weekend break: discuss the latest here #123

[The Farm]

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa!!!!! If I am reading this correctly??????!!!!!!!

http://www.psychboard.ca.gov

Holy freaking carp! She better hope Juan doesn't get hold of this. OMG!!!!!

What are you clicking on, whatever it is Juan seems like a man on a mission and I can bet he has seen it.

 

[josie1986]

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa!!!!! If I am reading this correctly??????!!!!!!!

http://www.psychboard.ca.gov

Holy freaking carp! She better hope Juan doesn't get hold of this. OMG!!!!!

what am i looking at? its just the front page of a website

 

[rose222]

ALV and the courtroom laughers = school yard bullies

Oh no. The women who laughed were being abused by JM thanks to his angry tone of voice. He has that power over women. Even from across the room he can abuse. That was just nervous laughter on the part of the victims.

Barf. Barf.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

The last thing I want to say about J No 5 is that even if she wrote a lot of notes in court, they would have had to have been left there. Unless she stuffed them down her pants ala JA. There's nothing to say J No5 hadn't been going home in the evening and writing more notes to keep things in her memory is there?

BBM: Yes -- juror notes must stay in the court ... I remember something about this from that other trial in that other state ...

For some reason, I remember Judge Perry making a statement about the juror's notebooks and IIRC, they are "destroyed" after deliberations and verdict ...

Maybe someone else here remembers or knows the process ...

:moo:

 

[Bravo]

For some reason I thought the laughter occured with the "Dwarf" convo???? Maybe it was me :floorlaugh: That was hysterical IMO.

 

[Chester_from_THM]

Some people dont understand why JM used snow white. The reason is because Mz Alice herself has equated battered women to snow white. I see where he is going. She opened the door. With that said, she is a fake and a fraud.IMO.

deedee, could you explain what he is doing with this Snow White stuff? I don't get it. I asked on the legal thread but no answers so far.

 

[Hopeful One]

ALV and the courtroom laughers = school yard bullies

School yard bullies who look at this as a moment for their awesome ALV to stick it to JM.

Not appropriate. As I said before, this is a murder trial. This is about Travis Alexander. It's not about feminism and ALV one-upping the prosecutor.

Totally immature and disrespectful.

jmo and all that jazz.

 

[lil_buddy]

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa!!!!! If I am reading this correctly??????!!!!!!!

http://www.psychboard.ca.gov

Holy freaking carp! She better hope Juan doesn't get hold of this. OMG!!!!!

What are you linking? I'm not seeing any disciplinary actions against ALV...

 

[Hopeful One]

For some reason I thought the laughter occured with the "Dwarf" convo???? Maybe it was me :floorlaugh: That was hysterical IMO.

Nope, it was when ALV said, "Mr. Martinez, are you angry at me?"

 

[cityslick]

In order for jurors to abide by the court's rulings they are required not speak about the case, not watch media broadcasts, they are not to read about the case, they are not to form opinions prior to deliberations, etc. This is a very difficult task for the jurors. Essentially they become one in their bonding while they are together. They are separate and apart from the rest of the world. They may have good or bad feelings about other jurors but basically they are one. For one of them, pulled out for whatever reason and isolated from the rest must have been hard for J5 when she seems to have been dedicated to the case. I can understand her wanting to get back into the courtroom if for nothing else than closure. If she continues to attend she may feel she has committed herself to finishing this trial up even though she has to sit in the gallery to do it.

After weeks and weeks and weeks of listening to evidence of an abusive relationship without any way of escaping she may pretty much be someone who is having difficulty separating herself from this trial until it is concluded. So we may say, "I would never do that" because we are not vested in the outcome of this trial as she is. It is not uncommon that when a person starts a project they want to see it to the end. It's human nature. jmo

That's all well and good, but then don't go out of your way to put out some sort of 'statement' saying you want privacy because it screams hypocrisy.

 

[josie1986]

from the ca.gov website

"Expert Reviewer Program

The Board of Psychology Enforcement Program is currently recruiting qualified psychologists to review case materials, prepare written opinions and testify at administrative hearings as an Expert Witness.

Expert Witnesses are paid $90 per hour for case review and preparation of the expert opinion report and $110 per hour plus expenses if called to testify at an administrative hearing."

seems alyce had her pay bumped up

 

[grammieto5]

Oh WOW!!! I just watched all of Juan Martinez with AL. He was great!!!!!! And he's only just begun!!! LOVED IT!!!!!

 

[Kamille]

I agree with the slippery slope that might ensue from answering a closed question that requires elaboration, but it would be easier to accept if you aren't trying to argue every yes or no question. That's simply obfuscation,no matter how you rationalize it. When Juan asks, "Isn't that one of your main tools," that is an obviously simple yes or no question. It does not commit you to saying "it is my main tool," but that is exactly how she tried to justify her unwillingness to answer. There's only one of two ways to see that. She either isn't listening to the question carefully, or she is intentionally being obtuse to avoid answering. The latter is most likely given her later responses.

Recall that at a certain point she mentions that she does "not know what he is trying to say," and other statements in a similar vein. This statement is not consistent with active listening. What she is obviously doing is attempting to stay ahead of the prosecutor and prepare her answers -- or her obstruction to those answers -- appropriately. Given the painful results, it is clear she does not think fast enough to be able to play that game with this particular person. In any event, that is not what she is there for. She should simply answer the questions to the best of her ability as the so-called "expert" she purports to be.

A professional would recognize that there may be alternatives to his or her conclusions. The fact that she is unwilling to acknowledge even the slightest possibility of her fallibility is telling and does not speak well for her.

Finally, even if a simple yes or no answer would be insufficient owing to a need for further elaboration, she could simply state that as she answered. We saw that several times with Dr. Samuels. He tried similar tactics with JM, but realized at some point that it was easier for him to simply say, "I would say yes, but I would need to elaborate." JM can either allow that or not depending. If it's of earth-shattering importance, it will be up to the defense to handle it on redirect.

I understand what you're saying about JM attempting to engineer people into a tight box with some of the questioning -- but he doesn't do it with every question. The problem, in my view, is that when witnesses like these are trying to guess his strategy rather than simply answering, they become constantly obfuscative and combative. If they would choose their battles more wisely -- such as in the instances you've highlighted here, where a closed answer would be inadequate -- the jury would view them much more favorably in my estimation.

:cow:

Just pressing the thanks button was not enough. Excellent post. And completely expresses what I was feeling about ALV's approach to her cross right out of the gate.

She's not just an expert in domestic violence you know. She's an expert on how to be an expert witness in a courtroom. Her constant attempts at thinking ahead before answering as to where JM is going with his line of questioning was blatantly obvious. Same for RS and same for JA. She's done a lot of prep work with this entire defense team IMO.

If she totally believes everything she just rambled on about for the last 6 days of testimony then she has no reason to believe that JM is going to catch her in anything. Obviously she's got a bit of a problem with that.

MOO

 

[cityslick]

How else would you tell the press, please no questions, don't approach? J5 is free to go the market, the bank, the mall, any public place she cares to go now. She no longer has to hide out as she did as a juror. Imagine how refreshing that must feel to her. The courtroom is a public place. She is entitled to go just the same as anyone else is. It's her right. Why would she want to continue to hide? jmo

Camera's are not prone to go following her around the grocery store but if she shows up in the courtroom of the trial she was just removed from, does she thing the camera will not be on her?

The fact that she needed an escort to leave the building after everyone else left tells you all you need to know about it being a distraction. Let's not pretend she is now just an ordinary citizen like you and me going to court but that is not the reality, especially where the media is concerned.

 

[anagrammy]

That is a scary thought.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

She is treating JM as though he were a perpetrator at the kitchen table.

DV victims are taught to break a rage spiral by confronting the anger directly, naming it, but using a very mild voice. The contrast between the words and the tone are supposed to break the spiral.

His answer was expert- he never missed a beat, exposing it immediately as a manipulation to avoid a simple truthful answer. People question his technique of coming out of the box aggressively, but compare this day with the first day of cross with Jodi Arias.

The first thing he does is break their confidence that they know what he is doing. He starts with something they didn't expect and have no idea where he is going. Their confidence from direct evaporates and they realize - RIGHT BEFORE A WEEKEND that they don't "have this" and they have no way of preparing. You can bet they lose sleep both weekend nights and they have asked and received conflicting answers with how to prepare for what JM will ask.

You gotta soak the beans before you cook them and JM skillfully erodes their confidence on the very first day. Juan took ALV to school on this one-- let her explain to her next seminar audience how Juan got her to say that Travis Alexander was the perpetrator of domestic violence, not the victim.

Yesterday's cross will be played in law schools from now on as an example of psychological preparation for cross examination.

Blowing kisses to Juan -*- -*- -*-

 

[Wolfpack Fan]

I don't think what Travis did was character assassination. I think character assassination is doing things to ruin a person's reputation. He said or wrote everything to Jodi directly. She and her defense teams are the ones who are making this public knowledge.

Character assassination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Amster]

This was another of my highlights yesterday
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU3zlhqVZqE

JW tries to object with relevance at 59:30, she gets overruled, Nurmi gives her advice on what to say next, then she says at 59:49 Relevance, foundation, speculation (throwing them all out there), that gets overruled so then at 100:10 she just asks to approach because the Judge can't or won't say no to that. It's :floorlaugh::banghead::what:

Ok...confused....didn't he start out asking her if Jodi wrote anything negative about Travis and then got confused and switched it to Jodi writing about anything negative about herself??

 

[Hopeful One]

Camera's are not prone to go following her around the grocery store but if she shows up in the courtroom of the trial she was just removed from, does she thing the camera will not be on her?

The fact that she needed an escort to leave the building after everyone else left tells you all you need to know about it being a distraction. Let's not pretend she is now just an ordinary citizen like you and me going to court but that is not the reality, especially where the media is concerned.

My guess is she'll be giving an interview within a week.

I hope I'm wrong but that's the feeling I'm getting when you release a statement about privacy and then you insert yourself into a media storm.

 

[Hbgchick]

:welcome4:

I have no strong opinion on juror 5 and see both sides of the debate having merit - it helps, I'm sure, that being over here I lack access to most media you guys see regularly. (True. I could search Nancy Grace out - if I were so inclined. )

In terms of Jodi's parents, I believe that could potentially be a strategy that could backfire on the State. IME, even parents who acknowledge behaviors of their psychopathic children still often veer on the side of giving that child the benefit of the doubt - even disregarding or minimizing vast evidence to the contrary. Denial is often a very strong component of such relationships. They easily could have testified they believe 'abuse' contributed to whatever mental disorder or disease they think she has.

As far as 'mutually dysfunctional relationship', I personally believe a relationship with a cluster B disordered person, and even more so a psychopath, can become that because of the disorder itself. Toxic relationships do exist but I view them very differently than a relationship with a psychopath, in which psychological abuse and manipulation runs so rampant that the person who is the target of such abuse and manipulation often says and does things they normally wouldn't in any other relationship. (This is just so difficult to explain at times.)

While LaViolette professes Snow White was simply just a catchy title she references her in her own work very often. In her book, she uses Snow White in terms of a conversion theory. She typifies abuse victims as Snow White and in so doing, describes them as compassionate, disempowered, kind, sweet, vulnerable, gullible and absolutely helpless. Snow White, upon leaving an abuser, is compelled by family, friends, and even an 'ignorant' therapist (my term for her implication) to become the Wicked Witch who she equates to strong, manipulative, controlling, and assertive. It's an idea that to me is inadequate an assessment at best, overly simplistic of much deeper dynamics, and at worst could be offensive to abuse victims and survivors.

I think I understand what she intended...I just think it was a very poor example, badly misconstrued, in an inane attempt to portray something much more convoluted than she delved into. Her book is available at Amazon to preview, page 71, should you wish to read it yourself.

And personally I question both her credibility and ethics in all honesty. But that's JMO.

I guess I should have definded my use of "credible". I meant that I believe that SHE believes what she's saying, based on the pile of bs that Jodi fed her. I also know from experience that people can get VERY defensive of people that they believe have been abused, and if the witness truly believes JA was abused then she is acting appropriately in that sense. I don't believe JA was abused for one iota of a second, but that's just me!

I also believe that JA is absolutely a psychopath. My 'mutually dysfunctional" comment was only to say I don't believe Travis was exactly a saint, although I do not in any way believe he deserved what happened to him. I think he got way in over his head with Jodi, having no concept whatever of her state of mind.

Thanks for the Snow White clarification, and I can see how she could make that parallel, I guess. If I were a therapist, I woulldn't use it - as you say, overly simplistic and easily misconstrued.

And you have a point about the parents. Perhaps the prosecution interviewed them himself and found that they might end up defending Jodi.

Thanks for the response and the welcome!

 

[Stolat]

I feel like the reason JM used Snow White to talk about is to point out that both Snow White and JA's story are fairy tales and the expert has called both of them domestic violence. Basically, that she can't tell the difference from a lie (fairy tale) and the truth. I could be wrong but that is what I got out of it. He will probably surprise me with a really good one, though.

No, I think you are spot on - you nailed it.

She can make something out of nothing -out of thin air - that's what Juan is saying.