trial day 48: REBUTTAL #147

[Dr. Know?]

In AZ the lawyers don't usually make the rounds on tv but it's not unheard of. It's not like Jose Baez with Geraldo, or Shapiro, Picazzio etc..It's toned down now tg and not so much circus even though we have Lisa Irwin's case where big bad lawyer, pro bono, was on many tv shows along with wild man Bill whatever his name was...Even the PI's were making the rounds in Haleigh's case on HLN. We just don't take it lightly out here when someone wants face. If it's for attention and smoke then they lose a lot of credibility big time. Call 1-800-Seeeme. (I hope that's not a number, oh my, apologies if so) jmo

 

[Nali87]

I was disappointed with her. I was expecting more. IMO, Dr. DeMarte sounded like she was reciting straight out of her college texts. She gave me the impression that she used alot of her tools (tests) on her clients but I did not get the impression that she did much acutal therapy. I don't know anything about the kind of work that she has done but it sounded like she was just evaluating people to "get them through the system". CPS, prisoners, low income people, disability claims. :moo:

JM and DD pointed it a lot that the evaluating Jodi shouldn't cross over to giving therapy. I think you didn't get the impression that she did any therapy because she actually wasn't supposed to. It was an evaluation of Jodi, nothing more. They kept mentioning it.

 

[josie1986]

PROSECUTION ADDED NEW WITNESS Hollie Guptill Mefford AND Jacob Mefford of Hesperia CA

For real? ???

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

 

[josie1986]

If I am honest, I have to say that I sort of think that a diagnosis of BPD will make the jury less likely to want to kill her. Being described as someone with the mentality of a teenager takes the element of evil away. What do you all think? I'm not much for the DP anyway, I just want her locked up for life.

I disagree, Jodi clearly knew she had problems with anger etc per the email shown and did not get help.
Nothing could make me feel sorry for her,absolutely nothing.

The only people I feel sorry for are travis and his family.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Nhic]

:seeya: Good morning all!



During JW's cross of Dr. Demarte yesterday the camera panned over to JA at one point and the look in JA's eyes was sheer hatred - I have never seen that look in anyone's eyes ever. Don't want to again either. Maybe someone else here has a pic of it. Truly jaw dropping.

Is it true that JM cannot have Dr. Demarte testify that JA is a sociopath/psychopath?

 

[carnnell]

The only thing I can think of is that they didn't want to "defend" a murder two case. IOW, let the prosecution think it's trying a murder 1 case with self defense, then get in the evidence for a murder 2 charge so there's no evidence presented to refute it.

In at least one other case Juan has tried, murder 1 was charged and he couldn't prove it, so he requested a murder 2 charge and the defense objected. The court charged murder 2 anyway and the State got that conviction.

If the posts I'm reading are accurate, the State psych is testifying to BPD. Which doesn't support premeditation at all -- the opposite, in fact. Can't wait to see how it comes out. jmo

Arias' diagnosis is separate to proving premeditation under the laws of AZ.

As I understand premeditation, Arias must have knowledge of a plan or Intent, and reflection of that knowledge before killing of another.

Below is the actual definition of the Arizona jury instruction:

Pr-meditation means intent or knowledge to kill another human being.

"Premeditation" means that the defendant intended to kill another human being or knew [he] [she] would kill another human being, and after forming that intent or knowledge, reflected on the decision before killing. It is this reflection, regardless of the length of time in which it occurs, that distinguishes first-degree murder and second-degree murder. An act is not done with premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. [The time needed for reflection is not necessarily prolonged, and the space of time between the intent or knowledge to kill and the act of killing may be very short.] pg PDF 71
"Intentionally" or "With Intent To" Defined: means that a defendant's objective is to cause that result or to engage in that conduct.

Intent - Inference
Intent may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence. It need not be established exclusively by direct sensory proof. The existence of intent is one of the questions of fact for your determination.

"Knew" or "Knowingly" Defined: means that a defendant acts with awareness
of, or belief in, the existence of conduct or circumstances constituting an offense. It does not mean that a defendant must have known the conduct is forbidden by law.


REVISED ARIZONA JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL) Third Edition 2011

http://www.azbar.org/media/292098/2011_cumulative_supplement.pdf

 

[Dr. Know?]

If I am honest, I have to say that I sort of think that a diagnosis of BPD will make the jury less likely to want to kill her. Being described as someone with the mentality of a teenager takes the element of evil away. What do you all think? I'm not much for the DP anyway, I just want her locked up for life.

Life she will have other roomies & thrive, DP, she probably would have out here a good 20 years with appeals that cost taxpayers the money, before she has to worry. will only have about one hour a day out to excercise, alone. Mostly always alone. I think it's like 3 showers per week, ewww,

This woman is like a fungus, she needs not grow on any other poor souls. I am usually for LWOP but not this time. jmo

 

[Nhic]

the State psych is testifying to BPD. Which doesn't support premeditation at all -- the opposite, in fact.


I absolutely disagree with that comment above. It is clear that JA premeditated her slaughter of Travis, that she is not and has not ever been insane (legal definition), she is not psychotic, she is not schizophrenic, etc.

 

[Dr. Know?]

Juan Martinez is making a fact in history about who JA is & the defense is making a b rated fiction movie at best of this trial and it comes across as bizarre. It doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think JA's diagnosis has fully been stated yet. They were polite but DrDM has a lot more to say at the right time. Awesome to say the least.

jmo

 

[The Farm]

Good Morning all.

Well from what I saw yesterday of Dr.Demarte I was both highly impressed and loved her.
Jodi's hand must have been killing her from doing all that writing/drawing and I think the reason she was doing it (because what could she possibly be writing) was because she could have killed Dr.Demarte.

 

[Dr. Know?]

Good Morning all.

Well from what I saw yesterday of Dr.Demarte I was both highly impressed and loved her.
Jodi's hand must have been killing her from doing all that writing/drawing and I think the reason she was doing it (because what could she possibly be writing) was because she could have killed Dr.Demarte.

Like Norman Bates trying not to look at the fly on the wall. ha ha Very, very obvious. I watched her.

 

[Nhic]

I don't think JA's diagnosis has fully been stated yet. They were polite but DrDM has a lot more to say at the right time. Awesome to say the least.

jmo

One of the TH yesterday (can't remember who or what show) said something about the diagnosis sociopath or psychopath can not be testified to, but they didn't state the reason. Did you hear that?

 

[raisincharlie]

Wasn't she though?!! :great: My husband was literally glued to the t.v. today and was practically jumping for joy! He kept asking me while I was flitting around the house "ARE YOU WATCHING THIS?" Dr. D is so professional and such a direct contrast to AVL! I thought JW's cross was very weak and just fell flat and so did the hubs. I couldn't believe she asked Dr. D if she could have supervised ALV (because she wouldn't have been born yet or something to that effect). I literally laughed out loud at how lame that was!

I tend to think Ms. Wilmott's line of questioning about Dr. DeMarte not having been around long enough to have supervised ALV was attempted snark in an effort to point out the vast difference in work experience duration. What Ms. Wilmott is not acknowledging is the fact that ALV may have decades of work experience, she came across as very arrogant, accusatory, and circular. ALV also lacked credibility because she couldn't be bothered, nor was she qualified to perform, actual testing for evaluations. While ALV says there are no guidelines for determining if a person is battered, Dr. DeMarte pointed out that ALV's heroine Lenore Whoever did in fact provide six basic guidelines to make that determination. Ms. Wilmott failed to realize that Dr. DeMarte very quietly pointed out the complete lack of objectivity and the overbearing bias of ALV. JMO - but Ms. Wilmott needs to drop the snark and possibly admit to herself that she is trying to cross examine an ethical professional woman who believes in her profession and not a biased old fashioned lady with an agenda.

I'm glad your husband was happy. After listening to ALV I was wondering if the simple facts that I am male and am breathing made me an abuser. I was happy as well to see a professional with ethics intact on the stand instead of what the DT put up there.

 

[carnnell]

One of the TH yesterday (can't remember who or what show) said something about the diagnosis sociopath or psychopath can not be testified to, but they didn't state the reason. Did you hear that?

I said it in one of posts because antisocial personality disorder with violent features was not brought out in the Defense Teams Case in Chief and/or it has been ruled as too prejudicial. The DT focused totally on the PTSD and Battered Woman Syndrome.

However, after sleeping on it (hahahaha) Dr DeMarte did describe antisocial characteristic when she talked about the top 3 clinical scales on the MMPI without naming the categories.

If I remember correctly, DrD mention, rage/anger, blaming shifting for causing her behavior, etc. This are indicators of antisocial traits at the min.

My :twocents:

 

[The Farm]

ALV could not hold a candle to Dr.Demarte's professionalism and knowledge. She knew what she was saying.

 

[Really?]

I'm just catching up with yesterday's testimony. I'm on part 3 with mr. Juanderful still.

What the he!! Is JA writing.....all throughout this Dr.'s testimony she is writing. Writing writing and lalalalala writing. Is it the manifesto still? What the he!! Could it be. I will not kill. I will not kill. Wtf. LOL

 

[The Farm]

I'm just catching up with yesterday's testimony. I'm on part 3 with mr. Juanderful still.

What the he!! Is JA writing.....all throughout this Dr.'s testimony she is writing. Writing writing and lalalalala writing. Is it the manifesto still? What the he!! Could it be. I will not kill. I will not kill. Wtf. LOL

Her hand must have been killing her but because she is psycho she did not feel it.
I actually saw Wilma's stretching her hand becayse of the writing she was doing and it was definately nothing like the crazed scribbling of JA.

 

[Dr. Know?]

I'm just catching up with yesterday's testimony. I'm on part 3 with mr. Juanderful still.

What the he!! Is JA writing.....all throughout this Dr.'s testimony she is writing. Writing writing and lalalalala writing. Is it the manifesto still? What the he!! Could it be. I will not kill. I will not kill. Wtf. LOL

It was that obvious she kept writing and writing for-EVER. She never looked at that fly on the wall. Of course, she'd never hurt it in a million years ever...

TG for stun belts.

 

[hookedontv]

Lurker here.

I gotta say, I think Dr. D stole the show today, even upstaging JM. Her mentioning pedophilia during cross was the highlight of the day. It left JW speechless and without a response. wow.

Dr.D: "...for example the pedophilic behavior."
JW: "Okaay. (7 sec pause) ..and later on in your career...well..i think just..i guess..."

 

[raisincharlie]

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.

Take a bow there Dr. Nick - you get it. :rocker:

Talking heads are just that, and they can't be bothered to watch the whole testimony or review the whole picture, just bits and pieces. Nor do they realize how petty and small they come across as, when their audience consists of people who actually watched the majority of the testimony. The best thing to do is watch the trial and turn off the talking heads, except for Beth Karras.