trial day 32: the defense continues it's case in chief #91

[twirlin]

Miss Wilmott is so annoying the way she asks the questions and pretends to be
surprised at the answer like she doesn't already know! Very fake.
Hopefully she is annoying the jury as well.
This is so boring!

 

[Really?]

Really, would we expect anything more from an expert or witness in this defense case? I mean, REALLY???

Really. :floorlaugh:

 

[geevee]

Hi. Can anyone help me find a live feed? Went to abc15.com and azfamily.com and nothing will come up. Please help. Thank you!

This is the one I'm watching:

http://www.kpho.com/category/224303/cbs-5-local-live-streaming

 

[LaneGirl]

Right handed Jodi writing today.

 

[elementary]

The complaint and disciplinary action against him is really not a big deal IMO and Wilmott is doing the right thing by getting this out there on direct.

I would imagine it is true that there are an unusually large number of complaints filed related to custody evaluations (which is probably why it's hard to find custody evaluators these days).

On its face it does appear that in that one case it might tend to show bias towards the father, but I bet if we knew the underlying facts of the case there was probably plenty of evidence to support his custody evaluation for the father. Based on experience I would also bet the mother who filed the complaint was personality disordered -- that's who typically files complaints when they lose.

He should have kept everything above board, but it does not mean his custody evaluation was flawed. JMO

That is one POV. Another could be that he looks to be an unabashed and glib <mod snip> who sold his soul for filthy lucre and defends a sadistic psychopath, so why should we believe his story? Not to mention the ultimate need to defend his reputation and hence his moneymaking machine. Or, as Juan would say, "How does it benefit him?"

 

[paperwing]

They were talking about her and how she's suffering from intrusive memories. Of course she has to look upset. But she's failing in trying to get the right look.

bbm

Kamille - great assessment! No wonder it made no sense. Man, this defendant really does not seem to understand human emotion at all, does she? That's just so disturbing.

 

[Truth Detector]

Strange as it may seem, I think all this conflict of interest crap has inspired JA.

If I'm reading her correctly, she's got the hots for JM!

"Dear Diary, if loving Juan is wrong, I don't wanna be right."

 

[Ammonitida]

So despite all this crap about the "hippocampus", he produces not one iota of evidence to back up his insinuation that Jodi has a smaller one than average. Like an MRI scan of her brain? How is he allowed to testify to medical conditions like this without any evidence to support it? It's highly doubtful that one traumatic event could shrink a hippocampus. In studies done on this subject, it takes many decades of alcohol abuse to just shrink it by 6-9%, and that's with Vietnam war vets, many of whom have experienced life-altering physical and mental injuries -- creating extreme PTSD. Disgusting for this "Doc" to compare Jodi to such men.

 

[katiewonders]

This is the second time he's mentioned that he primarily deals with clients based on the lucrative profitability to him.

C'mon, it's money, he can change his line of work to make more of it, can't he? Just sayin'

 

[prima.facie]

is she looking back at her family with a smirk?

 

[katiedid2]

Never heard of this. I don't recall seeing it in the autopsy report. Where did you hear about it?

Could be a smoking gun if turns out to be true?

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Will they be breaking for lunch at the top of the hour?

 

[K_Z]

Professionally, this baaaaddddd. Very bad. IMO. Ethics and credibility go hand in hand. I haven't watched his previous testimony, but I'm not getting good professional vibes from this man. This wasn't a "billing coding" boo boo or something. This was a major ethical judgment error on his part.

Remember, this is the BEST expert they could find to testify in Jodi's defense.

So Atty Wilmott is bringing this up this NJ ethics complaint in the "middle" of his testimony? Hoping to bury it so the jury won't remember?

 

[minor4th]

http://www.azfamily.com/home/Watch-LIVE-Jodi-Arias-murder-trial-185415702.html



I have not heard this.



Yes.


Hey, minor4th, are you hearing this? Totally inappropriate. The answer is, "No.", you cannot treat a person who has been a party to any type of child custody evaluation. He tried to squirrel out of that answer.

I missed that part, but I still say that one ethics complaint has nothing to do with his qualifications or the soundness of his custody evaluation. If he crossed the ethical boundaries, he shouldn't have - I just don't think it has anything to do with this case or his qualifications.

 

[Curious Me]

So now he is telling this former client's PERSONAL MENTAL ISSUES on live national television?

That was wrong, huh.

 

[tinkabella]

Horrendous move by defense -- making their expert look like a joke.

They had to do it first. The defense knows Juan wont miss a beat so they introduce his little problem, make it seem like a small issue and take the sting out. I don't think they had to do much to make him look that way.

 

[Nali87]

This is all blab blah for me right now. I'm just thinking how the fact that she's been lying on the stand about the gas cans (that show she tried to pass through AZ unnoticed) will be the final nail in her coffin.

 

[borndem]

So, this <mod snip> has been doing this for decades and he doesn't understand the parameters of what he can and cannot testify to (i.e., making legal conclusions)? Pfft.

HiYa, ooslawyer -- It's good to "see" you on this case. When were we last tossed in together? Jason Young? Brad Cooper? Jason Williford?

Enny-way, I'm glad you're on this case with us! She is a piece of work, huh? Fingers & toes crossed for her 1st Deg. Murder conviction. Happy you're here!! :seeya:

 

[Weebles]

When asked if he testified his response was "not as a custody specialist"

He is choosing interesting wording that could mean he did in fact still testify as something else like the expert magazine reader or some such other schiesterlist

 

[Truth Detector]

so wait, he was doing custody evals, then quit doing them cause they do not pay? hmmm.

Or because he wasn't getting it under the table via conflict of interest anymore?