trial day 50: REBUTTAL; #153

[Softail]

I don't think Baez is any better an attorney than either JW or KN. I'd even put him a notch or two below JW and maybe about even with KN. Baez only won that case because of the jury that was picked. :twocents:

:tyou: That is the ONLY reason he won!

 

[PPKik]

Sociopathy is in the DSM. It's called anti social personality disorder now. BPD is NOT sociopathy.

True that BPD is NOT sociopathy.

Sociopathy is just another and later word for psychopathy. Now many people have gone back to using psychopathy (which is good).

I thought that neither was in the later DSM's, and, "antisocial PD" was stuck in, instead. A huge mistake of academic bureaucrats, in my opinion, because there is the PCL-R. This is a rating scale for psychopathy, yet there is no distinct DSM category. It makes no sense to me. :seeya:

 

[kaRN]

Yes, but both would cause trauma. Maybe, I am missing something or I just don't understand.

Who lies about about the source of their trauma assuming they were ever traumatized?
Besides that, if you are sexually assaulted by a large hairy man you will experience different trauma than if you were trapped in a car after a lethal accident with your child dying in the back seat.
That's why the same questions on the test do not apply to all trauma. They are scored with consideration to the incident. In real life people take the test because they want help and then receive therapy. In JA's life, real trauma is secondary to creating a defense. If she had real trauma, she be seeing someone for it IMO. She is after all presumed innocent and has 2 lawyers and a mitigation specialist plus 2 experts who all seem to agree she didn't need 'help' in jail. Per JA to the jury, she has no mental health problems.

 

[MeeBee]

I like her generally but for the love of gawd, her angry little head bobbing in the bottom corner of the screen while she condescends to explain what's happening on the screen ("We are now at juror questions") or her opinion ("Who cares, when are we getting to the murder?") is just not necessary.

:truce: <--- We cry uncle. You win. You're right. You're great. Just shut. up.

Especially because I haven't seen these questions or answers yet!

 

[LinTX]

Lyings and tigers and bears....

Oh, my!

 

[chijojo]

Why, why, why doesn't anyone ever say there is a high probability that camera ended up in the washer by accident? I have a feeling she had several articles in her hands to throw in the washer, and the camera was scooped up with them. I've thrown food scraps in the trash, and later on found I had accidentally thrown away a fork or spoon. And I wasn't under a fight or flight situation.

Totally agree with you. I think it was put in there by accident. I read somewhere it looked like the bedroom was torn apart, like someone was trying to find something.

 

[writer7]

This is :twocents::moo:
I don't think the tiger/bear question was snark.
I don't think it indicated that the juror thinks JA suffers from PTSD.
I saw it as a test of Dr.JD's impartiality and I think she failed.
From what I saw of the PSD test, the questions about symptoms were independent of the cause of trauma.
The question as I heard it, specifically referenced the PDS test.
Therefore, the results of the test - sp. a dx of PTSD - should not differ if causes differ.

DrJD very clearly demonstrated how Jodi's behavior was/is NOT in accordance with someone who suffers from PTSD. I see this as incontrovertible, frankly.

Flame away.

Is disagreeing flaming? Cos I'm gonna disagree, but I'll do it with a big hug if you like

If I'm thinking of the same test, the main one Samuels gave, then there is a focus on the patient describing the incident. There is a numerical score, but the test seems best as almost a guide for an interview in my opinion. Surely the professional is supposed to consider the 'essay' portions of the test and take what the patient says as important to the Dx.

It makes no sense to try to decide whether trauma happened sufficient to cause PTSD if a patient lies about the incident causing PTSD. Folks have different stress/fear thresholds, so the diagnosis is based on the actual incidents and the patients' actual reactions to those incidents. Fictional incidents have no relevance to the Dx at all, imho. Except that they strongly indicate malingering!

It's hard to explain if you think about it like a math equation or similar. Because it deals with the human mind, what happened and what the patient thinks about that (and how their body reacts, etc) is crucial. PTSD is not a consistent entity otherwise. The same event will not cause PTSD in all people.

 

[FrayedKnot]

OMG! Not you too?

Weeeellllll.....*ducking rotten fruit*

I'm pretty sure Willmott/Nurmi won't get a not guilty for THEIR client.

I'm still galled and appalled that Baez pulled it off, but he did. And there ya go.

I'll, of course, eat my words should this DT get the same verdict. And brimstone and sulphur will fill my nostrils as Beelzebub claims his Earthly throne.

 

[MickyTwoShade]

BUT.. why does it matter if Jodi can or cannot remember what happened?
Maybe she planned to kill him all along and then couldn't handle the aftermath. Maybe she remembers every single detail.

I don't really care.
I don't care if she couldn't deal with what she had done.
I want to talk about whether she planned to brutally take a man's life or not.

The reason she "can't remember" is because the stabbing was so excessive. It doesn't fit into her self-defense case. So, instead we have a series of escalating incidents of abuse, her inability to shake Travis from her life, her shooting him (accidentally) and then 'blacking out' due to being abused previously. It's a veritable jenga tower, and every piece has its place.

So she needs the jury to believe she can't remember.

 

[ElleElle]

The only reason why I watched the CA trial was because of Baez. :blushing: and to get some truth and justice for Caylee of course.

I don't think Baez is any better an attorney than either JW or KN. I'd even put him a notch or two below JW and maybe about even with KN. Baez only won that case because of the jury that was picked. :twocents:

 

[LadyEdith]

At some point, didn't JA state that she had to kill Travis so she could move on, otherwise she wouldn't be able to get over him? I recall that having been a reason but do not remember if it was something she had written with the implication being this, or if she had said it.

MOO

She said it to Flores in interrogation she said "I had to move on" she was crying with her head on her knees. It sounds like she's about to confess then she back-pedals.

 

[DairyGirl]

I don't want to bag out Jeff Ashton, but watching Juan Martinez has made me see why the Casey case came back with a not guilty verdict, also Baez did a good job of shutting Casey down as far as communication went too. We didn't hear a peep from her after the first few conversations with her parents in jail.

I can't believe I am saying that, but there it is.

The smartest thing JB did was to manage to get KC to keep her mouth shut. No interviews proclaiming her innocence, no one heard anything from her after those jail visits with her parents. If she had gone on the stand she would have been convicted, like JA likely will because she made a bad decision to take the stand.

 

[MeeBee]

And she just caused me to miss Juan's one question to DM.

 

[Softail]

Gentle reminder:

Jean Casarez (or JC)

Jennifer Wilmott (or JW)

I do not know why we have so many "J" names in this trial, but one way or another, please remember that WS does not allow nicknames or name changes for case players.

:tyou:

I see you are out of context. :giggle: Hope you have a better time in veracity!

 

[camcneishg]

Oh I thought today was just great...jurors are paying attention. Can not wait to see who is next!!

 

[ChinaBlue]

There is a pro Jodi juror. I know it. And to be honest, he/she doesn't sound very bright. They ask silly questions that validate their non sense opinions (Jodi killed Travis because she saw no way out even though she lived 1000 miles away and could have chosen not to see him) and ignore logic. Maybe once Juan is done it will be even clearer that this was premeditated. Hopefully this juror is quickly swayed by the much more intelligent jurors or even better they are left out. And hopefully a really bright and strong willed juror does make it. Ugh, I hate this jury lottery system. But I'm scared now.

bbm

If this is true, just remember that up to this point, the jurors have not been able to discuss the case among themselves. Once deliberations begin, they all have the chance to say what and why it is that they are feeling and should this juror not be "very bright" it shouldn't take much to change his opinion.

Not all the jurors were in agreement when deliberations began in the Scott Peterson case.

 

[hindsight2020]

Agreed. trauma is trauma. But the juror question seems to indicate at least one juror is thinking the same thing. Trauma is trauma, so why did Dr. S find she had PTSD and you (Dr. D) didn't? Are you saying she could not have or did not experience trauma then?

to which Dr. D answered - correct, trauma is trauma and both a tiger and a bear attack (murder gone awry and DV/self defense could induce trauma and maybe even PTSD. BUT

IF the patient lies about the traumatic event, then the things (nightmares, triggers, etc) are not going to be the same. And JA not only did not avoid triggers for either of those scenarios for her to properly be diagnosed with PTSD because JA sought out chances to be "triggered" by going to memorial, associating and communicating with his family and friends after the murder, writing about TA in her journal post murder, etc etc etc.

She actively sought those things which should be triggers out.

No one suffering PTSD is going to willingly seek out things relating to TA like JA did whether she murdered him or killed him in self defense.

In other words PTSD is not believable to Dr. D no matter what the cause, tigers or bears, lies or truths because of JA's actions afterwards.

Thanks for this explanation, this Psychology stuff can be confusing.

 

[AstroKitty]

I'm also convinced she has a blog somewhere and her journals were a rouse. It just doesn't add up to me that she would keep hand written diaries in this tech age when she had a myspace, facebook and a blogger. I find it bizarro that she doesn't have some online type life that filled her voids.

Something about the journals are just way off. If you notice, they are written 2 different ways (she switched hands) - which indicates deception and change in thought process.

this is so premeditated that I cant believe this is her first murder. Yes she's sloppy but she's that arrogant. She doesn't care. But she put thought into this and kept her composure. I know she doesn't *feel* anything but there's more to it.

 

[Hatfield]

Just a little thought and something that bothered me....

When court was done today and the camera lingered and was on Jodi talking to the LA, just the two of them, we (someone has mentioned this) see 2 unkempt teenie bopper looking people just standing in the gallery all by themselves smiling at Jodi. They just keep standing there obviously trying to get her attention. Obviously, they were fans and were trying to get her recognition and now they can go tell everyone on FB and twitter "LIKE OMG JODAAAAY SMILED AT ME!!!!"

Jodi did acknowledge them with a smile.........and goes back to the jail with a big head that she has groupies.

I know she has some [delusional] groupies out there and she knows it because im sure her BFF Donovan tells her how LOOOOOOOOOOOOVED she.... but seeing LIVE in ACTION reeeealllly got under my skin. It was disgusting.

************
another thought and im wondering if someone can confirm this to me....

I missed some of the live feed due to work and did the ol' 30min rewind. The spot it picked up at, I see Jodi facing the jury section and JW facing Jodi and I swear it looked like JW touched Jodi's hair. Did anyone else see this? I may have to find it on a vid and take a screen shot....

I saw that. I was wondering who in the heck those 2 people were. It was really strange. AZ link kept the camera on for quite awhile after jury left when it happened. I am not sure who they were.

For the hair question, it looks like a pencil was stuck in her hair maybe.
ETA ...Maybe Jodi was trying to steal a pencil by hiding it in her hair and JW caught it by accident LOL

 

[ElleElle]

Yes, same story, different players = LIES.

Lyings and tigers and bears....