trial day 48: REBUTTAL #147

[Lorelilly]

The only problem I'm having with DD is that she's not "quick on a comeback".
When Willmott was asking about her CV, she should have said a CV isn't a book. You don't put every single speech, class, case you've worked on....as some "other" witnesses did.
I've always followed the rule that a CV should be no longer than 2 pages, 3 tops.
It's a "brief" synopsis of your accomplishments, and in this case, tests/tools she's utilized in her experience so far. Just IMO.
I agreed with DD when she said she really didn't "use it" that much.
In my experience, most potential employers want to speak to you, as opposed to read your life history. In an interview you expound upon the brief highlights that are in the CV.
DD could have explained that point when Willmott was alluding to the fact that DD didn't feel these "other" courses, etc. she had taken weren't important enough to put in her CV. Also, when you get to a certain level and expertise, often "word of mouth" takes the place of a CV. DD probably had to make up one specifically for this purpose.
As far as the "compassion" part, I would have snuck in that she did NOT feel compassion for their client....so it was REALLY an unbiased assessment. Oh, and no books, cards, tender moments or APOLOGIES!!!



ETA: That's all "shoulda coulda woulda" now....IMO, the point has been made by JM. I'm probably not used to a straight yes or no answer. I'm thinking the other rebuttal points will bring it home for the prosecution....if it could get anymore "home".

None of us were. We were all wrapped in a fog with Samuels, ALV and the Eye Guy. Dr D makes so much sense we sat back, mouths hanging open and listened in awe. WE are back on track. Travis has gotten lost in the mix here. Justice is close, we can almost feel it.

 

[BMoody]

I'm sorry but this made me :floorlaugh:.

:giggle: I'm mature.

That ALV mouth movement is very similar to a signal from one gay lady to another saying this is what I want to do to your netherlands - no joke.

 

[Hopeful One]

During Dr D's testimony yesterday, JA spent the entire time with her face down copying material from one book to another. She appeared to never stop writing. I kept wondering what book that was she copied from. She completely disregarded Dr. D. It may have been at the advise of DT. It may have been her own craziness.

She came to full attention once JW started questioning DD. It was sooo obvious she was trying to ignore DD on direct and act like she wasn't listening, didn't care. Hi, Jodi!! We see through you!! Silly wabbit.

 

[JustJudy]

urgh i have to go out and pick up DS from nursery,how dare my life get in the way its pouring with rain which doesn't make it any better and my house is now surrounded by a moat.

we need a moat around the judge to make willmott stop approaching :floorlaugh:

For anyone who remembers the theme music from the Benny Hill Show, I imagine hearing that music while the DT jumps up & down, back & forth to the judge's podium.....lol

 

[askeptikalhippo]

OMG I can't believe I"m hearing this!

JW: "ALV got her masters in 1980. You probably weren't even born yet, so you wouldn't have been around to supervise her, correct?"

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[G&AMom]

My desktop will freeze sometimes when the hamster gets tired, so I have my laptop sitting on the desk all ready to go just in case. When not in use, I use the laptop to warm my pizza leftovers so I don't have to leave to get a snack. My sister wants to have me committed. :floorlaugh:

Your sister thinks you have a problem? Seriously? :waitasec:

My family members feel the same way. Honestly, I don't know what's wrong with them. Obviously, we're all fine.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

BBM
And yet, how does one explain ALv. The span of her experience in the field of DV is indisputable. All that experience and still the jury found her opinion to be unreasonable, preposterous and one dimensional: Travis bad man, Jodi battered girl with heart of gold. I dare anyone to tell me that is not what she said without using those exact words.

No jury will care about experience if the information is so slanted it feels like they have to land a triple backward summersault on a mental balance beam to believe it. Puh-leeze. When any opinion is that skewed all people see is a crusader, not an expert. Im my opinion, ALv expert testimony was so clouded in her personal evangelism it made the jury recoil.

I don't think that will happen with JD. Her presentation to the jury is to show how she reached her professional opinion, and further, that it can be tested and retested with nearly identical results.

She has a stellar CV for one as young as she is. There is nothing the DT can throw at her that will make one believe that she is not completely qualified to make her opinion based on her academic and evaluative background.

ALV'S experience is not valid and does not render her an expert as she presents it. She did not use approved methods, did not stay current with research in her field and basically was able to craft a world where her opinion was right because she said so. She's a self promoter and knows how to network. That's about it.

I weep for the men whose lives she has affected with her bias and hate. Hope they can get the court to look at their cases because there's no way they got a fair shake.

 

[DebinGA]

I'm closer to ALV's age than Dr.D's. That said, I would much rather my practitioner in a field such as psychology or psychiatry have been recently trained and current in their practice. When ALV graduated, homosexuality for example was a classified mental illness. I also think it's a better fit for JA that she be evaluated by a peer than a peer of her Grandparents.
Let's hope the jurors aren't ageist. Dr. D clearly did the most thorough and relevant assessment and in a fraction of the time it took the others to produce no report or pencil scrawls on lined paper. I don't care how old and experienced you claim to be, if you're incompetent all the gray hair in the world won't buy you professional respect.

If I were a juror, I'd find an experienced, older professional extra credible as long as they seemed wise and ethical. ALV and RS were neither imo.

 

[atthelake]

I agree. What worries me is there are many, many clinical psychologists and psychiartrists in the field of forensics as well as "regular" therapy. Why did the prosecution go with someon so inexperienced. Why did they not put up someone with a longer history in the field. I'm not saying she is wrong in anything she said or is not very capable but the expereince is not there. Could the jury conclude that the prosecution could not get an expereinced psych/psch to come to the same conclusion? I like the way she explained things and I can understand her being frustrated with the way JW poses Q's (She is just awful IMO, can't seem to string cohesive thoughts together) but I did think she is too inexpereinced. While I liked her straight forward approach she did come off a little too cold and clinical. Thay may work very well here. But I would never refer somone to her for therapy

Ummmm. ok. Yep.

She is not a therapist! We all agree on that. what does that have to do with his trial as she is an expert in evaluations?!

Is this post trying to convince or convey?

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[VALee]

morning friends! *slides up chair, smiling*

 

[Hopeful One]

I'm just now listening to the cross of Dr. D. Man JW does not come across smart at all.

JW: "So your education doesn't matter?"

JD: "Of course it matters."

JW: "Well you just said your experience matters."

Are you kidding JW? Both can't matter in your mind? :banghead:

Don't get me wrong, I don't like JW in any way. But yesterday, I truly felt sorry for her. It was painful to watch, she was embarrassing herself so badly.

 

[LindaFaye]

How much longer do you think the trail will last ?
I wonder how many more people they will bring in ?

 

[Amster]

Answers anyone?

Asked and answered numerous times.....by all accounts, she is done. Must have been resolved on Monday.

 

[kaki]

It is interesting to watch JW writing and writing and writing while the witness is being questioned by JM - and then to watch JM sit there paying attention while the DT is questioning the witness.

No last minute scramble for JM.

I always wondered if JW is actually taking notes or is it just a strategy to appear uninterested in what JM and the witness are doing.

 

[carnnell]

Very good explanation. And never the twain shall meet...in a court of law. Therein lies the reason most moral people see what happens in a courtroom as a travesty.

Not that I don't agree - especially when it comes to trashing a voiceless, dead victim who cannot speak for themselves.

But I guess it is just like separating church and state. Sorry if this sounds stupid.

Do not apologize!!! It isn't stupid. The brilliant men who wrote and argue their way to formulate the Constitution did not think it was stupid!!!

I will have to add this new depth Defense Attorneys to attempt to find ways to blame the victim without even a preponderance of evidence (LE even needs that much to get a warrant) is going way beyond the call of the Consitution!!! Legal or Moral. However, they justify this "stink" to create reasonable doubt.

I advocate legislation to put on the brakes of Defense Attorneys doing this w/o at least show evidence equal to Plus one not just self serving witness the defendant saying ti "so".

JMHO

 

[imawitch]

For anyone who remembers the theme music from the Benny Hill Show, I imagine hearing that music while the DT jumps up & down, back & forth to the judge's podium.....lol

I dont care if I show my age:seeya:
I used to love to watch the Benny Hill show lol

 

[elementary]

Just pointing out that 32 years old IS very, very young for a testifying "expert." Most experts are at least in their 40's and usually in their 50's and older. The idea being that one is not an expert until they've had quite a bit of practical experience and become established in their field. I didn't watch the testimony yesterday, so this isn't a commentary on how this witness did, at all. Just sayin'...I'm seeing posters get onto the defense for pointing out her age and lack of practical experience, but that IS what makes one an expert -- among other things. Any defense in any case would do this and it would be justified since experience is something the jury should definitely consider in evaluating an expert's testimony. Imo, particularly in a highly interactive and subjective field such as psych. All jmo.

Doesn't matter, IMO. What I've learned from watching trials is that credibility matters more than experience or lack thereof, whether that's fair or not.

 

[G&AMom]

Very good explanation. And never the twain shall meet...in a court of law. Therein lies the reason most moral people see what happens in a courtroom as a travesty.

Not that I don't agree - especially when it comes to trashing a voiceless, dead victim who cannot speak for themselves.

But I guess it is just like separating church and state. Sorry if this sounds stupid.

My husband the lawyer used to point out to me that the law doesn't care what is fair or what is right. The law only cares what the law says.

For example, if the law says you can't eat peanut butter on Tuesdays, you can't eat peanut butter on Tuesdays.

Very frustrating for most of us IMO.

 

[Hopeful One]

morning friends! *slides up chair, smiling*

:seeya:

 

[Lorelilly]

What is funny to me is that I don't see Dr. DeMarte as having lack of experience at all

. Just because she got her doctrine in 2009, she began research back in 2004, almost 10 years ago.

Wilmott is a joke. I just watched the end of yesterday this morning as I was getting ready for work. DeMarte might have had slight 'tude but I don't blame her. They are so desperate and attacking her credentials and experience is going nowhere for them. The defense team is on Jodi's level of immaturity. It was amusing to watch.

BBM AND JW kept saying, so you worked here for 2 months, was that 2 ENTIRE months etc. JW needs to figure out EXACTLY what Dr D is. Lord, she spent 25 minutes trying to figure out HOW Dr D got her Dr title, Fellowship title, Psychologist title etc etc. JW made herself look totally clueless. This was NOT lost on the jurors. The DT needs to get their act together.