elementary
No More Excuses
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,077
- Reaction score
- 1
The Defense Experts HAVE examined the Defendant, but are basing their expert opinions solely on statements that the Defendant made to them (no research into her background, mental health history or diagnosis of any condition).
http://www.wftv.com/video/27525949/index.html
Kathi is incorrect in this video report when she says the Defense experts have NOT examined the Defendant...they HAVE examined her.
Kathi is confusing Ashton's statements in the Motion in Limine with the Motion for Examination by Mental Health Expert (which was filed first)
- 04/12/2011 Motion In Limine as to Testimony of Mental Health Experts
http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/casey-mental-health-0412.pdf
4. The reports indicate that the opinions of the experts are based entirely upon statements made to them by the Defendant. .[implied - when they examined her]
- 04/08/2011 Motion for Examination by Mental Health Expert
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/75720807/20110408-SA-Motion-for-Exam-by-Mental-Health-Expert
2. "The reports of those experts, and their partial depositions, reveal that their opinions will be based upon their examination of the Defendant.
This connotation of 'examination' confuses me. Did they do a Mental Status, MMPI, a bunch of objective tests? Or did they ask a bunch of questions that are not standardised, and therefore become suspect as to their objectivity (could be leading question, for example).
From the sounds of it, they asked the perp a bunch of questions or had a conversation with her, and then, just like any amateur armchair psychologist, took the statements and wove a story about the meaning of her behaviour. This would also fit in with the idea that PTSD explains her behaviour. If PTSD, for example, informed the direction of their questions, then this obvious bias is wrong on so many counts. Moreover, divorced from a complete history and testing, it's purely fiction. And to make this fiction acceptable, they will call it a 'hypothetical". The fact that any mental health professional would lend credence to this sort of chicanery just blows my mind, it's so appalling.
PS At this point I'm running with the PTSD defence.