*graphic and adult content* Jodi Arias Trial media/ timeline thread **no discussion**

[gauntlet]

Juan's full opening statement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2i5_OYUMc0&fb_source=message

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOFzQHQv7Cw
JW's starts at 23:30

 

[wenwe4]

Judge is @ the bench, JW is up @ bench, JA looking back into the courtroom wearing a light beige/white shortsleeved vneck top.

 

[wenwe4]

JW - Defense calls Dr. Rbt Geffner - takes the stand with a large binder and multiple papers under his arm.

JA allows him time to pour water - PhD

Masters and Doctorate in Psychology - licensed in 1980 as psychologist in Texas and was a marriage and family therapist previous.

now he is licensed in California - since 1999. Practicing as psychologist for 33 years, you cannot practice in a mental health professional by some type of license - he was a licensed marriage & family therapist.

University Alliant International U = distinguished professor - researcher, founder in family violence and sexual assault institute in texas, he started @ Alliant 15 years - he used to teach now he supervises.

Non-Profit institute has training, publications, policy, direct services components including a non-profit book store, marriage and family therapists, they offer continuing education hours for professionals. Trainings and conferences provided himself and staff - one large one in San Diego yearly - almost 1 week with various trainings 1200-1400 people attend. Trauma conference and ind interantional conference.

They have trained medical Dr's and Judges - he was lead psychologist for Nat. Judges College - they spend 1-2 weeks in training - he did issues of child abuse, domestic violenc, aggresssion, violence, trauma, risk assessment, repeat offenders treatment on topics that he would train on.

(Jodi's Aunt and Grandma are in attendance today)

He will not receive any extra salary for testifying today - he is on a fixed salary.

He supervises variety of people @ Universtiy as a research professor - working on their Doctorate degrees in clinical or forensic psychology. . . dissertations. He supervises 12 on issues of trauma, abuse, violence.

Other part is the clinical part with direct service - many victims who have been traumatized =

there are 2 doctorate students who are interning who will finish in June and new set come in in June or July. Clinical or forensic . . . . he has another individual who is a post-doctorate fellow now.

each year they have new groups - now they have a licensed social worker and another who come for supervision each week for child custody, abuse, violence issues.

post doctorate fellow must have so many hours before applying for their license. Arizona requires . . . . how does it work to get doctorate?
objection - leading

 

[wenwe4]

1500 hours of supervision and 2 tests in Arizona - then you can apply for licensure. If someone just received Doctorate no way to be licensed immediately. If you have licensed in a different state - the states have reciprocity. If you have a Diplomate and you have valid licensure in a state some of the requir ements will transfer immediately.

Diplomate have very specific requirements in training, process . . . 5 years post licensure, training in specific specialization, 3 hour oral examination by committee of diplomates . . . first committee must approve your work product and send it onto the diplomates.

He has 2 diplomates - 1 in family psychology, he is board certified in family psychology = theoretically you can trust he has met specialized training requirements and he has the credentials. A licensed psychologist doesn't tell you family, neuro, industrial psychology (etc.). Specific training for clinical and neuro-psychology as well.

being a Diplomate common that many others have? or few?
the American Psychological ASsociation - and American Board of Professional Psychology - they know how many of psychology - less than 5% have 1 diplomate in one area.

Two diplomates? less than 1% of psychologists have 2 . . . he has been doing forensic training work 33 years . . . work tied to court . . . . somehow dealing with the legal systems/courts. . . . . practice as a pscychologist in court testifying about clients they treat or expert witness testify about specific knowlege

forensic evaluator is specifically for court. . . he has done all of this

He has testified over 30 years at least 150 times. not always for criminal cases. In his early days he might have testified for more criminal cases than civil - varies . . . everything is word of mouth they do not advertise. He might not testify for months and then testify 3 times in a month in different states.

he has been called for capital cases (having the death penalty) . . . he has testified near 100 capital cases in 25 years . . . . he hasn't done it much recently - last time was about 10 years ago in Louisiana. He hasn't been asked to do capital cases - they just do whatever work comes into their office.

they evaLUATED THE defendant - complete psych evals, neuro-psych evals, and was an expert witness to review records and

being used as a witness for the innocent phase of the traiL . . .

even though the psychologist was not involved in determining innocense or guilt. They have done work for the mitigating factors - why what happened happened.

He has done work in the mitigation and or sentencing phase.

any complaints or licensure issues, or committee investigate you?
no

 

[wenwe4]

He reviewed MMPI, Trauma inventory test (TSI 1) twice, MCMI, PDS, other testing and assessments but did not review any police reports.

He reviewed records from Dr. Demarte. In grad school they are trained in some of the tests . . . .the TSI was not out when he was in Grad school. . . he was specialized in diagnostic assessment.

He was in charge of expanding assessment courses in Texas . . . IQ . . . .achievement tests - he developed neuro-psych evals . . . .over the years they have expanded assessemnet . . . he has also tested out exams for others . . . .the university was a test sight - to test out their test - administer to the clients and people involved in research. They tested the TSI and made suggestions on revisions . . . in their current program they use quite a bit of testing and they train.

Part of the internship training - all staff trainings - last week they used TSI - how to score and interpret. People they are training have the best upto date knowledge of testing.

validity scales - describe in general
objection
approach

 

[wenwe4]

Floating profile term was not used by MMPI people but one practictioner said he saw floating profiles in borderline personality disorder . . . later research showed not borderline but more people who are experiencing physical pain or disability.

he never trained on floating profile - no research had been done . .. in 2008 the term was stopped being used.

code type - research indicates relationship between scales and someone's personaltiy. . . have 1 or 2 or 3 scales elevated but more difficult to do if several scales elevated.

personality aggressive, hostile, holds emotions inside?
those are working hypothesis . . .. maybe we have someone with borderline personlatiy or someone hostile and aggressive - then you look @ next scale to use a test like this.

several other show the subscales. . . page 5 - scales of content scales.

see @ bottom terms define differnet things . . . anx = anxiety . . .. . normal 50, clinical cut off 65, if we had example person was hostile, controlling or aggressive then look @ these scales might be correct or not - if not check out other hypothesis.

hypothesis of aggressive, defensive ..

ang = anger - right in mid normal range - even though person might get angry that is not part of their personaltiy

asp - anti-social personality = in the normal range

pg 6 hypothesis of anger and aggression = 3 scales here - the DO = dominence, way below average so it is likely opposite that person being dominent they are more passive or submissive.

hostile person is roughly average . . . oH is over hostility - keep inside trying to control it . . . 3 scales on this subscale to look @ for hypothesis.

aggression and hostility
first scale aggressive personality scale - siginifcant below average - this personality trait is actually more submissive and passive but they can become aggressive = but not part personality.

if low scales = not a good hypothesis to have and need to look @ another hypothesis.

they were involved in relationship . . . PTSD scales?
yes flip back to pg 5

traumatized, ptsd, victim of trauma or anxiety scale - significantly elevated here.

another would be self-esteem....hypothesis if someone in abusive relationship it might lower their self esteem. . .. . this person does have lower self esteem that is healthy or normal.

pg 6 supplemental scales. . .
a measures anxiety . .. another way to measure . . .significant elevation again using working hypothesis if someone from abusive relationship . . . they are not controlling they are going to be more submissive in relationship.

es = ego strength - not only self image and self esteem but how you feel about yourself overall....people who suffer PTSD often feel alot of internalized blame and lowers ego-strength. another red flag for working hypothesis of traumatized or abusive relationshp

r means repression - somone trying to block out specifiic events memories . . not clinical significant but elevated.

research MMPI not on it's own but can give you working hypothesis . .. . the PTSD was actually the highest scale - a working hypothesis needs to be explored further. . . .

it is not appropriate to take any one test and make a diagnosis based on that. . . other tests interviews, collaterals, all other informtion available.

fears - another one . . . . he is reviewing his own copy helps to see it there.

JM will get to see witness notes during break in about 5 min.

FRS not in clinical range but elevated.....
we are looking at things might contradict . . . if way below average . .

when you don't have consistent results you can discard it or you can go further.

significant elevations . . . diagnostic means look @ this like a jigsaw puzzle . . . need all the pieces to fit together . . .can't throw out a piece . . . . have to figure out how all these pieces fit together.

not something i would harp on or go over board on . . . some consistent finidngs need to be explored - anxiety and trauma.

MMPI 2 diagnosing borderline can only be used asa working hypothesis . . .. if you think you have a borderline . . .this test is not to measure personality disorders . . just designed to overall personalty traits.

the test to look @ Milan . . . MCMI - that is test that is specifically desinged to look @ personality disorders.

break for 10 min - back @ 10:45
counsel approach

 

[wenwe4]

Based on the top 3 validity scales - overall this test is determined to be valid.

there is a tendency for this person to perhaps look a little better

still going to look @ high scales but it may mean these scales probably would be up a little higher - just in general (did that help? - not really)

desireability scale - we are talking about working hypothesis and not diagnose someone on just one test.

borderline personality disorder . . . one subscale indicated score of 11 if anything of the low of the low average category . . . indicate the working hypothesis not really correct.

under hypothesis anxiety, @ the clinical level
PTSD - 2nd highest scale - not in clinical area but elevated so it supports working hypothesis for PTSD.

if i had only given this test I wouldnt say they have borderline but if anything support anxiety

PTSD is still going with working hypothesis . .. theoretically next steps then test that . . .to assess trauma.

Trauma Inventory was given to JA - right
Trauma Inventory TSI 1 can be handscored

JW asks to approach exhibit #628 and #629 and #646

handscored is plotted on a graph . . . and computer print out of the scoring of the test.

compare computer score match handscore?
the scales on this form all match the computer score.
hand scores have no summary scales - computer score - his staff did it and he checked it - ran on the computer - they have the score profile on this test - since they were a research test site - they have one for MPMI and MCMI.

he had raw data - JA's answers fed into computer to get the score.

He has never met JA - working from what he has received = #646 is accurate scoring of the raw data Dr. Demarte gave to him . . . summary scales from computer scales - they make sense with raw data going in.

move to admit

 

[wenwe4]

other specialized training in Trauma?
yes grew out of working with abused women children and child abuse trauma in 1980s he did more reserach on trauma and going to trainings across the nation.

did research, training and practice in this area . . .involved in major organizations involved and still is.

write articles for journals or chapters for books?
all the above - he has co-edited and co-authored books on trauma and child abuse . . he has co-edited or co-written about 45 books going back into 1980s - chapters rs of books and peer reviewed djournals - professionals who publish their works he oversees . . in the country and in other countries . . . trauma affects children, victims, offenders, - treatment . . . he is involvedi n this in a variety of ways

with journals - reserach a clinical article, treatment or research in a reputable journal must be peer reviewed and anonomous . .. . they do not know who the author is and vise versa - they make recommendations for publication . . . edited or appropriate to publish . ..

good journals are all peer reviewed and anonymous and double blind

he is involved in editorial process of several journals.

journal of aggression/treatment/trauma X15 years - 10 publications
another
journal of child sexual abuse - 22nd year
journal of family violence - comes out 8 times per year that is how people get educated about current research. . . .

mental health and other professionals have access to hard copy or online.

floating profiles . . . peer reviewed but not focused on research they were focused on clinical practice . . . as long as it goes thru same process . . how we learn
later on research done on borderline personality and floating profiles

#626 computer score of the TSI
time period of 2007 - 2008 retrospectively not the ideal way to do this . . ideal would be to test them @ that time and again later.

summary scale . .. 50 is average - 65 is clinical cut off
these 3 scales are validity scales . . . consistent answers
which scales elevated . . .7 scales of 10 are elevated . . . in clinical area

what this instrument looks @ trauma overall but
overall parts of the scale - mood level, way person thinks of themselves, if they suffer

combine whole test
does it focus on one trauma or trauma in general
it doesn't ask what may have traumatized you . . .but what symptoms ie: nightmares, difficulty going to sleep,

asking about symptoms 100 of these . . . puts it together into different scales to interpret
doesn't ask person @ all what caused the behaviors . . could be person had several traumatic incidents because we are talking about symptoms

Dr. Demarte said no summary scales exist?
OBJECTION

 

[wenwe4]

dR demarte said no summary scores for TSI but there are . . . you can handscore with templates or computer score.

there is TSI 2 which supercedes the TSI 1

if Dr. Demarte told us she didn't get TSI 2 because employer didn't get it . .
no there are requirements
A - you have to have the training
B - you have to be current on the research unless a particular reason that show new test isn't good for using for X then X would be a better test.

C - if you are trying to use old tests up - not good - employer should be getting updated test.

Dr. Brierre had started doing presentations @ conferences - and pubisher announced it would be coming out in 2011 . . .
anyone working in trauma speciality should have been aware of what coming out TSI 2
yes

these scales . . .way you focus is in the cut off range 7 of the 10 are in clinical range - pretty significant numbers and validity scales were within normal range - this suggest this person suffereing pretty major trauma.

interpret to scale, then summary scale, prior administration, other summary test . . .

anxious arousal, depression, defensive avoidance - THIS PERSON cognitively did not think about or talk about . . .dissocciation . . .spacing out - block out feelings with it - coping mechanism to survive and move on . . in clinical range

SC is sexual concerns - concerned about attitude, concern about own sexual behaviors, arousal other . . attitude issue

very concerned in way they have acted in some way sexually . . either with multiple partners, or different type acts. . .

pretty major impact on way view self - way they are being affected by trauma or traumas . .

then look @ summary scales . . .now we are looking @ actual possible diagnosis . . . might lead you to suspect PTSD . . . again if this is the only instrument given then you cannot give diagnosis of PTSD . . clinical diagnosis . . major issues identiy, view self,

dysphoria - mood depression, anxiety - it affects mood

if test had administered @ another time . . . TSI was administered 1 year before in spring of 2010. . . . then it was appropriate because new one had not come out.

Dr. Carbs TSI . . . . validity scale normal

objection - lack foundation -where is it
judge may we approach?
you may

 

[Softail]

Day 54 - Part 1

Jodi Arias Trial - Day 54 - Part 1 - YouTube

Part 2 - Jodi Arias Trial - Day 54 - Part 2 - YouTube

 

[wenwe4]

He met ALV @ international conference = one of the people the committee asked to speak - she is involved in a partnership representing another organization. She co-chaired battered intervention coalition in Calif and he chaired research committee for that organizations.....6 or 7 years ago national policies on offenders - later came out as a book - he was co-editor of that book and ALV wrote a chapter.

they have referred cases to each other .. . . he lives in San Diego and she is in long beach area about 1.5 hrs away - they don't usually work together but have been @ conferences @ same time.

he never discussed JW subject of ALV, talked a little about Demarte's testimony and is a little aware of Dr. Samuels work - he hasn't seen their testimony in court.

superior courts or apellate courts have commented on his work . . .
didn't know that at the time . . . he is virtually unaware of cases that get appealed - he is not involved in those - he might have heard someone was apealing one.

at some point down road appellate courts have an opinion about his testimony in other cases. .. .4 or 5 times going back 25 years - details he couldn't remember -ld they woule read what apellate court said . . . deemed not relevant to what he was doing then . . subsequently someone went back and traced those cases . . another atty did check those.

they are currently using Superior court - the opinions of other judges - appellate courts above them some of the cases were 5 or 10 years later and he was no longer working on that case or knew anything about them @ the time.

he has not been acused of being unethical or needed discipline. . . . no point he was not allowed to testify - in most cases his credentials were . . .
he was allowed to testify but not a specific things . . had to do with a legal matter not your qualifications?
objection - sustained

legal aspect not one of your expertise - that what he was told by other Atty's - not about his expertise that part was not challenged.

diplomate in neuropsychology - he trained Master level students . . .

whole part of operation doing neuro-psych evals for hospital . . if someone was suspected to have a learning disablity, injury to brain, stroke and they did outpatient rehab. they still train people in neuropsych evals.

peer review/publish . . . any publications in neuro-psych . . . some were learning disablity in school children, neuropsychological assessment, and research we conducted on quantitative EEG's =

domestic violence offenders to people with head injuries to people who have none of those . . . putting together data base for neuro-psych evals of capital offenders in 8 states.

objection
approach

 

[wenwe4]

In general he is still doing training on brain physiology and he is familiar . .. .
he has dealt with brain injuries.

evaluated people with injuries including people with frontal lobe injuries . . . and treated them

frontal lobe injury in the broad perspective is often and quite a few . . closed head injuries . . . also stroke or hemmorage . . . . also projectile and other cases where skull penetrated brain. . . over time had quite a few.

penetrated the brain - projectiles worked with - 2 he can recall . . . 2 cases were bullets and one was a nail from a nail gun.

specifically about the frontal lobe - exhibit #529 - from this picture the frontal lobe is

frontal lobe is on the left . . can't tell if right or left side.

it matters right side - if you aer talking about motor or sensory skills - right side brain controls left side body and left brain controls right body.

if they have had a stroke in lower side frontal approach temporal region - brocus area - speech . . .unable to talk, speak or form words . . could be on the left side affect speech but right side affect other areas.....motor skills, thinking, reasoning, except for autonomic like breathing, heart beat.

left side brain in particular area controls speech.

where on left hand side brain speech . . . inside the brain behind the eye - inside the brain inside a few inches on the left hand side is where speech is. . . . . that is generally where speech is . .. theoretically you could speak but cannot control motor skills . . .

motor skills in the brain in the frontal pariatal lobe . . . motor skills and behind it is more the sensory like hearing - me talking and moving come from the motor skills . .. right and left side . . center brain inside.

if this is front of skull - up and inside the brain.
anything to do with the frontal lobe?
all the brain is interconnected it is not like everything works in isolation . . frontal lobe doesn't on motor skill but if you wanted to do something with skills . .
that requires frontal lobe and motor cortex . . work together - brain is very unique thing in how they connect - it also connects to other things . . neuro-psych is what the damage is in the brain and what can we do.

skull and brain . . . membranes - duramador(?) . . . surrounds the brain . . protects the brain . . brain not rigidly in your head . . duramador surrounds the brain - surround frontal lobe of the brain - goes all around

Reviewed ME Dr. Horn report -

this Dr's previous 2 gunshots and nail - projectile . . .

first one was from chin up and the second was from right side to left (or vise versa direction) they were not incapacitated from gunshot to the frontal lobe.

incapacitation in technical sense - has inability to move arms and legs may (or not) be conscious.

neither of these 2 actually lost consciousness . . . one of them the bullet went thru and thru (he believes both did but different angles) . . neither had bullet fragments left in brain - neither were incapacitated.

in reviewing Dr. Horn's report . . .

 

[wenwe4]

Dr. said if there was a shock or bullet blew up (exploded) then it could cause incapacitation but not if this was a straight thru injury as the part of the brain injuried did not affect motor skills.

He has not diagnosed JA with anything and will not as he has not evaluated her - only did record review.

looking @ tests - objective results not subjective . . . based upon her report . . . does Dr. Demarte have an understanding (or lack of) of the MMPI and the TSI
yes
what is your opinion?
objection - lack foundation
approach

 

[wenwe4]

Sustained -
do you have an opinion of Dr. Demarte's lac

adequate understanding does she have that?

k of understanding in the tests that she aministered and how to interpret them?
not adequate understanding of the instruments she used

summary scales . . not using TSI 2, interpretation of TSI with diagnosis of borderline - not used for this purpose, floating profile . . . these are pretty outdated - lack of understanding about this test. . .

i have no concern about lack understanding on the MMPI . . but even MCMI it showed borderline would not be a priority issues.

tests over years by 3 different mental health professionals that show anxeity and trauma but you can not throw that out . . . if you don't agree with that you havce to explain why all these things are indicating something.

first test you administered and others do not suggest borderline . . . but other tests show that is not likely . . i don't want to think that this person has an anxiety or PTSD disorder . . . but to not include those . . .

need to use other sources to say why specifically you don't include it or explain why . . .

this just suggests borderline . unfortunatly people can say anything . . .you don't have support for borderline . . when spefici test you administered . . . you say they lied - go back to validity scales - that is what is there for. . . how goes in the jigsaw puzzle . . sometimes real challenge - your job to do that . . how do thes finally make sens . . job of diagnostician evaluator.

she (Demarte) spent time speaking with JA that he did not - how is it that you can say it is not supportive of borderline . . .

the tests have to be put into context . . .give you guides and working hypothesis - you are to clarify . . . it is conceivable something might indicate depression but now they are past it . . . now i understand why that scale is elevated but it was in the past.

blind . . . he doesn't know the person or the history . . . . tests are given to look @ patterns . . . 3 different mental health professionals come up with similar results . . pattern in those results must be explained not ignored.

working hypothesis for a dignosis of some sort for JA based upon these tests?
based on these tests I would need
objection
may we approach - you may
do

 

[wenwe4]

He would like to look @ PTSD and anxiety and further testing.
no more questions

cross exam

you are not licensed in Hawaii, Arizona, or Tennessee . . .
in Tennessee you testified in case of two people named O'Roark . .
objection

overruled

O'roark case in Tennessee . . . nothing more than a hired gun . . yes that was what the judge said . . .

that judge you testified said your opinion was completely without merit
I don't knnow the exact wording

would you like to take a look?
I don't mind

JM directs him directly to page and paragraph number to read to self.
isn't true trial court found your testimony in that case was completely without merit . . .

generally that is true - don't remember word completely.
yes sir that is accurate (after reviewing a 2nd time)

you gave opinion - hired by the mother - her Atty, on behalf of the Mother and gave opinion with out speaking to the Father . . .

look @ page 5 - look @ top of pg 6 and see what it says

did you say bottom pg 5
no pg 5 and top of 6

 

[wenwe4]

in your assistance of the mother you provided an opinion without talking to the father . . .yes
back in 2010 right?
no sir
opinion dated 11/2010

when he testified . . . Feb couple years previous . . case in Texas - name of Clark - he knows he did according to the records . submitted affidavidt . . . the trial court found in the clark case you lack credibility. at that time you had number years as a psychologist . . plethora of experience . . . court found you were making things up right
no court didn't state that at all

you submitted affidavit saying things happened 5 years prior . . .you relied on records from Pennsylvania from 1976 and you wrote this in 1992 - don't remember

based on hearsay provided other people - yes sir
you had same experience in Hawaii didn't you
no Hawaii court didn't say I wasn't credible - they excluded one part of the timeony not the rest. so they did exclude part of your testimony yes

haven't worked with prosecutor or defense . . but you have worked with ALV - publications . . have talked in the past - you are colleagues - doing it out of the goodness of your heart
no i never used such terms

not get any more money on this case - nobody pays you . . .even though not getting money for this case - still same individual who will go to court and make things up right?

objection -
jury will disregard

come into cases like this . . right
yes
contacted last week sometime . . .
partially what i said . . i was contacted long ago but didn't know i would be testifying in this case until a week ago.

november of last year contacted . .. .

testifying and criticizing Janene Demarte work . . . a week ago
no sir if you want to keep guessing or i could answer

when was it you were contacted - monday was a week away when we met

you asked 2 different questions

you started reviewing less than 2 weeks ago
no you asked a different question

reviewing Janene Demarte work - started 2 weeks ago
you knew testify in this case 2 weeks

floating profile - you have many students part of this editorial board . . not many we have 4 . . articles submitted based upon research . . blind both ways . . . very familiar with state of research with regard to psychology

that is really broad . . i wouldn't say all the research in psychology

you meantion Dr. Gatchell - after a time he repudiated it . .
actually in 2008 . . .

actually in 2008 he indicated just the opposite?

rehabilitation psychology journal . . in 2008 . . . i thought that was refering to . . .

individuals involed in the floating profile frequently identified as having an axis 2 personality disorder.
i would have to look at that
didn't you do your research from Dr. Getchell
i did
what research are you quoting then
can we ask one person speak at a time and the prosecutor not interrupt him

counsel approach

 

[wenwe4]

floating profile . . . frequently having Axis 2 personality disorder - cluster b . . . borderline personality disorder .

you didn't continue reading
label it as disability profile . . . it is being relabeled and they are focusing on a different thing.

it doesn't say the diagnosis has changed - read that
no it doesn't specifically say

it doesn't mean they don't have borderline personality disorder
it does not state that but because
thank you

MMPI - exhibit #631

If i understood that in looking @ this Dr. Demarte's approach this profile you have here more indicative of some sort of traumatic event

no sir
objection can we have the whole?
overruled

do you remember telling us about that - you reached certain conclusions to you it was not indicative of borderline personality disorder

if we look down here is so called F scale - elevated is above 65 clinical - meaningful something to look @ . . .other thing we have here - 10 different profiles

this is not indicative of borderline personality disorder

impact of borderline personality disorder MMPI 2 . . . are you familiar
not off top my head no

lets take a look then

may we approach?
yes

 

[wenwe4]

read this paragraph and then when you are done let me knowdoesn't thst indicate this profile is consistent with borderline personality disorder . . .

no it does not . . . scales above 96 and above 90 and elevated scales in other regions . . .

are you saying this person doesn't have an elevated F scale
no not the requiremenst you just had me read

malingering . . secondary gain
some benefit to them, social , monetary - whatever they have something to gain . . person charged with very serious crime has something to gain
it could be
this person is exhibiting too many symptoms such that malingering is something to consdieer . . . partially right . . .word too many

over the threshold . . . Depression, hysteria, psychopatic disorder

why don't you read the screen?
i can't read the screen you have it up

can we approach
yes

 

[wenwe4]

MF - masculine feminine
schizophrenia - psychotic disorder . . . someone who is psychotic lost touch with reality having hallucinations . . elevated here

mania - excessive energy -someone high but not on drugs. . . overactivity

Afternoon 10 min recess - this clock says 3:05 - @ 3:10 be ready to come back in - you are excused remember the admonision

 

[wenwe4]

numerous elevations in the K . . . .

the MMPI 1 - assume it does refer to it . . just because it

this has a cutoff of 65 or 70 - whether it is clinical elevated . . i had to go back and look @ 70 not 65 . . numerical scales above 70 . . .

70 or above . . .
which makes this a valid study to look @ even though we are now doing MMPI 2 . . .of the 61 people diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder everyone had same identical scale
no
the F scale is 72.77 in exhibit
this F scale is above the clinical threshhold of 70

80.43 level D - depression
HY - 70.05 above (at 70) still clinical
PD - 73.15
# 7 72.34
#8 79.20

if we assume cutoff is 70 - the threshold on the F scale is met to be clinical - scales on the others are clinical because they are at or above 70 . . . this persons with Borderline personaility had that exact same profile yes/no
can't answer that y/no
ok thank you

you indicated this was to identify trauma in the past . . it could have just occurred . . do you know John Greer PhD . . put it together . . psychometric summary in applying TSI to borderline personality disorder
don't know that have to look @ that one

you said indicative of PTSD not borderline personality disorder
don't think that strong but the general idea
lets take a look @ this exhibit

so we know exhibit # 644 . . . remember that . . . this is it . . this isone summary scales on there Dr. DeMarte . . .

provided in the manual - even if handscore - you are reqjuired to do . . required not correct terminology.

don't think say you are required to do anything on the test - not a terminology we did

hand scored a TSI
yes about 8-10 years ago

in all these setting I had staff - i would train them how and they would do it

you are as sure of the sumamry scales that the person who put this test together feels this summary scales should be . . . if handscore

i haven't talked to john
if the people who created this test you are strongly required to provide summary scales if you hand score . .

just instructions on how to do the score if you are handscore

instructions are not recommendations . . they are instructions - don't think it gives you recommendations

instructions on how to prepare these summary scales . . . here is how to do it if you want to do it
leave out the last words "if want to do it"{

he spilled his water again

shoot - not doing so well
go ahead and clean up please.