trial day 48: REBUTTAL #147

[Love Never Fails]

Awesome! Such an accomplished woman. You know someone is jealous.

Wow. Same age as Jodi. Hmmm.

 

[Sleuth5]

I think the witness made Dr Drew's co-host feel a little inadequate so she's bringing the snark to level her ...

I think you're right. I saw a confident professional. I'm not sure how anyone could have missed it, myself

 

[PrincessSezMe]

Hi All, I am an attorney (not yet verified by Websleuths). I watched JW's cross today and I am underwhelmed. I guess the point that JW is trying to make is that Dr. D. is inexperienced... but JW is falling short and the result is that Dr. D. simply is getting more opportunities to expound on her experience and education. Notice that JW seems to be asking questions that allow the witness to talk, rather than "directing" the testimony as Juan does on cross.

Whether you like Juan's style or not, from an attorney's standpoint, he is phenomenal at controlling a witness on cross. Cross-exam is a very tough skill that many attorneys will never perfect in their careers, but Juan does it. He also seems to have a slight or partial photographic memory. His ability to recall dates, specific phrases, specific incidents, previous testimony, etc is incredible and rare.

I so love hearing from the attorneys on this forum! Thank you for your views!

I love Juan's style. He treats everyone the same whether they're a prosecution witness or a defense witness. He was every bit as tough on his lead investigator as he was on Ms. ALV or Dr. S. His control over the obfuscating defense witnesses in this trial has been amazing to watch. He is amazing on direct, and so skilled at cross I've never seen his equal.

It was wonderful to watch him perform his direct on a witness today who could actually ANSWER his questions without a bunch of rhetoric. It was a Juanderful day in court. And Willmott looked foolish when she got up there and floundered around grasping at anything that she thought would discredit Dr. D. I thought it was a sad day for the defense all around. And their client did nothing to help them when she totally looked the part of what Dr. D was saying she is.

 

[MidwestMama]

What was Jodi doing during court all day? She never looked at the witness. Instead it appeared that she was copying material from a book, writing onto another sheet. Anyone know I watched all day and couldn't figure it out.

She was writing and/or drawing. As someone mentioned here, she certainly doesn't HAVE to look at the witness and it certainly is better than being disruptive.
However, I think she perfectly demonstrated the adolescent/immature behavior that Dr D mentioned.
"I'm not going to look at you because I don't like you."
My son used to do that if he was mad at me! Of course, he was 6 or 7 yrs old at the time.

 

[Chelly]

KCL said the courtroom is very dry. This is why the gallery is permitted to have water. And, after all folks, it is Arizona. lol

Arizona is extremely dry, particularly at this time of year.

 

[IBsleuthin]

Sure. Take Betty Broderick for example. Many many women said after she did her dirty deed that she did what they wanted to do but didn't have the nerve. She was a hero of sorts to many other women.

You have a point there, but luckily your HAT covers it.


Excuse me for this insertion but wasn't Mrs. Broderick's husband a cheating, pompous scoundrel of a man? I'm thinking it was that part of it that won her fans in prison not the KILLING part of it?

Just asking...




Just making conversation here...

 

[Chelly]

She was writing and/or drawing. As someone mentioned here, she certainly doesn't HAVE to look at the witness and it certainly is better than being disruptive.
However, I think she perfectly demonstrated the adolescent/immature behavior that Dr D mentioned.
"I'm not going to look at you because I don't like you."
My son used to do that if he was mad at me! Of course, he was 6 or 7 yrs old at the time.

Well, Dr D did testify that she found Jodi immature, exhibiting behavior live a teenager.

 

[FrayedKnot]

In an earlier post I said she reminded me of Nancy McKeon (Jo off Facts of Life)

"Ya take the good, ya take the bad, ya take them both and then you have the facts of life......":rocker:

 

[GoAskAllie]

In an earlier post I said she reminded me of Nancy McKeon (Jo off Facts of Life)

I think Dr. DeMarte bears a striking resemblance to Olivia Munn (Sloan Sabbith in The Newsroom). Check it out. Same age as the good doctor and the defendant.

 

[InALandFarFarAway]

Dr. D. did a great job overall but I don't think she explained herself well on this point. It's one thing when you are asked to evaluate a criminal defendant. Maybe they committed the crime, maybe they didn't, maybe they were sane, maybe they were legally insane. You are there to do an unbiased job and compassion doesn't come into it. Neither does outrage about the crime. Later, perhaps if you conclude that the person was legally insane you feel compassion but that comes in afterwards. Neither Dr. D nor Dr. S. nor Ms. LV should have let emotions come into their evaluations. I feel confident that Dr. D did not. Despite her conclusions, I did not sense any negative emotions toward JA on Dr. D's part whereas it seemed to me that the other two felt sorry for JA.

With evaluating abused children, of course you feel compassion going in, you wouldn't be human otherwise, but you put it aside so you can find out what is going on with the child and how that child's needs should be met. Abused children are different from accused murders. But in both cases, you cannot allow any emotions to bias you.

Just my opinion about how I would have explained it.

I think JW tried to trap her with semantics. "Compassion" means deep sympathy and sorrow for the pain of another person. And connected to that is the need to alleviate that sorrow and suffering. Tricky, tricky on JW's part.

In my job, I have to talk to people after horrendous things have happened to them or to someone they care about. Sometimes children are involved. The injuries are catastrophic.

My job is to do an objective investigation and determine who has legal liability.

People always ask how to tell someone or their families that their injury is worth $5M but you're only offering $10k ... Don't you FEEL anything for these people?

I'm not indifferent to them. But when you start bringing "compassion" in the context I feel JW meant, you're on a slippery slope.

You can't go into each case with your feelings because a) you cease being effective and objective; b) you begin to feel possible attachment with a need to try to "fix" things; c) you'll begin to personalize and internalize almost everything; d) you will cry in your office every day; e) you will not be able to sleep at night thinking about it all.

I learned the hard way. So while it sounds cold and indifferent, it isn't. Gotta separate self from the equation. I'm just part of the who/what/when/where/how/why. The best thing I can give to each case is distance and objectivity so that the outcome is as fair as it can be given legal liability.

And the same rules apply to people I find repellent. My disdain and contempt cannot seep into evaluations because it colors the case.

Hopefully the jury will be able to make those distinctions even if she didn't explain it as clearly as she could have.

 

[ElleElle]

I was waiting for someone to ask.

http://www.hlntv.com/slideshow/2013/04/15/jodi-arias-childhood-photos-nancy-grace-exclusive

Elle,

Where are these new pictures coming from?

 

[mobius99]

Oh em gee. I saw the pages and pages of comments today while sitting in a meeting. Watching the testimony now. This is sooooooooooooo good. Yippeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

 

[Love Never Fails]

I'm not surprised that Dr. Drew would be critical of Dr. DeMarte. She did project a little stage fright at first and her voice got a little reedy at times. I guess the TV Dr. would focus on that (style vs. substance) and not notice that she steadied perfectly when discussing something other than herself. She the polar opposite if the defense witnesses who could only defend their opinions by mugging and bellowing about their years of experience. I think it's pretty obvious that if you're doing something wrong, the number of years that you've spent doing it wrong isn't something to brag about.

As soon as she started talking about the science she was calm and credible and knew chapter and verse of what she was discussing. She didn't have to consult a survey article as Dr. Samuels did, nor did she reference a "continuum" that she changes whenever she feels like it. I don't mean to belittle Dr. Drew, but if he didn't see the contrast between the defense experts bravado and Dr. DeMarte's professional competence then he's simply not paying attention.

Or maybe.....Dr. Drew isn't anymore qualified than Dr. Samuels or ALV. IMO.

 

[Sleuth5]

Dr Drew just saw and commented upon the brilliant manuever of this witness when she discussed pedophilia. JW got the rug pulled out from under her on that one. LOL WELL DONE, Young Doctor. :thankyou:

It was very slick indeed.

 

[Lorelilly]

So the new language is borderline personality disorder? Sounds like nothing. I like psycho better. Why not just come out and say she is psychotic and slaughtered the man, in her professional opinion? These terms seems to change so often, no wonder jurors find it confusing,

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh: I NEEDED THAT!!!

 

[concernedmother]

JM will be lucky to have any hair at all when this trial ends. The defense has hardly anything to work with. And the star defense witness turned out to be a nightmare.This being watched nationally on tv and scrutinized has to be very very stressful. For all involved. I wouldnt want any of their jobs,

 

[Kamille]

Please tell me JA did not sit through this whole day IGNORING the testimony. Makes me wonder what the jury thought about that.

No she perked up and paid more attention when JW got up for the cross examination. I'd imagine the jury was thinking the same thing as a lot of the home viewers, that they knew she'd have a difficult time staying expressionless for this. I'd imagine this testimony was difficult for her to hear, given some of her personality traits, and they had preplanned for her to "keep busy" and try to block out a lot of it.

MOO

 

[Rocco]

You have a point there, but luckily your HAT covers it.


Excuse me for this insertion but wasn't Mrs. Broderick's husband a cheating, pompous scoundrel of a man? I'm thinking it was that part of it that won her fans in prison not the KILLING part of it?

Just asking...




Just making conversation here...

I'm sure by the time Jodi tells her story to the other inmates, she'll have them convinced that Travis had it coming. Just like Betty convinced women that a cheating husband that ran off with a younger woman after she put him through medical school and law school had it coming.

 

[neesaki]

This witness, Dr. D, is awesome isn't she? It's amusing how throughout her testimony JA is so obviously trying to be even busier than usual. Can't begin to imagine why

 

[tomato]

JW's cross examination was pointless and sometimes she did not even know what she's talking about. I feel sorry for JW's occasional ignorance: I always remember the time when she challenged the medical examiner, Dr. Horn, whether the shot on the head to Travis (R.I.P) passed through his brain by saying "Are you sure about that?" or something to that effect. If I were her, I would like to jump off a bridge.