trial day 50: REBUTTAL; #153

[R.U.Kidding!]

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?

I would say the Defense has their puppets--Samuels and LV
--------------Prosecution has theirs -De Marte and anyone else on the prosecution witness list. They are there to Support evidence entered by the team they were hired by. Why else would they be there, right?:moo:


Let's face it they are NOT going to hire an EXPERT witness and pay them to support the opposite team. If you want to call them Puppets, so be it, but both sides have them.

 

[Truth Detector]

BPD + Mashugana = Throat Slasher. That is my diagnosis. :seeya:

[video=youtube;PDXEgBh0TF0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDXEgBh0TF0[/video]

 

[Mrs G Norris]

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

It depends on your screen size, the people on laptops etc suffer more than the ones on desktops, if you save the one I put up it should still be large but not blow margins, if it still does I'll send you a smaller file, I think I set it at around 780px wide ..

 

[atthelake]

Totally totally OT but there is a movie on Lifetime tonight called "Blue-Eyed Butcher" the story of Susan Wright from Houston.

She stabbed her husband almost 200 times and buried him in the backyard.

Her case had some similarities to the Jodi Arias case except she WAS physically abused.

:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

Starts at 8 o'clock on LMN ...the Lifetime movie network channel. Not the Lifetime channel. they are different in my area and my cable company. thanks for the heads up.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

 

[lil_buddy]

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?

Hey! I think I saw that the author of that book posted on JA's myspace...

ETA: He posted a comment a comment on her blog
http://jodiarias.blogspot.com/2008/04/if-you-ve-ever-spent-much-time-at-playg_30.html

 

[Paintr]

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 and Dr. S. The poster felt a certain way about Dr. D. - end of story.

If I offended anyone, I am truly sorry.

I was just wondering if the OP thought that all experts skewed the data depending on who was paying them. Did they trust other testimony and just not Dr DM. Or did they not trust any expert. It was a legitimate question requesting more information. To me the story wasn't over yet and I was curious. :seeya:

 

[Madeleine74]

Casey Anthony is why.

Casey Anthony is not hunting down anyone's child--she's busy hiding out in someone's (maybe Cheney Mason's?) basement. I have zero fear that Casey Anthony will target me or anyone I know for a crime. And, while she was acquitted and it was a crazy outcome, it was because proof of exactly what she did could not be determined by that jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

In this case you have a killer who admitted the killing, has been in jail going on 5 years, has failed to prove she killed in self-defense, was caught red-handed with a massive amount of evidence of her at the crime scene and a case in which proof of guilt is pretty much guaranteed. It doesn't get better than that! Jodi Arias hasn't killed anyone in 5 years and she'll never be a free woman. Thus shaking in one's shoes must be for entertainment and story-telling.

 

[DeAnnaMisrahi]

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.

Not to mention that, due to the fact that Dr. D is just starting to testify in criminal trials, she wouldn't want to be known for lying or misleading jurors right out of the gate. She probably needs at least 35 years of experience to do that.

i kid i kid. lol

 

[Bernina]

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.

Ok, you lost me.........as per: "In Part 1 of the PDS the respondents are asked to read through a list of traumatic events and to checkmark any event they have witnessed or experienced. This section of the instrument corresponds to criterion A of the DSM – IV for PTSD.

In Part 2 the subjects are asked which of the events they have checkmarked in part 1 that most bothers them, and to briefly describe the traumatic event. Item 15 in this part of the instrument ascertains the length of time that has passed since the event occurred. Items in this part of the instrument also corresponded to DSM-IV PTSD Criteria A where the subjects are asked to mark whether they or someone else were physically injured during the event, and whether they thought they or someone else’s life was in danger."

And then it continues "the event" down several more items. It goes from "General" events to "Specific" event. How does this make Demarte disingenuous?

 

[DeAnnaMisrahi]

: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:

It would have been very helpful in the CA trial to have juror questions. The prosecution could have seen what they were struggling with. Maybe more states need to do that.

 

[bznbear]

Thank you for that link! Very interesting!

Actually, it was PPkik who posted the link. Yes, very interesting!

 

[rose222]

I would say the Defense has their puppets--Samuels and LV
--------------Prosecution has theirs -De Marte and anyone else on the prosecution witness list. They are there to Support evidence entered by the team they were hired by. Why else would they be there, right?:moo:


Let's face it they are NOT going to hire an EXPERT witness and pay them to support the opposite team. If you want to call them Puppets, so be it, but both sides have them.

The jurors in this case don't need Samuels, ALV or even Demarte to see that there was no abuse, pedophilia and no PTSD. It's not complicated as it often is in the case when there is real abuse or trauma.

I don't believe that these experts' testimonies will hold much weight during deliberations. Deliberations will center around the pre-murder stuff, the actual killing, crime scene and autopsy photos.

 

[DebinGA]

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.

Re the "fog" and whether she was traumatized, I just learned something new - When Jodi reached NV, turned her phone back on, and called TA to leave her "Othello" message 6 hrs. after she'd butchered him, she stayed on the line for 16 min. listening to his phone messages, including her own:

[video=youtube;Il2iAxpacaw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il2iAxpacaw[/video]

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Found something interesting on BPD causes .. it's simple which suits me. http://www.bpddemystified.com/what-is-bpd/causes/

I wonder, if parents were working a LOT to maintain businesses when Jodi was very small if this couldn't have contributed to her BPD. It seems to focus around abandonment issues to a large degree.

Say you had a parental experience where you felt emotionally abandoned and you were in your mind loving and needing that person, then alternatively devaluing them so as not to feel the abandonment so strongly when they did, so you could say 'they're not so great anyway' and then feeling guilty about those thoughts and turning the anger on yourself leading to self harm, then reconnecting with the person only to feel abandoned again then restarting the cycle .. but I am probably oversimplifying a very complex situation...

 

[Juli]

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.

I agree with this. I also think DD's response was consistent with the questions asked. If a person is claiming PTSD and being treated for PTSD based on flashbacks of a tiger, rather than a bear, the trauma does matter.

The question was asked from the DT's point of view for clarification, imo. If one looks at this purely from the DT's viewpoint (Ninja vs Travis attacking), then would it matter if the Ninja or Travis attacked when it comes to PTSD? And DD answered correctly, imo, because...

If somebody claims a tiger was swimming in the water and then suddenly leaped out of the water to attack, and he/she now how PTSD because of flashbacks of water, stripes, whiskers, and leaping - that is different than say a bear that was hiding in a tree and quickly climbed down to attack and now he/she has PTSD because of flashbacks of a tree, climbing, a big snout and salmon breath. It's a totally different traumatic event.

 

[kaRN]

Quoting myself again, but I did not understand the purpose of the tiger/bear question. Someone please explain or point by brain scrambled head in the right direction. I think there is fog in my office.

thanks

The juror is confused. That's what it means and nothing more. Tigers, bears, ninja's or whatever else it was, JAs answers didn't meet the criteria for PTSD no matter who tested her. IMO the juror doesn't understand this but will be informed by his or her fellow jurors on deliberation.

 

[cricket49]

Starts at 8 o'clock on LMN ...the Lifetime movie network channel. Not the Lifetime channel. they are different in my area and my cable company. thanks for the heads up.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

"

Blue Eyed Butcher

Thanks for the clarification! :rocker:

I have it DVR'd to watch this weekend.

 

[Zuri]

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.

How did you think Jennifer Wilmott comported herself? I got the distinct impression that the volley of words and levels of snark were lobbed by Wilmott and returned in kind by Dr. DeMarte.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Hey! I think I saw that the author of that book posted on JA's myspace...

ETA: He posted a comment a comment on her blog
http://jodiarias.blogspot.com/2008/04/if-you-ve-ever-spent-much-time-at-playg_30.html

LOL!!!!!!!

Here's the report where he filed for bankruptcy http://www.news.com.au/business/you...s-for-bankruptcy/story-fn9evb64-1226494438698

 

[GoAskAllie]

Hey you're right that doesn't add up AT ALL! A $4000/month mortgage payment is on a loan for a LOT more than $375k! He's lying .. man there's something so weird going on with DB he gave out the creepiest vibe, but maybe that's because we had to look at just his hands, it was not good.

I don't know how different your percentage rates are now or were during 2007, but on a loan of say $375k @ 7.5% the repayments are around $$2,771.22 per month....

I don't know where the $4,000 figure is coming from, because Darryl Brewer told Nurmi that the mortgage payment was $1,700-$1,800 per month. Under cross, he conceded that by the time Jodi started to change, it was closer to $2,800. Another source indicated the mortgage payment was around $2,000 when they bought the house in May 2005. Not a stretch to see how a VRM could see the on monthly nut balloon upwards of $2,800.