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

[TartLemon]

As a lay person, I don't see that what this Dr is saying is wrong. I'm just not understanding how it pertains to Jodi. There was a point I thought it sounded like he was describing Travis' state of mid while being murdered.

 

[Stolat]

Eh...this witness/expert seems to be a little off himself actually. If what he is saying/portraying to the court is the honest to goodness truth and not just his 'version' of things, I am inclined to believe that he isn't all put together and didn't know. As for the other part, I would guess that if he never interviewed the mother, regardless of her mental state, the report would have to be biased towards the father. He showed up. The mother automatically looks bad for not showing up.

My biggest beef with the witness is that he seems to have fit JA into a diagnosis instead of the diagnosis fitting JA. It feels like he said 'ok, she fits this one, maybe this one, ok we will go with this one'. Instead of true diagnosis.

If she has memory loss because of the event its because of the rage masking her ability to remember, not being afraid. If I am to give credit to JA, then I would
say yes this was a traumatic event for her too. But her actions afterwards made that null and void. IMHO.

Kelly

I agree 100% on both custody bias and square peg theory

On top of that I bet we'll later learn this was all Nurmi's idea - that he's likely already worked with this doc before and used similar strategy in diff case. Remember, Nurmi went in with the doc and on visit #2 they were telling Jodi the ninja story wasn't flying and she'll have to come up with something else - here, take this amateur readers digest PTSD sample test.

I bet you could get more accuracy from a Galmour Magazine Love Quiz than that 49 question cliffnotes BS

 

[meanddblj]

ideas on whether JM will get to cross today....

 

[Ammonitida]

The extraordinary poor coverage of the JA trial by HLN never ceases to amaze me.
Here we have a questionable expert, Samuels, speaking to the issue of “memory”. Memory is the proper purview of a neuroscientist – such as a physiologist or a neurologist.
So what does HLN present? Attorneys weighing in as “experts” on memory. The guest attorney provides us commentary based an authoritative anecdote about memory loss from rodeo bull riding!!! Beth Karas as a memory commentator???

Give me a break.

The subject obviously is "memory" . . . . so get an expert on MEMORY rather than jawing endlessly on "memory" by people who have no clue about this topic.

Bull riding? That's a pretty dangerous "sport" where severe head injuries can happen. Jodi, OTOH, is claiming memory loss due to mental issues.

 

[mobius99]

The doctor was making chit up as he went along, just like Jodi. BFF 4 evah!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Dr Samuels:

"In an administrative action filed with the New Jersey Board of Psychological Examiners, Dr. Richard Samuels, currently of Scottsdale AZ, was fined $2500.00 in 2000 due to a conflict of interest for his involvement in a child custody lawsuit.

Samuels bartered dental services from the father in exchange for "psychotherapeutic services". The doctor proceeded to testify in behalf of the father without even interviewing the child's mother. The Board also ordered Samuels to complete continuing education courses on ethics and boundaries issues.

According to Dr. Samuels listings, he was licensed in NJ in 1975, (#S 101060), and in the state of Arizona in 1989, (#3043). He is practicing as a Clinical and Forensic Psychologist out of Scottsdale, AZ. "

Does he still have his license in NJ or does he no longer practice there?

 

[Ricki]

I thought the complaint was in 2000?

That is what I remember. Samuels said 1994

 

[Ladylub]

I think she showered herself while standing over TA dead body. All the blood down the drain and clothes in the dumpster or desert.

Yep She doesn't remember any of the showering b/c it was really cold or really hot water that she had to shower in. Made her brain go all foggy.

 

[Candy_Pickletoes]

Dr Samuels:

"In an administrative action filed with the New Jersey Board of Psychological Examiners, Dr. Richard Samuels, currently of Scottsdale AZ, was fined $2500.00 in 2000 due to a conflict of interest for his involvement in a child custody lawsuit.

Samuels bartered dental services from the father in exchange for "psychotherapeutic services". The doctor proceeded to testify in behalf of the father without even interviewing the child's mother. The Board also ordered Samuels to complete continuing education courses on ethics and boundaries issues.

According to Dr. Samuels listings, he was licensed in NJ in 1975, (#S 101060), and in the state of Arizona in 1989, (#3043). He is practicing as a Clinical and Forensic Psychologist out of Scottsdale, AZ. "

Wait a minute, didn't he just testify that the only santion was the $2,500 fine? One would think being ordered to take further educational courses on ethics and boundaries would be a sanction as well.

 

[norest4thewicked]

That's a bit broad-brushed, but so was my comment.

I just made a guess about what might have happened based on what I've observed. I could be wrong, but I guess the point is we really don't know the background and all the facts so I don't think any real solid conclusions can be made from this one ethical complaint 20 years ago.

I get it - most of you disagree with me and think this ethical thing defines this man and discredits everything he says. There's plenty for Juan to cross examine him about to destroy his testimony. I think it's a mistake to focus too much on something non-substantive like this.

I agree with you!

 

[AZWatcher]

"Covered in blood" Huh? Unless she left the house after 8 PM it was BROAD DAYLIGHT. She showered and changed clothes at the house ...Right? What time did the roommate get home?

 

[Clue Finder 55]

If Jodi was all coverd in blood she would have to shower up at Travis's and change clothes or when she was leaving his house someone driving by or a nieghbor would have noticed her all coverd in blood especialy if she had the car parked away from the house.

Sorry if I haven't got this right as I just caught the end of todays tesimony at the lunch break.

 

[fifteen89]

"There was no internet in those days."

In 2000???

Rut roh. Did I just see Al Gore added to the State's rebuttal witness list?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Bull riding? That's a pretty dangerous "sport" where severe head injuries can happen. Jodi, OTOH, is claiming memory loss due to mental issues.

He didn't say he had memory loss from falling off the bull. He said he had memory loss of coming out of the bull gate.

IMO

 

[luvmygarden]

ROFLMAO - a brain dude speaking about memory having to ask a lawyer what day he last testified on...

Irony.

AND Juan hasn't even talked to him yet. Oh Boy this will be interesting. Mr Samuels will leave the stand with no memory left LOL

 

[LambChop]

So what if Jodi got traumatized (not) when she pre-meditatively killed Travis? So what? Who cares?

Why does everything turn an issue about Jodi and never about Travis' pain and anguish???

You can almost see what went on when she switched her story. She was telling wayyyyyy too much about the series of events with the Ninja story. Travis saying he could not feel his legs, crawling down the hallway, the gun. They took the gunshot first and her being knocked down and molded it into her present story. Nothing else fit so let's ask her if she is sure she can remember what happened or has she just blocked it all out and she's making it up. And I can hear her now....."Yea, yea, that's the ticket. That's exactly what happened. The fog rolled in and I can't remember."

This man can't even see what he has done wrong in NJ. jmo

 

[Truth Detector]

Just popping in from work...what time is this recess over?

T-Minus 59 minutes

 

[MeeBee]

We have reports that the jury is paying close attention to his testimony. I'd feel better if they were bored. The jury might be drinking this guy's coolaid.

Of course they are paying close attention. They are an attentive, note taking jury. They are always attentive because they take their jobs seriously and make sure they get all their facts. Again, this has no bearing on whether they believe him or not. They are simply listening to him. I would be attentive too and I think she is guilty as sin.

 

[Face the music]

Watching online but also have HLN on muted. When they went to sidebar the first time I looked up at the tv and a commercial was on about ? but it had an elephant on it. Maybe a good sign.. Did anyone notice that the uniformed officer moved his chair almost beside Jodi before the hearing was suppose to start today? When it did start with the good dr. I think it is on the wall but in front of her. I believe it has always been more or less behind her in the past. Do you think it is because of last week when it appeared that she was sneaking something in her palm? Keep a better eye on her?
I don't know if this has already been picked up by any of you but the good dr. told them about the $2,500 fine but he didn't mention that he also had to take a course on ethics.

 

[ElleElle]

He was fined in 2000. Not sure when the conflict of interest occurred.

I thought the complaint was in 2000?