trial day 50: REBUTTAL; #153

[lil_buddy]

Please pass the dunce cap to me today because I do not understand the bear/tiger question.

Here is the ACTUAL question:

Hypothetically, if a person suffered PTSD because of a bear attack while hiking would you throw out their PDS test if they lied and said it was a tiger?

Now here is a copy of the exam
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...gB97RotPH51AKbB2g&sig2=78JL6clOX-c2hMGKbqTXuw

and some info about the exam and how it is scored:
http://www.clintools.com/victims/resources/assessment/ptsd/pds.html

It seems to me that the scoring is independent of the cause of trauma on the PSD exam - and DrJDM's answer was disingenuous.

But the following questions ask that you refer back to the moment of trauma?

I think you refer to the incident "in your mind" - like you think of it while answering the questions.

It is stated up front (look in the info link I posted) this test is not set up to detect malingering. It was not appropriate for Samuels to administer this test in the first place.

If it were a case of true self-defense vesus the Ninja attacking a friend story then I agree that a trauma is a trauma. The PTSD would be more intense for a self-defense case. The test shouldn't be thrown out.

If comparing a self-defense case versus a murder then the traumas are different. In the murder the person committing the crime may not feel fear, anxiety etc. so the test would be invalid in this scenario.

I loved Demarte and she did a good job of explaining why JA did not suffer from PTSD but she could have done a better job explaining hypotheticals.

I think you r are taking my quote out of context so I have quoted the full thread above.

I was specifically addressing the PDS test. It appears that the scoring of the PDS is independent of what the test taker says caused the trauma.

Clearly, manifestation of specific PTSD symptoms are going to be dependent on cause of trauma.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I don't know about that whole troll thing, I have a different definition of it.

I am still confused about what made Dr. DeMarte a puppet, though. Is it just because her testimony supports the prosecution?

Hi, I'm not a margin person .. but your siggy pic is blowing them so I resaved it for web at a smaller width.... hope it works cos it's awesome...

 

[meanddblj]

I do not see Dr. D as disingenuous at all. Her point was the TRIGGERS from trauma RELATE to the ACTUAL trauma so if the trauma is an untrue event in anyway then the (POST) PTSD will be entirely different. SO for example A STRANGER attacks me I would avoid situations that put in contact with STRANGERS and certain symptoms would happen when I came in contact w/ strangers ~ reliving the terror that occurred when the stranger attacked me will depend on the actual event that caused the original trauma. Conversely, if I am attacked by a boyfriend then my avoidance would be all the things that reminded me of that relationship and the attack. So the triggers and avoidance would be BASED on the ORIGINAL trauma that caused the PTSD = my boyfriend and relationship. Saying trauma is trauma is like saying rape and war killings are the same......the things that would trigger symptoms and the things I would avoid or freak out about would be very different for each type of trauma. However if there was a gun used in the rape attack and the war killing maybe a fear or avoidance of guns would be the same in each instance but other things would be different. As Dr. D stated regarding tiger/bear both attacks would be very different even though there MAY be similarities much of what they are looking for to diagnose PTSD would be different. If you say it was a tiger (lying) and I bring a tiger around you then your response/reactions indications of PTSD are NOT going to be the same fear/avoidance/symptoms that would present if I brought a bear (truth) around you. So YES the test would show differently.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

It's all about location, location, location when it comes to housing prices in the US. I've lived in Boston, NYC, Los Angeles and Washington D.C. -- all places where housing prices are steep. Many foreigners own property in the US. Cash is king.

Lots cheaper than ours by a long shot after looking around for a moment .. still at the end of the day its a percentages game. I'm not surprised foreigners own property in the states!

 

[Schuby]

Hi, I'm not a margin person .. but your siggy pic is blowing them so I resaved it for web at a smaller width.... hope it works cos it's awesome...

Thank you Mrs. G! And, yes, it is awesome.

 

[kaRN]

I think I may be on the verge of getting sent to time out. The poster did not say anything about ALV or Dr.S when the comment was made about Dr. D being a puppet. So why ask the poster to compare ALV to Dr. S. The poster felt a certain way about Dr. D. - end of story.

If I offended anyone, I am truly sorry.

I'm offended. Not by you though. I'm offended when people don't qualify their opinions which those calling Dr.D a puppet have done. The fact the poster(s) made no comment about the other 2 experts hired on to cover the same issue is highly suspect. Maybe they're threatened by the Drs youth or her confidence on the stand or by something else, but to make a statement that the only MH witness who actually followed clinical protocol in arriving at her diagnosis is a puppet and expect not be questioned or called out, is trolling..

 

[Little Mel in ATL]

That's my point. I consider myself to be fairly intelligent (not as smart as Einstein, however), and I did not care for Dr. D or the way she handled herself. In my opinion, she came across very cold and also biased. After being hired by the prosecution, there is no way she would have came up with any other opinion and she was very obvious and showed her disgust for JA in her mannerisms and the way she answered the questions. I understand her disgust, I just don't think she should have showed it because I think it made her seem as equally biased as the DT experts. Just like statistics, all data can be used to prove points that are total opposite, depending on how it is interpreted.

I think that opinions like mine are important and should not be labeled as a troll because it could be very likely a juror feels the same way.

:seeya: goldenlover! As much as I hate the thought of a single juror sharing your opinion of Dr. DM, you're right in your assertion that this could very well be the case.

I can't speak for everyone on this forum, but I know I don't want to be blindsided by the jury's ultimate verdict the way I was with the CA verdict. So it's important that we hear all the different ways each witness and his/her testimony could be interpreted. And we need to keep in mind that not ALL the jurors have been submitting questions, so we can't possibly assume that the majority think/feel one way or the other, just based on the questions that have been asked. I wish all the jurors could see the facts of this case as clearly as I do, but I can't assume that they do.

In summary: I hope you'll continue to share your opposing opinions here, and I hope we'll be more open to considering other trains of thought going forward. :moo: :twocents:

 

[DebinGA]

The home was purchased before the bottom fell out of the market and a lot of people got into homes with little or no money down and mortgages they really didn't understand. IIRC, both Darryl and Jodi testified they were hit with a huge increase in their monthly mortgage payment after a year or so and quickly got under water. Darryl also said that Jodi didn't contribute to the household expenses once she got involved with Prepaid Legal, Travis and the fast train to Mormonism.

If TOS allow I can post a pic of the house. It's 1374 sq ft. inside, and the front isn't impressive, but maybe the view out back is awesome. Jodi and Darryl intended to flip it, i.e. make some improvements and sell it for more than the $357,000 they bought it for? That kind of money sense explains why Jodi ended up penniless and living in her Grandma's tiny spare room.

 

[Kensie]

I feel like I have made too many enemies today. If I offended anyone, please do not take it personally because it was not meant to be personal.

I think I need to take by scrambled brain and fognesia and exit the bulilding.

Hope everyone has a nice weekend.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I do not see Dr. D as disingenuous at all. Her point was the TRIGGERS from trauma RELATE to the ACTUAL trauma so if the trauma is an untrue event in anyway then the (POST) PTSD will be entirely different. SO for example A STRANGER attacks me I would avoid situations that put in contact with STRANGERS and certain symptoms would happen when I came in contact w/ strangers ~ reliving the terror that occurred when the stranger attacked me will depend on the actual event that caused the original trauma. Conversely, if I am attacked by a boyfriend then my avoidance would be all the things that reminded me of that relationship and the attack. So the triggers and avoidance would be BASED on the ORIGINAL trauma that caused the PTSD = my boyfriend and relationship. Saying trauma is trauma is like saying rape and war killings are the same......the things that would trigger symptoms and the things I would avoid or freak out about would be very different for each type of trauma. However if there was a gun used in the rape attack and the war killing maybe a fear or avoidance of guns would be the same in each instance but other things would be different. As Dr. D stated regarding tiger/bear both attacks would be very different even though there MAY be similarities much of what they are looking for to diagnose PTSD would be different. If you say it was a tiger (lying) and I bring a tiger around you then you response/reactions indications of PTSD are NOT going to be the same fear/avoidance/symptoms that would present if I brought a bear (truth) around you. So YES the test would show differently.

Exactly right ... I only have a very limited experience, which is definitely a GOOD THING, but had an experience that involved a gun once, and was jumpy about things like car doors slamming etc afterwards .. trigger being the sound. DrD explained it beautifully .. because before she spoke on it it was not clear as to why the PTSD would not be more general and could be a result of either the LIE or the real trauma of killing Travis. If of course you go with the idea that she WAS traumatised by it. Which I guess she wasn't.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Here is the ACTUAL question:

Hypothetically, if a person suffered PTSD because of a bear attack while hiking would you throw out their PDS test if they lied and said it was a tiger?

Now here is a copy of the exam
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...gB97RotPH51AKbB2g&sig2=78JL6clOX-c2hMGKbqTXuw

and some info about the exam and how it is scored:
http://www.clintools.com/victims/resources/assessment/ptsd/pds.html

It seems to me that the scoring is independent of the cause of trauma on the PSD exam - and DrJDM's answer was disingenuous.

Sorry, but I'll take her word for it on how to analyze a psychological test. She appears to know what she's doing and has no agenda other than imparting what she knows. And it does make sense that that lie on the test could affect the rest of the answers, especially since it's how you feel about the event you lied about. A persons answers could be compromised even if they weren't consciously aware of it.

 

[Schuby]

I can agree that Dr.D was biased, Having a bias doesn't mean you can't examin a specific point of fact objectively. For example, I have a bias against Jodi, however, I do not believe she is responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing.

It is hard for me to call someone a puppet when her testimony MAKES SENSE.

 

[DeAnnaMisrahi]

Hi, I'm not a margin person .. but your siggy pic is blowing them so I resaved it for web at a smaller width.... hope it works cos it's awesome...

I will try to make it smaller. Sorry! I still don't know what blown margins means, but it sounds painful. lol.

 

[josie1986]

That's my point. I consider myself to be fairly intelligent (not as smart as Einstein, however), and I did not care for Dr. D or the way she handled herself. In my opinion, she came across very cold and also biased. After being hired by the prosecution, there is no way she would have came up with any other opinion and she was very obvious and showed her disgust for JA in her mannerisms and the way she answered the questions. I understand her disgust, I just don't think she should have showed it because I think it made her seem as equally biased as the DT experts. Just like statistics, all data can be used to prove points that are total opposite, depending on how it is interpreted.

I think that opinions like mine are important and should not be labeled as a troll because it could be very likely a juror feels the same way.

i never called you a troll btw,i didn't reference anything you had posted as that.

 

[meanddblj]

No disrespect meant but for those of you who think Dr. D was a puppet, what is your opinion of ALV or Dr. Samuels? Do you trust the DTs witnesses more than Dr.D?

 

[Schuby]

Note the key variable is testimony that makes sense. Dr. S and ALV were biased and delivered testimony that did not MAKE SENSE. In their cases it appears their bias dictated their testimony.

 

[rose222]

I feel like I have made too many enemies today. If I offended anyone, please do not take it personally because it was not meant to be personal.

I think I need to take by scrambled brain and fognesia and exit the bulilding.

Hope everyone has a nice weekend.

The only enemy we have is that thing sitting in jail for having murdered Travis Alexander. No enemies here on Websleuths. Most of us are here to see Justice for Alexander. Let's all stick together. We're almost at the end!

 

[Mrs G Norris]

If TOS allow I can post a pic of the house. It's 1374 sq ft. inside, and the front isn't impressive, but maybe the view out back is awesome. Jodi and Darryl intended to flip it, i.e. make some improvements and sell it for more than the $357,000 they bought it for? That kind of money sense explains why Jodi ended up penniless and living in her Grandma's tiny spare room.

Her and Darryl not too smart, in order to flip you buy at times when market has crashed then resell during boom, you know, like doing the OPPOSITE of what most people are doing! Like the person who say sold it to them, then re-buying it from bank at the bargain basement price a few years later and then sitting on it until the next boom. I know a lot of people thought this would happen at the time, I remember the crazy buying frenzy that went on here WHEN PRICES WERE AT THE TOP OF THE MARKET all those people are stuck with high mortgages too on houses they wont be able to sell for years.

I blame that book 'Rich Dad, Poor Dad' for a lot of it, and he went broke himself didn't he?

 

[aa9511]

Hi, this is the first time I've posted even though I've been lurking on here for a while. So hopefully I'm doing it right!
I just wanna say that after the juror questions yesterday, I am really starting to feel worried about one juror...this has been with me for some time because in the juror questions for every witness, there has always been at least one question that is, sorry to say, illogical and like someone wants to believe Jodi could have never done this or done on purpose.
Let me say that I started watching this trial when Jodi took the stand...before that I actually knew VERY little about it, so I feel like I was very unbiased in the beginning, much like the jurors. I actually BELIEVED Jodi during Nurmi's questioning! I had NO IDEA what the real story was, and that she was just acting and lying her way through it. So I feel like I came into this, as I said, with a blank slate like the jurors.
THAT ALL CHANGED once Juan took over. I completely did a 180, I began to see her manipulation, her lies, her act. I had caught onto her...from then on I became "biased" and feel like now I am VERY biased against her...I feel like every single word out of her mouth is a lie. So I keep thinking, since I was much like the jurors in my lack of information, they MUST be seeing what I saw!
I went back and started watching more testimony from the beginning of the trial that I had missed. One was the blood pattern expert...what got me VERY worried was the juror question about COULD THE PALMPRINT of Jodi have been left on the wall from some previous time? This, to me, was a question that was so out there...does that mean that the person is even doubting that JODI COMMITTED THE CRIME??? To me, this sounds like someone doesn't even want to believe she was even there or that she did it!! As I said I was not following the trial at the time, so I'm sure this was discussed on this forum at the time, but I missed all of that. But that really stuck with me. Then Juan went back and had the blood pattern expert EXPLAIN that it was Jodi's blood MIXED with Travis' blood...but WHY would someone need verification that it was HER palmprint????
Then there were also a handful of questions since then....like, could the camera have been moved by Travis because he picked it up after Jodi dropped it and was checking it while she was running away? DOES THIS QUESTION NOT WORRY OTHERS? It's like someone is just reaching for things to support what they ALREADY believe. This question goes against what really happened and EVEN WHAT JODI CLAIMS, because that would have given her enough time to run away!
Also the question that could Jodi have stabbed him after the gunshot due to the rage she felt inside from his previous abuse (or something like that, maybe it was could the overkill been because of her rage from the abuse?). This shows to me a, they believe Jodi's story that she shot him first, AND they believe he abused her. Other question was, could the overkill be because she was pouring out all her emotions at the time...I don't know if that was part of the last question or not. Then yesterday, what bothered me more than the tiger/bear question (which I can't tell which way it goes), were the CAMERA questions...it's as if someone wants to believe Jodi's story and feel like she put the camera in the washer because she was so frazzled by what had just happened, not as part of her PLANNING. To me, whether or not the camera was in the washer doesn't even matter...the fact that she DELETED the pics is what matters. So is one juror not willing to believe that deleting the pics show planning and ORGANIZATION? To me, Jodi didn't know that they could retrieve the pics...just like the rest of us, I had no idea...I thought if someone deleted pics that means they were removed from the memory card. Jodi claims to have more knowledge of cameras, but I DO NOT believe she knew anything more than the rest of us. So the fact of whether it was in the washer or not doesn't matter, but yet there were two or three questions about this and whether or not it indicates planning, which it CLEARLY does.
Okayyy...sorry this is so long. I just had to get this out there because now I'm really worried, I have been watching the trial daily and I don't know what I would do if it ends up in a hung jury or even life in prison, she deserves the death penalty. I'm worried about this one juror.

 

[AstroKitty]

PTSD (let me break it down), I have it. Essentially mine is centered around nightfall, open spaces (where I can't see all the exits), and thunderstorms. Any loud noise sets me off. I have immense panic and tremble, my stomach feels like it falls out of my arse. Jodi has shown NO signs. When she was in interrogation she had triggers. Alone with a man in control, things like that. The first thing that struck me was how confined she was and how fine she was with that. She was not unnerved even. She's been in jail for years and seems.. fine. I think she excels in chaos and so anxiety is not something she feels unless things are "easy".

I just keep going back to the interrogations and her behavior, lust and desire to go to his house, talk to his family and see the photos. She gets elation in her voice, something she didn't notice it seems. She has the mentality of a serial killer.