site
stats
Menu

Jodi Arias Trial – Day 49 (afternoon session)

in Latest News by

.

CLICK HERE FOR DAY 49 VIDEO RECORDING

Jennifer Willmott is certainly doing an awesome job today. It”s a veritable cross examination Master Class for sure.

Janeen DeMarte - Jennifer Willmott - Cross Examination Master Class 4-17

Leave your comments below on the afternoon session of trial day 49…

SJ
Team Jodi

If you would like to help Jodi directly by way of a financial donation via check or PayPalclick here (or click the Team Jodi link below) for further details.

981 Comments

  1. Want to make sure the afternoon posters see this:
    The forward to the Alyce’s book It Could Happen to Anyone : why battered women stay / Ola W. Barnett, Alyce D. LaViolette ; foreword by Lenore E.A. Walker. Someone tell JENNY! Lenore Walker is the DV expert whose articles Janeen Kardashian refers to!! Oh My God: The forward to the Alyce’s book It could happen to anyone : why battered women stay / Ola W. Barnett, Alyce D. LaViolette ; foreword by Lenore E.A. Walker. Someone tell JENNY! Lenore Walker is the DV expert whose articles Janeen Kardashian refers to!! Right??
    Found it here: http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/7225366?selectedversion=NBD9985985

    • Didn’t JW ask the Piled High and Deeper Person on the stand this morning if she was aware of Ola Barnett and who she is. Missed most of morning session but read something about copy right being given to Prosecutor. What was that all about?

    • Very good CanadaLinda! I also found something I had posted on the morning session here on Lenore Walker. From reading when she started her practice it stands to reason that her and ALV know each other well. It is too bad that Dr. Demarte did not research this LOL

    • Michael Keifer tweeted that the baliff came out and said they are in recess until at least 2:30 MST/PDT and Jodi Arias is back in judge’s chambers again.

    • I am almost certain Lenore Walker’s Foreward was mentioned in court by ALV herself in the first day or so of her direct testimony, either because she was quoting Walker (and subsequently felt she should mention Walker’s contribution to her own book for ethical/disclosure reasons) and/or because Willmott brought up the subject of ALV’s associates. So their (ALV & LW) working relationship was highlighted. There is no way around the fact that ALV is tops in her field.

      One thing that disturbed me about Dr. Demartes was the fact that when she had to answer Willmott’s absolutely routine questions about her CV and background in general, she seemed a bit indignant and obviously impatient. Did she not realize that each side has its own line of questioning and that a trial is repetitive and therefore tedious? On a different note, but with respect to mental stamina, Didn’t Dr. Samuels say that he had to change course in evaluating Jodi before he made the determination that she had PTSD? He said that he tested her one way, then decided he had to change course and use different methods/tests because he realized that he hadn’t been on the right track.

      Professionals must be, by definition, methodical and patient, even a bit docile in applying their methods; willing to sacrifice time for integrity, whatever the field. That all amounts to one thing: Being careful. It is clear to me that Dr. Samuels has made and will continue to make that kind of sacrifice in his work. JMHO.

      • that is because she was a student until two years ago. and never held a job more than three months that was with patients. which means she isnt good at what she does.

      • I also want to say that I was annoyed by Dr. Demartes’s method (or, rather, a deficit of same) in evaluating whether Jodi met the “easily startled” criteria for PTSD.

        She said that Jodi did not react to doors slamming while she was interviewing her. A door slamming would not cause undue startle if it were an established recurring stimulus. A noisy location, once familiarized, is no longer startling. Eventually, even a person with PTSD would get used to it, at least to the extent of not showing outward startle even if the noise still caused anxiety. What would meet that criteria would likely be an UNaccustomed but rather INnocuous noise causing a startle response OUT of proportion to the noise, a sudden noise with which one was psycho-acoustically UNfamiliar.

        Dr. Demartes did not say whether or not the door slams could be observed by Jodi. If Jodi could see the door(s) opening and therefore saw the closing, it would not be likely to cause an out-sized startle if the door looked thick and heavy to begin with, EVEN if she had not been at that location before. If they were facing each other through a glass partition (in the same fashion that ALV had interviewed Jodi) the two women would be looking towards opposite sides of the room.

        A distinct possibility here is that the Dr. was more startled than was Jodi by the door slams because 1) she was less familiar with the location and its ambient noise level 2) the doors that slammed were not visible to the Dr. If that were the case, then she might wonder why it was that she herself was a bit startled while Jodi was not. To observe that Jodi does not over-react to repeated noise in a familiar environment is hardly cause for an “Ah ha!” diagnostic moment.

        I would venture to say that even a person with PTSD could become inured to the sound of metal hitting metal (jailhouse doors) even if it were with some degree of force – if the sound were far enough way from that person’s ear and it occurred with regularity. A combat veteran might startle at the sound of a car back-firing or at any sudden noise, even a small one. But that same vet might not startle easily while visiting a firing range provided everyone is following protocol.

        (Jodi said that she had trouble sleeping at the jail because of the noise even though she had previously been a sound sleeper. Did Demartes ignore this?)

        These questions amount to the Dr. not explaining her criteria very well, if in fact she is correct that Jodi does not meet that particular criteria for PTSD. But since Jodi’s life is at stake, she should be testifying with as much clarity as humanly possible.

        These diagnostical vagaries – and in particular, subjective, “one-time” observations in an uncontrolled environment – do the profession of psychology no good. The field should “first do no harm”, as is required of the medical profession, yet the field’s labels and typologies can easily be manipulated and mis-used for a variety of questionable purposes, the most offensive being The Use of the Death Penalty.

        Speaking of typologies, wasn’t Dr. Samuels a Doctor of Physiological Psychology? If his diagnosis is to be disagreed with, shouldn’t the opposing opinion be testified to by another psychologist with the same type of credential?

        It would be more than appropriate in this case if the law enforcement/forensic investigators were being held to as high a standard as the evaluating psychologists.

        Thanks for listening.

        • Samuels mentioned Jodi was on some anti-anxiety meds & I believe is still taking them (how could she not be freaking out otherwise?), that may have started before the interviews with JD.

        • Obviously the baby doc has never been inside a real jail. Everything is concrete and sounds echo worse than in any regular room. Once you have spent 3 years in jail (if I am right that baby doc did her interview in 2011) then you are immune to something as quiet as a regular door closing. You learn to sleep through anything and no sounds bother you after a while. Most jails do not even turn the lights off at night for inmates to sleep for safety reasons. So it is always bright and loud. This doc needs to think before she opens her mouth….or don’t, better for Jodi.

    • They claim they are not…but who knows? I like to have faith that they will respect the justice system and remember and adhere to the admonition. Some of the juror questions to ALV may have indicated that someone was on the same track as the media…but again, who knows?

      • That’s why I have been working hard at “Jodi Arias Wiki” search results.

        It’s a likely thing any journalist will do on looking at the case.

        The current wiki (effectively frozen) looks weird, and has inconsistencies.

        My wiki is just a few search results below, and looks pretty relevant.

        Well, that’s my plan!

        Please keep doing this search once a day and click on the link, that will help keep my article up there.

        Note: on search engines other than google, my site is even more prominent.

    • I don’t buy that they’re ALL abstaining from media. The temptation would just be too great for a non-sequestered jury. Plus they could be hearing things from friends and family members.

    • Paula they are definitely talking about the case and watching news about the case, the judge is a joke if she believes otherwise!

    • There is about 20 reasons why this case will be overturned, if Jodi is convicted.

      1. Non sequestration of Jury in high profile death penalty case.

      2. Juror # 5 poisoning the jury pool.

      3. Juror @ 5 being allowed to sit in the gallery after she was dismissed by the judge.

      4. Alexander family members wearing big ribbons while sitting in close view of the jury.

      5. Judge not asking the Alexander family members to leave the courtroom, if they cannot control their emotion during testimony. in front of the jury.

      I could go on & on. This judge is in way over her head. She should have declared a Miss-trial along time ago.

    • of course they are listening to it all. juror 5 said if the judge knew what she knew they would have a miss trial…….. of course they do and why not i call them the wandering jury. wanding around the courtroom and outdoors what tv HLN at night get real.

  2. I have really enjoyed reading all your post. trying to stomach HLN . I have to admit I learn more from your post hln.

  3. Ms. Demarte is using Drew Pimp-sky’s playbook. Pretend you are an authority but keep running to Google to prop up the appearance of knowing.

    And, pray you never get questioned by Jennifer Willmott, a fraud’s worst nightmare.

    • Did anyone notice when the judge announced court was over for today, a short time later JM went up to the judges stand and Stevens said something to him and they both were laughing, I am glad the court camera caught it!!!!

  4. My thoughts too ColdCase53………..I think this young one is like Katie Wick
    an wanting to be in the limelight with the Dr. Drew phony Dr. that pretends
    he knows what the hell he is talking about an it is all on JOKE NEWS CH
    hln a Entertainment Channel for the sheep that enjoy Jokes an laughter
    even if it is at the stake of someone on trial for their life. Disgusts me.

    • Oh, god. I cannot stomach Katie Wick. She has a republican blog, and it’s sickening. Anyway, Katie Wick looks like a budget Kristen Chenoweth. I actually wrote a message for Katie on her blog, begging her to blend her fucking eyeshadow. She never replied to my comment, but she did delete it. Also, her eyeshadow remains a horror.

  5. I am unsure why you would want to subject yourself to such hatred, but if you must… go to the state v jodi arias Justice 4 Travis on FB, or Juans support page on FB

    • We had a couple on this mornings postings!!! They think we’re stupid and can’t tell they’re from “over-there” I mean…in the evenings it may be hard to tell because we’ve been drinking……..but they’ll be found out eventually ;>)))))

      • I have been watching this site for some time now, get teased by my family for being so interested in her innocence so have been afraid to post here but I completely understand how no one ever knew what Travis did, I found a site that called this site dumb and I found that site just awful and ugly. This site is not, you all seem intelligent and caring of each other. This is a bit of my story and I hope Jodi makes it out of hers alive as I did:

        I was abused for years by a charmer like Travis and no one knew about it. He hit in places that could be covered, he called me viles names in places where he could not be heard. No one believed he could be an abuser when the truth finally came out. My brother believed me and moved by me to just be near, I had three children with him, he and his family were wealthy, I and mine were not so I stayed, knowing he could take my children away if I left him. One day his jealous rage took control again and he chased me around the house, got me on the ground and choked me, much like Travis did to Jodi, then I tried to get away as he kicked me and kicked me as I crawled across the floor to try and get into bathroom, he got me again in there and when blood started coming out of my ears, he got scared and stopped so I screamed and screamed. My brother heard but didnt come in, instead he called the police to stop this madmess, yet even caught red handed, his family didnt believe me, until he moved in with them – so, I understand how no one knew the real person this Travis was and from the ugly filthy names he called her, I know he was just like my ex. If she had gone down there to kill him she would have done so when she got there, not after hours of sex, please people?

        • I just saw your post this morning, “theyhidetheyhurt.” Rest assured you are safe here and there are many of us like you. I am so sorry that you had to endure the pain and trauma you must have went through and I am happy you are here, today, to tell us about it. Thank God for your brother and your perseverance. Peace to you.

        • Welcome! I am glad at least 1 person in your fly believed and made the conscious decision to stand by you. Not many even have that. Glad you made it out of there. 🙂

    • What I don’t understand is why anyone needs help finding these sites.

      They are literally *everywhere*

      Just type in Travis Alexander and up pops about million pages of support.

    • blackeye…….Go to FB then they run wild over there frankly I am here so I do not have to put up
      with the hatred an the other side following hln joke news an pretending that they
      even investigated or looked at any reports for themselves because they are too
      lazy they just go off JOKE NEWS word for word.

  6. My experience personally with PHD’s is that they are book smart, but aren’t logcially able to adapt book smart to process. I would not hire them for that reason as I saw it over and again.

    • That is true in some cases, although I know some highly intellegent PHD’s and Dr.s that are very down-to-earth and loaded with common sense. IMO, the young lady Dr. appears book smart only. With a hefty dose of arrogance and stubborness.

      • Bystander,

        As a PhD with the requisite piece of parchment I agree with you.

        It’s just that when we first get those diplomas we think the word of ourselves. A few years into the business you realize how much you don’t know, and that’s how the experience starts kicking in. It’s just like the teenager who thinks he knows more than everyone else, and then suddenly at age 25 his Dad’s IQ suddenly goes up!

        So, the problem is not that she has a PhD. The problem is that she has a PhD and very little else.

        • Thanks for the honesty, Al. I have found this to be true for certain relatives who graduate with a masters or whatever and suddenly become “experts” on just about everything to do with their chosen profession and just about everything else too. “Trust me, I have a masters/phd in whatever, and I know what I am talking about”. In particular, they do not respect those much older than them and their “life experience”. Until you get that LIFE EXPERIENCE, you still don’t understand what you DON’T KNOW.

          • That is EXACTLY right. You can’t always make youngters believe what they haven’t experienced yet. Somtimes ‘time’ is the teacher.

  7. TIME FOR AN AFTERNOON GROUP HUG……..let’s do this!!

    (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((GROUP HUG))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

  8. When this cross is over all we’ll wanna say to Kermit will be ”AND THAT’S HOW IT’S DONE MR MARTINEZ!!”

  9. I think the case is looking great for the defense, but they gotta do something to expose the ME’s report as opinion not fact. A lot of posters on other sites I used to go to were hellbent on the ME report as being the most solid scientific evidence. I am worried that some on the jury may feel the same way & the defense needs to show that isn’t so.

  10. I opened a twitter account just because that is the site that has 29,000 following JODI!
    Also so I could add Alyce is why I went there too she has one.

    a favorite I found yesterday on twitter —#jodiarias Demarte come across as tight during this cross examination she has a salty attitude, Jenny should ask R U angry w me Ms.D

    An the travis talibon is livid about it over there! I think they have 6,017 or something like
    that. But as far as the tweets they out number the ones I can find that are positive for
    Jodi so I don’t get it? Still not sure what I am doing over there but I have been checking
    in to see what is going on mostly.

    Thanks to the Admin for this SITE here !!
    for having a safe place to go without badgering 😉

  11. Can you ask that question in another way?

    Listening to HLN on satellite radio for the 1 hour drive home from work.

    Its good to hear this little tart put on the spot!

    I’m enjoying this way too much, heh heh

  12. Hi Everyone-
    Does anybody know for certain if the defense can put on a rebuttal after this crap with the State is over?

  13. wild said this….

    Juan, Flores, and Dr. D are seated at their desk…waiting…for the defense to come back from the chambers…

    • Juan always makes sure his ego is back in his seat since he got fined a while back for being late to court….. That judge was not a happy camper with JUAN

  14. Did anyone watch “The Central Park 5” (Doc. 2012) last night. I’m sure most people here are familiar with the case. It’s amazing though that 5 teenagers age 14-15 mostly, one was 16, all separately made a “false confession.” They all confessed to a rape and assault they didn’t commit. The documentary seems to suggest they confessed due to fear (one kid stated he thought if he didn’t make up a story the police wanted, they would take him “out back” and kill him) and the prolonged police questioning & technique. Plus, no one (including their parents) chose to have a lawyer present even when they were offered one free (of charge to them). I should also mention the kids were black and the cops were white (which probably increased the fear of the kids given the history of young black men and the police, i.e., profiling, etc.).

    I’m not saying Jodi made a false confession but she did all those interviews without a lawyer present and perhaps made some statements out of fear.

    • It happens, we had a case here in Michigan where two men confessed to an armed robbery which turned into murder. They spent 6 months in jail before the real perps were caught and everyone was saying why did those two confess. They said they were scared and intimidated by police.

    • That case was amazing. The haters were all over those boys! I’m glad that the truth was revealed. Those boys would have lost the best years of their lives because of unfair police interrogations. It seems that false confessions are not as uncommon as many believe. I think Jodi’s interrogations were unfair. The fact that the focus was on her and her alone (mainly) was just the beginning of the unfairness. It snowballed from there.

    • coldcase,Im not familiar with that case but here in Greece a few years ago there was a similar case to the one you are describing.5 kids(primary schoolers mostly if memory serves right) confessed to the murder of a one of their classmates who was missing for months.The police interrogated them relelntlessly,child psychologists were present,all boys shared the same story yet none of them could accurately say where the body was dumped.2 boys were greek,the others were all of immigrant parents,parents who barely spoke greek to be ble to defend their children or to get a good lawyer for them etc.Consequently the body of the deseaced young boy was never found.The boys were convicted(being minor they were put to institutions of course).Recently there has been a new private investigation pointing at the boy’s own mother plus other dark details Im not gonna bore you with now.My point is that,if this is true(just like the story you mentioned) I wonder how were these boys convinced to admit sth that hineous?Fear?

      • The interrogations last a very LONG time. The person being questioned is overwhelmed with accusations and lies by police, “we have witnesses who place you at the scene”, etc. They become fearful, hungry, tired and as a result just want to say anything the police want to hear so they can go home…or at least get out of the room. The methods of interrogation are sometimes very affective in getting actual perpetrators to admit their crime, but some go over board.

    • I was living right near Central Park when that happened and the physical evidence was very strong, I believe they definitely did it. This was so sad the poor woman a complete stranger and this gang attacked her, The physical evidence completely pointed to them Since Jodie states she did it and lied twice we may have doubts but, the situation is very different since she knew Travis this gang just attacked a stranger viciously.

  15. Weren’t the haters bitching about Alyce’s fees too? Are they saying anything about the fact that Dr. D’s are the same?

  16. I’ve only seen a little this evening but have enjoyed immensely that, before every answer, Vgirl looks like she just sucked on a lemon!! If Juan boy had had any sense he would’ve said after the prosecution rested ‘We don’t have an expert on DV but we really really really don’t think that’s what this is.’ lol But he was bowled over by all his fans and commentator worship and thought he could get away with this crap!!

  17. According to Federal Rule 702, “”If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise”” (Federal Rule of Evidence, 2009). There is a great deal of scientific literature that can be brought to bear and is potentially helpful to understand the evidence and to determine facts in issue in domestic violence cases. However, BWS is simply insufficient to this task.

    First and foremost, an expert witness needs to know the relevant questions for which expert testimony is needed. Too often an attorney will begin with one question: ìDoes she have BWS?î without considering the particular relevance of this question to the defense theory or considering how the defendant’s particular abusive history is specifically relevant to her conduct. The goal of the expert testimony in most cases is not to ìproveî that the defendant has been battered. Rather an expert can help the jury understand better the defendant’s experience of abuse and why those experiences are legally relevant. For example, in self-defense cases, perhaps the most relevant question is, “”What factors would inform the court to better evaluate the defendant’s assertion that she was in immediate danger?”” When the expert focuses his or her evaluation on this question, the result is an analysis of those factors that support or fail to support the reasonableness of the defendant’s perception of immediate danger, given the circumstances.

    Since the expert cannot testify to the ultimate issue, the expert offers to the court an analysis that allows the trier of fact to make a more informed decision about these ìultimateî issues. BWS is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the defendants’ perception of immediate danger. Relying on BWS as the primary explanation for the defendant’s perception of danger offers the untenable formulation that only when the defendant has a clinical diagnosis of PTSD is her perception of danger reasonable. BWS is simply not a sufficient explanation for this central question or most other questions typically posed to the expert witness in criminal cases involving a woman who has experienced domestic violence

    • Since Baby Doc has admitted she is not a DV expert, and a big part of her rebuttal is Jodi was not a DV victim, then can her testimony be stricken? Or at least part of it?

        • FWIW,
          You cannot impeach a witness if they are not representing something about themselves to be true which isn’t. In other words, JD has taken the stand as a expert witness in the field of clinic psychology. Not as an expert in DV. For example, ALV represented herself as an expert witness in DV, and in fact, she is. Dr DeMarte is an expert in the field of clinical psychology, the same as Dr Samuels. This is a very broad field, meaning it can cover the gamut of mental disorders. I believe what JW is trying to do, and quite successfully, is to point out to the jury that she is not an expert in the DV field. She can treat DV victims, as well as many other disorders, but she is not an expert in that field. The list of “specialties” on the side of her website lists a myriad of disorders, as does most Dr’s, but that means nothing. The fact that she said directly, under cross, that she is NOT a DV expert is important, all that JW was trying to convey to the jury. There is no impeachment involved, as that would involve JD having said that she WAS an expert in DV. I hope that made sense LOL! That being said, I am somewhat surprised that the State doesn’t have (or not that I’m aware of) a DV expert as well as a psychologist to counter the defense 2 experts. maybe they do have one and we just don’t know who else is on the rebuttal list. As far as today, who knows what happened, Jodi looked really ill to me today, and more so as the day went on. We know she gets migraines, so maybe that was it.

          • Dr. Samuels is a Physiolgical Psychologist. Dr. Demartes does not hold that type of credential, license as far as I know. They are not really comparable in their fields just for that reason, IMO.

      • Your very welcome…. if you go to the morning page towards the bottom I posted another view that you will find intereting.

      • Battered Woman Syndrome. I think the importance in this case of the DV is more related to explaining the overkill vs the self-defensive/feeling threatened issue.

  18. So further to my old post about the split amongst women and men in this case. I just got back from a meeting at the corporate attorneys about something. We had 4 lawyers in the room, 2 men 2 women. Both men thought Jodi would get manslaughter and TA was a dirtbag. To quote one of them, “He’s what you would expect to find if you turned over a rock”. Both women thought the exact opposite. So go figure.

    Oh and BTW we paid each of them between $225-$400 per hour to discuss this.

          • Yes, I agree. I want to respond to Al’s post but I don’t know how.

            What on EARTH possesses these women to squee and throw their panties at the virtual statue of Travis Alexander that has been constructed in the public’s mind?

            Don’t they know he would have treated them the EXACT same way he treated Jodi?

            They are delusional if they believe otherwise.

            That’s about all the articulation I can muster.

            • A lot of women eat their own. We saw it with Casey too. Men don’t seem to get as emotionally invested on the whole.

              I’m proud to be a female exception, as I know many of you are too :).

              • IMO a lot of them are probably control freak types, who are so afraid of their husbands cheating on them that they want every woman between 18-45 locked up. I’m over 50, so I’m now safe from them!

  19. I think JW and the defense want to discredit this expert on the stand, like NOW! I dont know if something like that can be done but I know I heard JW say something like judge this is going to take longer or something like that after she dismissed for break.

    • She was about to change the subject so it would tke her longer than 5 minutes when the break would be due so they took an earlier break.JW is doing a great job,I hope she’s getting the message across to the Jury(coz Im afraid half of them may be dumb).If she discredits DeMartian she’ll do it with dignity and class!Unlike Kermit who is incapable of such nice behaviour and tactics!

  20. I feel like anyone that is not biased watching this has got to be asking themselves, “Why” did the prosecutor choose this particular, newly-minted psychologist.

    There’s no way to avoid asking yourself this question. She has nothing special to recommend her to this case.

    I am left to believe that he had trouble finding someone who would wholly dispute the findings of the “weightier” defense experts.

    Thoughts?

    • I was just thinking the same as you posted, with respect to the reasoning as to why a seasoned prosecutor would go with DD. Could it be there was a problem finding a DV expert to counter ALV? DD is not a DV expert, and her lack of time in actual work experience is troubling to me. Yes, schooling is surely very important and one has to have to work in the field for sure, but clinical experience is the trump card. One barely in practice with PHD vs. one with Master’s of many, many moons is an easy answer to me.

      • Actually I THINK the reason Martinez took her on is because she would be supervisor to someone like ALV, BUT what he failed to see is that just because his expert is a boss, it doesn’t mean the boss has the EXPERIENCE. And I dont thk ALV herself as a person, wouldn’t work with or under someone like this so called expert that has littke to no DV knowledge.

        • Interesting point, I agree but still think he would/should have found a more experienced PhD/PsyD if he could have.

          I also get the feeling she’s a bit defensive and insecure due to her youth and inexperience.

    • Most definitely. That is very similar to what I posted earlier, and what Al said this morning. So, If WE are ALL thinking that there HAS to be at least a FEW on the jury who are wondering the same thing. YEA!!

    • Your post caught my attention. I agree, Martinez probably ran into difficulty finding someone to dispute the findings of Alyce LaViolet. Then out pops Demarte. Can you say inexperienced.

      • I think he could NOT find anyone to go against Alyce, so was mostly going after Samuels with someone who is very, very, very cold and rule-oriented.

  21. Hi everyone !! Sorry so late today!! I had to buy a new computer mine died. I think the haters sent something through is for my pro jodi rants on the HLN website. But it’s cool. TOTALLY worth it!! LOL!!

    • My Ipad started acting very funny last week. Sent it in and it looks like it was a virus. I do very little on it besides notes and some photo editing. I wondered for a second if it was a present from the haters.

  22. ask the martian, have you ever been diagnosed with a psychological disorder ?
    could be a winner ?
    something better asked before trial though, as a two edged sword

    it would not be on the martian’s cv ie i was crazy, and am still getting help, or i’m no longer crazy

    i don’t see any downside to that question if both samuels and laviolette are finished ?

    though i’m not sure that alyce has finished her testimony, so it could be a source of danger

    wouldn’t effect alyce’s credibility, in my books, but it could sway those members of a jury looking for a way to ignore alyce, and raise doubt about samuels

    if it was asked of the martian, and alyce was to come back on, it is something jm would use, if the rules permitted him to do so

    in future, if such a question became routine, it would severely limit the pool of such experts

    hmm not sure about this line of questioning

  23. Did I hear her right yesterday when she said she evaluated her in 2011. If she didn’t get licensed until 2010 was Jodis case like her second one ? And if you can’t actually see people till your licensed then how was she supervising about paitents well being?

    • Krista,

      That is exactly what I call into question…. You are not allowed by law to counsel clients it’s unethical and you can be barred ………….. Maybe she got away with it because she was working with other pyschologist that were licensed. I am sure Jodi was her first patient ( per se as a DP case). She totally lacks experience.

      1. She’s not a DV expert as she claimed she was yesterday
      2. You dont soley base your diagnoses off of test…… like she does
      3. You dont copy tests for anyone……… like she did
      4. Your not expert in all areas of the psychology field ( like she claims)
      5. I also question why she waited so long to get her licesnes…. you get plenty of experience and hours while your in school.
      6. Just because she gave Jodi the personality test MMPI doesnt’ mean Jodi has this disorder…. there are many things to factor into this decision….
      7. She is underqualfied for this case……………… on ego trip being paid big money so she can pay off her student loans…..

      • So let me get this straight so she was operating under another doctors license kind of like sub contracting? So she can F* up some one kills themself and then what does the doctors who’s license she was practicing under take the heat or does she have to. Because if the doctor who’s license she was practicing under takes the heat wouldn’t that mean her record would look better then it actually is because the other doctor took the blame for her f* ups while she was “practicing ” . And even if she was under someone else how would that qualify her to supervise people who know even less then her? I’m just trying to understand. I hope this isn’t to far up. thanks

      • FUJuan – I am a big believer in the MMPI, so yesterday when she said BPD from that, I assumed it had to be accurate, but today it came out the info she had was non-specified PD. Now it makes more sense, Jodi may not have that at all…there was something about ‘NOS. left to the clinician’s determination’ or something like that.

    • Maybe, I would think.
      I think JW could have easily argued she was not qualified to begin with, before she even took the stand, but I think she enjoyed making it obvious from the stand, and I enjoyed watching! MMMUUUUUHHHHHHHHAAAAAAHHHHAAHAHAH!!!!

  24. I can’t believe what I just heard. Just getting caught up via HLN (please don’t yell at me for watching HLN; sometimes I’m forced). At any rate, Vinnie P. just pointed out that JW got Dr. D. to admit she’s not a DV expert and then said sometimes that helps boost the witness’ credibility. WTF Universe are these people living in??? Bizarre!!!

    • ” that helps boost the witness’ credibility”
      W…T….F??If so,then any amateur would get on the stand and have their opinions heard as experts!!No way,they cant have it both ways!Man…Im so impressed by the haters,they are better than Kermit himself sometimes in twisting everything around to serve their own little dirty purposes!

    • I will NOT give HLN a SECOND of my time for their ratings, but I (and no one else here would) would not dare yell at anyone else for it. Not everyone has internet access, or many other reasons why they have to. Plus some are just curious. Anyway, we (myself included) were pissed this morning for some people trying to suggest others think or speak certain ways, and that applies to all areas IMO. 🙂

    • So here’s the logic on this one, Baby Doc is not a DV expert, but ALV is. So because Baby Doc admits she’s not an expert, she is more credible in the area of DV and has the expertise to criticize ALV and say her diagnosis is invalid because she didn’t perform testing.

    • Apparently the logic (if we can call it that) is that Dr. D. is giving into the defense, unlike ALV who was too stubborn with JM and wouldn’t state an untruth just to please him.

    • I have to watch HLN for access to trial. I heard Vinnie say that and all of them are talking about what a great witness this person is because she concedes points. None of the HLN folks have noted her lack of experience and practicing whatever she was practicing without a license. If she was a witness for the defense, they would all be saying, “What? Six cases? What? She spent two months in 2004 as a student interviewing alleged victims of domestic violence?” I think at least a few jurors will have these thoughs.

      And while I’m venting, there is so much that bothers me about HLN and one of them is when they say, “We all think…” No. We don’t all think that. The station would have some credibility if it presented both sides, but this one side view is annoying. It is also annoying how they will show testimony, then have a commentator say something about it and the comment totally misquotes the testimony. I have learned a lot from watching both the trial testimony and HLN commentary about how misleading media reports can be. I can no longer tolerate Jane whoever, Nancy Grace and Dr. Drew.

      • Several years ago, when it was court TV, they did air an opposing program, a defense attorney – big guy with ponytail.

    • She was looking very tired this afternoon. Hope she’s not having another migraine. 🙁

      Ms. Wilmott is lovely today in her classy suit. I’m so impressed with her. Does anyone know how old she is?

        • I graduated from law school in ’87 but you can’t figure out my age from that. That was a third career for me. (Lasted until 2000 when I couldn’t tolerate it any more.) I was a criminal defense appellate attorney. I gave it up because I could no longer tolerate manipulation and misconduct of prosecutors in general. It is in their DNA!

        • If she followed the traditional timetable of law school right after college, then 43 would be right (born in ’69 or ’70).

          • Thank you

            I would have guessed younger based on appearance only but she exudes an air of confidence and experience that one only gets with time. She’s very impressive.

            No way did she utter *bitch* today. She’s always polite and in control.

            Remember when she acknowledged the court room sneeze, without missing a beat, as she was speaking to a witness and said “Bless you” to the sneezer

      • I thought Jodi looked kinda the color of her green top after lunch. I was wondering if she had lost her lunch.

  25. Wow someone on HLN just said that she sees a big disparity in the way the judge is treating the lawyers. She said that every time JW objected when JM was grilling ALV she was overruled. But that when JM objects it is sustained. Then she commented that she wonders if the jury sees this disparity. Nice to hear someone there has some objectivity at least some of the time.

      • The blonde I sometimes like her opinion. She’s more fair than the others. But unfortunately they also said that this witness isn’t trying to evade questions the way that AL did. Hmm.. when you have JM specifically asking questions that are intended to confuse, mislead and placed into false context this witness would even squirm. I have seen her have to refer to her notes several times, on abbreviations that it seems to me she should know, I have seen her specifically state she gave weekly lectures and then had to go back and say they were monthly, I have seen her say you can’t be compassionate with clients but then turn around and admit that you can be. I have seen her get flustered and angry, it’s all over her face at times when she’s being questioned. And then of course the obvious, she wasn’t even aware of updated research by her go to author on domestic violence. As an abuse victim, I would give 300.00 an hour to AL to talk with her about the effects it has had on me. I wouldn’t give this girl a dime. Cold and uncaring.

    • my husband had hln on earlier and I thought I was hearing things…….bet they won’t have her back on anytime soon

  26. Michael Kiefer ‏@michaelbkiefer 20m

    The Arias trial was supposed to start back up at 1:20 MST, but the bailiff just came out and said they are recess until at least 2:30.
    Expand

  27. I wonder if any new research will be brought up regarding ther effects of psychological abuse as a cause of battered woman syndrome as I think that is why ALV took the case,

  28. Question for you all: Is JW’s approach just a bit too light/subtle? Is the jury picking up on any of this? Or, are they looking for her to decimate the witness like JM did?

    • I actually like her approach, JM had me confused as hell. Asked my husband to watch a few minutes on HLN to get his impression. He thought JW was being nice in her questioning and it made JD look rude and arrogant.

    • If I was a juror…I see JW explaining in detail the different parts of the test that has been used extensively to diagnose Jodi…and JW has to explain it like she is doing so the jury will understand that this expert is not really an expert on some of the things that she is claiming to be an expert on in interpreting the test results…

      I would understand this if I was a juror…

      If I was a juror…I would be the one putting many questions in the question box to explain the things that JM is hollering and shouting at the witnesses…..he doesn’t makes much sense to me…and I would need those questions answered for clarification…

      • Truthseeker

        I agree. I’ve said this all along. The reason the Jury questions after JM was done had so many repetitions was because he would either be all over the map, would cut off the answer or yell for Yes or No when an explanation was needed.

        Remember how many of those Jury questions would end with, “please explain.”

        I think you’re bang on.

    • I trust JW completely.But then again based on the previous jury questions some of them seemed to really fall for JM’s antics so now Im kinda worried if they find JW too subtle and her message is not coming across.

    • I often wish JW would take a cue from JM and repeat what the witness has stated for clarification with just a touch of theatricality, or ponderousness, if you will. When she does repeat or summarize, she does it very quickly and moves on. Her deal is that if she hits a single for the defense, she wants another quick “at-bat” to get the runner to second or third base. Juan takes every base hit and tries to make it into a home run.

      If JW makes the closing arguments, she has to not be in a hurry to get to her final statements. She must build to a finish while letting every point sink in. At this stage I suspect the jury is on Jodi’s side because she has presented herself – and her case – with logic and earnestness. Jodi knew that the whole case would be “he said she said”; and that the weight of the jury’s decision would hang on her own courtroom demeanour.

      I believe Jodi was clueless at first about the world of law but then quickly caught on to the nature of legalities. She seems at home in court and that has helped her tremendously. She shows remarkable self-control, behavior that is consistent with her tolerating and attempting to smooth over all of Travis’s rough edges, just as she and the defense psychologists maintain. Further, you have the bully factor – which exists apart from the circumstantial evidence while eerily echoing it. No one likes bullying behavior and JM is unquestionably expert at it.

      Jennifer is very, very mentally quick and extremely personable. But she should bear in mind that most people are NOT able to process aural information as quickly as she can.

  29. with all the cell phones, drinks, ect., apparently allowed in the court room, I hope they are being carefully screened for weapons.

    I would not put it past one of those crazy fuckers to try and hurt Jodi.

    • Truth. When I have been in court in the past, you have to go through a metal detector and an xray screen, then be patted down by police officers. Hopefully it’s the same in AZ.

      • I was in the court house on Feb 20 reporting for jury duty (didn’t get selected) and I promise you the security going in is like the airport.

  30. Dream cross:

    JW: So, you gave Mr Martinez a copy of the test to take home. The one that that was copyrighted, right?

    JD: Well, no I didn’t. he took notes when I was going over the test.

    JW: So, you’re saying it’s not your fault, right? That it’s “the prosecutor’s fault, right.

    …..

    JW: How many billed hours did you have?

    JD: I don’t know but it was because of Ms. Arias’ inconsistencies.

    JW: So it is Jodi’s fault that you racked up all those billable hours, including the reading test when Jodi could obviously write AND read, plus the 30 minute interview with Travis’ brother who never even met Jodi, plus administering an outdated test simply because you were not yet required to purchase it?

  31. I think some are confusing the facts on whether Baby Doc would be ALV’s supervisor. People choose different career paths. I used to manage people, put chose to become a subject matter expert in my field. That meant reporting to people who knew less than me. They come to the expert for the answers. You can be a very good manager and not know much detail about what those under you do.

    • Absolutely. My engineering manager hasn’t been a practicing engineer for 15 years. But he can manage the hell out of a bunch of scatter-brained engineers.

    • Management jobs and executive style positions are quite different, IMO. One requires more vision and insight, though both jobs are about managing people and organization. Sometimes a person with great management skill is promoted to a top leadership position and things start to unravel because the manager is no longer operating from that exalted position of having all the answers.

      The person who is most comfortable and productive in a top executive position is the one who can navigate well in uncharted waters. Success as a leader requires almost a sixth sense, i.e. great intuition, which in turn must be convincingly communicated to others. In order to do that, the top executive must be able to tolerate and even welcome skepticism. The “typical CEO” is often joked about as being a highly paid sociopath but I believe many are people that others actually feel safe around because their office has an open door.

    • Because the haters over there were getting crazy and I noticed a comment left that was 5 stars for Baby Doc and had a nasty comment for this site, and they used Oliverio name, like that was the poster. I wonder if that is what they are doing, coming here, taking names and then using those names to say some pretty nasty stuff about us here.

  32. So let me get this straight so she was operating under another doctors license kind of like sub contracting? So she can F* up some one kills themself and then what does the doctors who’s license she was practicing under take the heat or does she have to. Because if the doctor who’s license she was practicing under takes the heat wouldn’t that mean her record would look better then it actually is because the other doctor took the blame for her f* ups while she was “practicing ” . And even if she was under someone else how would that qualify her to supervise people who know even less then her? I’m just trying to understand. I hope this isn’t to far up. thanks

    • Well the defense was so that tells me its not bad for the defense. But they haven’t shown much of the TA family, huh?!

    • Tanne…court is over for today…everyone dismissed early….will resume tomorrow at 9:30 Arizona time and 12:30 Eastern time…

        • for a minute I thought they let demartian go, but after hearing pickles say “we’ll see you here at 9 tomorrow” my chances of thinking that were doomed lol

          • The haters put all the blame on Jodi being ill and of course they’re overly excited about that,saying the usual nasty ”maybe she’s feeling the noose tightening around her neck”things!

  33. Court dismissed for the day due to an issue. Who was the blond woman in the black outfit that the judge motioned up to the bench when court cleared out anyone know?

  34. Has there been ONE day during his trial, when it has started on time in the a.m., breaks were taken and resumed on time, and the day concluded when it was supposed to? This is really ridiculous!

    • It’s kinda nice in a way…gives me time to see clients…work…work…and work…and not feel like I am missing too much of the trial…LOL…

      • Yes, but if the trial was timely…it would be over by now and I’d be more motivated to get back into my exercise routine…I may not be able to continue with live feed…I am neglecting my LIFE!

  35. Love the points JW is making.

    On the surface, the witness is credible, all be it young. Straight forward. Clear. Knowledgeable.

    But, now we see a few other items about the good dr.

    1) She “padded” her advertisement on a shrink website. (if i used her line of thinking, i would be able to claim 14 years of education in the banking industry, 15 years of post graduate experience in banking and 1 year licensed banker exp. The truth is i went k-12 and 2 years of college, where i learned to chase beer and drink woman…oops I may have that backwards..i can’t really remember, and then i worked as a car salesman, insurance, horse training, air filter sales, golf course manager, pimp, prostitute and underwater basket weaver…BUT, that experience got me my banker job…So yah, i have 29 years of banking experience. (I’m 38) 😉
    2) She claimed the shrink website she is simply advertising on, was somehow “one of her websites” that she maintains. (If she has a Facebook page, would that go on a person CV? lmao)
    3) She has done several presentations, she says, yet it turns out they were actually “show and tells” for school that included how to build a volcano, how to make a motor out of a battery and a paper-clip and 2 liter pop bottle rocket.
    4) She didn’t interview A SINGLE PERSON, other than Jodi? How can this be? JM road AVL and Dr.S like a cheap whore for not interviewing the 3 little pigs, Santa and the Easter bunny! That dick head insinuated that there is NO WAY that an interviewer could do the job correctly without interviewing EVERYONE involved. HYPO——CRIT (that’s a large African crit, for those that don’t know)
    5) She conducted a reading test, after she had read a bunch of Jodi’s journals, texts, etc and had met with her? Wouldn’t that be like a driver test person doing the eye test AFTER the driving test? Cart…Horse…any questions?
    6) She gave her an IQ test to make sure she wasn’t mentally handicapped to the point that she couldn’t test correctly….All of this after talking to her, reading her journals, texts, etc… All because she was “immature”? Really? Does that would be like giving me an IQ test, to be sure i can ride a bike, because i act like a 12 year old and talk like a sailor. WTF? That makes no sense. seriously, this was a straight out, LIE!
    Why would they do this? Because the friends all accused her of being a SUPER Villain, with amazing powers of persuasion, lying, manipulation and fear mongering. That takes smarts. In fact, to pull off the offense JM is going to paint at the end of the trial, it will need to be a VERY SMART person, to pull it off. Now they have her IQ on record. This DR. is simply a whore for the pros.
    (i was giving her the benefit of the doubt, until she said she gave the IQ test to be sure she was smart enough to take the MMPI, since she heard that she was immature. Nice try Doc, want to buy a bridge from me?)
    7) She charges customers 125.00 and hour, yet she will not negotiate that rate, if you pay cash, yet, she will take less if it comes from insurance? HMMM….. that’s ass backwards. MOST, ethical dr’s charge LESS for cash, so that the customer is charged the same that they get from insurance. The cash price is 125, the insurance price is 225…but then the insurance negotiates to 125. Bitch. THEN…she doesn’t charge the state 125, or the discount rate…she charges them 250 or 300! WTF? That’s money you and I are paying this lying …oops, almost used the “c” word…this lying…dr.
    8) She didn’t do the PTSD test, yet she is claiming that Jodi DOESNT have PTSD? How does she know? She says the lvl was at 67, and that 75 is the thresh hold for it to be clinical, YET, she DID diagnose her with BPD when her test score was only 65 in that category.

    I wouldn’t pay this woman a package of food stamps and a used envelope to get her to piss on me if i was on fire! <——-picture it….picture it…..there it is. 🙂

    • Hi Sirlips!

      to me #6 stands out:
      6) She gave her an IQ test to make sure she wasn’t mentally handicapped to the point that she couldn’t test correctly….All of this after talking to her, reading her journals, texts, etc… All because she was “immature”? Really? Does that would be like giving me an IQ test, to be sure i can ride a bike, because i act like a 12 year old and talk like a sailor. WTF? That makes no sense. seriously, this was a straight out, LIE!

      Have any of you given it thought that the reason Demartian conducted this test and said Jodi was immature is to prove that Jodi acted like a 12 yr old girl and possibly gave Travis these fantasies? They came from Jodi and not Travis???

    • Sirlips,all good points! One thing though.I think Martian said that aside from Jodi she did interview Steve Alexander for like half an hour.

      Suzy,
      good catch!I never thought of that although I coincide more with Sirlips.She administered the IQ test and was overemphasizing yesterday how surprised/impressed she was to find taht Jodi was above average.At a point she had me believe Jodi must be a genious(score-wise)but I read here that Jodi scored a 119,which is really good but kinda like average smart.

      • That depends on what part of the test she scored on. My brother took a battery of I.Q. tests, and he scored at 122 on one area, 105 in two areas, and 97 in the fourth area.

        The 119 might be in one area.

        • Jodi scored ‘very superior’ in verbal. 136 some scales call that gifted, and it is close to typical genius cut-off at 140.

      • Oh, and she LIED about not paying for her web site ad… per that site:

        A Flat Fee for Unlimited Leads

        You’ll get highly qualified leads from customers who have selected you. Best of all, you don’t pay per lead. A flat fee of just $29.95 per month is all you have to pay – no matter how many leads you get!

        • Renee,

          How did you find that out? I was just looking for that information on pricing? Also, on that site you select how many years you have been practicing , it’s not selected by a group of years… Another lie…………… and she lied about her research….. it was with multiple authors and on posters………….. give me a FK break………… lied about being an expert in DV…… should I keep going on ?

          I think we all get the picture…………..

        • She DID lie about that and I really wish JW would have jumped all over it so the jury could see – that was a paid ad! The witness sounded like she was trying to claim that she didn’t pay for the ad (and it did come off as she was billed, but did not pay). Weird.

          • I was thinking about that part of her testimony too. (the website ad) and I KNOW that it isn’t a courtesy posting that they offer. So, I went back to re watch the testimony about that issue. JW was asking her if she had to pay for that website being there, and JD said no. So then JW asked her, “you mean it’s free?” and she said no again. So JW asks again…so you had to pay….and finally (like pulling teeth) JD answers, “I didn’t pay for it”. So, I am guessing her point was that SHE didn’t pay the 29.95, but someone else did. maybe another Dr in her practice, etc. She answers questions very very cryptically. Its quite a song and dance to watch.

            • You know if she had answered JM like that he would not have let it go until she finally admitted that someone paid for it on her behalf and THEN he would have gotten her to admit she lied (whether she did or not lol). That was such a weird line of answering. Thanks for posting the transcript of it – now I know I wasn’t imagining. 🙂

    • Good rant, sirlips!

      9) She testified as a DV expert that Jodi was not abused by Travis, but instead was a manipulative psychopath. And now she recognized no, I am not a DV expert, know practically nothing about it, do not read or attend anything, no idea that her test questions were obsolete.

    • I think JW showed that the test result for BPD was at 11, not 65. PTSD was at 65. I believe she said she read the report by Samuels diagnosis of PTSD…….but didn’t agree with him. A psychologist for 4 years is questioning the results of a psychologist with 35 years experience. There must necessarily be a lot of idiots on the jury to believe this bunk!

      • Again – I would have love to seen Wilmott jump all over her for those numbers (you KNOW had it been Samuels or ALV , JM would have spent half the day going on about it).

      • Samuels had same result for Axis-2/personality disorder – he said ‘non-specified PD’. JD chose to interpret that as BPD. I don’t see how she could have based on those numbers. I sure would like to see all the results from all these tests.

    • Sirlips LMAO, you IS funny. But you got me wondering. Quien es mas mature, the person who becomes cranky and irritable after a half day of routine courtroom questioning about…..wait for it!….credentials! ~ or the one who holds up for weeks on end under intense cross-examination by Rumplestilskin when the stakes for that individual are as high as they can be?

  36. Hopefully someone sent that information to Jennifer and now she will have more time to look at it…hmmm…

  37. I don’t think this is a big deal. Whatever it was didn’t involve JM since the defense was in chambers ex-parte, so I figure it’s probably Jodi not feeling well.

    They don’t let her get sleep and that has to knock her whole immune system for a loop.

      • when you say ´´yawning and rubbing her eyes´´ I immediately picture a little baby Jodi doing that,I wanna hug her even more 🙁

      • I seriously don’t think this has to do with Jodi’s health or having a migraine. If she had a migraine at lunch they would of given her the Imtrex and moved on with the trial like they have done a couple times already.

        Yes, she’s freaking tired, she’s up in the middle of the night… 3am… and then sitting in trial all day. I am sure Jodi would rather be sitting in court than her jail cell. Think about it……… unless it’s a stall tactic for the defense to gather more information for tomorrow.

        Whatever happened didn’t look good for the defense.

        • Migraines can hurt like freaking hell for a long time. Even with an Immitrex at lunch, Jodi still could have been feeling lousy.

        • I agree due to the comment made by JW prior to going into the next line of XE when she said it is going to cause a large issue can we approach.

      • yes, drawn, tired, starving. Poor Jodi. I also hope they’re not giving her pills that make her sick. The officer in court does not look mean, but I don’t trust the sheriff and his jail.

    • She probably got sick. I don’t think it is anything to do with the trial itself.

      She didn’t look well at all today.

  38. I wish JW finds a way to tie TA to some of the descriptions Ms. Toothsome or Tootsome (being prone to tooting her own horn) was attributing to JA.

    Many times, like when she couldn’t recall what she had read LAST week, for pete’s sake, I wish JW had pushed her buttons and asked her if she has memory problems, and the title/nature/author/journal/website/whatever of whatever she stated she was reading. I felt she let her off many times when she had her so clearly on the ropes.

    • I agree whole heartedly – I love JW and even idolize her. However, I feel like an opportunity was missed to really nail down how much the witness exagerrated her expert claims. I honestly think, from the tone of juror questions, that there may be some on the jury who only understand that harshness and when it is let go so easily – any jurors that spaced out due to boredom would not catch these issues.

      • agree cindy,in fact I posted this up thread” I trust JW completely.But then again based on the previous jury questions some of them seemed to really fall for JM’s antics so now Im kinda worried if they find JW too subtle and her message is not coming across.”

        • I think Jennifer
          is doing great.
          Enough about the memories and sarcasm and yelling.
          People tune those antics out.

          I think she gets her punches in just right without the screaching.

          I’m sure as many times as the doctor said something like, can’t remember
          off the top of my head or something like off the top of my head, the jurors may have it already in their mind ” trouble with your memory” that they wonder about hers.
          I think JW is a pro. : )

    • also, wondering why JW let’s her tell her to “repeat the question, but in a different way”.

      JW: I get to ask the questions here. That’s the way it works. Do you understand?

      Oh, we’ll, she must have a good reason for it.

      • Another proof that JW treated her with respect, even let her get away with that one, and got Baby Doc to fess up to her lies, distortions and pirating of test. Did it without once interrupting the witness, yelling at her or twisting any word.
        A true professional.

      • It would be embarrassing to her if she simply stated: “I don’t understand your question”. This woman has got to be the MOST PRETENTIOUS “expert” witness to take the stand in this trial. Like when she says “I HIGHLIGHTED THAT in my testimony earlier”, instead of “I SAID THAT earlier”.

      • D,
        I caught that too. I was surprised that JW didn’t call her out on that, she said oit to her, (I believe) 2 or 3 times. We all know JM would have had a FIT if the witness asked him to ask another way..LOL. maybe JW has a strategic reason, and maybe, if JD says it again, she will call her out on it.

        • JW is a defense attorney and will try other cases … both before this judge and in that court. She has a reputation to maintain. She doesn’t work for the prosecutor. She has to GET clients and she’ll need experts to testify for her in the future. It’s a huge no-no to do what JM did to an expert. But he has a guaranteed job and paycheck.

        • JM- I didn’t ask you if your answer to this question is the same as the answer you gave to the last question! Did I?

          JD- Well, I ….

          JM- DID I ASK YOU IF THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS THE SAME AS THE LAST ANSWER YOU GAVE? DID I?

          JD- No…bu…

          JM- NO, I DID NOT! SO, WHY DON’T YOU TRY ANSWERING THIS QUESTION AND IF THE ANSWER IS THE SAME, FINE, JUST REPEAT YOUR ANSWER FOR THE JURY IN CASE THEY FORGOT. It’s been a long trial and I’ve fried their brains with my shenanigan’s so they may have memory problems now.

  39. I think if there is a plea it should be: manslaughter/timed served/sealed records where she can have a chance at getting a good career. Any greater charges than that I think would be unfair.

  40. It’s all over the news!
    Apparently there is a village in AZ that had filed a missing persons report for one of its citizens. There was an anonymous tip called in that he was spotted sitting at the prosecutors table at the Jodi Arias trial, turns out it was a different idiot the village was looking for. The trial will be starting again promptly.

  41. OKAY!!!!!! now WTH am I going to do with the rest of this afternoon????? I liked the fact court ended at 4:30.
    That meant to me …. I had 30 mins to “look” busy before I could go home!!! Today I have to “look” busy for 2 hours. I’m tellin’ y’all….that ain’t easy…..just sayin’!!!

  42. I was not home all day so I missed everything!! How many times did the well schooled, book smart, witness say HIGHLIGHTED today?

  43. I thought Jennifer did a great cross exam so far. In the closing she will have to clarify the significance of the different test names, as they get confusing for non psychologists. LOVED the lack of broad research information on domestic violence by DeMarte. And I really like Jennifer’s tough but respectful approach. So different from Martinez – the chain saw.. Jennifer is doing a really good job of showing that DeMarte’s experience levels are so much more limited than the others. And DeMarte needed to interview Travis’ brother …why???? She did not address anything regarding Travis in her testimony. She didn’t interview Jodi’s siblings.

    • chain saw lol!!!

      I bet JW will address Travis’ behavior later on in cross.

      I can’t wait to see what baby doc has to say about him talking about corking 12 year old children.

      No doubt she will robotically repeat all the lame excuses HLN has given for Travis.

      We shall see though won’t we? 🙂

  44. FINAL ANALYSIS:

    AVL = Yoda – The Sage

    Dr. Samuels = Mr. Miyagi – The Master

    JW = “Show No Mercy!” 😎

    JD = need to continue to ‘wax on – wax off’ for the next so many years… – The ?? (not sure)

    Finally, I would like for Nurmi to do the ‘Crane’ pose from Karate Kid at the end to JM. 😆
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYE4fNQKTs4

    The End.

  45. Well, well, well, the doctor lied on the stand………….. I just went to Psychology Today for a business profile……………. there is a pull down menu for how many years your in pracitce ( 1-2-3-4-5-6-5-7 etc) that you select one of these years… They are not in groups………….. LIAR…… Coudn’t get any futher without giving my license number to know if you have to pay to post your profile for clients. I would think you would need to pay ………….. As for her personal website she could be using a generic Web page that only allows you to put some much on it, but not sure that she would know how to post it for people to find her….. Maybe another lie..

    So now she’s lied about the Psychology Today, her research, being a DV expert, etc………. Her list is growning

    • Plus! she said she didn’t have to pay for it, but I found this there:

      A Flat Fee for Unlimited Leads

      You’ll get highly qualified leads from customers who have selected you. Best of all, you don’t pay per lead. A flat fee of just $29.95 per month is all you have to pay – no matter how many leads you get!

      • Of course she pays for it this is a very non experienced expert witness which Martinez LOVES he can Mold her into a his evil twin sister.

    • And to top it off, to explain her wee wittle 2 pages of credentials, she says she doesn’t feel the need to pad her cv.

      But isn’t that what she’s doing on her site by *pretending* her years of experience don’t fall under the supervision of a licensed therapist?

      And Juan was throwing a shit cow conniption fit because Alyce used the term “key speaker” and he was trying to pretend she was not.

      Dr Samuels blip on his record, and Alyce’s cv don’t even begin to match the flat out lies JD has said on the stand.

      • Actually Alyce was the breakfast keynote speaker, she had just left off the word breakfast. So is there some difference between being a breakfast, lunch or dinner speaker?

        • Is there a difference between an egg (breakfast), a salad (lunch) and a steak (dinner)…

          yep…if it looks like a difference then it must be a difference…

          • Seriously…TIME…it is just the time of that particular day that they are scheduled to speak…sometimes when a person is a breakfast keynote speaker there may be a breakfast included for all who attend the conference…and the same with a lunch, and a dinner…

            I have only ever been to a dinner one…

          • Yes, there is, in terms of prestige. But sometimes, if most attendees would have already heard the breakout speaker for the main itinerary at a recent conference, they don’t want to have the same person do the main itinerary again, as they won’t attract as many attendees.

            Something similar happened last year with an ABA conference. Many of our associates had already gone to a conference in CA with a main keynote (required attendance to get the CLE) and he was going to be the main keynote at a conference in Alexandria, VA (close to DC). The firm didn’t think it was worthwhile paying for them to go again, since he was likely to cover the same topics, and the associates who wanted to go (since it was so close) weren’t being approved. A little before a month prior to the conference, the ABA got smart and moved him out to a breakout session (optional attendance) and moved someone else into the main itinerary event. They did this right before they raised their rates and BAM, suddenly the event filled up. The resort associated with the conference went from 25% booked to 100% booked in a matter of hours. One of our associates got the last room, while another one had to go to a different hotel and rent a car.

            So, it’s not always prestige. Sometimes, it’s just a smart move for the conference.

  46. So let me get this straight-Baby Doc doesn’t do lectures, except posterboard junior high thingys, doesn’t publish articles, doesn’t attend conferences, doesn’t read journals except for what she can google, after all it was never specified what data base she uses, can’t recognize someones ability to read after reading volumes of their writing, doesn’t specify her experience is really work that was necessary to get her degree, waited a year before getting her license to broaden her experience, and this is the best expert the state could get.

    • I have never heard of someone waiting to take a licensing test so they would have the opportunity to broaden their experience, unless remaining student status would qualify her for something else.

      • I had a nursing friend who just barely passed the nursing school program at our local college…and she was afraid to take her state licensing exam for fear of failing it…

        So she spent the next 6 months out of town at another place that helps broadens people’s knowledge in their respective field of study in the preparation for state licensing exams…

        So maybe this doc had to broaden her knowledge before she felt more confident to take the state licensing exam….hmmm….

      • Good write up there.

        She must be completely *dense* if she feels the need to administer a reading and writing test after going through Jodi’s journals.

        What’s the point of that, unless she feels that tests are the ONLY deciding factor in a diagnosis?

        And wasn’t that the bullshit issue Juan tried to mischaracterize Dr Samuel’s testimony in cross? He was accusing him of relying only on the test, and trying to say it’s unreliable.

        But it’s perfectly reliable when *his* witness only uses bubble sheets?

        Bullshit!!!!

  47. I hope the day was ended because Ms High Horse got the runs!! lol And I so hate the HLN people that I can elevate that word to loath. They pretended that Ms Fake Expert did sooo good on direct that this cross can’t discredit her. Say what? Evidently they are all passing the bong around on commercial breaks. LOATH!! I worship JW.

  48. Another thing I forgot to mention here this afternoon: Demarte admits she allowed JM to view the questions on these tests….which are copyrighted for a good reason and should not be slipped into the hands of ANY LAY PERSON as it could get out to the public. Of course, she doesn’t admit that he kept a copy of them …..only that she showed them to him. How then did he have all the questions at hand when he questioned Samuels about it? She just allowed him to “write them down” and that somehow protects the copyright?

    I don’t know if this is legal when it comes to access by the prosecutor in any trial? any legal experts here who can answer this?

    • Copying the answers or questions or writing them down without the permission of the author or publisher is ILLEGAL period………………….!!!!!!!

      • Oh remember Dr. Samuels had the test, and JW asked him for the copy to be admitted into evidence. Maybe JW took the copy Dr. Samuels had to JD office and wrote down the questions…. God only knows……….. it doesn’t matter how he got them and typed them up, it’s ILLEGAL

        • You are right–you can’t do it. Testing security violations are serious stuff; public school districts, for example, that engage in cheating have had people go to prison for it.

          Test results are okay, but the questions cannot, repeat CANNOT, be released for any testing that is currently in use.

    • Not only that, but she got the test from where she was employed at the time. Now if I took something out of my workplace, that they paid for, and then used it in the course of a moonlighting job, that would be highly unethical and also considered stealing as I would be making money, by the theft of materials.

    • The only way it would be illegal in the way of copyright infringement, would be if she (JD) were to give JM a complete copy of the test. She didn’t, at least that isn’t what she testified to. She said that in their meeting, she and JM were discussing specific questions as she read them to him, and the answers Jodi gave. Thats not a violation. Remember with Dr Samuels, he said the same thing, that when he was with JM, he discussed the test and the results with him as well. The test itself came into evidence, but as a court document which is allowed since it’s sealed and not available to the public.

      • The test results are okay, but no, you aren’t supposed to release the questions on the test; it’s the same as if you released the questions on the SAT or ACT or any standardized test currently in use. It invalidates the test.

        I do not know how often these psychological tests are updated, but I do not think you are right that it’s okay for outsiders to see the questions. It isn’t.

        • Take a look at what is going on in Atlanta’s public schools or in others around the country that have gotten into trouble to standardized test cheating.

          That information is proprietary, and nobody has the right to violate the testing security. Period.

        • Correct,
          you cannot release the questions. Nobody in this case did that, neither this witness nor Dr Samuels released the questions to either side in the trial. They both referred to certain questions, as well as all of the answers. I didn’t say “see” the test questions, I said both Dr Samuels and this witness have testified to referring to or discussing, quite vaguely, certain questions. That is not illegal, and its common. Had either one of them offered a copy, or even written them down and handed it to either side, would be a copyright issue. In fact, if you refer back to Dr Samuels testimony, he was reading questions and responses directly from the PDS test. Not illegal.

      • But Anna, JM had to set there with Dr. D and copy them per beta..he typed up the exact questions and answer he put them on the overhead projector for us and all the world to see. Dr. S ask him where he got it..and stated it was not the copy he gave to Dr. D. He shouldn’t have a copy of the questions and answers together. Then somehow JM got a copy of Dr. S by accident one day in court…I’m I over reacting to this?

      • IT”s not sealed…. The questions where on national televison and all over the internet …..Dr. Samuels had the test himself in his office and then was admitted into evidence for the court. JM wrote the questions down from the test and they were typed up which was shown in court today. That is first illegal, plagarism, and copyright infringement………. She was quick to say that JUAN did it during one of their meetings.

        Pearson is also a textbook publishing company. Anyone can call them and ask them this question..

  49. Ha ! Ha! I just called her office to see if she does testing for adult ADHD or anyone in her office…. and it’s a recording. If there are four psychologists and she’s trying to build her business one would think she and the group would have a secretary…

    So.
    She sees clients
    Scores their tests
    writes her own reports
    files the insurance claims
    and makes her own appointments………………..hmmmmmmmmmmmm OH and TRIALS>

  50. I would not be at all surprised if Dr. DeMarte is going to be dismissed and have her testimony stricken due to the fact she testified she is NOT an expert. Hence the reason court was delayed and canceled.

    Well, time will tell……

    • This is what should happen since she has admitted on the stand she is not an expert in DV/BWS. Defense should move to strike her testimony. Wy this wasn’t done shortly after that comment I’m not sure.

      • not sure how it works in AZ but in Vermont if you are not an expert and admit it then you can not give an opinion (in this case her opinion on DV) and that portion should be stricken and jury notified as far as her opinion on PTSD would stand unless she was completely disqualified.

        • Are you saying that in Vermont, after a Daubert motion/hearing to qualify an expert, you’ve heard of experts subsequently being disqualified on the stand?

          AZ seems to follow Daubert pretty closely and the factors are:

          1) Whether experts are “proposing to testify about matters growing naturally and directly out of research they have conducted independent of the litigation, or whether they have developed their opinions expressly for purposes of testifying.

          2) Whether the expert has unjustifiably extrapolated from an accepted premise to an unfounded conclusion.

          3) Whether the expert has adequately accounted for obvious alternative explanations.

          4) Whether the expert “is being as careful as he would be in his regular professional work outside his paid litigation consulting.”

          5) Whether the field of expertise claimed by the expert is known to reach reliable results for the type of opinion the expert would give.

          I think, using those factors, you could conclude that she is qualified to be an expert. She has treated *some* domestic violence victims and has participated in research. Her doors are not closed to treating domestic violence victims. And she has accounted for alternatives. Psychology opinions on domestic violence are somewhat unreliable to begin with so the court would have leeway to have disqualified her, but it didn’t because she is a psychologist in practice and courts rarely disqualify experts to begin with.

          Unfortunately, I don’t know what she was qualified as, perhaps a trauma expert? I think the defense would have had to object to her qualification prior to trial. Is it different in Vermont?

          • They may have stipulated based on certain facts that they may now allege are misrepresentations in a motion to strike…who knows. I just know that Moon Unit DeMarte looked like an absolute fool today!

  51. I haven’t been on here all day.

    My biggest question: Out of all the psychologists in the greater Arizona area, why did Juan Mar-teenie-mess pick Dr. DeMarte (if she’s *really* a doctor), who had approximately 2 years and 3 months experience, to date?

    So inexperienced.
    So rude.
    No compassion for patients with mental illness.
    Idiot because Lenore Walker wrote the forward for Alyce LaViolette’s book.

    I can’t feel sorry for *doctor* DeMarte because in my opinion, she’s only in this to make $$$$.

  52. Just had to make a comment about why I think JM hired JD. I think it’s a subtle way of pointing out the differences between her and Jodie. Both are around the same age but had very different lives. It’s his way of saying this is what an intelligent person does. And now for something I haven’t been able to get out of my mind since watching JD’s testimony yesterday:

    JD to JM: “What have you gotten me into? You know I only work 20 hours a week!”

    Hope that gave someone a chuckle!

    • Just checked in they are certainly singing her praises, I knew they would, How well she is standing up on cross, defense doesn’t have anything to work wit,h, that she is a neutral witness, OH MY GOSH Dr.D is annoying with her Valley girl accent ,talk about immature she needs to take a good look in the mirror she has such a HUGE CHIP ON HER SHOULDER, how can they say she is non bias. She sucks. Can’t stand her sorry, Does not mean I will get on Amazon to discredit her books, OH I forgot she never wrote one.

      • Everything they say is diametrically opposite of what is going on in court.

        It’s like looking at Pravda during the Stalin era.

      • If they strike her testimony about DV/BWS, that will show the public who is telling the truth here. They should be able to on the basis of lack of foundation… I mean if Dr. Samuels couldn’t testify about the crime scene due to lack of foundation …..

        • They need to strike her testimony from the record. She already testified that she is not an expert in what she was paid and hired to determine. She can not speak to anything based on those comments alone just like ears nose and throat doctor wouldn’t be called to testify in a cardiac malpractice suit.

    • Bev, How can you stand to look at that thing?

      The sight and sound of her voice gives me a visceral reaction

      I have no idea who she’s blowing to keep herself on the payroll

      • It was accidental I swear. I agree she looks like she was rode hard and put away wet. I actually think she might be drinking again. I don’t mean to sound harsh because I have 2 alcoholic brothers but I would love to be the one to pass this sarcastic, arrogant bitch a nice tall vodka.

        PS. She’s probably agreeing NOT to blow anyone to keep herself on the air! heh heh

  53. I wonder why JW didn’t ask her why she didn’t give her her own PTSD test and why she didn’t retest her once Jodi moved to self defense?

    So this admitted non expert had only been licensed for 2 years when she interviewed Jodi? She gave her a IQ, personality, read and writing test but didnt.

    • I think most personality tests are bogus …. I don’t think you can say personality stays consistent from childhood. PTSD changes personality. DV changes personality. Traumatic events, life changing experiences changes personality. DeMarte made a blanket statement that is just wrong.

      How do you explain someone who maybe was not religious suddenly becoming religious – their views change, their personality changes too, lifestyle, everything.

      Likewise, if someone was in a car crash, if it was traumatic enough for them, their personality could change.

      • People Change yes! Everyone deals with trauma differently doesn’t change your personality,
        They act like there test mean anything we can all fake it there is tons of stuff on the Internet books etc.
        I find the whole topic laughable because these are relatively new names given to trauma but one mans drink is another mans poison there are many PTSD people who have no memory of the event but experience the emotional trauma the feelings for instance children who have no vocabulary to express what happened. Sin

        • My point was personality can change.

          DeMartie is arguing that because Jodi behaved a certain way as a child, she is that same way now. That is the exact opposite of what ALV said.

          • NK
            The legal reason she is making that argument is to exonerate Travis and basically state there was no self defense that Travis did not abuse Jodi she was always like this.

      • Dr.D believes that nothing changes we are all stuck, So I guess St.Paul’s road to Damascus conversion couldn’t happen in Dr.Ds world. She has an ulterior motive, Jodi was always BPD etc. She is trying to fit Jodi into her Fast food Psychology, actually Dr.D is easy to read. She is smug arrogant and a know it all which is very immature her manner is a turn off.

    • I have wondered why she didn’t give a different PTSD test as well. There has to be a different one from what Dr. Samuels used . . . that one could not be used again because Jodi would be familiar with the questions.

  54. I’m probably going to get slammed for this but I just set up a Twitter accound so I could go on HLN and tell them what I think of them. I feel SO much better now 🙂

      • Beverly‏@sylkenfire
        How can you call yourselves a news channel and be as blatently biased as you are? I thought some of you had some integrity but I was wrong.

        Friend: Knowing what Arias did is ‘sickening’

        ME: What makes you think I’m talking about Arias? NOTHING they report is without bias. Get over yourself…..friend.

  55. Well it’s Big Bang Theory for me now. I have to chill I am too pissed off. HLN does that to me. I haven’t watched them for a few days and I was in a much better mood. I just fell into that trap again today. I just wonder….do they ever watch themselves? Obviously not or they would realize how rediculous they are.

    I love having this site to discuss and vent. Thanks all, you ROCK!!!!

    • I was where you are but since I stopped looking and hearing the spew from HLN I feel much better.

      Take a break and don’t let them get to you.

      Have fun with your new account. 🙂

  56. So why do you all think JM picked baby-doc to be the States “expert” witness………….

    1) was she the “best” he could get?
    2) only one who would take the case?

    I’m really quite baffled that he would choose her out of all the EXP’s out there.

  57. I know sitting in the courtroom is totally diffefferent than viewing from home. I wish I could get a clue for how the cross is going over in the courtroom. I hang on ever word and no doubt I’m bias. When watching I’m screaming BAM! POW! take that you little know it all. Perhaps I put WEIGHT to certain significance points JW is bringing out. I saw a tweet on wildabouttrial.com that there are no questions in the basket…is this good or bad? Are the jurors worn thin and don’t care anymore? I hope not…After all the snippy questions for Dr. S and AL, I can’t believe they are not going to have a few questions for this smarty pants “expert”. I hope the one juror that asked Jodi the gas can question does not get picked. The question went something like this..why she filled the 3rd gas can when before she stated she only took 2 cans to Mesa. Jodi had to explain it was a hypothecial question. I’m worry this juror is not paying close attention. Maybe I expect to much. .

    • I believe it is because JW does not confuse everyone with backtracking, hypotheticals, semantics and twisting of words. But that scares me too cuz I think JM’s tactics may work, if only to a neanderthal few. Therefore, I wish JW would be more aggressive at calling out the witness’s b.s. just to be sure they know who is really lying. (Sorry to be so cynical but I have lost faith in the intelligence of the human population with this trial.)

      • Thanks, your probably right. I’m a worry wort. I guess we need to trust JW that she know how far to go. Well, it helps, when JM jumps up and says if she is going to impeach her…loved it.

    • Ann that is my concern also. The jurors had so many questions for the defense witnesses but I was told that there might only be one for the state’s witness at this time. I’m nervous because if the jurors all of a sudden get quiet this can’t be a good sign.

  58. Did I hear correctly today? Demarte gave Jodi a test to make sure she could read and an IQ test totaling 5 hours of billable time at over $200/hour?

    Also, she has no idea how much time she spent reviewing records even though she billed for them? She knows it was less than 200 hours but more than 50?

    She’s also would not call herself an expert in domestic violence but feels qualified to say Jodi does not qualify as a battered woman?

    Great job, JW!!

      • Never performed the PSD not DSM… the dsm is disgnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders used for codes and criteria on each disorder,.,.,

        • Yeah FU, that’s what I meant, Im not an expert and SHE performed what 5 test, I can’t keep up with what’s what anymore! Thank god IM NOT on the stand! Lol thx though.

  59. It REALLY bothers me that there are no jury questions yet. Does it bother anyone else or am I just freaking out for no reason yet?

    • I don’t think there were any questions for ALV until Martinez started crossing. She isn’t done yet. Maybe we should just wait and see?

      • I agree. Jury questions didnt start rolling in until JM started to hit with his counter points. I don’t think JW has mad those points yet but once she does the questions will come.

      • It seems most of the questions came during cross and redirect with the other witnesses, so there may be more tomorrow. But also, Juror No. 5 was said by the talking heads to have been seen submitting a lot of questions and she’s not there anymore. Also, who knows? Maybe Juror No. 11 also submitted questions.

    • nope, not worried.

      It’s clear this Baby Doc doesn’t know very much.

      If I were on the jury I wouldn’t ask any questions of her either because she doesn’t know anything. It is THAT painfully obvious.

      Now, I know not everyone on the jury will think like that, but some will.