trial day 42: the defense continues its case in chief #127

[atm9533]

She is never going to last all week, I won't last all week.

 

[corundogs]

WTF does knowing how computers work have to do with ANY of this?

Seriously, this has almost become a waste of time.

 

[SuperTmo]

I missed something. When did we start talking about FBI profiling?

When ALV brought it up instead of admitting that her methods of coming to conclusion aren't able to be replicated in any way, shape or form...

 

[Steely Dan]

:slap: Don't let her interview your :butthead: anymore!

:laughcry:


I don't know Mr. Martinez - Alyce Laviolette

 

[katiedid2]

She did "a lot of interviewing" - with a known liar and murderer.

Who did she interview Jodie nurmi wilmott?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

passive aggressive

I think she is far more aggressive than she ever is passive.

imo

 

[Curious Me]

Juan Martinez questioning ALV in a patient, even voice. He hasn't raised his voice at all. He is being respectful despite the expert witness refusing to answer direct questions.

 

[ohiogirl]

I love Juan Martinez as much as the next guy but he has to get going with this... he has GOT to get off of the Snow White thing...I have to admit I haven't really seen any big bombshells today. He has got to get tot he meat and potatoes of this Cross. The Jury doesn't want to deal with this woman for another week, I would bet money on that. Like I said, before I get bombarded with hate mail because I dare say something negative about Juan, he needs to step this up, change his methods in this cross with her as it is obvious she is NOT responding.

I agree with you on this, I think he can make the points he needs to in a much more compact way. :seeya:

 

[matou]

JM basically saying that her work can't really be verified or replicated like science research can e.g. forensic work.

 

[JSR]

I love it he's going to beat her over the head with her stupid "context" comments. That she has made repeatedly.

 

[ziggy]

Oops. She just compared herself to an FBI profiler. Now she's stuck in the weeds.

She doesn't know if it's possible to input her data into a computer and receive some determinative outcome because she's not a computer whiz? Try your common sense brain ma'am. The jury will.

 

[wenwe4]

Difference between what I do and psychologists do is testing . . .

are you a counselor?
I am a psychotherapist by profession
you don't do any testing - can't take a look @ raw data - no one else could do testing all we can do is read what you have read and heard.

testing can be subjective too . .

not an expert in testing
no

haven't had the schooling that would allow you to make the statements on the testing . . . left for others with a higher degree that you?
sure

basically you sit down and hear what they say and look @ what they have written - believe written or spoken word

not true . . . believe both or not both . . I have turned down cases

you chose to believe or not what you think
no depending on the evidence

if you chose to believe someone - someone else could disbelieve them
yes that is possible

I read a lot of interviews, read a lot of collateral sources
you did read a lot - you talked to one person and came to your conclusion - we agree

you opinion cannot be verified that we are talking about today
cannot be verified?
correct - cant put it in to a computer and come up with what it is . .

I don't know - I m not good with computers . . . .FBI profilers can put data into a computer and come out with a lot of info . . .don't know where you want me to go with this . . .

do you know if profile can be used in court?
don't know
opinion of the profiler . . .just what the profiler is thinking
you can't input information into a computer and come up with the name of the person who committed crime

I don't know . . .I am not one of those people - I am not a computer whiz.
no way your approach would put into a computer

I really don't know
profiler . . . you brought that up as example

you keep talking about context . . .really important in determine whether you make an assessment

exhibit #444 - series of text messages between Michelle K and TA wanting to know what Michelle K provided to the defendant.

Objection what is the date . . . the text messages are dated
that is improper - if she doesn't understand

Judge may we approach
you may

 

[Tipstaff]

She did a lot of interviewing!!! MY :butthead:

She spent all her time with JA and no one else ...no even the parents.

So the defendant could spin everything her way - and she becomes the victim according to ALV the expert.

 

[rose222]

He's getting better and better! Woot!

 

[Tiki]

ALV excuse for not answering:
I'm not a computer whiz.

 

[TigerBalm]

ALV has lost the plot!

 

[corundogs]

WOW! Judge Stephens looked completely befuddled just now!

 

[newsjunkie]

I love Wilmott's new way of objecting:

Objection. . .hearsay, speculation, foundation (anything else that I can throw at the wall. . . .surely something will stick)

 

[ShadyLady]

ALV is making an azz out of herself because she's so defensive. She won't simply answer yes or no because she can't figure out where JM is going with a question. She just can't stand the thought of being one-upped. Totally arrogant, unbiased, and unqualified.

Can I say passive aggressive??

This must be how she counsels...? Poor men.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

The objections improper. If she doesn't understand that's the problem ..