.

De Marte and even Samuels says it has to be triggered by the true event--By a Tiger not a Bear--by a Ninja stranger not her naked lover. I think?
 
Here is the ACTUAL question:

Hypothetically, if a person suffered PTSD because of a bear attack while hiking would you throw out their PDS test if they lied and said it was a tiger?

Now here is a copy of the exam
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...gB97RotPH51AKbB2g&sig2=78JL6clOX-c2hMGKbqTXuw

and some info about the exam and how it is scored:
http://www.clintools.com/victims/resources/assessment/ptsd/pds.html

It seems to me that the scoring is independent of the cause of trauma on the PSD exam - and DrJDM's answer was disingenuous.

Ok, you lost me.........as per: "In Part 1 of the PDS the respondents are asked to read through a list of traumatic events and to checkmark any event they have witnessed or experienced. This section of the instrument corresponds to criterion A of the DSM – IV for PTSD.

In Part 2 the subjects are asked which of the events they have checkmarked in part 1 that most bothers them, and to briefly describe the traumatic event. Item 15 in this part of the instrument ascertains the length of time that has passed since the event occurred. Items in this part of the instrument also corresponded to DSM-IV PTSD Criteria A where the subjects are asked to mark whether they or someone else were physically injured during the event, and whether they thought they or someone else’s life was in danger."

And then it continues "the event" down several more items. It goes from "General" events to "Specific" event. How does this make Demarte disingenuous?

Restating: It seems to me that the scoring is independent of the cause of trauma on the PSD exam

The score of the test is dependent on numerical answers to part 3.
Another helpful link:
http://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/content/view/587/51/

ETA: re-emphasizing the word ~SCORE~. The score of the PDS test which is comprised of a bunch of very general questions.
 
Re the "fog" and whether she was traumatized, I just learned something new - When Jodi reached NV, turned her phone back on, and called TA to leave her "Othello" message 6 hrs. after she'd butchered him, she stayed on the line for 16 min. listening to his phone messages, including her own:

Jodi Arias Leaves Travis Alexander Voicemail Message 6 Hours After She Kills Him - YouTube
Othello wasn't a figment of her imagination either. She has a photo of herself with the actor who played him on her Facebook page.
 
Can anyone tell me, was there court today? MOO JA is going to death row. :woohoo: And much thanks to JM and this last psychologist witness for the State. She was awesome in making JW look like goof. Gawd I'm so sick of her nasally, whiny voice, like fingers on a blackboard but worse. Nurmi doesn't even have to talk and he looks and acts like a goof. Whenever they approach, he always walks up to the judge with shoulders stoop and head down. Not very confident or intelligent looking at all. He looks like he doesn't want to be there at all or has nothing to offer. I'm sure the jurors aren't impressed with his nonprofessional demeanor. I wish he would do the button up on his jacket to hid some of his fat gut. :floorlaugh: All JMHO.
 
Quoting myself again, but I did not understand the purpose of the tiger/bear question. Someone please explain or point by brain scrambled head in the right direction. I think there is fog in my office.

thanks

Sounded to me as though one juror was sending the message, 'PTSD because of the killing? Who cares?'

Or, maybe I am just projecting my own feelings about its importance in this trial. :twocents:
 
It would have been very helpful in the CA trial to have juror questions. The prosecution could have seen what they were struggling with. Maybe more states need to do that.

I totally agree! It will be interesting to see if more states adopt this variation in the court proceedings after this trial. Although, more could be done to omit duplicate and/or poorly worded juror questions, IMO. :moo:
 
Othello wasn't a figment of her imagination either. She has a photo of herself with the actor who played him on her Facebook page.

Interesting that it was Othello of all things ... She has no idea how much she spills her inner workings all over the place does she?
 
Found something interesting on BPD causes .. it's simple which suits me. http://www.bpddemystified.com/what-is-bpd/causes/

I wonder, if parents were working a LOT to maintain businesses when Jodi was very small if this couldn't have contributed to her BPD. It seems to focus around abandonment issues to a large degree.

Say you had a parental experience where you felt emotionally abandoned and you were in your mind loving and needing that person, then alternatively devaluing them so as not to feel the abandonment so strongly when they did, so you could say 'they're not so great anyway' and then feeling guilty about those thoughts and turning the anger on yourself leading to self harm, then reconnecting with the person only to feel abandoned again then restarting the cycle .. but I am probably oversimplifying a very complex situation...

She seems to have "changed" at around 12-15. This is pretty normal (puberty) for when BPD comes off or is diagnosed. Although there would have been signs before then. She would have been clingy, quiet in a sense and inappropriate in other ways.

Apparently the BPD community is seeing a surge in women self harming since this trial aired with her diagnosis. The amount of shame we feel x's 10. But her behavior is of the minority. Most are self harmers, she went from animals -secrecy- bad relationships to murder. The type of sex she preferred with TA is a big ole red flag if you ask me.
 
PTSD is also the diagnosis given to truly battered women as battered womens syndrome isn't a recognized diagnosis. I think Dr.S kind of blew it for the defense when he stated JA's trauma stemmed from the killing when really he should have said it was from the cumulative effect of being battered. He even compounded his error by telling the jury it wasn't a get out of jail free card.
Just jumping off of this sentence.


I forgot about him saying that, and I think that sentence goes to his credit.

Still, I got the feeling from him and ALV that they were influencing JA's story in some way, either through books or outright coaching or both. It pained them to say anything positive about TA during their testimony and they both constantly minimized every odd thing that Jodi was known to do. It made me feel like I was being swindled or at least the attempt was afoot. They both heavily relied on text/im/email arguments to suggest that TA was an abuser. ALV in particular referenced reading numerous conversations between TA and Ja and would hint many were fights where Travis was being verbally abusive but kept referring to only a couple as examples, same with Dr S. I started to suspect that the majority were cordial. I also suspected that Travis was responding to something by the bits we've been able to view of these exchanges. That, along with the unsubstantiated pedo claims -that both JA and ALV threw out at every chance- caused me not to like, respect or trust either expert.

In contrast, Dr D gave many times when she should have. I can think of one where she could have given with less reluctance, the handwriting, if it looked like two people wrote it, just say it, you've established you aren't an expert in handwriting but give your opinion. She seemed, to me, to not want to admit that looked different. However, for ALL of her direct testimony and cross, I felt like she was giving information not trying to sell the jury on her view. She criticized Travis when he earned it but she also confirmed what I had thought all along, this was not an everyday occurrence or typical behaviour for him and he was REACTING, not just starting trouble with JA because he was a world class DB . It convinced me further that the DT, JA, ALV and Dr S were running a con during their whole case in chief .
 
I do not see Dr. D as disingenuous at all. Her point was the TRIGGERS from trauma RELATE to the ACTUAL trauma so if the trauma is an untrue event in anyway then the (POST) PTSD will be entirely different. SO for example A STRANGER attacks me I would avoid situations that put in contact with STRANGERS and certain symptoms would happen when I came in contact w/ strangers ~ reliving the terror that occurred when the stranger attacked me will depend on the actual event that caused the original trauma. Conversely, if I am attacked by a boyfriend then my avoidance would be all the things that reminded me of that relationship and the attack. So the triggers and avoidance would be BASED on the ORIGINAL trauma that caused the PTSD = my boyfriend and relationship. Saying trauma is trauma is like saying rape and war killings are the same......the things that would trigger symptoms and the things I would avoid or freak out about would be very different for each type of trauma. However if there was a gun used in the rape attack and the war killing maybe a fear or avoidance of guns would be the same in each instance but other things would be different. As Dr. D stated regarding tiger/bear both attacks would be very different even though there MAY be similarities much of what they are looking for to diagnose PTSD would be different. If you say it was a tiger (lying) and I bring a tiger around you then your response/reactions indications of PTSD are NOT going to be the same fear/avoidance/symptoms that would present if I brought a bear (truth) around you. So YES the test would show differently.

I have not been able to keep up with today's thread, but it sounds like there has been some intense, in depth discussion about the PTSD test and diagnosis. It is hard not to get caught up in the experts' various opinions and arguments, but for me, I end up always going back to the fact that JA has changed her story about the inciting event resulting in her PTSD THREE times. First it was due to severe DV (more thn the now 4 accounts she reports) as reported to Karp, then to attack by strangers and now to defending against an attack by Travis. So, if she has lied and/or continues to lie about the event, it is more than probable IMO that she is lying (cant be relied on) about some or all of the symptoms resulting from whichever event she currently endorses as the inciting event for development of her PTSD.

Also, regardless of which of the three events she wants to claim is at the root of her PTSD, none are supported by her post-killing behavior. If he event were physical abuse by TA she would not be actively seeking new relationships without significant anxiety, re-experiencing etc. much less planning on going on a camping trip with a group of men. Likewise if she wants to claim the stranger attack (although she has caved on that one). And if she wants to claim the inciting event was Travis attacking her on June 4th, again, her behavior after June 4th does not support PTSD (going towards, not avoiding reminders like memorial, letter to family, purchasing a new gun, etc.).

So IMO even if you do not have an issue with her lying on her PDS test and fall into the camp that a trauma is a trauma is a trauma (or that she lied about the traumatic event question but then in her mind when answering the subsequent questions she actually thought about the "real" event), you STILL need to go back to the DSM IV criteria and try to determine if she had the symptoms that fulfill a diagnosis of PTSD. Based on her behaviors post-killing it is hard to see how she can meet those criteria, MOO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
196
Guests online
2,629
Total visitors
2,825

Forum statistics

Threads
603,936
Messages
18,165,575
Members
231,894
Latest member
bannosusan5
Back
Top