site stats

Jodi Arias Trial – Day 49 (afternoon session)

.

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 PayPal, click here (or click the Team Jodi link below) for further details.

Tags:

You might be interested in

View all

981 Comments

  5. 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

      • I haven’t read it but you don’t write a forward if you don’t have a great deal of respect for the author!!!!!!!!!!

        • Exactly. This book is considered a textbook in the field, so thousands of students have read it.

          • I’m so hoping for an A Ha moment on the respect Baby Doc’s DV resource has for ALV!!

    • 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

    • Wonderful!!!

      I suspect JW already knows this…. but very good find.

      Would be even cooler if Lenore was called, maybe just on the phone 🙂

    • 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.

        • Ok Gee Bee I have been doing that daily for you hope it helps.
          Thanks for all the hard work an determination you have put into
          that it is really important I think 😉

        • geebee…

          Don’t forget to keep posting your link often for us to just click on it…with so much info constantly flowing on this site…it is hard to remember how to locate it…

    • 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.

  7. It’s like JW is peeling an onion to get at its rotten core. It’s kind of fun to watch, frankly.

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

        • My sympathies re” your laptop cindy jewell,…the thought of that happening to me is OMG! My world would crash!

            • LOL @ Dorothy .. your life and many others are trapped in a laptop!

              I only use HLN when forced to and no longer listen to the ugly talking mouths. I agree life has been so much better since not listening to their asinine and biased spew.

              Jodi looks tired today. I cannot imagine how difficult these days are for her.

      • They certainly bring out the worst in people.

        I’ve been doing so much better since I stopped watching.

        I realized that even if I don’t buy into their crap, they are still just pissing me off with their lies and spin. They bring out the worst in people, plain and simple.

    • Cindy you weren’t able to get wild about trial’s mobile feed to work? Does anyone else know how to get live feed on a phone?

  9. 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!!!!

  10. 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.

  11. 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 ;>)))))

      • “in the evenings it may be hard to tell because we’ve been drinking”

        LOLOLOLOL

      • 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.

      • People were referring to ‘the hater site’. I wanted to know which one they were referring so I knew what they were talking about. I did a search but that doesn’t help. as you have now realised I’m quite internet savvy…

        Like I said, I’m not here to cause trouble. It was just a simple, legitimate question.

    • 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.

  13. 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.

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

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

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

  19. 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.

    • I wish they would too! Hey, cant they bring one in themselves in the rebuttal? (Am I even spelling that right)??? Lol

      • In the surrebuttal? I am not sure how that works in Az. Does anyone know. I think it can only go against stuff in rebuttal, but I don’t know for sure.

    • The ME didn’t seem to be certain that the shot came last, and I think he said as much. The decomp complicated the autopsy.

  21. 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 😉

    • i always feel safe here(except sometimes when the roaches storm in,thanx Moni for the simile) but lately I’ve been worrying as to what may happen on verdict day.Dont you think they’ll heap in here attacking,name calling,threatening?

  22. 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

  23. WildAboutTrial @WildAboutTrial

    Nurmi and Willmott just headed back to chambers. #JodiArias

  25. WildAboutTrial @WildAboutTrial

    #JodiArias just came in and headed back to chambers as well.

  26. “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it” George Orwell

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

        • That I do not know. I believe they can approach the Judge and request to put on a rebuttal case once the prosecution gets done.

  29. 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

  31. 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.

  32. wild says that Juan, Flores, and Dr. D just came to the side room….hmmm….

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

      • oh please… how long was ALV and Dr Samuels up there. She can keep her up there all week as far as I am concerned. I amenjoying this too much.

        • Yes exactly! How long did JM have Alyce and Dr Samuels up on the stand, talking about total NONISSUES and technicalities, pretending they were relevant?

          Like I said, hypocrites. One rule for them, one rule for us. It’s such bullshit.

    • And, if I recall correctly, there is a much bigger difference btw JD’s therapy session fees ($125) & what she is getting for this ($250-300) vs. ALV (I think it was $200 vs $250-300), so much bigger financial benefit for JD to do this instead of therapy sessions.

  35. 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!!

  36. wild says…

    They just announced a recess until 2:30…Jodi just left the courtroom…

  38. 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?

      • I believe that is what JW is trying to do right now………… Maybe this is why they are in chambers.

        • 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.

  39. 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.

        • HAHAHA Al!

          That is very funny.

          I’m a bit sad about the women in that room though.

          🙁

          • 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!

  40. 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!

  41. Good pictures up there. Jodi, innocent, studious and serious. Baby Doc sweaty palms twisted mouth pants on fire.

  42. 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 agree with you JJ…any other expert would not have wanted to take it on…

    • 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!!

    • And there’s always some schmuck willing to sell his soul to the devil for moola!!

    • 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.

  43. 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.

  45. 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

  46. 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.

    • Didn’t she say she went in with someone else??????? Damn, I csnt remember, I might have memory issues! !!

    • 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!!!!

  48. 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.

      • That’s right, Rebecca, and if ALV or Samuels concedes, they are “lying” and JM caught them! lol

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

    • Right!!!

      Vinnie is another person that reminds me of an animated ice sculpture. Blank, icy stare. Frequent breaks with reality despite the evidence right in front of them.

      • He’s a loser. Martinez could literally take a giant shit in the middle of the courtroom and Vinnie would say “What a brilliant strategy on the prosecution’s part!”

    • 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.

  52. 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.

    • HLN actually said that?wow,cool to see at least one of them there is using their brain!!

      • 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

  53. 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

  54. 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,

  55. 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.

  56. 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.

    • Omg Renee, iv thought that, those people are crazy enough and hate her. I would imagine they do.

  57. 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?

  58. 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.

  59. I’m still on day 48’s afternoon session. Is she still drinking dangerous amounts of water today?

    • 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.

  68. 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

      • I’m emailling my Question to JW. Does everyone one know you can talk with jennifer through her websit? there’s a send jennifer an email link. It’s awesome. I just found it the other day!! Awesome right

  70. Wow why is the judge shaking her head………… WTF is going on… something good for JODI i hope

    • 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…

      • Omg I was so excited too, dud you see my go team jodi? Lolol well I guess not!! But wtf happened? !

        • 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!

            • Omg they are so disgusting. How can people get such delight from killing another person?

            • Aren’t those comments asinine?

              1. We don’t hang people with a noose when administering the DP, nor do we “fry” them anymore.

              2. If convicted of capital murder, Jodi would appeal the DP for 15-20 years.

              3. She’s not going to get the DP.

  82. 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?

  83. 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!

  86. 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. 🙂

    • sirlips…

      I really love your posts…very informative in a comical telling way…gotta love it…

    • 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???

      • If i can get you to believe 1 x 4 = smurf, then it is all down hill for Jodi. I hope this jury is smarter than a 5th grader. (yah, i said it)

      • Because Jodi is soft spoken, giddy, down to earth, makes her look or sound immature? Doesn’t she know that battered women, abused women often are like Jodi?

        What it comes down to folks, the ” Baby doc” lacks experience, and she was covering her tracks using these test………..she’s all about data…. not personal interviews and knowledge.

        • Am I the only one that sees immaturity in this witness herself? With her attitude, tone etc..

          • You are not the only one to see that, JJ. I found it amusing how she was calling Jodi immature; if only this witness could see her true self.

            • My ex is a convicted felon and filed for bankruptcy in 2004, and yet, he has the ability to accept credit cards which he got in 2011.

              Also, there are numerous places you can take credit cards online as long as you pay a small fee. PayPal is one, but there are many many others.

              • I think that they are just trying to assess terror risk- like national security type risk, not felonious activity type

    • 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.

    • Sirlips,.

      You just brightened by day…….. Thanks for that wonderful truthful post……….Bless your soul.

    • Omg that was so funny. Your post are great and I always look forward to them 😆

      • 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…………..

          • to get there you have to back out of Baby Doc’s area and to its home and about us.

        • 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?

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

  88. 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.

    • Yes she looked like she might of had a migraine. I hate they treat her in that jail.

      • 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.

  89. 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”.

        • ”I highlighted that” …Yeah,what’s up with that?It’s as if she’s giving a lecture not testifying!

        • Oh, yes. and “My answer is the same as it was for the last question.” Heard that more than once.

      • 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.

    • She reminds me of Sarah Palin being questioned on what news publications and magazines she has read. lol

  90. 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.

  91. 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.

  92. 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’!!!

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

  94. 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? 🙂

  95. 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.

  96. 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.

    • Keep up the good work Detective Holmes aka FUJuan…

      love your posts…very informative…

    • 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…

          • is there a difference between a cold salad and a tossed salad…? :-))

            (sorry viri … could not resist)

          • 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.

  97. 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….

        • That would seem to fit here. Nothing against folks who need to take their own path to achievement, but JD shouldn’t be throwing stones or have such a pompous attitude if that was indeed her story.

      • 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!!!!

  98. 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.

    • And Vinnie Politan referring to comments on “social media” that showed people saying this witness is “holding up well” under cross.

      I would vote for Vinnie Politan and Ryan Smith to be the two STUPIDIST hosts on HLN.

  99. 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..

  100. 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>

  101. anyone know why court canceled this afternoon, could it be because of the bomb threat at that other court house

  103. 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.

        • i should add that she can testify only to facts if you are not an expert just like ant other witness

        • 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!

  104. 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 $$$$.

    • I think the reason JW asked about compassion is because of Dr. Samuel’s compassion for Jodi. If she says she does have a compassion for her clients than she is biased in her assessments. I am not an expert, just my thought.

  105. 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.

        • LOL UR RIGHT!! but thank God we have Lisa Bloom and her Mother Gloria to tell us how to think the 2 biggest Ambulance chasers in history

      • 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

  107. 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.

            • Oh I know. I just think that is an indication she really does not know what she is talking about.

              • She doesn’t she is a Paint by numbers psychologist. She lacks any introspective skills.
                which are very necessary, she is the opposite of JW. No compassion just a good student.

      • 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.

  108. 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.

  109. 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. 🙂

  110. 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.

    • I hears so much crapola, it becomes unclear what is gossip and what is true. I heard he met her at a some type of policeman event and was impressed with her.

      • If you look on the Arizona Bar website under “find an expert witness”, her name is the first one that pops up

    • She is young, green and hungry for the green = she would say whatever he wanted = that’s all he cared about.

      • I can only assume that the State tried to get a more experienced expert. I’m sure they would have reviewed the case and given the State their opinion verbally and would not have been beneficial to their charges and, therefore, they are stuck with this child.

  111. 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.

  112. 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.

  114. 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.

        • Or maybe the jurors don’t want to go through 2-3 more days of BS. They can get the picture…hopefully.

    • 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.

      • I’m not worried either BeeCee because Jennifer is pretty easy to follow and hear and understand unlike Martinez who is difficult to follow and understand. That’s where the questions come from>>>misunderstanding/couldn’t hear/Martinez overtalking the response…etc…ets…

        • Absolutely Edward! What you stated is another GEAT reason there aren’t a lot of questions in the basket.

          Martinez cut things off, interrupted, twisted, sliced…badgered…etc etc

    • KD
      I didn’t know yes it does worry me, since they had so many for the defense experts.

    • I wouldn’t have one single question for this so called expert and its just for one reason too, she has no credibility. Simple as that…

  115. I have some questions regarding the rebuttal. Does anyone know if there are more witnesses after the current one and does the defense have the opportunity to do their rebuttal? These questions might sound stupid, but I have no clue about this stuff. Thanks in advance

    • I don’t think the defense will get a sur rebuttal. I read on here, JM has at least one more rebuttal witness. I really don’t know.

      • I think there’s a super slim possibility that the issue of Jodi’s “borderline personality diagnosis” and her alleged “anger issues” (brought up yesterday by JM) *could* be considered “new information” and that *could* give the defense a crack at a very very limited surrebuttal. It’s rarely rarely rarely allowed in AZ (or anywhere for that matter) but it does change things and is new information and new evidence. I really hope the defense argues for it because that could be used on appeal.

        • Thinking further about this though, I should say that JM may argue that Dr. DeSmarmy’s diagnosis of BPD is simply a rebuttal to Dr. Samuel’s diagnosis of PTSD so I’m not sure surrebuttal would be allowed.

          • Thanks for answering my question guys, but I’m thinking after JW’s cross today, the whole rebuttal thing may even work for the defense. I think she did a pretty awesome job. Thanks again guys.

          • But her tests don’t bear that out and actually score to the contrary. She also used the old version and, from what I could glean, she skipped two portions of the summary of the testing for BPD.

    • I think there may be a lot more than just 2 or 3. I’ve read a computer expert, Walmart rep, Tesoro rep and possibly a friend of Travis’ but not sure.

      • He had 15 witnesses on his rebuttal list. That doesn’t mean he will call them all.

  117. The psychologist for the prosecution seems to be a novice. She cannot use her years of training as experience. I do not think she has the experience at this time in her career. She is still in the learning phase. i hope the defense lawyers shred her arrogance to pieces.

    • OMG – I had to jump in tonight. That damn Nancy Disgrace just said JW called the young lady Doc a Bitch. WTH.

      • I have to admit, it did sound like she could have said that. BUT, I really don’t think JW would do that with the mics on.

      • She did NOT say bitch on that video…

        This trial has become more of a game than a trial for many of the television viewing audience…the haters and the HLN are holding the hate cards and they just don’t have another breaking news card for tonight…

        So they sent the Mexican Chihuahua and the German Shepherd to look in a hole that the gopher dug in hopes to find something like maybe a gun…and all they found was some chyt that the dog dumped…and that sorely disappointed them…

        But it looks as though they found the camera that the dog left behind where he dumped his chyt and it had this stupid video on it with all these sounds waves saying not much of nothing…and they all threw their cards down and hollered, “Bitch.”…

        And that my friend…is why everyone is saying that she said “Bitch.”

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93BueHCySt8

    • I listen to the you tube clip like 20 times. If the clip hasn’t been messed with then she said it I listened to it at 300% volume. That’s not good at all. JM will through the “misconduct” stuff right back in their faces. If no one doctored this clip the JW might get in a little trouble over this. I would hate to see that happen she was doing so well on cross.

      • It did sound possible, IMO. They better get their video/audio expert on this ASAP and do some pro-active damage control – IF she did actuallly call her a bitch.

        • Didn’t happen >>> Jennifer Wilmott said >>> You Betcha…as she was hunting the papers. I heard it plain as day on my audio.

          • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93BueHCySt8

            Whatever she did say it sounded like a two syllable word…sounds like a “cha” on the end…and I have heard her say “bet cha” many times before….when I’ve heard her say that before she always has a slight pause between the (bet cha)…

            I feel that “bet cha” was the word that she said…

      • She said “LET ME GET YOU…..” Listen closer and don’t expect to hear the word “bitch.”

  119. haha, this is funny. NG saying saying JW went after the Dr and didn’t make a dent. Ummm someone send that video clip of her lying.

    • And, how about calling herself a DV expert at frist, then had to say she has NEVER even given the PTSD test – and next actually back-tracked and said she wasn’t a DV expert afterall. Well, NO SHIT!

  120. Damn, so much for staying off the boards…and calling it a nite!!! Obsession, Addiction, whatever! lol

    Just one more Q. Is JW going to ask her about the STOLEN LAPTOP?
    Do you think that this laptop was deliberately ‘stolen’ becoz she may have had a crappy report in there, as she was a premie (not even a newborn) back then? or she may have had something in her report that would’ve compromised the prosc theory? Thats my gut feeling. What say you?

  121. Start at 48:25 she says “What a bitch” at 48:37…I really hope this is just some hater that put this on you tube. If anyone wants me to post the you tube clip I will.

  122. I see the clip was posted..sorry… I’m watching the full length video to see if you can hear it on there. I’ll be right back.

  125. Dr D calls herself an expert of PTSD but shes NEVER given the DSM. I get that theres other ways to diagnose BUT if you havent performed this test at least a few times how can you call yourself an expert? ? Shes not a DV expert shes already admitted, I wouldn’t call her a PTSD expert either.

    I cant wait for tomorrow where JW will bring up questions regarding how the brain works. So I hope this so called expert goes home and study the hippocampus!

    • Exactly, and just because you were abused as a child, and can’t remember, your hippocampus doesn’t atrophy. I grew up in an alcoholic house, it was a nightmare and I have big gaps in my memory from my childhood. My hippocampus did not atrophy and my memory is not impaired once I was grew up and was able to leave.

    • I agree LC, she should have given the PDS test. I’m surprised she didn’t. She isn’t a DV expert, and has said so on the stand. I am sure tomorrow will be the discussion about the psychology of the brain, but there is where he expertise is, the same as Dr Samuels. I am positive we will be listening to all the same things about anatomy of the brain, chemicals, glands, flight or flight, etc. These issues and facts cannot be disputed between experts, they are facts that you can look up in text books. The biggest thing lacking regarding this witness, IMO, is her lack of experience with DV victims and battered women. I am surprised that the pros doesnt have a DV expert as well as a psychologist like the defense did. I dont know though, maybe there is one on his list, I don’t know who all is on the state list. I wish I did..lol.

      • I was, at one point, pretty sure she was the only psych-related expert on JM’s list. But he could have added, since he kept on doing that.

        • But if he has added another psych witness, it’s not someone who evaluated Jodi (to the best of my knowledge) so it could only be to rebut a conclusion that one of the defense experts made and would be very limited.

    • I know I can’t believe it. Although she did mention she still uses her 6 points. I bet JM will try to add another witness to his list

          • Lenore Walker is a pioneer! ALV talked about her…and she wrote the forward to Alyces book!! What is she saying???? I can’t hear it. ughhh.

            • She was on for like 0.5 seconds. Said her 6 point method for DV has evolved but she still uses it, she DOES believe JA may have been battered but usually when a situation like this happens (death) the survivor is also badly hurt or injured.

    • That’s an understatement…. and judging by their facial expressions it doesnt’ look good for Jodi… Just an observation.

      Some much happens on their lunch breaks.

      • JW and KN looked quite pleased to me. JW had said before she was getting ready to go onto the next topic something like the next line of questioning is going to cause a large issue and asked if they could approach.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93BueHCySt8

        Whatever she did say it sounded like a two syllable word…sounds like a “cha” on the end…and I have heard her say “bet cha” many times before….when I’ve heard her say that before she always has a slight pause between the (bet cha)…

        I feel that “bet cha” was the word that she said…

    • Jennifer Wilmott said, “You Betcha”, as she was looking for the papers. I can hear it as plain as day.

  131. Dr lenor walker is on nancy grace she herself just said so far she doesn’t see jodi being a battered woman . Thoughts. ?

    • She said it was possible JA was battered but usually in these scenarios the survivor usually also comes out with injuries after the event and that, she has not seen.

    • Well she hasn’t evaluated Jodi herself. I respect what Lenor Walker has done but she hasnt spent ONE hour with Jodi or hasnt had the chance to look at the evidence all in front of her to make an accurate diagnosis. Shes probably on national TV just to give a vibe that shes NOT on the defense side, as to kind hint to these haters not to categorize her.

  132. She said a battered woman can or can’t be likeable. What’s important is hearing the victim shows fear and she hadn’t heard fear from Jodi.

    • Of course that’s the last thing Lenore said before it was cut off from a commercial. I’m sure she said more, BUT this being the media it’s BS!

    • how would she know if she heard fear? Did she interview Jodi? As for a battered woman be likeable or not…duh, battered women are normal human beings.

      • Exactly,Where is she getting her info?Is she reading or seeing the evidence?
        This is B.S Nothing but a witchhunt.

        • Why would she show fear 5 years later? Most battered women don’t show fear unless they are around the person who is doing the battering.

          • BAM. She has had five years to get over her fears. Now if she had investigated the case like ALV had from the start…

        • JA’s testimony is five years AFTER Travis was killed. Good criminy, does the woman KNOW JA was diagnosed as PTSD?

    • well…wouldn’t that fear be visible while the abuser is alive, and maybe not visible after they are gone?

      I mean, I can’t say I saw fear in Jodi either during testimony, but I do believe she had fear while she was in the relationship with Travis.

      • Yes so true. The person she had fear for is GONE! She’s not fearful NOW, duhhh!
        My gosh this NG is ridiculous, and lenor walker probably got on tv to show these haters that she not on the defense side either.

        • If ppl are throwing her name out there she was bound to be on a show for a few seconds

      • That’s what I think all these psychologists need to remember. They didnt interview her until years after the incident/relationship had ended. The traumatic event was long gone. What type of fear would she possibly demonstrate years after the killing and being in jail all that time certainly changes a persons demeanor as well.

        • Wow, Disgrace has some pulling power to get Lenore on there. Then again, she did “sell out” when she agreed to testify for OJ’s defense which caused many in the movement to feel she was a disgrace herself, and all because she owed Johnnie Cochran her ass. A lot of people in the DV movement have NEVER forgiven her for that. I don’t know how much you guys know about what she did back then, but she claimed she would testify that she didn’t believe OJ killed Nicole because there wasn’t a pattern of escalating violence right before the murder. She claimed that you could not predict and abuser would become a killer unless that pattern exists right beforehand. She also testified for another abuser in Florida, who killed his ex-girlfriend. He was not convicted.

          I can’t prove ANY escalating violence against my ex ever happened. It’s just my own word that it happened. It’s been 2 years and a month since I got my order of protection (called an injunction for protection in FL) which is non-expiring, and there’s been no violence since then because he doesn’t know where I am (he knows the general area because a stupid lawyer of mine announced it in court, but not exactly). But I can tell you that I am still, even right in this moment, incredibly petrified of him. I firmly believe that if he knew where I am exactly, he would kill me, and I will hold that view to the day I die. There was a woman divorced for as long as 20 years with no contact in between, and her abusive ex came after her.

          Talk about setting the movement back! Lenore Walker set it back centuries.

          If anything, given Lenore Walker’s past history of testimony for batterers, perhaps she should be arguing that there was no evidence of escalating violence from Jodi to Travis. Perhaps then, Jodi would be guaranteed an acquittal.

          You can learn more about Lenore Walker here, if you’re interested: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/domviol/docs/Wimberly.authcheckdam.pdf

    • It’s also been wgat 4/5 years since, jodis FEAR has most likely turned, gone away with time. Shes probably in a better peaceful state of mind. That’s what I see when I see her drawing.

        • Plus sitting in jail for the past 5 years has to affect one’s mental health.

          It could only arrest ones personality with needing to *go along to get along* in order to get thru the endless days of incarceration.

  133. I’ve noticed on programs like “48 hours” and “Dateline” when jurors are questioned about the decision, they sometimes give odd reasons for their guilty vote. Things like “he showed no remorse so I voted guilty” or “when she cried , I didn’t see any tears so I voted guilty.” Decisions not based on the evidence presented.
    It would be great if a juror would have to submit a one page sheet of reasons for their vote of guilty or innocent.

    Here is some info about jurors, their average education level, etc.

    http://jurygeek.blogspot.ca/2005/06/are-jurors-competent-to-do-their-job.html

  134. Lenore Walker hasn’t worked with Jodi, so her point of view is bullshit.

    I don’t care WHO she is. She hasn’t worked with her, so she should STFU.

    • We should give her the benefit of the doubt. She pioneered the Dx process for battered women. By your same rationale we should throw out ALVs testimony in regards to TA and I appreciated her POV on TA

      • Omg ALV went through TA journal, his writing, and other materials. Mrs walker didnt. What did she have to say about TA that you appreciated? ???

      • “We should give her the benefit of the doubt. She pioneered the Dx process for battered women.” And then, she spat in the eye of the judicial process to convict an abuser who injured or murdered his former victim years later.

    • Tonysam, you may enjoy my comment above about Lenore Walker and the ABA article I linked to. She was once a pioneer in an unknown movement. She became nothing but a fame whore.

    • And it was quite clear in that case Nicole Brown Simpson was TERRIFIED of O.J.

      She’s a pioneer, but she is not the last word.

      • I agree that Nicole was terrified. I did not even know that she testified in the OJ trial. I know that case has been mentioned her a few times, and people have differing opinions. I have never, for the life of me, understood how he was found not guilty. It was such a shock to me that I actually thought I misheard. I watched it, I was shocked.

        • I think that jury was starstruck more than anything, plus they sat there for something like nine months and were likely sick of the whole thing.

        • She actually didn’t testify in the criminal trial. She agreed to testify. Judge Ito limited who could and couldn’t testify and what could be said. She DID however, testify in the criminal trial of another abuser who killed his ex-girlfriend.

      • And Nicole had also called the police, had pictures and witnesses, and still some people didn’t believe she was abused.

          • And nothing has changed today, Kira. I know women with restraining orders who have called the police and they don’t arrest them until they’ve committed, on average, 7 violations of the order.

            I sat in court in MD in 2011 waiting on a hearing to have my own order domesticated here. Up before me was a woman holding her infant son, attempting to have her ex, the baby’s father violated on the grounds that he had sent her disgusting text messages because he was running late for a custodial exchange and she had to go to work and said she couldn’t wait. They met at a local McDonald’s because the woman was afraid of him. In the text messages, he was, ranting and raving at her, calling her a whore, a c*nt, a lousy mother, and saying it’s no wonder he beat her when they were together and that, if he got her alone, he would beat the living shit out of her. The messages continued for most of the day, making it very uncomfortable for this woman to do her job. She was unrepresented due to lack of funds, and the only agency in this area who could have taken her case, was too backed up representing women in obtaining initial orders to assist her. (Also, the agencies don’t *have* to help with modifications/violations under the law here. They are only required to provide assistance with obtaining an initial order.)

            The judge, who is considered one of THE fairest judges in these cases (I was told by local advocates) did not arrest the guy for violation of the order of protection. Instead, he warned him very severely and said if it happened again, he would be doing jail time. The judge got hung up on the fact that the offender said “if he got her alone, he would beat her” which he said was not a direct threat. I really wanted to get up and offer to argue for her, but I’m not a lawyer in any state, let alone here, and I didn’t want to piss off the judge and have him throw out my order or limit it in any way. (My order is non-expiring which is not typically granted in the state of MD. I was nervous that he would not honour FL’s non-expiration.) I felt very selfish because I truly wanted to help the woman and I was quite disgusted that the judge did not consider the offender’s actions a violation.

            But that’s just the way it works. Nonetheless, I do believe if the guy violated again and was in front of that same judge, he would have be thrown in jail. However, chances are, it would be a different judge on rotation so …

            Such is the life of a domestic violence victim. In FL, it wasn’t considered a violation when he shut off water in the house that had been temporarily awarded to me, when he stole my mail, when he changed my mailing address on USPS.com, when he had neighbours harass me, or when I saw him outside but he was gone when the police got there.

  136. Qualification Requirements for Purchase

    Pearson is committed to accurate and ethical assessment of individuals, and uses the qualification system to help ensure that the right tools are in the right hands. If you have questions about our qualification descriptions, please call Customer Support at 800-627-7271 for assistance.

    We will require verification of qualifications for purchase.

    Qual A: There are no special qualifications to purchase these products.

    Qual B: Tests can be purchased by individuals with:
    ■Certification by or full active membership in a professional organization (ASHA, AOTA, APA, AERA, ACA, AMA, NASP, NAN, INS) that requires training and experience in a relevant area of assessment.

    OR
    ■A master’s degree in psychology, education, occupational therapy, speech-language pathology, social work, or in a field closely related to the intended use of the assessment, and formal training in the ethical administration, scoring, and interpretation of clinical assessments.

    Qual C: Tests with a C qualification require a high level of expertise in test interpretation, and can be purchased by individuals with:
    ■Licensure or certification to practice in your state in a field related to the purchase.

    OR
    ■A doctorate degree in psychology, education, or closely related field with formal training in the ethical administration, scoring, and interpretation of clinical assessments related to the intended use of the assessment.

    Qual Q: Tests can be purchased by individuals with one of the backgrounds below as determined by the particular purchase, along with formal training in the ethical use, administration, and interpretation of standardized assessment tools and psychometrics:

    Q1: A degree or license to practice in the healthcare or allied healthcare field,

    OR

    Q2: Formal supervised mental health, speech/language, and/or educational training specific to working with parents and assessing children, or formal supervised training in infant and child development

    Sample qualified personnel in these categories may include: psychiatrists, early interventionists, social workers, developmental pediatricians, pediatric nurse practitioners, counselors, content or diagnostic education specialists, speech and language therapists, and occupational and physical therapists specializing in early intervention. If you clearly meet the criteria established for B or C levels, you would not need to pursue qualification under Level Q.

    Customer acknowledges and agrees that the use or disclosure of Pearson trade secrets or confidential information may cause Pearson irreparable harm for which remedies other than injunctive relief may be inadequate. If Customer is required to disclose secure test materials pursuant to a subpoena or court order, please refer to the Pearson’s Litigation Disclosure at PearsonClinical.com.

  137. Policies

    1. United Book Distributors – Conditions of Sale

    http://www.unitedbookdistributors.com.au/

    2. Permissions and Licensing
    Reproduction of any purchased materials requires the prior written consent of Pearson. Questions and answers, including practice questions and answers, may not be reproduced without written permission, regardless of the number of lines or items involved. Test copies may not be bound in theses, dissertations or reports placed in libraries, generally circulated, or accessible to the public, or in any article or text of any kind.

    Pearson will consider requests for permission to reproduce, modify, or translate part or all of any copyrighted publication and will also consider the granting of licenses for use of our copyrighted materials. Requests to reproduce, translate, adapt, modify, or make special versions of these publications must be in writing and directed to:

    Requests to copy any test materials must be in writing and directed to the:
    General Manager
    Pearson Clinical and Talent Assessment
    Level 6 / 287 Elizabeth Street
    Sydney NSW
    Australia 2000

    Once approved, any reproduction must include acknowledgement of the source, including author, test, publisher, and copyright notice.

    3. Permission to Use Copyrighted Test Norms

    Pearson has the sole right to authorise reproductions of any portion of its published tests, including test norms. Copying of test norms without authorisation is a violation of copyright. The term “copying” includes, but is not limited to, entry of test norms into a computer memory for purposes of test processing, scoring, or reporting. Any person or organisation wanting to use Pearson’s test norms must submit a formal written request to the General Manager. If permission is granted, a fee may be charged. Permission from Pearson for use of test norms does not imply endorsement of, or responsibility for, the accuracy or adequacy of any test processing, scoring, or reporting service.

    4. Permission for Research

    Permission is not needed for research by individuals who are qualified to license and administer the tests; however, no reproduction of test materials is allowed for any purpose, including articles and reports based on research, without the prior written consent of Pearson.

    5. Qualifications

    Note: Please read this section. Not everyone who wishes to obtain a license for a test is qualified to do so. In order to avoid delay in your order, please make sure your qualifications are known to us.

    The tests listed on this website and in this catalogue are carefully developed assessment instruments that require specialised training to ensure their appropriate professional use. Eligibility to purchase these tests, therefore, is restricted to individuals with specific training and experience in a relevant area of assessment. These standards are consistent with the professional and ethical standards of a variety of professional organisations. These organisations whose members use tests are diverse, they include but are not limited to such organisations as the Australian Psychological Association (APS), the New Zealand Psychological Society (NZPS), Speech Pathology Association (SPA), Occupational Therapy Australia and New Zealand. Globally these organisations include the American Counselling Association (ACA), the American Educational Research Association (AERA), the American Psychological Association (APA), the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME).

    Pearson is committed to upholding these standards, and we reserve the right to require additional evidence of each customer’s qualifications. Pearson has the sole right to determine whether a customer is qualified and under what classification. In addition, Pearson retains the right to withhold or withdraw approval for test license where there is evidence of violation of commonly accepted testing practices or any of the Terms and Conditions of Use.

    Note: No tests are licensed for self-guidance, nor to any individual or organisation engaged in testing and counselling by mail. Test users must agree to guard against the improper use of Pearson’s tests in order to retain the right to license those tests. To protect their security and value, tests and scoring keys must be kept in locked files or storage cabinets accessible only to authorised personnel.

    Test materials may not be resold or otherwise distributed, or used as tools for performance coaching or to design performance coaching materials. Customers wishing to license the use of Pearson’s tests for homeschoolers should refer to the section entitled “6.0 Rules Governing Sale of Materials to Various Categories of Licensees”.

    6. Trademarks

    Any unauthorised use of Pearson’s trademarks is strictly prohibited. Requests to use any trademark should be addressed to the:
    General Manager
    Pearson Clinical and Talent Assessment
    Level 6 / 287 Elizabeth Street
    Sydney NSW
    Australia 2000

    Pearson reserves the right to amend these policies at any time. Contact the General Manager for more information.

    7. Rules Governing License of Materials to Various Categories of Customers

    Universities, schools, organisations and businesses are subject to the guidelines set forth above and must have appropriately qualified individuals on staff in order to license test materials. These individuals must complete a Registration Form which includes qualification information or provide information as to their qualifications. Orders not accompanied by this documentation may not be processed.

    Qualified individuals should comply with the requirements of their respective institutions concerning the use of purchase orders. Pearson may not be able to process orders without the appropriate purchase order(s) or other documentation required by the institution.

    • Somebody broke the law…

      It’s a big deal if somebody violates testing protocol of any kind.

      • It looks to me like JM wrote all the questions down in their meeting and had someone in his office type them up. That Dr. should have never let him write them down and she lied about not knowing he did.

        • Furthermore, JM isn’t remotely qualified to even evaluate or analyze those questions or the tests.

          • I wonder if the folks at Pearson are aware their copywrite was violated? Not that it’s wrong to use their stuff in a trial but it specifically says in order to use it they must have Pearson’s permission to do so.

        • Yup and she was very nervous when asked. JM got her kn trouble but she deserves it! I wonder if her license can be taken away????

            • And I guess I should also say, she was squirming a lot answering those questions “well, he was writing stuff down…” bullshit, she knew he was writing those questions down!

            • From a different psychologist and he pleads the 5th, from some online source, from an unnamed friend, or he just has an impeccable memory and remembered them almost verbatim from what Dr. DeSnarky said to him. And I bet he paraphrased them.

              See how difficult it is to prove he got them from her, or wrote them down while she was discussing them?

              • Hypothetically speaking AA,

                Let’s say he wrote the questions down in a legal pad….. That he got from the actual test that was admitted into evidence……….. took those questions to JD office to go over the test…………… There is only two ways I can think of that he got these questions…. One from JD or from Dr. Samuels actual test he admitted to the court for evidence.

                Either way it’s ILLEGAL… and it was brought up in court on record. She squirmed in her seat looking for Juan to help her out.

  138. I don’t think Jennifer called her a bitch but if she forgot to, I will. A cold one at that. This young lady is a like a python. I bet she wishes she could slither out of this whole situation with her $300 an hour.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93BueHCySt8

      Whatever she did say it sounded like a two syllable word…sounds like a “cha” on the end…and I have heard her say “bet cha” many times before….when I’ve heard her say that before she always has a slight pause between the (bet cha)…

      I feel that “bet cha” was the word that she said…

      • Jennifer would NEVER say that….she is way too professional. Even Nancy Grace didn’t believe that JW would say such a thing…

        • I heard , “Where’d I put you?’ (in reference to a paper she was searching for, mumbling quickly to herself), When said fast enough and with the paper and courtroom noises, it sounds like “Where’d I putchu?” I’m pretty positive that the last 2 syllables are “put you”/”putchu”.

      • Its a tough one, that video. I listened to it several times. To me, it did sound like she said “You’re a bitch”. I would not be surprised, she is only human, and was annoyed and frankly, pissed off at the time. If she did say it, she slipped. no harm, no foul. I am sure nobody heard it on the jury, and thats a big IF that is what was said. On the other hand, if someone from the pros gets this to the Judge, and she hears it, it could be a sanction. (fine) Of course this is worse can scenario.

        • She said,”You Betca”, as she was looking for the papers. I can her it plain as day on my audio.

          • Besides, she is facing the witness, is a professional, and definitely not that stupid. She is most definitely top shelf.

            • I watched the testimony again and to me she says Let me getcha….

              As in Let me get you….as she was searching through documents to show it to JD. I never hear her say bitch. I just think JW has too much class and is too professional anyway. NG just loves to stir the pot and that is why I do not watch hln.

      • I have high grade audiophile speakers with a professional, high end sound card, she said clear as day, let me get you, pronounced as let me getchu….

        • Geez! I guess if I would have kept reading, I would have seen that you thought the same thing. I replied to a message above asking about that… I think I need some sleep 🙁

      • Guys… really? She said, “LET ME GET-CHA” NG is full of shit, she heard her producers calling HER a biatch!!!

        • You heard “let me get what?? ok, well, we are all hearing different stuff..LOL! I have high end speakers and thats what I heard, but oh well!!!I actually laughed when I heard it….to me, it DID sound like bitch, and I found it hysterical. Especially since right before that, JD was acting snarky about what she wanted her to do. Anyway…doesn’t matter, its all interpretation. Its still funny to me, even of she didnt say it. (I bet she said it on the way home):)

        • Intro,
          I am so beyond fed up with NG and really believe she has taken a sharp turn from just wanting to be sensational to believing her own hype.Its actually scary. I used to watch her many many years ago, and she was always dramatic, but she has become so out of control that it isn’t even believable. I cannot imagine that even her most die-hard fans can put their faith in her so-called reporting. It is the exact same thing as believing the the National Enquirer is actually viable news. IMHO, it has gone beyond even that, and somewhere along the road, NG has decided to just throw caution to the wind, and give up all her principles and sense of fair play in order to get ratings. Any news is good news. I am guessing that is about the same time that HLN decided that they could no longer be a viable news channel and decided they would be more entertainment. They actually used to be a good network back in the day. Now, you may see a few hours at best, of real news. Apparently Turner Broadcasting decided they had enough “real” news channels and let this one go to hell and just turn into tabloid hell. That is their right, however, there should be a disclaimer on shows like NG, as there are folks who actually believe her show is news and actual truth and not her jaded opinion. Disclaimer: The views on this program are that of NG and others and are not fact based but based on hers on those of her guests that she doesn’t cut off in mid sentence when they dare to disagree”.

  140. I need some amusement tonight, so I’m going back to re-watch the day’s testimony. JW kicked baby docs arse.

  141. They are reading our posts again…how else can they get such informed educational information…we are the only intelligent species on planet earth…LOL…

    So it looks as though NG cohorts didn’t waste any time finding our lovely Ms. Lenore Walker and had her on the phone tonight…hello…

    I bet it didn’t take them long to tract her down…

    And they definitely wanted to get this on live television in the event tomorrow our own JW brings up anything concerning the docs prior testimony and the lovely Ms. Lenore Walker…

    This is for a big…HMMM….

  142. Copyright Notice

    Tests, test booklets, test items, norms, score reports, and other related materials of Pearson are copyrighted. They are not to be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing from Pearson. The reproduction of any part of Pearson’s copyrighted tests and related materials in any way, whether the reproductions are sold or furnished free for use, is a violation of federal copyright law. No adaptations, translations, modifications, or special versions may be made without permission in writing from Pearson; customers are advised that such adaptations, translations, modifications, or special versions may affect the validity of the tests.

    • FU,
      To clarify…..are you saying that the test results from Jodi, the ones that were given to both sides from Dr Samuels for purposes of this trial are in violation? The actual scoring results? If that were the case, then Dr Samuels would not have been able to testify that he diagnosed Jodi with PTSD via the PDS test he gave her. He openly discussed her results and answers on the stand. The defense and the pros showed (on screen) the categories as well as the scored results. I remember it was a huge bone of contention as Dr Samuels had to go back and qualify his results with what he had in his notes regarding some numbers he had copied incorrectly. I guess my point is this, I know that it is illegal to copy the questions to any Pearson test, (as well as many others) and let it out to the public. For good reason, the public cannot have access to questions such as this, that they can then “study” for. But in this trial, neither the pros. nor the defense, have given the other side copies of any tests. Remember, they are all attorneys after all, and I am sure they have been quite aware of copyright law for many years.

        • KD,
          If you go back and watch the testimony, what was said was that she and JM discussed the test and Jodi’s answers. She never said she gave JM the questions to the test, in fact JW just moved on to other topics after that. it wasn’t any issue. It was no different than Dr Samuels testimony regarding the PDS test and the MCMI tests he administered. He discussed the tests and results with both sides as well, but didn’t give them copies of questions. The court, of course, has all of the documents as evidence.

          • You don’t understand the issue…JM did have the questions. That is ILLEGAL because those questions are proprietary.

            The results can be discussed–my own brother’s scores on a battery of psychological tests were seen and discussed by a Social Security ALJ and Social Security’s psychological expert in order to determine whether he was qualified for SSI (he was)–but the QUESTIONS ASKED on the tests CANNOT be disclosed. It invalidates the test.

      • This brings up a good point. These tests have been displayed many times during the course of this trial. How does that work? Maybe they have permission or legal reasons trump in this situation?

        • yes Vicky, in order for the Dr’s to make their case, they have to refer to the tests and the answers given. many times the tests were shown on the overhead, but not in their entirety. It has to be discussed to prove the case for PTSD for the defense. The questions in part, as well as answers, were shown often during Dr Samuels testimony to show how he arrived at his score. In fact he had to go over this many times for JM, as he was constantly being asked about his conclusions based on his notes and the fact that he had inadvertently left out numbers when scoring the final result. And even then, he never showed the entire test with all the questions listed.

          • He or She can review the scores, as this is not a violation to the test since it doesn’t show the test questions…….. what JW showed was questions from the test that were typed up from the acutal test… Hope this makes sense…. You cannot do that…..

            • Right FUJuan, that’s what I got out of it too. Dr D and JM had a meeting at which time she had in her possession (borrowed from a colleague) the test questions. During this meeting, JM wrote them down, went back to his office and had someone type them up. Using Pearson’s material in a trial is okay IF you have their permission ahead of time. That is the question, did Dr D have permission from Pearson to let JM copy the test questions and take them with him? I am thinking no she didn’t because she lied IMO about him doing that.

            • Absolutely, especially when that test is currently being used.

              I can’t BEGIN to overstate how serious that is, breaching testing protocol.

          • You don’t get it at all, Anna. I don’t know what it takes to get you to understand that the answers to the questions aren’t the issue–it’s the questions themselves.

            Those questions are used over and over for patients all over the country and indeed the world since Pearson is based in the UK. Every few years they get updated. Those questions can NEVER, EVER be disclosed without permission from Pearson.

            The same is true with standardized and norm-referenced tests for K-12 and the SATs, ACTs, GREs, and others. You cannot reveal the content of the questions because that invalidates the scores. In other words, having the questions revealed makes it easier to cheat.

            In K-12, you give the questions and the answers in advance of the testing date, not only can you be fired, but your license can be sanctioned. Administrators have actually gone to prison for forcing teachers to cheat.

            Such scandals are ongoing throughout the country, the most notable being Atlanta. The former superintendent there, Beverly Hall, has been indicted.

            It’s very serious stuff.

            • What I mean is the issue isn’t with the results but with the disclosure of the content of the tests.

              Unless you are a professional in the field, the questions and the answers don’t really mean much of anything.

              • Thank you , Tonya ! 🙂 You summed it up nicely…… It’s the questions not the summary.

        • They have to get persmisson from Pearson litigation department for the purpose of using this test in a trial. Wish I am sure they did because it’s been used….during this trial.

          However, JW asked JD if she gave JM the test questions. She stated, ” they went over the test and results and he was writing stuff down.” She doesn’t own the test and doesn’t personally have a copy, she said ” she got it from another psychologist” then JW put up a sheet with the ” typed ” questions and asked her if this was her doing…. and she stated ” those are not the questions from the test” meaning not the actual copy, but have been typed up.

          This is why JW showed her the copyright on the last page of the test…………. it’s ILLEGAL.

          • FU,
            Well, I suppose if JW considers this to be a worthwhile road to go down, she certainly will. to me, it sounded like she brought it up a few times, got her answer, and moved on to the issue of DV and articles and journals, something alot more important to this case than this. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems like if JW thought it was something worth continuing, she would have kept going regarding it. I think she was simply trying to make a point. I sincerely doubt that the jury is very hung up on this part at all, and is more interested in other aspects of her testimony, which is where JW was going when they stopped today.

            • It’s a big deal, let me tell you.

              It’s yet another instance of prosecutorial misconduct.

              • Tonya,

                Maybe that is why they were in chambers reviewing the test and the typed questions…. Lord only knows with this trial… !!! Jodi didn’t seem happen at the end, nor did the defense.

              • tonysam,

                So would you guess this is important enough to use this for, yet again, another motion for mistrial of could they use it in some other way to the DT’s advantage?

                I felt much like Anna did, that JW seemed to move on after pointing out the copyright issue and wondered if the jury was following along.

                At the time I didn’t understand it was that huge a deal given they moved on to the next question.

  144. I had said earlier that I wondered if Jodi ever had a CT or MRI of head…she’s getting a lot of migraines, with POS assaulting her, choking her, and shaking her, makes me wonder if she suffered a TBI….that would explain the migraine problems.

    watching the trial, all I have to say is that the defense needs to ask her if she was there the night Travis was killed. She speaks pretty strongly about Jodi lying about being assaulted, she wouldn’t know that unless she was there. I wonder if she was another of Travis’s booty calls…..lmao!!!!

    • oh, those are good points melvis…all of them.

      I doubt Jodi ever got an exam, 🙁

      baby doc booty call!! i can see that. If that WERE true though, ethically she SHOULD have excused herself.

      • lol….I’m sure she thinks too highly of herself to excuse herself from ANYTHING! She has no business testifying in a court of law as an EXPERT on anything. She doesn’t have enough experience, but yet there she is, and the DA of Arizona hired her. What a imbecile he is!

    • Melvis-
      Totally agree! I fully believe that she does have a TBI from TA slamming her head on the tile. It could account for the memory loss in addition to the other issues re: the brain that Dr. Samuels talked about. An MRI and/or CT scan may not show anything definitive on her brain, but the headaches and memory loss certainly speak to a mild TBI, which can have very long lasting effects. I have “post concussion syndrome from an auto accident over a year ago and still have debilitating headaches every day. My heart goes out to Jodi and I can’t imagine having to sit upright in court when experiencing those headaches. I’m afraid she would not be allowed to see a good Neurologist at this point, and would be stuck with a Prison doc. I do wish that Dr. S, had looked into the TBI more.

    • Melvis,

      I am 45 years old and have been suffering from migraines since I was 16 years old. They are horrible and numerous things can trigger them…

      Stress, processed food ( which is what Jodi is getting in jail)…. Sleep distrubances, perfume, certain allergies, poor eye sight that is not corrected, physical factors, sensory stimuli, changes in the enviroment, and medications.

      My sister also suffers from them, and our dad suffers from cluster headaches…… If they are not caught in tme with medication they are horrible………. and they can make you weak the next day.

      I feel for Jodi….

      • Same here FU,
        They are absolutely debilitating for me. I have to go to bed in a dark and quiet room. I take imitex as soon as I feel it starting.I also take a maintenance medication too. I usually start some squinting from light and then I know its on the way. I’ve been getting them since I was very young too, about 14 or so, and so have several other family members. I almost always end up feeling sick to my stomach, and often vomit. Other than laying down in a dark room, no noise, and medication, there is nothing else I can do. Mine usually wipe me out and I sleep really hard after it subsides.

        • Ann,

          that is exactly what happens to me, and I also take Imtrex for them.. They just recently increased the dosage which is working….. I have noticed when seasons change I get a lot of them, then can go for months without one.

          I know certain things tigger mine…. stress being number one on my list, perfume, processed foods, seasons etc……….

      • omg…I’m soooo sorry to hear that FUjuan and TR… I could only imagine how painful that is. My step brother has had cluster headaches, exposure to Agent Orange, and I’ve seen how it affects him. My heart goes out to anyone who suffers from them :{ He found oxygen was his only source of relief, and even then it was only temporary. I hope you both have found something that gives you some relief.

        I would just be so interested to hear if she’s always had them, or if they are more recent, say since 2007….they need to do some testing, but as TR stated above, since she’s in jail, it would take an act of Congress to get her in to be seen. I would also like to see them test her blood sugar, with that crap they feed her, she could be experiencing extreme blood sugar fluctuations.

        But it certainly would speak volumes if they did find she had a TBI wouldn’t it……just saying

  145. FYI- there is a bad Facebook page about Travis being a pervert and Facebook won’t take it down. They are in a tissy!

    The page is very inappropriate, but how do they like it? That’s how we feel about poor Alyce’s reviews on Amazon.

    • My bad. They did take it down. Which was the right thing to do, now if we could just get Amazon to do the same.

    • Oh but it is ok to have Jodi’s private picture big as day on twitter though? that is still up.
      They call it Jodi’s Anus an that has to be the haters daaaa. I know none of it is nice but
      these haters are ridiculous it is ok for them because Travis is the victim an Jodi is just
      a lying stalker whore (their words) an that is what makes me HEATED an very PISSED OFF!

      They have no facts of any of that except for what the MORMON FRIENDS get on tv
      an spread day after day after day an frankly I am sick of it. Rumors hearsay? Ok before
      I get bashed she did tell lies. But to cover that scumbags real life. She stated on that plea
      she did not want to go to court an bring out all this stuff.

      Also there are other accounts out there no one bothers to remove them on FB either.
      Everyone seems to be biased if that Travis one came down that fast then it is true they
      only worry about the masses complaining not the minority which is BULL.

      We may not be the majority on FB but on TWITTER we are an that pisses them OFF big
      time ! an makes me laugh. I think that is because they can’t get in all the BASHING they
      do in a huge paragraph it has to be a very short line. I have a feeling they hate that!

  147. could you even imagine being someone that needs to get disability, and being assessed by this arrogant ass…makes me shudder. Poor people, they don’t stand a chance.

  148. just for information – CNN is being slammed all over for lack of credibility, reporting a suspect in custody for the Boston bombing and having to take it back. Most days it’s completely unwatchable and boring and they’re desparately trying to fix it with new management and new hires. Trolling and begging for bits of information is all they do, there’s no investigative reporting by CNN day by day and it’s becoming obvious – finally —- to everyone.

    Bunches of idiots spouting off on HLN all day long, getting their little bits of info from CNN when they do report “news” and losing more and more respect every day. Employing disgraceful and hateful morons who chuckle and mock tragedies, lie to their audience and spend their time following Twitter to try to please the public. Pathetic.

    • lmao!!! people finally waking up you think…..CNN and HLN are the joke of media. I don’t know why so many people watch them, but as we see in the comment sections, most of them are the same old lemmings that have no critical thinking skills.
      .

    • Did everyone forget what they did to Zimmerman 911 call ? they got caught editing out parts an
      had the whole black against white thing up in arms in the South. They showed Black Panthers
      spouting off on our regular news in Alabama about it they will start a war when that trial starts in parts of the South I am sure of
      that. Granted that was NBC but I do not TRUST any of them anymore really.

      As the 911 call editing controversy continues to grow, MSNBC contributor Touré was recently called out on air by CNN’s Piers Morgan for his seemingly racially biased handling of the Florida story. When MSNBC branded itself as the “Leans Forward” network, few likely suspected it meant to stir up racial divide in America. Now, NBC looks to be taking a page out of MSNBC’s playbook, as well.

      MSNBC contributor Toure suffered an epic meltdown on CNN last night. Piers Morgan challenged Touré to come on his show to debate the Trayvon killing after their Twitter war earlier in the week. Morgan blasted Toure for his race-baiting and lecturing.

      With the NAACP and MSNBC’s Al Sharpton divided over the incident, Barack Obama weighing in early, only to say nothing in recent days, and now rival Cable News networks questioning MSNBC’s and even NBC’s judgment, it’s hard to see the post-racial healing in America Barack Obama promised while running for office in 2008.

      http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/03/31/NBC-Fanning-Flames

  149. Dr.D attributed the Violence to BPD but according to many including Wikipedia Violence is not attributed to this disorder.

    Perhaps the most damaging aspect of the stigma surrounding borderline personality disorder is the myth that people with BPD are violent toward others. While movies and visual media often sensationalize people with BPD by portraying them as violent, the majority of researchers agree that people with BPD are actually very unlikely to harm others. Although people with BPD often struggle with experiences of intense anger, a defining characteristic of BPD is that they direct it inward toward themselves. In fact, one of the key differences between BPD and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is that people with BPD tend to internalize anger by hurting themselves, while people with ASPD tend to externalize it by hurting others. In addition, as adults with BPD have often experienced abuse in childhood, many people with BPD adopt a “no-tolerance” policy toward expressions of anger of any kind.[143] Unfortunately, their extreme aversion to violence causes many people with BPD to overcompensate and experience difficulties being assertive and expressing their needs.[This is one way in which people with BPD choose to harm themselves over potentially causing harm to others. Another way in which people with BPD avoid expressing their anger through violence is by causing physical damage to themselves, such as engaging in non-suicidal self injury.

    • Great post Oliverio,
      Yepp…….but for the pros, they want to highlight all the BAD traits associated with this disorder, of course. In reality, you can take ANY mental disorder, and find the negative outward anger side, the side that could possibly make that individual lash out at someone, and focus on that rather than other symptoms in the diagnosis. I am one of those people, and maybe very much in the minority, that does NOT feel that a diagnosis of BPD is a horrible situation here. This is why. (putting on my juror hat) I want to see what Jodi is about. Period. Why she did what she did, what makes her tick, why she reacted the way she did, is there something in her head that makes her react a certain way, etc etc….SO. Now we have this diagnosis. The jury knows what it means and the symptoms, meaning, etc. it is a DSM verified mental disorder. SO. Now the jury has to consider this in deliberations, the state has argued this, put an expert on the stand regarding it. Combine that with the other witnesses. SO. They now, if they believe TA was abusive, and Jodi has BPD, they have a picture of a woman who was abused and who responded to it the only way someone with this mental disorder was able. i know I am speculating, I am just looking at it from this angle. Of course this is if the jury believes every single thing they have heard, and none of us know this to be true. Worst case scenario though, IMHO, even IF they totally disbelieve ALL of the defense testimony about abuse and DV and DO believe the State regarding the diagnosis of BPD, and ALL of their other claims, how likely are they to convict a woman of M1 DP who has this disorder. I think too much.

      • AnnaRyan
        Very Good!
        The issue is if she reacted in fear, whether it was polarized by PTSD or BPD is not really important, many people with BPD get PTSD, some experts cannot tell them apart, Which has not been brought up, Of course Dr. Samuels not administering another test can be a problem with the Jury but since BPD was stated I do not see DP 1st degree because she has something. But when you read about BPD it does not state rage anger physically physical violence as symptoms, I think that the defense must bring up the fact she has no history of physical violence with other boyfriends, It can be argued in my opinion that many are diagnosed with BPD that don’t have it , Many people are immature, doesn’t prove premeditation. Common sense should win when you think she could have shot him anytime and that no one plans this type of killing, Or What Greta said on Fox who believed this case was overcharged,She believed its was man slaughter or 2nd degree murder. My problem is the questions by the Jury to LaViolette, I found them very sarcastic.

      • Anna
        I was going to ask you there are certain test on the brain that would detect PTSD CT scans MRI etc.
        that can see if the frontal lobes have shrinkage, this would make a person react, with out thinking of the consequences, For instance being impulsive without realizing the consequences of your behavior. In a Murder case a long time ago the Defense was able to prove the defendant had brain issues atrophied frontal lobes I have to look it up which makes a person react without thinking. Impulsive, fear induced. Brain Test should be administered. You can have a good intellect but still suffer from emotionally arrested development. due to this issue.

    • I agree that people with BPD tend to be, overall, more harmful to themselves than others. I once worked with such individuals diagnosed with BPD for over a year. A lot of them cut themselves and were always in some kind of trouble. I’m certainly no expert, but the ones I worked with all had significant mental issues since childhood and harmed themselves in different ways, including trying to cut or disfigure themselves.

      Jodie had some problems growing up with her parents that is unfortunate but not uncommon or indicative of the start of serious mental issues. I don’t remember any reports of her being sent home for cutting her arm, not being able to get along with classmates or causing some major or repeated havoc, or some other serious trouble that would get the school psychologist or police or other authorities involved.

      Psychologists are known for misdiagnosis, especially whenever they really do not know the client and have preconceptions based on past experience, as well as lack of experience, and biases. Two different psychologists can also test and come up with two different diagnoses. Additionally, the prosecutor’s psychologist expert not only appears to share many of JM’s thoughts about Jodi-but she appears to genuinely dislike Jodi, based on the verbal and non-verbal communication we are seeing in the courtroom.

      It appears that this bias may have been there already even before the testing was administered. This raises questions about how reliable the test results are as well as the credibility and professionalism of the prosecutor’s expert. Additionally, her professionalism can be further challenged by the demeaning way in which she spoke about the subject of the testing, Jodi, in public, and the way she put down the experience and testimony of the defense experts.

      There was a more compassionate way this psychologist could have presented her testimony and wording so as not to demean the client but still be honest and factual. There could have also been a way for her to disagree with Dr. Samuels and AL that would have showed respect for people in her field of work who help others but share different viewpoints.

      This PH. D. lacks experience and empathy but not arrogance and unprofessionalism, among other questionable characteristics observable in the courtroom. It is no wonder that JM gets along so well with her and treats her with respect on the stand, never questioning her memory, interrupting, or raising an accusatory voice to point out some flaw and wrongdoing. She is like him in many ways…

      • She shouldn’t be testifying at all because she is not an expert at ANYTHING.

        Like somebody said upthread, her appearance and involvement have to do with paying off student loans.

      • Mattie,
        You are so right, Dr.D is too cold. My worry is that the Jury will see her as more professional, Like Marcia Clarke stated yesterday, which is a joke since Marcia lost in OJ. I do think Jodie came from an abusive Family from seeing the interviews with her Father Mother she moved out young didn’t finish High School her Fathers sexual remarks about her, these are all considered Red Flags, The other Family Members having problems The Interview with both Parents show an abusive home where there is really a lack of Maternal Paternal Feelings berating their daughter to the detectives. I was disgusted by her Parents.

    • Quite honestly, I wouldn’t believe anything DeMarte says since JM is actually telling her what to say and how to diagnose Jodi.

    • Really good description. This does seem to fit Jodi, of what we know. After today’s info (that JD made this choice vs it coming out clearly in the MMPI), I was wondering if she might have some other PD, or maybe a mix of some maladaptive behaviors related to PD’s, like schizotypal (ie over believing in the laws of attraction), or dependant PD (ie putting up with TA way too long), or avoidant PD (ie overusing denial about her relationship with TA). But I like your description fitting with BPD. From what I have seen, I do not pick out any ASPD, narcissitic, or paranoid tendencies in Jodi.

  150. I enjoye the JW smackdown today. What a snot ball that “bookish, boorish Psy chick” is. I was wondering how come JW didnt make her answer questions without her notes like JM did AKV and Dr Samiels. That chick couldnt remember her own CV. Are you having trouble with your memory? Pfft, what a farce.

  151. *ALERT*

    The 2 ‘drew-jurors’ were on Dr. Flu’s show. Well the other one next to Wick, said something interesting.

    Apparently, this afternoon in the court, the bailiff came over to JM and said something (they believe it was re. JA having a headache and needing to leave). So, JM laughed aloud (this part was confirmed by tweets that came in at that time on Wild About Trial) and said something, and so all the people in the courtroom and EVEN A FEW JURORS heard him!! Then of course, the judge announced that they were done for the day. Right at that point Dr. Flu cut into a ad or shut down or something. I felt he wanted to minimize it.

    If someone can please do research and see if what I heard was correct or not. I am so tired right now and don’t want to start something that may not be true. If anyone has some time tonite, go and see the last segment. It was at the very end. Thanks much.

    • Near the end on the day’s proceedings, Judge Stephens hide her face from the camera with two sheets of paper (documents probably) as she turned to her left. When she removed them she was laughing very hard. I wondered who she was talking to and then Martinez walked past the camera and he was laughing hard, too. There was apparently some joke or funny quip between them. I didn’t hear anything though.

      • Sorry, I was wrong. Judge Stephens was laughing with someone else (possibly the woman who swears people in). The person is crouched down to the judge’s left. Martinez then walks over toward the judge’s bench and someone appears to let him in on the joke (or whatever) because when he comes back past the camera, he’s laughing, too.

        Here is the last 4:37 minutes of today’s trial.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99f6o62t0rg

        • Coldcase, I saw what you mean with jm and his really cheesy smile/laugh. But, I was talking about an incident BEFORE the court started. A bailiff apparently went over to jm to advice him of what’s to come. So, where could the jurors have been if this was before court started, to be within hearing or seeing distance of this ‘laughing’ matter?

  152. Shouldn’t it show something that on the test that Dr Idiot performed on Jodi; the TSI-1 (cuz she didn’t find the need to use the updated TSI-2), that Jodi scored an 80 on S.E. sexual concern and for B.S.E another sexual concern that she scored high on and this wasnt brought up to show the jury some type of connection with the passive sexual behavior she and TA had. The reason that she dealt with the 12 yr old comment from TA and the reason why she would’ve gone through ANY sexual fantasy TA had just for the reason as to not loose him.

    I think JW could’ve scored some points with her own OUTDATED TSI test, but maybe she doesn’t want to because shes planning to impeach her lying ass!!!

    • This test looked pretty useful to me, not sure how much JW can discuss it on cross, but I would also like to hear more. The cut-off on this was 65, Jodi had many possible trauma-related indicators above that.
      anxiety elevated
      depression 78
      avoidance 66
      dissociation 73
      sexual concerns 80
      other sexual-related elevated
      impaired self identity/image 83

  153. HLN/Ng are so desperate to help JM –
    First, NG said, its never too late for jm to spring a new witness if he finds new info.
    Second, she brings on Lenore W. on the show to ‘confirm’ that JW was ‘unschooled’ as she put it re. the field of Psy. with the supposed discrepany re. the application of criteria on Battered Women.
    Third, she crossed over to the dark-er (normally she lives in the dark side) side, when she deliberately broadcasted a ‘doubt’ that JW called JD ‘a bitch’.
    When does Karma show up anyway? I am impatiently waiting with my foot tapping. I am thoroughly repulsed by their twisted minds and blatant hate. They have single-handedly added to the problems in going after the truth in this trial. Seriously messed up people.

    • Nasty DisGrace I really do not just hate anyone but that whole hln has made me
      really have a lot of discontent with all of them. I remembered when they just did stories
      on lost children an adults etc. an even then they messed with people’s heads by
      the accusing before knowing all that facts. I think Nasty DisGrace is jealous of JW
      an her very professional attitude which Nasty DisGrace could never attain in her
      career. What a DisGrace to the South an Georgia she is shame on her !

      • I have never loathed anyone on TV more than Nancy Grace, everyone to her is guilty until never proven innocent. Today she butted her head in and made some snarky comment everytime Jennifer was making a point that rang true, and showed that this psycologist did not know what she was talking about, at least in this case, from the moment she got on the stand she reminded me of a snotty, stuck up Valley girl and I could not stand her. I am glad I found this site where I can actually vent my feelings of dislike without being looked down on. I used to adore Dr Drew, his show seemed to provide people from two sides of things and he did not seem as so one sided as he is now. All of them sit there and actually say, they are afraid to say anything pro defense because of all the hate mail they get. Does that not tell you something? I dont see that ugliness her but I do on the other side of things, yes its awful a young person passed away but you cannot abuse someone year after year after year and not know they will someday fight back, finally, and protect themselves from the abuse.

    • This is extremely unethical and is designed to influence the jury.

      Nancy Grace ought to have her rotten ass dragged into the Arizona courtroom.

  154. According to Medilexicon’s medical dictionary, concussion is “An injury of a soft structure, as the brain, resulting from a blow or violent shaking.”

    Concussion causes temporary loss of brain function leading to cognitive, physical and emotional symptoms, such as confusion, vomiting, headache, nausea, depression, disturbed sleep, moodiness, and amnesia.

    However, even when the symptoms of a concussion appear to have gone, the brain is still not yet 100 percent normal, according to Dr. Maryse Lassonde, a neuropsychologist and the scientific director of the Quebec Nature and Technologies Granting Agency.

    The results indicate that there is abnormal brain wave activity for years after a concussion, as well partial wasting away of the motor pathways, which can lead to significant attention problems.

    • So true, FUJuan.

      Hockey players with a concussion are sometimes on the injured list for several months. Sometimes, concussions are career-ending.

    • I have said that since the beginning of this. As I have been in fights on tile an have hit
      my head an had a concussion was knocked out for a period of time.

      So it was hard for me to believe that Jodi never hit her head she was body slammed
      the first time then the Linebacker tackle to the floor tile again by a almost 200 pound
      man that was stocky build not a bean pole.

      That is why I think she could have had a concussion she could have been knocked
      out she can’t remember anything after the gun shot? but everyone gets all pissy
      when I mention those facts.

  155. please if the attorney asks this one anything about patients as a student and intern she does not have patients she is learning. teaching in college is the same thing, its not because she knows anything its a credit builder. this young woman is not at all good at what she does. and why does she drink so much water and why is she so dry, is she taking medicine?

    • Did you see the comercial on HLN today,the one about a woman that said she had dry mouth and thats why she was always drinking water,her dentist recommended something,FUNNY HOW THIS AD JUST POPPED UP,never seen before but lo and beholg,Juans little puppet was doing this so the Juan Channel (HLN) just happened to show this as something that people get,Maybe it was that JW was grilling the shit out of her and she was sweating bullets,how disgraceful and low will those idiots at HLN will go?

  156. There are so many posts, sorry if I’m covering topics already discussed, but was very concerned about Lenore W on N Disgrace saying she still uses the criteria. That’s extremely damaging to JW who specifically said in court she doesn’t use them anymore. I’m wondering if Lenore had the chance to elaborate would she say she doesn’t use them necessarily as were described by Demont or whatever her name is in assessing abuse? Don’t know.. has me concerned because JM will use that point to destroy whatever good is being done on cross.

    • I’m wondering the same thing, Ashley. I am having a difficult time wrapping my head around the idea that the Lenore W would go on a show such a NG and say these things. Is it true she said Jodi was not abused or what, exactly did she day? I’m hoping it was something not as damaging and NG took it out of context, as usual.

      • NG didn’t really take it out of context what L.W. said, however L.W never clarified how she still uses the criteria. And to clarify, she never said that Jodi wasn’t battered. She said that being a battered woman isn’t always a good defense depending on the circumstances. For example, my Mom was a battered woman, but once she got away from my Dad and he was no longer threatening her (us), she couldn’t just go over and kill him and it be justified even though she was a battered woman. That’s what I got from her, that she was clarifying you can’t just use it as a defense unless the situation shows you had valid reason to be in fear for her life. She said she hasn’t seen any indication of that for the day of the killing. I understand her point, even though we may all disagree on her conclusions for that day. And she didn’t have all of the evidence to review that A.L. and we all know that some of that was not allowed into court (including the full email from the Hughes’ to T.A.)

        • That isn’t really what the defense IS–it’s that Jodi used self-defense when she killed Travis.

          Self-defense killings happen all the time.

          I think LW should keep her ignorant mouth shut.

          This is on here to deliberately undercut the defense in the hopes of manipulating the trial.

          LW is an IDIOT for commenting on something she knows nothing about and in a case that is ongoing.

          Very unethical in my book.

            • And I want to add, Lenore Walker, because of her testimony for batterers and how much she’s been discredited and criticized, is just using this platform to get back in the public eye.

              I realize not many of you here are fully abreast of the domestic violence movement and how it feels about Lenore Walker. I encourage you to read this ABA article (posted above also).

      • cindyp,
        I finally watched the clip, first of all she said that she does still use her 6 point criteria for evaluating and diagnosing victims of DV. That was the subject of the questioning between JW and JD today, when JW asked her if she still scored that way using her 6 point criteria, and she said yes, JW asked her if she knew that Lenore W doesnt even score it that way anymore, JD said yes she does, back and forth. So that doesnt look great for that point . (I dont even know why JW would ask her that without knowing for sure of Lenore does in fact, still use that criteria) Next…..NG asked Lenore if it was possible for a battered woman to be a liar and Lenore said yes, absolutely. She said in fact its very common, as they have to lie alot due to shame and cover up, etc….and in cases of extreme fear and the ones that end up in homicide due to being in fear for your life. Then she said that she sees no sign of that in this trial so far. sigh.

    • Let me say first, I rarely watch NG, but I heard she was going to be on. I heard this a little different than most…She started out to explain that the first 3 related to PTDS. Then NG cut in and had her to list the 6 criteria. NG put up on the screen the PROSECUTION 6. The #6 on the prosecution list was not the very same as her #6. She was never given the chance to say she used the global approach. The one biggest things she stated is battered women due lie, that is how they survive. BTW, NG was kisses up big time when she was introducing her…what an honor, read all of her books and studies, that kind of stuff.

      • Very true, she did very clearly state that lying is a way of life for women. And I’m glad you were able to make that distinction between what she was saying on the show and what was said in court, because I quit listening to baby doc yesterday and never heard the criteria she outlined to be able to compare.. but I did note when Lenore mentioned the “3”.

      • Ann,
        Yepp! She did cut her off…LOL! She started to list them and NG cut her off. She did finally say the PTSD criteria, and then NG listed the 6 on the screen, I saw that too. But Lenore did admit she still uses her same criteria and that was pretty important. Even though NG posted her own diagram as usual. Bigger than that though, was what Lenore said afterwards, after she said battered women lie. She actually talked about this case and it wasn’t good. However, it isnt like she is testifying, its just not good that JW brought up her criteria to JD without knowing that Lenore still does use it.

  157. To compare ALV’s and Dr. S’s experience with this erudite Bambi bitch is like comparing the Shuttle Director of the Challenger to somebody who worked in the sewer system at NASA.

    It’s almost insulting. This amateur was still sucking on a pacifier when they were evaluating patients and doing case studies.

    The home run that Jennifer hit yesterday and again today was having her admit she has compassion for people she evaluates. She thought it would be the wrong answer to say she didn’t have any compassion at all for people she was seeing when in fact Jennifer was leading her right into the bear trap and BLAM she fell for it!! In ten seconds Bambi the BFD destroyed all the hopes of Martinez when he used his absurd juvenile dictionary stunt to try to slam Dr. Samuels for having the very same thing. The little Napoleon is now screwed because his own hand picked greenhorn expert said she does the same thing. I’ll bet you the revulsing putz almost bit through his tongue when she said that.

    I don’t know who is a bigger embarrassment to the courtroom, El gJUANo or that battle axe that should be presiding over dog bite cases and not anywhere near a courtroom of a capital murder case. She has got to be in the top 10% worst judges of all time and is badly in need of a hearing aide. She may turn a 7 week trial which it could have been, into a 7 month trial. In fact she’s so up to her ears in reversible error on appeal it’s almost laughable. I didn’t think I would say I longed for the competency of that judicial embarrassment of the Simpson trial if I was waterboarded but she’s just as bad.

    I never saw such a blatant bias for the prosecution that I can remember. I really feel for those jurors. It isn’t even worth the gas coming down to the courtroom most days.

    But little Miss green-behind-the-ears, you should take your fo fo fu fu tests and come back in about 20 years because you’re not even in the same league with experts for the defense that have peer reviewed publications and decades of experience. You’re stepping in all kinds of cow pies with your testimony. You should cut your losses while you still can. It’ll save you from being a laughing stock with that jury.

    No charge for the advice.

  158. Ashely,
    I was also concerned about that, as it was a big deal between the 2 of them during cross today. JW did bring up Ms Walker and her criteria, and JD told her she uses her criteria in assessing DV victims. I think its a 6 point criteria method. JW was questioning her on that and told her it was not correct, that Lenore does not grade that way, etc…and then JD said yes she does, etc etc back and forth argument over that point. Then tonight I heard she was on NG and I have not seen it, but heard she did not agree with the defense position. I need to go try to look it up, as I didnt see it live. I agree though, it will be a big point for JM on re-direct if Ms Walker did in fact, agree with JD and not the defense.

    • It would not make sense that this Ms. Walker would be on the side of the pro in any way, as she wrote the forward of ALV’s book and ALV and the JD obviously have such opposite views of diagnosis. I don’t see how any professional in the DV area would agree with JD, at all. Anyone? Anna, if you find out could you inform us? (I’m so sorry but I cannot stomach the DisGrace or hln any longer.)

      • cindy, you said: “It would not make sense that this Ms. Walker would be on the side of the pro in any way, as she wrote the forward of ALV’s book and ALV and the JD obviously have such opposite views of diagnosis. I don’t see how any professional in the DV area would agree with JD, at all. Anyone?”

        Really? Well, obviously, you’ve been taken in by Ms. Walker being referenced in this trial. Yes, she was a pioneer at one point. But she sold out and took the movement back in time when she started testifying in the murder trials of batterers.

        Please read: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3199&context=flr

          • Good article, by the way. The O.J. case and Walker’s involvement is discussed in detail beginning on page 183.

            I am amazed she wasn’t ostracized over blowing it on that case.

            If O.J. wasn’t a batterer, I don’t know who was.

        • You know, I DIDN’T mean to offend you. I have not read much about her. During my therapy I read books like “Don’t Call it Love” and “Out of the Shadows” among others. I did not familiarize myself with authors like LW. Thanks for the link, I will read it.

    • He can’t use what she said on Disgrace unless he calls either Disgrace or Lenore Walker to testify or he has some other reliable source that Lenore Walker does indeed use the exact same criteria today.

      • I’m sure he’ll come up with something though. Maybe J.W. can clarify it tomorrow before it becomes a problem.

      • I am absolutely appalled at what she said at the end….she has basically said she sees no need for Jodi to have attacked TA in self defense. What am I missing? She said “yet”. “any signs of that in this trial yet’…….hmmm…….of course my very first thought when I heard this was…..OK here we go, this is someone JM will gladly call as HIS DV expert! Remember, he does not have one that we know of, he has a clinical psychologist. ughh…maybe I am just too worried. I do not know much about Lenore, I will admit. But from what I had heard, I thought she was a big time pioneer, or at least used to be someone very credible in her field.

        • USED TO BE is the operative word. After she started testifying in criminal trials of batterers who killed women, she stopped being respected. According to her, the mortal danger to a domestic violence victim stops when she gets away from him. And, according to her, O.J. wasn’t a batterer of his wife because he just doesn’t have the personality.

          Yeah, I hear you going OMG!! And that’s what the rest of us in the DV community think of Lenore Walker.

    • Exactly… that’s what I commented about earlier. She never said Jodi wasn’t abused, just that she hasn’t seen evidence that would justify her using BWS as a defense the day he was killed. Women can be battered but still not have a legitimate reason (such as fear) at the time of the murder. To the haters it may mean the same thing, but it doesn’t.

    • Jodi Arias’ defense attorney Jennifer Willmott grilled the Sate’s rebuttal witness Janeen DeMarte Wednesday, saying Dr. Walker no longer follows her own criteria when evaluating someone to determine if they are a battered woman.

      “I still use it,” Dr. Walker told Grace.

      “If Jodi Arias was lying about Travis Alexander abusing her, could she still be a battered woman?” Grace asked Dr. Walker.

      “Sure. Battered women lie all the time. That’s how they stay alive. That’s how they deal with the shame that they feel, so lying is not new for battered women,” Dr. Walker said.

      “It is not just whether or not someone’s a battered woman that’s important in these cases as you well know, Nancy. It doesn’t give them a free pass just because they’re a battered woman. It’s really used only to help us understand whether or not they were in fear of what was happening, that they would be seriously harmed or killed at the time that they commit a homicide. That’s what we have to look at, and that’s not what I’ve heard yet in this trial,” Dr. Walker added.

    • She shouldn’t even comment on this trial at all given how HLN wants to poison the jury here.

  160. My final thought for the night (if anyone cares lol)… they hypocrisy of the analysis of this witness compared to that of A.L. is staggering. If she had only had her license for one year they (HLN and the haters) would have ripped her apart. She didn’t interview anyone either (except Travis’ brother for 30 minutes) and that’s ok… I could go on and on but I’m sure you all feel the same way.

    • It’s late.. forgive my errors. THE hypocrisy of the analysis of this witness compared to their analysis of A.L. is staggering.

  161. Am I the only one freaked out by Lenore Walkers interview on NG!!??? I think maybe I would not be as much of JW had not brought her name up in the first place and then BAM…..here she is on NG saying this crap!!!! WTF!!! I thought she was a PIONEER in DV…after all, she is a friend and colleague of Alyce and wrote the forward in her book….I am just beside myself now. All I can think is that JM will now try to call her as his DV expert.

    • Anna, normally I would be but I don’t see how Dr. Walker really knows anything about this case. I think its really a minor point that JW made a mistake on. I’m more worried about Martinez recalling ME Kevin Horn…

      • Maybe I am worrying for nothing. I do that alot lately.I still think JM will jump all over the point though. I hadn’t thought about JM re-calling the ME…..

    • It bothers me terribly she went on that show (which I not watch). What bothers me even more is how this inexperienced, young doctor presents herself. Life is all about HER and HER patients, HER education, HER way of testing, HER practice and her neglect to update her CV.

      Just for the record, when AL first appeared in court I saw the word lesbian all over the place in regards to her. How insensitive of people. Could she have been receiving Chemotherapy and lost her hair and it is growing back in? No one is calling this young lady a lesbian. If we were like that and made rash judgments (and is anyone’s sexual preference any of our business) why don’t I hear anyone calling her a lesbian? Lesbians do not need a certain hair style. There are lesbians that present just like Dr. ME.

      What I have noticed is that when there is a threat in the court (referring to AL) they run scared. I have never in my life seen such inappropriate behavior both inside and out and the judge and the prosecutor have control over that. AL should never have been treated so poorly by The Prosecutor. No one deserves that. If you are so cock sure of your case no need to badger. JW is treating the witnesses just fine.

      NG has it on her Twitter account about Jodi having a migraine headache and how could should not stop. Hey NG instead of putting it on Twitter why not go tell The Judge how you used to go to court with a migraine.

      Sorry for rambling.

      • Alyce is a lesbian, and she’s not ashamed of it. She lives very happily with her partner of many many years. So what? Is her sexual orientation at issue in this case?

        I actually had a lesbian friend many years ago who looked at lot like Dr. DeSmarmy but was more attractive, same hairstyle, same skin tone. She ran a very successful law practice. What did her sexual orientation have to do with anything?

        Likewise, I have a friend in CA who is a Master’s level neurology nurse practitioner. She has a hairstyle a lot like Alyce, and always has. She’s as straight as can be. She just doesn’t want to fuss with her hair in the morning as she’s incredibly busy. She’s worn her hair like that since she was in her 20s and she’s now in her mid-50s. People assume she’s a lesbian all the time, until they notice her holding hands with her long-term male partner.

      • I was totally insulted by the fact that people instantly started off when seeing and hearing ALV by nasty name calling. Homophobic slurs are not ok in any setting. Regardless if she is a lesbian or straight, doesn’t matter. Its a matter of respect, not just for a witness in a trial, but for a human being. The names she was called were disgusting and immature. In fact, legally, thats called hate speech. The ridiculous and hateful reviews her book has received on Amazon are also beyond the pale. people say, “well, thats what you get when you sign up for this trial”. Wrong. What you CAN expect, is legitimate criticism. You can have your ideas and theories questioned, your testing ideas, opinions, results, where you went to school, your credentials, your interview style, etc……not your personal space, your looks, your dress, your very personhood. Its unfair. I feel very bad for Alyce, and the fact that she had to go to the ER with anxiety and heart palpitations says it all. Ludicrous.
        That being said, I feel that same way for the other said. it is equally as distasteful IMO to begin attacks on JD on anything personal about her. Looks, speech, dress, etc…..same rules should apply. Criticize the performance and the work, not the individual. I don’t ever remember a trial where it turned into non stop name calling and bashing every little thing about a person, to the point of someone going to the hospital, but obviously it isn’t ok. There is a line that civilized people shouldn’t cross, that humans know better than to do.

        Thats my 2 cents.

    • It smells to me like Lenore Walker & ALV had a falling-out at some point over the years, either that or Walker is pissed she wasn’t the one called in on this case by the defense.

      • seek……thinking that too. ALV received alot of attention, (not all good but still) as well as, let’s face it, some good money for hr work. Maybe Walker was annoyed that Alyce was chosen over her, hurt her pride.

  162. Here’s some quotes about Lenore Walker. http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3199&context=flr

    “Dr. Walker’s critics are not convinced that her motives for agreeing to testify as an expert on behalf of O.J. Simpson are purely objective. Some believe that by agreeing to testify for a defendant-batterer she is nothing more than a “domestic violence profiteer.”

    “She’s playing both sides …. This woman was betraying not only my daughter, but all the women in this country who consider her an authority on this complex issue.” (quoting the mother of a murder
    victim describing her view of Lenore Walker, who appeared as an expert for the man accused of murdering her daughter).

    Others accuse her of “sleeping with the enemy.”

    “Dr. Walker was going to testify that “it cannot be predicted that a particular batterer will turn out to be a killer unless there is evidence of prior escalating life-threatening behavior. According to Dr. Walker,
    such behavior was not evident in the Simpsons’ relationship. Such testimony suggests that O.J. Simpson, and the patterns of violence in his relationship with Nicole Brown Simpson, were not typical of abusive relationships resulting in homicide. The logic to such a conclusion is arguably misleading. This asserts that it is improper to extrapolate information regarding the actions of a defendant-batterer
    from evidence relating to the psyche of a victim.”

    And here’s what OJ said about Lenore in his book “If I Did It” (does anyone NOT believe OJ was an abuser?):

    “Many months later, when I was sitting in prison, being tried on two counts of murder, I was visited on several occasions by Dr. Lenore Walker, a real expert on battered women, and she agreed
    with what Dr. Bernard Yudowitz had told me – that I did not have the personality of a batterer. She had subjected me to a number of standardized tests, and while I was happy with her conclusion, I’ve got to tell you – just to be honest here – that those tests were pretty much bullshit. I remember pointing this out to her: “You have some questions on there that don’t make any sense at all,” I said.

    She asked for examples, and I immediately came up with two. The first was, “When you walk into a room, do you think everyone is looking at you?” Fuckin’-A they’re looking at me! I don’t think it.
    I know it. Everybody is looking at me.

    The second was, “Do you think you’re the subject of conversation in most social situations?” Hell, yeah! I am the subject of conversation!

    Now, if a guy who sells insurance says that – and I don’t have anything against guys who sell insurance – it might mean he’s got some kind of personality disorder. Hell, for all I know, it makes him
    a wife-abuser. But it doesn’t mean shit when I say it, because it’s the truth. I remember telling Dr. Walker, “It isn’t that simple. People are different. I don’t see how you can put so much faith in these tests.” And I told her this after she came to me with the results, after she decided I didn’t have the makings of an abusive husband.

    And I told her this for one very simple reason: I didn’t need anyone to tell me that I wasn’t abusive, let alone some bogus tests. I knew I wasn’t abusive.”

    Do you all still have great respect for Dr. Walker?

    • One more disappointment.

      Jodi cannot get one. single. break.

      Did anyone see yesterday, when JM had on the screen the 2/14 note written by Jodi to TA. JM had baby doc read the second paragraph only and had they commented on the fact that Jodi wrote about her own anger. He implied Jodi admitted she had anger issues and chose Valentines Day to write this.

      He neglected to have baby read the first paragraph where Jodi comments about TA’s anger and how she was consoling him. What i got from both paragraphs, taken together, was Jodi consoling TA and commiserating with TA on how she could relate to his feelings as she gets angry also bla bla bla.

      Reading the second paragraph out of context from the first gave a very different message.

  163. The burglary of JD’s office looks very suspicious to me. Is it possible that is where JM got the information about Dr. Samuel’s tests that he was not supposed to have access to?

    • Willis,
      That doesn’t even make any sense, with all due respect. Her laptop was stolen. JM had met with JD a long time ago. The burglary of her laptop just occurred in Feb of this year. In fact, the paranoid crazies are trying to imply that the defense broke in and stole it so they could get access to the test results she had given Jodi. LOL.

  164. I’m scouring through many of my articles on domestic violence. JW is 1000% right. Lenore Walker has been basically debunked and has, in part, debunked herself.

    “Lenore Walker‘s cycle of violence was once the primary theoretical model used to describe domestic violence. Since 1979, Walker‘s paradigm has been used in basic domestic violence training to explain how domestic violence should look: a tension-building phase, followed by an acute battering incident, culminating in a honeymoon period. Without some intervention, the cycle repeats itself incessantly, with the physical violence coming more quickly and growing more intense over time.

    Walker‘s theory is compelling for a number of reasons. It is a simple narrative that accurately
    depicts the behavior of *some* women who are battered, occurring frequently enough for judges to recognize and vest credibility in it. The narrative has a clear villain and victim, which allows for easy
    categorization of the parties to an action. The narrative suggests a solution (interrupt the cycle to stop the violence); and casts the judge in the role of the hero who can, in fact, break the cycle by separating
    the parties.

    …

    The problem, of course, was the converse—if the cycle was not present, no domestic violence was
    occurring. Walker herself never made this argument, but the ubiquity of the cycle of violence choked out other discourse within the legal system about how to identify violence in intimate relationships, entrenching the cycle of violence as the benchmark against which women‘s claims of violence would be tested.

    Walker also introduced the legal system to the notion that women who have been battered suffer from learned helplessness. Walker explained the inability of women to escape abusive relationships as a
    function of their repeated experiences of powerlessness in the face of battering.

    …

    The description of women who have been battered as weak, passive non-actors has been enshrined in the law through Battered Woman Syndrome, a diagnosis-turned-excuse for women who fight back
    against their abusers.

    At the same time that Walker‘s work was exerting such a profound influence over domestic violence law, others were scrutinizing Walker‘s formulation and suggesting alternate theories of domestic violence. Walker‘s own work failed to support the ubiquity of the cycle of violence or the universality of women‘s
    feelings of helplessness.

    Advocates and scholars questioned the utility of a theory that accounted for the real-life experiences of so
    few women who have been battered. Edward Gondolf and Ellen Fisher recast women who experience violence as survivors struggling actively against their abusers.

    Evan Stark introduced the concept of coercive control and contended that the physical violence that was the trough of the woman‘s experience in Walker‘s theories *might actually be the least harmful type of abuse a woman experiences*.

    …

    Domestic violence is not a monolith explicable by a seamless, overarching theory. Such theories
    are seldom expansive enough to account for the experiences of the vast array of women who experience violence. Their uncritical acceptance, however, can bar women who do not conform to what is
    expected under those theories from accessing the legal system. Experts in the field have largely abandoned the theory of learned helplessness and its conception of women who experience violence
    as passive non-actors.

    …Even Lenore Walker has revisited and refined her earlier work on learned helplessness.”

    Here’s a few other quotes from the article that might be interesting when thinking about Jodi’s case.

    “Domestic violence does not transform every woman who experiences it into a stereotypical victim, nor should this victim stereotype shape domestic violence law and policy.”

    “Domestic violence is as individual as each woman who comes before a court seeking assistance.”

    “Women who have been battered and their partners are bound together in multiple ways: economically; by their children; through extended family, community relationships, and cultural ties; and by love.”

    http://law.wustl.edu/Journal/31/Goodmark.pdf

    • AA…she sounds like someone who started off with righteous goals, and good intent. Found……fame…money…….sigh. Very sad indeed. What I do not understand about her, is why in the world would ALV ask her to write the forward in her book? The only thing I can think of, and I mean no disrespect to ALV, is that it looks very good to have such a well known expert do your forward…?

      • I didn’t look up the time frame as to when Dr. Walker wrote the forward to ALV’s book. Did she write it for the first edition which I think was published in 1993 (before Dr. Walker switched to the dark side) or was it for the second edition (which I think was published in 2000)? Or, was it both? Sometimes, publishers don’t change the forward from edition to edition. That might be the reason.

      • Hi AA, I’m good just going to bed. Did you notice Tonya didn’t comment on here today?

          • Tonya wanted me to let everyone know her computer got hacked. She said “they” don’t want her talking about the Hughes and that HLN is repeating everything she’s saying. She’s just going to observe ;(

              • Her gravatar pic was one of those tarot cards. She said she was looking into a site favorable to Jodi and all of a sudden it went blank. I told her she must’ve gotten a virus. She had to unfriended me on fb while she used her brothers computer.

              • Hi Ashley! Yes Tonya F..from Texas. She said it wasn’t safe to talk to her. I’m just concerned because I loved hearing what she thought about this case and I hope everything is ok.

          • I did notice Tonya missing today.

            I miss Bella and her level headed comments. She seemed to go silent after an especially long negative Mormon discussion that happened over a weekend.

  167. A superior article by Mary Ann Dutton, who JW referenced today, which describes the problems with Lenore Walker’s criteria and also, updates. Our girl, Jenny from the block is ON THE BALL!

    “Walker again revised the definition of BWS in 2006 to include not only the three symptom clusters of PTSD (re-experiencing, numbing of responsiveness, hyperarousal), but also three additional criteria (disrupted interpersonal relationships, difficulties with body image/somatic concerns, and sexual and intimacy problems) (Walker, 2006). Many “associated features” (e.g., impaired ability to regulate emotion, dissociative symptoms, shame, feeling permanently damaged, hostility, social withdrawal, feeling constantly threatened, impaired relationships with others) often accompany PTSD, but these are not included in the criteria for its diagnosis. Walker has not provided a rationale for selecting a particular subset of these associated features and for including them as criteria for BWS.”

    “BWS may not be helpful for explaining why a woman returns to an abuser after separating or fails to call police. She may be reluctant to tell others about the abuse. Expert witness testimony may be needed to challenge mischaracterizations when a woman is well-educated, has access to economic resources, or has specialized training (e.g., police officer) since a judge or jury often does not understand how such a woman could not simply leave or protect herself against an abusive partner. BWS is not particularly relevant for these issues. A woman who appears unemotional right after or right before shooting her abusive husband may be thought merely to have killed in “cold blood.” PTSD may be relevant here, but dissociation as a part of acute stress disorder may be even more accurate.”

    “Too often an attorney will begin with one question: “Does she have BWS?” 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 “prove” 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 “ultimate” 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.”

    “If it is argued that BWS is really just PTSD, then BWS is entirely redundant and there is no need for a separate term. Clear and well-validated criteria for a PTSD diagnosis exist. Expert testimony relying primarily on PTSD can and is used by expert witnesses in court. However, it is only appropriate to do so when PTSD is relevant for explaining a particular issue before the court that might not otherwise be well understood by the jury or judge. PTSD might well explain important issues before the court in some cases. An example is when a woman’s perception of danger is explained by an intrusive recollection or subjective experience of “reliving” prior domestic violence that may be “triggered” by events leading to the criminal act (e.g., shooting). In this example, the focus is on the woman’s internal psychological state (e.g., PTSD), not on external events to explain the perception of threat posed by the abuser’s behavior. While this explanation ìfitsî some battered women who might due to PTSD experience objectively nonthreatening events as threatening and might respond in self-defense, it fails to account for many women’s accurate understanding of unique danger cues learned over repeated incidents of violence and abuse from their abusive partners.”

    “The inclusion of associated features in Walker’s 2006 revised definition of BWS further contributes to the lack of standardization in its definition. The reliability of several of the measurement scales used in Walker’s study (2006) to “operationalize” BWS using these additional indicators of BWS is unacceptably low. Further, no threshold level of these additional criteria for defining BWS was described. For example, how much or what kind of body image distortion is required to meet criterion for BWS? Does sexual dissatisfaction refer to an abusive partner or someone else and how much dissatisfaction is required to be considered BWS? Again, how much loss of the perception of power and control is necessary? Regrettably, Walker’s newer definition has clouded the criteria for assessing BWS even more than had previously been the case. Perhaps more importantly, these issues really have little relevance for many issues raised in criminal cases?”

    “When an expert witness is called to testify in a legal matter involving battering and its effects, he or she is required to have command of the current scientific literature as the foundation for sound theoretically- and empirically-based testimony. It is clear from the current scientific literature what advocates have known, which is that no single profile adequately characterizes women’s experiences following domestic violence. BWS is often used to describe victims as if they all experience similar effects from having been exposed to battering and all respond in the same way. For example, we know that patterns of violence and abuse vary across women, as does their desire to remain in relationships, the extent to which they stay or leave (Bell, Goodman, & Dutton, 2007) , and the extent of traumatic effects (Dutton et al., 2005) . BWS is often used as if it were a standard against which to determine whether a particular woman is justified in her actions against an abusive partner, is credible as a woman claiming to have experienced domestic violence, or deserves consideration in some other way. While we know that there is a range of common reactions to being battered by an intimate partner (Dutton, Hohnecker, Halle, & Burghardt, 1994) , how an individual woman experiences or reacts to being battered will vary depending on her psychological, social, cognitive and practical circumstances. Given this reality, it is not appropriate to describe “the profile of a battered woman” or to describe the effects of battering as a “syndrome”.”

    “Over three decades later and an accumulation of a wealth of scientific knowledge, BWS is now recognized as a flawed model (Rothenberg, 2002, 2003), even as a shorthand reference. Its use persists, in part, because it conveniently packages in a single phrase a far more complex issue. Indeed, we need to understand the unique experiences of each defendant informed by the large and continually growing body of scientific literature that is pertinent for understanding an individual’s experience and reaction to having been exposed to domestic violence. This information can be invaluable in support of expert testimony for explaining the state of mind and behavior of a woman who has experienced domestic violence and who has been charged with criminal conduct that was influenced by her history of violence and abuse.”

    http://www.vawnet.org/applied-research-papers/print-document.php?doc_id=2061

    • You know what’s funny? It’s pretty obvious Dr. DeSmarmy Baby Doc only EVER read Lenore Walker’s book and probably read some review on the back saying she is the mother of BWS, so she thought that was all she needed. She jotted down Dr. Walker’s criteria and said “Ok Juan, I’m good to go.” Since Juan is a one-trick pony, he didn’t realize that BWS has been completely reformed and is old-fashioned. He was sure his new grad would know all the latest. Haha Juany boy! Meet Jenny from the block. She’s cool, hip, with it, and she’s also nice about it.

      • Thanks for posting all this, AA.

        It’s insult to injury that Lenore Walker has patronized the likes of NG and has decided to continue her crusade against battered women by pretending to be an advocate while throwing them under the bus.

        Oh the irony – I have read a book by Nancy Grace, and she herself said Nicole was a battered woman and how OJ should have gotten convicted.

        Yet there she is on her show, cheering on the very defense expert she once shit on years ago.

        What a dunderhead.

        • Seriously, I don’t know what to think anymore. I’m hoping this woman was just hard up for money because I don’t think any self respecting professional would ever agree to be on any show on HLN.

          When faced with adversity, the one good thing that comes through is that these are the times when you realize who your real friends are. And I hope Dr. Samuels and Alyce both get rid of any vermin they might have surrounded themselves with before this fiasco of a trial ever touched their lives. And focus on their good true friends.

          I certainly pray every day that they will be showered with blessings and good fortune because they deserve it. And I hope they know that there are people like us who truly appreciate them.

      • Wow AA you really go out of your way to find information to help explain this case. I learn so much here everyday and I appreciate all your investigative work.

        There are so many on this site that are so informative on the legal field as well as the mental health field as it applys to court cases and expert witnesses. So thanks to you and all that help me understand this case better. :). As always I really appreciate SJ, MB, and JC for working so hard on this site keeping it a safe place to discuss this case without being attacked.

        My background is accounting/finance and banking so I feel I contribute very little because I lack the knowledge but I do support Jodi 100%.

  168. Holy shit! I just now finished reading all the posts from the morning and afternoon sessions. And now my eyes are bleeding! :-S

    Anyhoo, I missed a lot of the action because of stupid work and all. But I just wanna say this:

    1. JW would never conduct herself in a manner that would tarnish her reputation. So I won’t even bother to check out if she called the expert witness a bitch or not. It simply didn’t happen.

    2. I feel nothing for this girl. She called Jodi a liar, ON PURPOSE, as if to win points with the Jury and ingratiate herself with JM. Christ! We all know Jodi lied. Get over that. She already admitted it.

    And then she gave her a reading test? Seriously? WTF!? I believe she did that because I’m sure Jodi was not cooperating with her very much and so she thought to humiliate her and perhaps bring her down a notch or two..But it backfired on her, because her pettiness and HER childish behavior kinda came through, via, JW’s awesome interrogation technique. I absolutely love that woman.

    3. On a good note, she did get some leads from her website, so she’ll be okay. Amazingly enough, in just one day, she received a ton 5-star reviews! lol!

    • Glad to have you here Sil, you def had energy reading all our comments. Have a good night!

      • lmao! I know!

        I was tempted to go out there and make my own comments, but all I could think of saying was:

        baah baah baah!

    • I agree, Sil. JW is very professional and I didn’t hear the word “bitch” at all. I heard her say, “Let me get you…”

    • Sil, I look forward to reading your posts in the wee morning hours almost every day; your comments are always intelligent and spot-on, deadly accurate. I LOVE LOVE LOVE you, Sil! (((HUG)))

  169. I have updated my page here: http://jodi-arias.wikispaces.com/The+Big+Lie
    My conclusion:

    In summary the sharp force injuries are:
    1 very deep incised wound to the neck ( slit throat )

    1 very deep stab wound to the chest
    2 other stab wounds to the chest
    10 shallow wounds to the back and neck (arguably stab wounds)
    5 incised “defensive” wounds to the hands

    2 incised scalp wounds
    2 roughly triangular defects of the right and left portions of the skull calvarium corrsponding to these scalp wounds
    1 other incised scalp wound of the head
    1 deep incised chest wound
    2 incised wounds to the right shoulder

    1 “blunt” wound to the neck.

    Total = 28 sharp force injuries including the slit throat.
    Of these, you might reasonably say 3, 8, 13 or 18 are stab wounds ( by including the defensive wounds and/or the back wounds ).

    • I made another update. Counting the sharp force injuries and sorting them out isn’t easy!
      It should be “12 shallow wounds to the back and neck (arguably stab wounds)” not 10.

    • geebee2

      I know you’re technically correct. But I think you’re sort of losing the forest because of the trees here, old buddy. In the vernacular, any wound with a knife is a stab. The news, if some of this can be called the news, is reported in the vernacular. Hence by their standards, all these wounds are stabs, and in fact correctly so. To those listening to the news it just means they were inflicted by a knife or some other such implement. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less.

    • Has anyone ever said that a kitchen knife could have done this damage? I would think forensics would be able to say whether the kitchen knife was actually the knife that was used.

  170. I for one, hope the next time that hack of a doctor says Jodi wasn’t assaulted by Travis JW looks right at her and says ” oh, so you were there on june 4th, please tell us what you witnessed?”
    shut that bitch down!

  171. Lord have mercy dear sweet baby Jesus… Y’all just HAVE to watch Janeen DeMarte’s face from about 13:50-14:04ish on this video; it’s PRICELESS! I almost pissed myself rewinding it and watching that part over and over and over again (16 times to be exact, haha)! 😈

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05A5TcrFDL0

    She was about to throw a tantrum so Jen approached and gave JDM her own copy of Dr. Samuels’ Report. JDM looked at it, and you can literally see her eyes just glaze over as she gets this terribly baffled look on her face (like ‘WTF is this shit?”). She moves her head to mimic Jennifer’s movement back to the podium but you can just TELL JDM isn’t there, like nobody’s home upstairs right now; she even answers one of JW’s questions while in this fog (I’ll bet ya she can’t even remember what the question was, much less how she answered it, LOL!). JDM tries to say something about Dr. Samuels’ report TWICE, but she just can’t seem to be able to squeeze the question out. A few seconds later, JDM ‘returns to her body’, shakes her head to clear the fog, and resumes testimony. How effin’ TRIPPY is this?!?! 😯

  172. Ok, I just got caught up on comments about JW supposedly saying the word bitch.

    I watched the clip, and I didn’t even see her lips move. Unless ventriloquism is one of JW’s many talents I don’t think it’s any more than her shuffling the papers around.

    Yeah, remember when they SWORE they saw Jodi with a knife in the pixels of Travis’ eye? Right, same crap different day.

    The fact that NG puts this up as news is fucking stupid. It’s very likely that some hater manipulated the audio to make it sound like JW said bitch when she didn’t. I wonder if JW can sue NG for defamation when there’s no expert that has authenticated the audio and they are passing it off as real.

  174. Morning All.

    Finally got around to watching all of this young lady’s testimony last night, once I managed to get my OCD in top gear.

    We’ve spent a couple of days basically getting the following:

    1. She’s not very experienced.
    2. She disagrees with everything ALV, Samuels or any other defense witness. No surprise there.
    3. She believes that you can feel compassion and still provide an objective analysis (there goes that leg of JM’s argument)
    4. She’s not an expert on DV (Actually I don’t think she’s an “expert” on anything)

    That’s about it. I know you guys are going to yell, but I don’t think JW’s managed to shake her just yet on her assessment of Samuels diagnosis, however, I don’t think they’ve delved into it quite as much as they probably will, or should. I do think that se=he did concede that the tests were only one part of the assessment, which is what Samuels said and should have been obvious to all.

    This is always the issue with expert witnesses. They will always say what the side hiring them wants them to. I think that’s going to be JW’s big argument, why would the state go to such a greenhorn when a lot of other experienced people are around.

    Let see what happens today.

    • Very good analysis as always, Al. And I tend to agree that she hasn’t been shaken yet. Whether that’s from her own “hard as nails” and “I’m always right” personality or extremely thorough prep with JM, or a combination of both, I don’t know. I did think that after the first day of testimony, she looked close to tears when JW said “You know that Alyce LaViolette got her Masters in 1980, right?” That was the closest we’ve gotten to an “AHA” moment we’ve had.

      But I wonder how the jury is taking all of this? JM’s badgering techniques of the defense witnesses were, at least, somewhat effective with the jury based on their questions. And he planted suggestions in their minds that the experts may have had feelings for Jodi, insane as it sounds. In other parts of the country, he wouldn’t be allowed to act as he does and judges would have warned him about it (many many lawyers, even those who are pro-prosecution, have commented about this.) Perhaps, in this conservative part of AZ, that’s what it takes to get a jury to listen? JW doesn’t have it in her to act like that to a witness. She’s professional to the end, but also effective. I just wonder if *that* jury is getting that.

      I would think they have to notice the state doctor’s inexperience compared with two defense experts each with 30+ years of experience. I personally don’t feel JDM is as likable or as easy to relate to as Dr. S or ALV. But I wonder if I’m too biased and perhaps JDM is more likable than I’m able to see objectively? Jurors tend to believe someone they like and relate to more, based on my limited experience with trials, and the observations of many seasoned trial attorneys. I’m not sure she strengthens or weakens the case for self defense. Or perhaps, she just leveled the field a bit?

      Either way, the jury still has to decide: 1. Do they believe this killing was justified by self defense? If yes, that’s all they have to think about and they must acquit. If not, they have to deliberate further and decide on 2. Was it premeditated? It remains to be seen what smoking guns JM has for his rebuttal case because he didn’t prove that beyond a reasonable doubt in his case in chief. If the jury decides it’s more a crime of passion (as you and I have both speculated on), then, they have to determine 3. Is it a lesser included offense (assuming there are any)?

      Now, when I think about it that way, I’m still at the same place I was last week. I still see manslaughter as the most probable outcome. How about you, Al?

      But, I look forward to the continuation of JW’s cross today and hope poor Jodi is feeling better. It must have been exceptionally difficult for her to listen to this expert.

      • AA,

        I don’t think the badgering is going to matter with this jury. Obviously, in as far as JM is concerned, this is a tested technique. There is this regional definition of when and where decorum is required and obviously it doesn’t matter in AZ. The judge doesn’t seem to care, and I suppose neither do the jurors. I believe that JM’s technique probably wouldn’t work in other states where the jury isn’t allowed to ask questions because the defense would come in and softly clear up on redirect and the JM fog of confusion would be left as such.

        Given that the expert witnesses on each side present the case in the best light for their side, each side has two options with respect to the other sides experts. Either show that they are less credible than you own expert, or get them to agree with salient parts of your own experts testimony.

        JM has tried to discredit the defense experts on two counts:

        1. Sloppy work.
        2. Bias.

        In addition to that the prosecution has made the claim that the results of Samuels testing actually show something that is different to the claims he makes.

        JW has obviously shown that even though DeMarte may have the schooling she lacks in real world experience, with rather limited knowledge and expertise of the issues at hand. The bias comes in by showing that she does the forensic work because it pays more. I don’t think she has yet shown any marked errors on the part of this witness, or in fact been able to get her to agree, even begrudgingly to the fact that the defense experts’ diagnosis are reasonable alternatives. That is something JW needs to do.

        I think, also hidden in the defense argument a sort of the dog in the night situation. Remember Holmes’ famous line to Watson

        “I bring your attention to the behavior of the dog at night”.

        “But the dog did nothing.”

        “Exactly”

        The dog in the night situation here is why JM, knowing that his expert would be attacked for inexperience still chose to put her up there?

        You are absolutely correct in stating that the jury must first decide on whether or not self defense was disproved. The cornerstone of the self defense claim is that given the circumstances, a reasonable person would have reason to fear harm. I think the way JM is going about this is by trying to show that such a situation did not exist. There was no past behavior on TAs part, and no evident impact on Jodi that would make her fear injury or death. That is why this expert is important to him. However, I wonder if Jennifer is going to go through all those emails and texts again. That is where this young lady’s credibility is going to be put to the test.

        Obviously if JM manages to get past that hurdle the degrees of homicide issue arises. There I think the defense is on better footing than they are on the self defense case.

      • Agree.
        I also think it’s interesting how HLN etc is always calling her a sociopath and a psychopath like it’s a fact, when we have yet to see any experts (not even the prosecution’s) refer to her in this manner or offer anything about either of these diagnoses at all.

        More proof of this reckless disregard for the facts that is running rampant in the coverage of this case.

    • I think when JW was going over the test that Dr. Samuel’s did, JD admitted it was a valid test, and the score for that test of borderline was very low and PTSD was high, but not high enough. JD kept saying that since it was below 75 it was insignificant and not worth looking at. It was like JD appeared to disregard everything she wanted to, hence her evaluation was subjective by being too rigidly objective. I thought that was an important point that JW brought out.

      • I’m really not sure how these tests work, but JDM seemed to imply that the 75 score was a hard limit, and that scores below that do not in fact reflect degrees or levels of anything. Dr Samuels, on the other hand. seemed to say that such score were not absolute and showed heightened levels of certain traits and when taken in conjunction with other data may lead to his diagnoses. Who knows what the real truth here is, and I suppose I would tend to believe the person I found more credible.

  175. I listened to that NG tape last night, and it seems to me that Lenore said she uses 3 of the original 6 points. Did anyone get that out of what she said?

  176. Does anyone think the jury is wondering who in heck is this Dr. Carp? Did JM bring this name during cross with Jodi? Does anyone think JW will leave that up in the air for them to ponder or do you think she will question JD on her reference to Dr. Carp’s? I don’t see how JD could drag her name in when Dr. Crap hasn’t given testimony.

    • Good point. I wish we could get in something about Dr. Karp. That would make 3 experts who believed Jodi (2 of them experienced psychologists). It seems JM opened the door for at least some questioning.

      • I never know when JM is planting bait traps or when he’s laying foundation for his closing. Such as, the sneaking out messages in magazine (Jodi said, I have not seen them BUT at least one juror thinks she may have been sneaking them out to AL?) and now this Dr. Karp thing. I guess I need to trust the defense team to know what to leave alone and what to hop on.

  177. I was listenilng to testimony of experts again trying to wrap my head around all that has been said. I do not read comments anymore because it sickens me and angers me but the page happen to show first comment and when i glimpsed it couldnt help but read it..now we all know how rumors get started so i am just verifying what i read. Someone said there were only 2 questions in the basket for Dr D. Can anyone verify that as fact or rumor? “IF” fact then something is terribly wrong here.

    • I believe that was reported last night on HLN by one of the in-court correspondents. No idea if it’s true or not, it’s difficult to tell with them.

      • Thanks JJ, if it came from HLN then ill take it with a grain of salt until i hear from a reliable source

  181. I think JW.. has been more then polite with this youngster expert… non threatening, polite, firm, but cordial… non pacing, non teeth gritting, letting the expert say wayyy more then yes or no.. and one big thing…. ( wish it had happened.) .. I didnt hear her say one time … DID I ASK ABOUT YOUR PATIENT LOAD?? Or any other question answered with more then the question asked !!!

  182. Anyone catch Juan and judge Pickles grinning at each other at the end of session yesterday afternoon? This was after Pickles shaking her head in disapproval toward the defense. looks like the judge and juan are old friends.

    • This judge is in Juan’s pocket. She wants reelection. There has been no serious consideration to the motions for a mistrial and prosecutorial misconduct. Both Martinez and the judge (IMO) are being pressured by the state to try Jodi on these trumped up charges to get the DP. What a joke this trial is. I am just hoping that some of the jurors are smart enough to see through all this BS.

  183. I’ve been very disturbed, as I think many JA supporters have have been, by the intense expressions of hatred toward Jodi on the social media outlets. I came across a blog called Pitchforks (it may have been mentioned here already). The author has written a fantastic piece called “Hate, the Oxycontin of Women in Social Media” where she explains the psychology of these haters (specifically women) and why their reaction to Jodi is emotionally dysfunctional. Check it out!

Comments are closed.

Placeholder Photo
Previous Story

Jodi Arias Trial – Day 49

Placeholder Photo
Next Story

Jodi Arias Trial – Day 50

Latest from Latest News

Placeholder Photo

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

From Jodi: Hello, hello, hello! It’s the most wonderful time of the year again and there’s

Placeholder Photo

Nothing To Fear…

From Jodi: Hey All! I drew this cute, spooky zombie girl with Halloween in mind. Under

Placeholder Photo

Fine Feral Felines

Fine Feral Felines (Foreword by Jodi Arias) Recently, I read what was probably the most adorable