Monthly Archives: March 2013

Arias Trial 3/29

3 Replies

**UPDATE**

After speaking to each juror separately the court will rule that there was no misconduct on the part of the prosecution. Sources in court yesterday afternoon said the jury is still ‘intact’. This may have been a result of a paralegal (on the defense side) who watched HLN the night before and thought Jean Casares said she saw a juror watching the prosecutor signing autographs and taking pictures in front of the court with his fans. Jean was called to the stand and questioned by Nurmi and Martinez and said she had only suggested that she was ‘concerned’ that a juror might see the prosecutor with fans. Turns out it was a waste of time (except for Mr. Nurmi who gets $225.00 an hour). I have heard the Nurmi will still be bringing in pictures and video to push this issue.

Also to those who follow this blog- I am new to blogging and just realized that every time I edit you get another update.  One day I edited four times…oops. To avoid filling your e-mail with my blog I will try to only post once a day, and usually only when there is court, unless there is an update like today.  Thanks for understanding.

Arias Trial-3/28 summary

Leave a reply

***The Defense is saying there is Prosecutorial Misconduct due to JM having pictures taken and signing autographs outside the courtroom.  He brings up Dr. Drew’s juror- Katie (who is in the court…Dr. Drew should be interesting tonight). JM says it is outside the court and therefore not misconduct. They are saying a juror saw JM with his fans. Jean Casarez has now been called to the stand. Nurmi is questioning her. The claim is she saw a juror watching JM and fans. Jean now says she DID NOT see a juror watching JM. Jean now says she meant she was concerned a juror might see that as she has seen a juror outside. She says she never saw JM with fans personally- just on video. JM asks her how many times she has seen him walk out the front doors…she says never.  Council approaches the bench. Jury comes in…

 

Dr. LaViolette/Jennifer Wilmott (defense)

  1. Back to the Continuum. It’s just a framework. Relationships don’t always fit ‘nicely’ into this framework.
  2. Do victims face scrutiny? Yes…media portrayals like ‘The Burning Bed’,  ‘Enough’ with popular actresses portrayed as saints and lesser-known male actors as purely evil. Doesn’t really fit. Not realistic. More judgemental on the woman- why didn’t she leave or if he got better why didn’t she go back.?<Sidebar> She found Probation officers and other groups have judged the victim more harshly than the Perpetrator. Victims feel judged.  
  3. THIS CASE: She reviewed paperwork. She didn’t immediately take the case.  Then she spent 8 hours with JA one day and a few more hours the next day.

<S> Then she took the case. Then sent more stuff…48hrs, journals, i-m’s, texts, e=m’s, interviews (20), 44 hrs with JA, Dr. Samuels and Dr.Demartes, Crime scene autopsy photos.

  1. She does not do testing. Just talks. Connects with the client, builds trust. Does this mean that you like them?  I find people interesting and very few are not likable. Cloud your judgment? No they tell me more.  Spends a lot of time investigating. 
  2. Did you ever give her anything? Sent 4 books, magazines. <S> Why? Because I think jail is boring and get her educational stuff for trial. She has done this in other cases. Not about helping herself (the Dr.). Any rules against this? No.
  3. JA’s family. <S> Based on interview she read. There was physical discipline- some went over the line, like leaving welts. Too strict, too harsh. Father was jealous and controlling and manipulative. He made statements about her weight, didn’t want Mom to be with sisters/family. He was inappropriate with Jodi…he screamed at a little boy she liked…said her boobs were too small-sexually inappropriate. She said JA learned about loyalty but also giving up things she loved for someone else. Stay through thick and thin even with abuse. Actions speak louder than words-we learn from observation. Issue with her Mom. Grandparents say JA is angry Mom didn’t protect her from Dad. When little sister and brother (11 years younger) were born the 2 older kids became invisible (when in teens-important).
  4. Relationship with JA and Travis. JA and Travis meet in Vegas. Went to Banquet- Travis borrowed a dress for her. Then JA sat in preferred seating with Travis. He pursued her. Told her he was Morman- she was impressed with the family values. There is a power difference. JA ends relationship with Darryl within a week. Travis is calling her. She meets Travis at the Hughe’s.
  5. Weekend at the Hughes. Travis ignores her at first. They watch videos. He sneaks into her room…kissing, oral sex. She was uncomfortable. Many women don’t know how to stand up for self and say no. Church the next morning. (JA is not a Mormon yet). Sees Travis a few days later at Starbucks, got the Book of Mormon. He says he’s horny, she performs oral on him in the car. He leaves. She’s vulnerable and her boundaries are ‘fluid’. Missionaries come to JA’s house.
  6. Erinburgh. (So they could meet half way). She thought it would be romantic but it was all about sex. But she stayed. Then they leave and he doesn’t call- she feels stupid and used. He finally calls and she is happy that he cares. It speaks to hope. Sex is a powerful way to connect.

10. JA is baptized within 2 months of meeting Travis…he baptizes her. It was important to her – spiritually and because Travis did it. He is a spiritual mentor. (Break). After they had anal sex. JA said anal and oral weren’t sinful. The conflict is she is in a sexual relationship, which she is not supposed to be, but her mentor says it’s ok. He leaves.

11. Surprise visit from Travis. Late at night. Jan. 2007.

12. E-mail from 1/7/2007. JA wants Travis to define the relationship, she is monogamous. <S> Seeds of jealousy. Travis says it’s okay to date. <S> She feels she shouldn’t go out. She doesn’t like to hurt others feelings.

13. E-mails- The Hughes’ to Travis. (1/2007). They were important to Travis. <S> First e-m is ‘you crossed the line’. The summary… <S> Travis has responded to the Hughes and they have indicated to advise JA to move on from the relationship…that Travis had been abusive to women <O> That is important. There were issues (with Travis) with women.  How Travis is treating Jodi. His prior treatment of other women. Info about his childhood and how it effects him now.  Ms. Hughes said she would forbid her sister to date Travis. Travis refused to look at his childhood and wouldn’t get counseling. Info about manipulating women, calling JA a ‘skank’ and acting like it was a joke, not allowing pictures of them to be posted. They called it abusive. <S> Does she consider any of this abusive? Within a context…it’s significant because these are people he values.

14. END

15. The judge tells the jury they want to speak to each of them. I assume this is to find out if any of them saw JM with fans outside the courtroom.

People- don’t get too worried about her getting in the ‘abuse’ claim, I am sure JM has it handled and will clear Travis’ name.

Arias Trial 3/27

Leave a reply

Court is canceled today. Court resumes tomorrow at 9:30 pacific time. According to several sources Jodi Arias is sick.  She was present for the hearing this morning but at the end J. Wilmott poured her some water then took her aside and insisted she take her medicine.  I also heard Samantha (Travis’s sister)  ran out of the courtroom in tears today after  hearing the victim impact statements regarding a case being tried in the same court. The man was sentenced to life without parole (he stabbed someone repeatedly with a screwdriver and killed them).

Arias Trial-3/26-summary

Leave a reply

Dr. LaViolette/Jennifer Wilmott (defense)

Still establishing work history:

  1. She has worked with: Police, on a board, Military, and Corporations.
  2. She uses humor to deal with a serious topic.
  3. She faced some discrimination early on partly due to enacting new laws.
  4. She does (and has) always worked with men and women.
  5. In Court: On the Defense side 16 times, prosecution 9. She has turned down cases due to time restrictions- she won’t do a case unless she has the time to do a good job. She has testified 18 times. She has represented men and women. She started on this case in Sept./Oct. 2011 and is paid $250 for research and $300 to testify per hour.
  6. Exhibit- Continuum about DV (Domestic Violence).  About varying degrees of abuse, including verbal and physical. Strong point: There can be an isolated act of aggression even with someone with no history of abuse.
  7. Name calling (she asks if she can swear) ‘Bitch’, ‘Bastard’, swearing.
  8. Character assassination (considered worse) ‘whore’, ‘slut’, ‘ugly’, ‘worthless.
  9. Abusers often were abused themselves when young.

10. Another type of threat (besides killing) is threat of abandonment.

11. Abusers can have fear of being found out, losing their job.

12. Jealousy…abuser doesn’t want you to spend time with other sex, family…

13. Verbal and emotional abuse is much more frequent (weekly) than physical (over months). No magical number as to when it happens.

14. Aggression (like kicking a car), Controlling (calling during the day to see where you are), submitting to sexual acts, checking e-m’s, facebook, gps.

15. Jealousy is a controlling behavior. They control, interrogate, put down friends or family. More extreme: destruction of property- first general (like punching a hole in the wall) then personal (the victim’s property). Sexual abuse, changing the victim’s personality. Occurs over time.  At the end more violent – road rage, bar fight. Lastly Terrorism: extreme stalking, violating protective orders hostage situations monopolization of perception (you see through the perpetrator’s eyes- like subtle mind control (like you get a new job and hey say ‘well I guess they’ll hire anyone. Money, wealth and sex can all effect the balance of power.

16. Threats- to kill self or a well thought out murder (of the victim), torturing pets.

17. Extreme isolation from families, etc. and not talking to anyone about what’s going on. They don’t want people to think they have a bad partner, not being able to write bad things, dismantling the car. Believe what the abuser tells you (like you’re fat…). Your choices and your world are narrowed. The abused does not want to make the abuser lose their job or mar their reputation.

18. Balance of power shifts.

19. You can have a terrorist who never lays a hand on you.

20. Sexual humiliation and degradation. Abused sometimes blame themselves for the abuse.

21. Exacerbating factors (the perpetrator)-your family history (neglect, abuse), previous abusive relationships, substance abuse, psychological issues.

Done with the Continuum!

Afternoon Session:

  1. Has she used the Continuum in court before? Yes…
  2. There is a range of behaviors.
  3. The Continuum was peer reviewed and published.
  4. Batterers instill fear in families and others who care about them.
  5. Most rage aimed at intimate partner, sometimes children. The intimate partner probably won’t tell, and if married may stay. This is why they don’t act out at the workplace. No witnesses.
  6. Intimate violence is the new term.
  7. Asks the Dr. to do a walk through of an abusive relationship. Starts with being in love. First relationship. (Most could live with an abuser for a year…). Dates—meeting family…gets mad…silent treatment…then ok…then gets mad and they call you names…you don’t leave…now you’re more serious with each other… they break something of yours…still don’t leave…now together 1-2 years…another argument, one where you are slapped…are you going to stop loving because they hit you?  Clash of values- I shouldn’t be mistreated but should be compassionate and forgiving…I have made promises in this relationship. This clash can make you stay- there is a possibility of change. Learned helplessness- they feel helpless. Two main reasons they stay- hope and fear. Hope backfires in an abusive relationship. Fear takes longer to develop.  Back to the slap- most still would not leave.  Plus shame attached to those who don’t leave even if they have the financial ability to. Often women in shelters have few resources. Couples without kids still have the emotional bond. Belief systems- women still feel if the relationship fails they fail…men are less likely to stay. Religious beliefs, green card dependent, gay, poor, all could have issues. Difficult to leave. A lot of women have no proof of the abuse or may lie about it. Become more isolated as you feel you can’t talk to people. Self esteem suffers – things they said they would never stand for they now do.  Feel terrible about themselves. Often say they’re not afraid…until abuse escalates. You become another person- even the abuser loses more respect for you. The longer together the more invested you are- buying things together, traveling. Victim blame- why victims tend to be flaky- don’t show up for court, etc…blame selves for being victimized. In sexual assault and DV often the victim is blamed. Batterer will externalize the blame. Abusers self esteem isn’t vey good either though it may not appear that way. Behavioral self blame- you change what you do- don’t smart mouth back. Blame self for car robbery because they left their door unlocked. Character logical self blame- what did I do to provoke it…if I’m a good person why do I get treated this way- what’s wrong with me? Difficult to leave as you’re not worthy, you’re ashamed.
  8. The Hostage syndrome- Stockholm Sweden.  The tellers were held hostage and 2/3 testified for the robbers. First you perceive a threat, the believe it can happen, then it stabilizes- you’re allowed to go to the restroom, so perception of kindness, then monopolization of perception…isolated- then perceive you cannot escape. How it applies to DV situation: Perception of emotional and physical violence. If you have been harmed they are capable of hurting you.  Then there are periods of kindness and good times. Eventually you can stop the hope.
  9. Chronic Apprehension- ‘substance abusers get a break, but those who live with them never get a break’…same with DV. You begin to develop the apprehension because you know it will happen again.

10. The relationship usually starts out good (in DV).

11. Cycle of violence. At tension building phase, then an incident, then the honeymoon phase. Some people never get a honeymoon or it diminishes over time. There is no magic number as to how long these phases last. The incidents escalate in intensity and frequency and the honeymoon can diminish. Normal relationships can also be cyclical but not violent.

12. There’s a difference in the way men and women fear. Women know they’re more likely targets…so more cautious the men who are not that way. TV shows where women are being stalked, DV, etc. It’s more difficult to abuse a man. Unless a woman has a weapon. Women are scared more rapidly and will tend to retain fear and become more cautious.

13. There’s a difference in anger too.  Women are not praised for their anger, unless defending their kids.  What do people call angry women? Men are less harshly judged.

14. Difference in brains too. <Sidebar>

15. Women she has treated tend to over empathize. (Battered men too). Women after a little time will sympathize with their men. It can keep them in a relationship longer.

16. Empathy and brain scans. Women’s brains <Sidebar>

17. Men groups. Goal to change belief systems about using aggression and developing empathy. Empathize for self (when they were children), other men in the group, their children then their partner.

18. Hypothetical- Man who as a boy had extreme neglect, homeless, dirty, parents were drug addicts. He would see/hear violence between Mom and Dad. He would have a number of issues in a relationship. <Sidebar> Though child not hit, still abusive childhood. Child could blame self.  They learn negative coping skills. Sometimes you do what your parents did. When you grow up fearful you grow up fearful. You can still have a successful job, but not relationship. When feeling powerless they will become more powerful, bigger. Don’t have the skills to deal with a personal relationship. Things happening to older kids can be tolerated better.

19. Chronic combat readiness- kids from abuse…you grow up in a basic war zone so you’re hyper vigilant. Operating from their reptilian brain. A lot of bullies come from abusive families. The degree of abuse in the environment will directly effect the degree of severity of abuse later.

Afternoon Break

  1. Regarding victims when they come to testify <Sidebar>
  2. Abused women and whether they seek the police, medical, testify.  Many don’t make police reports. Some change their minds, some follow through. When called to testify many recant. Sometimes it takes a long time to get to court, so some reconcile. They don’t want partner to lose job, have a record, or pay fees/fines, be put on probation, etc. It effects the entire family. About 80% recant. Victim can feel blamed.
  3. Men’s group. She invites the victim (female) for an interview to get a bigger picture. If there’s DV the truth is usually worse than either side will admit. Women tend to be protective.
  4. She won’t counsel couples in DV situations together. That is a conflict. Also safety of the survivor is important.
  5. She looks for the balance of power. While separated she will question them. (I can’t list all of these…she is very wordy! Trust me it doesn’t apply to this case.)
  6. Cycle of violence -1979. The descriptions in the book were extreme. It’s not used as much today because controversy over the honeymoon phase (it doesn’t always happen).
  7. She lists some more current books on DV.
  8. She works with childhood trauma.
  9. Battered women have the full range of family history.  Men abusers tend tom have a violent history or are exposed to DV. Women who come from chronic abuse do tend to repeat abusive relationships. Women generally say emotional/verbal abuse is worse than physical, maybe because it happens more frequently. Hurts worse from someone you love.

10. History of the abuser—mostly it’s exposure. <Sidebar> Children who grow up in an abusive family don’t always grow up abusers…we don’t have all the information…<Objection>

FYI: I left out some case studies and examples because it was just too much!

Tomorrow Court resumes at 10:45.

Arias Trial summary 3/25/13

2 Replies

Dr. Samuels vs. Juan Martinez

  1. JM brought up the different scores the Dr. had on his PDS. Test. He says he re-did the scoring while he was in Palm Springs and he did not have the original score sheet with him and this was not intended for publishing. (The scores were different). JM calls him ‘sloppy’ the Dr. syas the criteria was met either way.
  2. JM asks if he re-scored the MCMI also- he says: “No”.  Then JM brings out another test and the Dr. has to agree there was a second scoring.
  3. JM brings up the criteria for PTSD, the D section.  He points out PTSD means Post or after the event.  D1 is about difficulty sleeping. D2 is about anger/outbursts.  JM points out JA (Jodi Arias) has had these before the event, and the Dr. is basing this upon a few phone calls to her Mom also based on just her word.  However JM gets in that she was very angry with her mom in her teens and hit and kicked her Mom for no reason. The Dr.says it got worse after the event (again based on JA’s word, JM points out she is a proven liar).
  4.  D3- difficulty concentrating- apparently reading was one example- but JM points out she read the Book of Mormon cover to cover the Dr. says he wasn’t privy to that testimony. Again JM points out this is based on her word. JM points out she also re-read her Journals beginning to end…and does that call this into doubt- Dr. says No. The second example from the Dr. is her trouble with staying on images when she is trying to relax. He does say something about it being difficult because she is in (a loud) jail and JM jumps on this, as it would not then be related to the trauma. JM points out that she had no trouble sleeping though. (Plays a recording with the Dr. actually saying this).
  5. D4-hypervigilance-Dr. says she had trouble sleeping. He does say something about it being difficult because she is in (a loud) jail and JM jumps on this, as it would not then be related to the trauma. JM points out that she had no trouble sleeping though. (Plays a recording with the Dr. actually saying this). Also she felt her personal space was invaded and the sounds and lights were intensified. JM pointed out that could be because it’s her first time in jail. The Dr. admits she had no startle response, but based on his opinion she still meets the criteria.
  6. C7- foreshortened future.  Dr. bases this on her talking to him about suicidal thoughts, though he adds she never had a plan. JM points out according to her Journals she was suicidal three other times- in High School, with Matt and in 2007, all before June 4th.JM also gets the Dr. to admit she has never been on suicide watch and this is all based on her word.
  7. C6- flat affect. Dr. based this on his conversations with her, that when talking about emotional charged events she lacked the corresponding emotions.JM points out in many of her interview- like with the detective and 48hrs she was smiling, laughing and giggling.  The Dr. said it was when describing the crime she had a flat affect. He brings up she made up an alternate universe during the interviews and JM pointed out an ‘alternate universe’ is just another lie. The Dr. said: “in your words”.  The Dr. maintains this universe was a psychological way to dis-associate from the truth.
  8. C5- detachment from others. The Dr. says she is not tuned in to to what’s around her. JM asks about personal relationships. He says she was detached from other cellmates and people in the jail. JM points out this could be as it is her first time in jail. The Dr. says that is ‘your conclusion.’
  9. JM brings up the original report submitted that did not have enough criteria to establish PTSD.  The Dr. claims the omissions are just a typo.

10. C3- inability to recall an important aspect of the trauma.  The Dr. points to the amnesia. JM asks if the fog restricts her recall and the Dr. says yes. JM brings up the Dr.’s meteorite/crater explanation (the meteorite being the stressor and the crater being the PTSD) and points out Jodi has no ‘crater’ that can be measured- no way to see inside her brain to find something wrong. The Dr. argues a bit and finally admits it can’t be measured.

Afternoon Session:

  1. C2- JA did not have.
  2. C1- persistent avoidance of anything associated with the trauma.

JM asks what efforts she took to avoid.  The Dr. says her story (ninjas) was an avoidance technique. JM points out that it was a lie.  The Dr. says it’s a defense mechanism. JM asks: “It is a story?” Dr. “Yes.” JM list the following a as things which show she did not avoid the trauma: The 20 irises to the Grandma, went on 48 hrs twice to discuss the crime, talked with Leslie about her and Travis’s kids playing together, sent a letter to the family, e-m’s to Travis right after the death writing about Travis over and over in her Journal up til the arrest, attending the memorial, driving by the crime scene (I can’t believe he got that in!).  The Dr. fought him on every point saying she was in denial that she did it so she was acting like she didn’t do it.

  1. JM went over the idea that the trauma wasn’t different according to the Dr.  between a Cop, a war vet and JA.
  2. JM gets in that JA was trying to stage the scene ‘is what she told us.’ The Dr. says that is not what she told me.
  3. JM points out that in the e-mail with the ‘3 salacious words’ Travis also said to her he was just a ‘dildo with a heartbeat.’  JM gets the Dr. to agree this sounds like Travis was used for sex.
  4. JM gets the Dr. to admit in ‘flight or fight’ after the winner is determined it is over.  (Unlike this case).
  5. JM straight out accuses the Dr. of not being objective.  The Dr. says he is trained in empathy. They go back and forth.
  6. JM points out that he is supposed to also be trained in accuracy. The Dr. said: “Well absolutely.” But JM brought up all his errors on the test scores- The Dr. still says it was typos.
  7. JM ends by saying the Dr. has ‘lost objectivity’ and the Dr. (loudly) states back : “Absolutely not!”

JW (defense) /the Dr.:

  1. Goes back to the ‘dildo with a heartbeat’ comment and asks the Dr. after hearing the sex tape if he felt Travis was being abused and he said no.
  2. JW goes over the avoidance of things regarding the trauma, like the irises, the Memorial and the nice Journal entries about Travis and the Dr. syas it’s all about avoidance.
  3. She goes into the suicides and tries to get in the letters again, and has the Dr. explain at length what happens to someone under a suicide watch in jail. (As a reason JA never told the Dr. about her actual attempts).
  4. JW talks about the clip JM played about her ability to fall asleep and now points out she had to take tranquilizers for 6-8 months first.
  5. Back to the PDS scoring again…Dr. says despite the different numbers the criteria is still met.

Jury questions: (paraphrased)

  1. In your practice do you offer patients books for free?  Yes.
  2. Have you viewed any media re: this case? I have avoided any contact.
  3. Did JA tell you about buying a gun? No.
  4. A plan with a razor? No.
  5. What’s the difference between covering up and an alternate universe? Covering up is creating an alibi and an alternate universe is a defense mechanism.

JW (defense)/The Dr:

  1. Defense mech. is part of alt universe- yes. Helps with dealing with acute stress. When JA finally told the real story how did she feel? …a weight was lifted.”
  2. JW goes into why JA wouldn’t have mentioned the suicide attempts- due to the harsh actions at the jail under suicide watch.
  3. Has he given books to patients? Yes…

JM /The Dr:

  1. JM takes him to task for all of a sudden knowing so much about what the jail does re-suicides.  He actually corrects the Dr. at one point for having the name of the jail JA is in wrong. He also h=goes back into the Dr. previously saying he gave her the book because she was ‘suicidal’.  The Dr. denies it.
  2. They go back and forth over the self help books being therapy or evaluation. JM says: They’re not for assessment?  Dr: “No.”
  3. JM says: “Covering up involves not telling the truth?” Dr.…”Yes.”

NEW WITNESS: Dr. Alyce LaViolette (and JW-defense)

Basically going over education and Credentials.  Some ‘highlights’:

  1. School in NJ, then AZ, the Ca.  Has a Masters.
  2. Worked in a battered women’s shelter and soon started a men’s group (for the batterers)- a new concept at that time.
  3. Other work: Volunteer work, training, churches, child custody, Domestic Violence, lawyers, speaking engagements from high school to representing the State Department in several countries.
  4. Has her own practice in Ca since 1984 where she counsels singles, couples and groups.
  5. Has been a key note speaker many times.
  6. Has won several awards, including Lifetime Achievement Award.
  7. Published the book: It Could Happen to Anyone” about why women go back to abusers.  This is used as a text in many schools.  She has also written many articles.
  8. She has also done a lot of forensic work (in the courts as consultant and as expert witness). She has worked for both the Defense and the Prosecution.
  9. She has been involved in legislation.

Court begins again tomorrow at 10:30.

Arias Trial-Funny Blog

1 Reply

The best sarcastic blogger I have read regarding this trial is at: “Eggtreenews”- you won’t regret it…

An example from the post on that site called “New Bat$hit Crazy Sociopath….”:

“Shut your piehole and go away, Arias. You butchered a human being because he dumped you, and now you want to soak up the spotlight with your outrageous abuse claims that you think provide a license to kill. Youre a malignant sociopath, and your fake glasses and librarian costume fool nobody. How Travis’ family can sit in the same room with you and maintain any composure while you slaughter him all over again is beyond me. I would have to be pumped full of thorazine in a pseudo-coma to share oxygen with you.”

Awesome!

Arias trial- after the questions 3/21

Leave a reply

Wilmont/Dr. Samuels:

Goes over test and how scores would remain the same. Asks about her plans to see Ryan before the trip was planned. She wasn’t jealous about Travis going to Cancun with another. Talked about JA being like a cornered animal–she fled but had to fight. She made up stories to avoid the horrible truth. Review of MCMI…again…She only had seconds to make decisions therefore no time for a phone call. Travis would punish her by not calling her–she had low self-esteem and always went back. Her memory returned around Hoover Dam.  Now 25-30 hours is goo for an evaluation. There were 2 different times she was ties with a rope. He never crossed the line to therapist with her. Unlikely for there to be trauma if the killing is planned.

Juan Martinez vs. Dr. Samuels:

“Do you have problems with your memory?” I have no more problems than you do! “Have you evaluated this prosecutor?” OBJECTION, SUSTAINED
Your initial impression after visiting her, was you felt sorry for her, right?” Not sorry for her, she was alone and isolated. I felt she could benefit from the book. I’ve been trained to disconnect any feelings I would have
“So when you said you had compassion, you told us that you had sympathy for the defendant, didn’t you?” Well that’s Webster’s definition, I used the word compassionate “Are you saying that you have a different definition of compassion than Webster’s?”  I’ll go by Webster’s definition “So Webster’s talks about sympathy for the distress of another?” That’s correct . “Didn’t you say she had a break through?” I said if she was in therapy, it would have been considered a breakthrough. “During the 2nd meeting, you still had feelings of sympathy for her didn’t you?” No, my feelings were of no concern. “Did Miss Arias’s story change after you gave her the book?” I don’t know if the book had anything to do with it
Dr. Samuels says he doesn’t know if he has Jodi’s original answer sheet, he needed to have a copy in front of him to review, so he filled out another one for himself. “Isn’t that an ethical dilemma for you?” SIDEBAR

Court resumes Monday- the judge asked the jurors to be there at 10 but I assume they actually will begin at 10:30.

Arias Trial-3/21

Leave a reply

I got most of it…

Jury Questions and answers (paraphrased)

1.  Are you only allowed to testify about a client’s situation with their consent? They sign an agreement- the client knows about testifying.

2.  Can both Fight and Flight occur at the same time? Usually first is to flee, but both in this situation.

3.  Can memories blocked in a FF event return over time? Not if there is no stored memory to begin with.

4. How can we be sure …not based on lies…? Tests and 35 years experience with PTSD patients.

5. Did you use hypnosis on #JodiArias to recover her memory? Not to my knowledge.

6. Is it possible the memories do exist during the FF state? (I missed this).

7. Could you not extract some old lost memories with photos and journals? Not first hand memory- and can cause false memories.

8. Is there 100% consensus in your field about the diagnosis? Never 100%…

9. Acute stress is determined within 2 months but you didn’t see her until 6 months after the event..how could you diagnose Acute Stress? She had PTSD at the time (and that’s not a “get out of jail free card”, but it’s connected to PTSD.

10. On what dates did JA take the tests? 12/2009 & 1/2010.

11. Can you be sure Jodi is not lying to you about the events on June 4, 2008? Not 100%..her 2nd story was truthful.

12. Why did you not try hypnosis? …Stress reaction…I’m better trained in PTSD.

13. Regarding June 4, 2008, do you feel JA had suppressed memories or are they missing entirely? I can’t measure that but based on acute stress and memory ..highly unlikely.

14. If suppressed—hypnosis- if not why? Dis-associative  Amnesia  has no memories to bring back.

15. As a professional what steps do you take to assure yourself that someone has truly lost or suppressed their memory as opposed to lying about the event? No way to be 100% sure it’s dis-associative amnesia..but in all reasonable probability…30% of people convicted of crimes claim amnesia.

16. Do you feel it is possible for an individual to fool professionals that someone is suffering from PTSD or Dissociative Amnesia? After a thorough evaluation…reviewing crime scene photos, re-interviews, ..feeling she was truthfull…and testing. I’m pretty confident.. acute stress and D. A. Amnesia.

17. To your knowledge was JA tested more than once on any given test? (I missed)

18. When you meet with someone can you tell if they’re telling the truth? You need corroborating info.

19. You stated she never said a negative thing in her journal yet she made negative statements about suicide and Travis making her sick… Do you consider those positive statements? They’re mild compared to the rest of the Journal.

20. Are there other disorders in the DSM-IV book that list similar symptoms? Some overlap with Acute Stress.

21. Is there any science to explain why some people can recall events and others cannot when involved in a stressful moment? Not everyone reacts to stress the same way.

22. How do you ask your questions when interviewing an individual? Do you ask leading questions? There are times you ask directed questions..but mostly just let them speak.

23. You previously said 3-8 out of 1000,000 then later said 3-8%??  It’s 3-8 cases a year.

24.  TGA (Trans-Global Amnesia)- from sex, water…how about from a bad haircut?  No…

25. Is JA taking medication to treat this terrible PTSD? Tranquilizers, Anti-Depressants…depends on symptoms….I am not involved in treatment.

26. Regarding articles- decision making process breaks down- then how did she get so much done?  Acute Stress..you can see a weapon, but not plan.

27. Did you diagnose any conditions not covered in testimony? Anxiety…Personality Disorder- not specific.

28. Are your opinions based what a patient tells you? Not solely-interviews, crime scene, reports.

29. In extreme shock..can brain still function to make rational decisions? Yes, but not always rational…in this case a camera..<Objection>

30. Intrusive thoughts- what are actors? I was referring to the story changed – 2 people one set of actors the  Travis attacking- second set.

31. Regarding the tremors, how can you tell it’s caused by PTSD rather than fear of herself being found guilty?There are other physiological changes- sweaty hands, shaking.

32. Did you see JA shaking before she ever mentioned it to you?
Is there a diagnosis for selective amnesia? Not initially- I was behind a partition and couldn’t see her hands.

33. Actors..when the hypocampthus (sp) ..are you on autopilot? Yes, not rational, disorganized, poorly planned…

34. Can actors be the opposite- brain choose? Not when overwhelmed- on Auto.

35. When in the process of killing someone – fight/flight vs. premeditated…in a crime scene? <O>  Yes or No? possibly adrenaline would increase possible- yes, probable-no. If not- why?  People are different.

36. Is there a diagnosis for selective amnesia? No.

37. Would you continue to help a person who’s been lying..for 2 years? No.

38. Why didn’t you re-administer the test once JA admitted to killing Travis? I reviewed it and the score would not have changed- only the stressor changed.

39. It seems 25-30 hours is inadequate to diagnose someone who killed another person. Wouldn’t you agree? No – typically takes 6-7-10-12 hours. Beyond 20-30 the nature of the relationship tends to change.

40. Wouldn’t adrenaline output increase in someone who was committing premeditated murder.  (?)

41. Is the MMPI test utilized for anything other than therapy like job requirements? That’s very controversial…I think violates right of privacy.

42. Regarding JA’s diagnosis for PTSD when did you catch the errors in your report? Nov/Dec – so I corrected.

43. Do you feel those were big errors? They were little errors…typos.

44. You said on re-direct that JA remembers before the attack and after? Therefore she would remember cleaning up, deleting details and putting the gun in the car? Correct? No details of the trauma.

45. Can the acute stress occur if someone plans to kill vs defending themselves when in danger? A planned homicide-<O> possible, not probable.

46. Do you often make mistakes in your reports when you do evaluations? No.

47. Where was she when coming out of fog?  Check Point at Hoover Dam.

48. You have issues with omitting/forgetting info..do you feel you need an accurate report for a trial? Yes.

49. Why didn’t you complete a new PDS when JA changed her story? PTSD answers …test results would not change.

50. Do you consider yourself impartial third party? Yes.

51. Do you always develop such a fond relationship with those you evaluate? I wouldn’t define it as fond…impartial.

52. Do you still think it was appropriate to purchase a gift for JA? Not unethical…I’m compassionate.

53. Regarding the D2 criteria- was this the phone call from her Mom? Not about one phone call, she was frequently angry with her Mom.

54. Would anyone with trouble with parents over the phone meet that criteria? Her Mom became her target.

55. Do you think that someone that was able to confront their boyfriends about cheating displayed assertive behavior? She was assertive at the moment, but not assertive with Travis.

56. Do meds cause any of the various amnesias you described? Yes.

57. Since you didn’t meet with Jodi until Dec 2009, isn’t it fair to say you are not 100% sure she suffered from Acute Stress? That’s correct.

58. Under cross examination you admitted Jodi having Anal was relevant…then later stated it wasn’t.  How do you account for this inconsistency? Anal with two other botfriends is not relevant, but the amount with Travis is.

59. Does it raise a red flag when a patient changes their story? yes- it always raises a red flag. The first story was a psychological reaction in an attempt not to deal with it. I first considered a multiple personality disorder.

60. Sending a self help book seems like it would help the success of therapy but not an evaluation, would you concur? I remembered that book…can help with self-esteem and dealing with reality.

61. You said on redirect that if someone is making up a story, their story tends to be consistent. Is that correct? A made up story- yes, from a script- like the one in her (48 hrs) interview.

62. If so, if JA is making up a story currently, wouldn’t it make sense that her story is consistent? Her story now is consistent but with added details each time.

63. Who conducted the interviews with JA’s family/friends? Defense attorney.

64. Validity scores on the PDS – are JA’s scores out of the normal range? No.

65. What are your code of ethics/guidelines if someone appears suicidal or a danger to themselves? Inform the closest people but she had no suicide plan and by the time I got to her she was not suicidal.

66. Regarding Jodi being tied up with hands and feet…was this the day of the killing? June 4? Yes.

67. Why do you believe JA’s self esteem was very low when she was with Travis? From her Journal and what she put up with- going back to him after abuse.

68. In your years of experience, wouldn’t you say low self-esteem is normal in the general population? It’s not normal, it’s reasonably common…it limits a person’s ability to make a mark in this world, so I would not call it normal.

69. How do Jodi’s test results go toward her diagnosis of PTSD if she was still telling the intruder story at the time of the test? My diagnosis of PTSD was based upon the fact that she met the criteria listed in the DSM .  The tests …confirmed my selection.  But the diagnosis could have been made without the tests.

70. Within the norm population used for a given test, if a segment of those individuals were to lie, could that cause a loop-hole, for lack of a better term in that test that could possibly allow a client taking that test to lie without detection? If the validity scales on the tests were created with a group of people who lie  regularly it would certainly skew the results. The PDS test does not have a validity scale built into it. The MCMI does. But that is based upon thousands of individuals taking the test and what is known about those individuals…the built in scales are a pretty good determiner of …lying on that test.

71. Is there an assumption that those in the norm population are answering truthfully? Yes.

72. Isn’t it possible that a hypothesis formulated early on could skew results when the tests are evaluated by the same individual that formed that hypothesis? If the individual wasn’t a trained psych…it’s possible, but..the MCMI test was scored by a computer. (He says he prefers computerized scoring). Serves as a second opinion. He hand scored the PDS and pointed out Jodi put in the numbers- he adds them up.

73. Could that hypothesis affect or color how the evaluator reads or interprets tests, answers in interviews, interprets crime scenes, etc.? A hypothesis..is constantly changing based upon additional information. (Talks about therapy). In evaluating you may have an initial hypothesis which may guide you to the tests to take. A professional has to be willing to change their hypothesis.

74. Based on the Dissociate Amnesia article, would you agree that 3 – 8 people out of 100,000 people studied is a very minute number? Actually refers to TG Amnesia article. <O>

75. Regarding the fight/flight response by Jodi on June 4, was there ever any discussion between you and Jodi regarding her response and why she did not flee from the bedroom? She told me she did try to flee, and at some point she needed to protect herself…

76. Is it your normal practice to fill out the answers on the questionnaire for those you are evaluating? Sometimes I may do that and sometimes not. In this…case I filled it out.

77. Do you have any concerns with errors or incorrect answers? No, my work was checked several times.

78. If a patient you saw consistently lied and kept to that story, then answered a test or series of questions based off of the story the client believed, how could that test reveal they are lying, especially if that person remained consistent within that series of lies? If talking about PDS test that result is not based upon the actual nature of the trauma…it’s somewhat irrelevant as to the exact nature of the stress…

79. You stated that Jodi answered number 13 on the PTSD test the way she did because of repeated physical and emotional abuse by Travis and she explained this to you in your session after she took the test. When she took the PDS test, wasn’t she still telling the intruder story and had not told her story about Travis’s abuses yet? Yes/No she told me about the abuses early on but not the actual incident of the killing.

80. Are questions numbers 16-21 on the PDS test based on the event listed in question #14 in the timeframe in question #15, which would be the intruder story, from 6 months to 3 years ago? Yes that’s true.

81. If yes, this event never happened so those answers (#’s 16-21) are based on a fictitious story. Is that correct? That is correct.

82. Are these questions (#’s 16-21) part of the overall score to determine whether Jodi has PTSD or not?

83. Do you feel comfortable with diagnosing a person with a condition if they continually lie to you hypothetically speaking?

84. Regarding question number 29 on the PDS test, not being able to remember an important part of the traumatic event, Jodi scored this a 1 – indicating this doesn’t bother her often. Consider that she killed Travis and claims significant memory loss during the event, doesn’t it seem inconsistent this wouldn’t bother her significantly?

85. Given that the Time article mentioned that homicide suspects have reported memory loss, is it possible that a person can plan and carry out a murder and still suffer memory loss, ASD, or PTSD?

86. Even if intentional, isn’t it possible the event would still be considered stressful?

87. If Jodi was in fight or flight mode when she ran out of the bathroom, why would she run out of the closet and corner herself? She said she did try to flee but then had to fight.

88. Wouldn’t someone in fight or flight mode want to get away from the danger? (yes)

89. Would they want to get help from someone? no one there to call to…

90. Are you able to state that Ms. Arias had either PTSD or ASD before the incident on June 4 2008?

91. Would someone who plans to kill another and does be less likely to suffer acute stress than someone who kills an individual accidentally?

92. Is it possible that Jodi didn’t write negative things about Travis because there was nothing negative to write?

93. If one has suppressed feelings repeatedly would it be a natural reaction once the dam breaks, for example a gun shot that hits Travis, for all this repressed feelings to express themselves and carrying that violence to the extreme overall of stab wounds?

94. If something is premeditated is amnesia more or less likely to occur? (I think this was objected to, or he may have said less).

95. If Jodi had no control of her mind then how do you explain her dragging Travis’ body and trying to clean up the crime scene? (I believe he mentioned adrenaline).

96. Earlier you said you didn’t re-test because it was an oversight, today you said the score wouldn’t have changed. Which is it? (score would not change).

97. How can you be sure that JA did things to please Travis when you didn’t have a chance to speak to him? (Journals, going back to him).

98. How do you know she didn’t kill Travis out of jealousy?

99. Is it possible that a person can plan and carry out a murder and still suffer memory loss, acute stress disorder or post traumatic stress disorder?

100. Wouldn’t someone in fight or flight mode want to get away from the danger?

101. Regarding the fight/flight response by JA on June 4, was there ever any discussion between you and JA regarding her response and why she did not flee from the bedroom?

102. Do you feel comfortable with diagnosing a person with a condition if they continually lie to you, hypothetically speaking?

103. Can an initial hypothesis affect a later diagnosis? As professionals it should be flexible..

104. Is it your normal practice to fill out the answers on the questionnaire for the patient? Sometimes, I do.

105. Did she have Acute Stress Disorder or PTSD, BEFORE she killed Travis? I don’t know but most of her symptoms happened after the killing.

106. Did JA ever talk about her symptoms appearing before June 4 2008? I don’t know but most of her symptoms happened after the killing.

Jodi Arias Trial 3/20 summary

Leave a reply

Dr. Samuels –re-direct:

  1. Jennifer Wilmott (JW) basically went back over many of the things she went through on her cross.  Here is the list:  Therapist vs. evaluator, MCMI vs. MMPI, his pay ($250 an hr.), rope story he got wrong, Travis wanted the shower pics, the graph the Doc drew, PDS test questions, the sex while asleep, and she (JA) could have pushed her test scores even higher.
  2. The main point she got across was that JA’s score would still have been the same even if she took the test after her story changed.
  3. There was one new thing- apparently in an interview JA’s brother said JA was attacked and had a knife held to her throat.
  4. Someone puked so they stopped early.  Court resumes tomorrow with Juror’s questions for the Dr. at 10:30.

Jodi Arias Trial 3/19 summary

Leave a reply

Morning Session:

Dr. Samuels (S) is on cross

  1. JM (Juan Martinez) is pointing out all the lies JA (Jodi Arias) told him: she said she only had Anal sex with Travis (we know she had it at age 17 with Bobby and also with Derald later), she told the doc she was uncomfortable with Oral sex but started having it at age 15 and had it through her relationships over many years, she said Travis had many pictures of women’s breasts on his computer but no such images were ever found. The Doc implies these lies were not important to the case.  JM points out the fact she’s lying to him should be important in his assessment.  The Doctor even wrote an addendum to his original report where he could have corrected these mis-statements but he did not- he said he just answered what he was asked for on the addendum (by the Defense). JM also mentioned the lie about Travis being the one who wanted pictures in the shower. She also told the Doc that Travis grabbed her (sweater) in the closet then she grabbed the gun (that was on a recording).  The Doc also admitted she implied Travis was shot in or around the closet.
  2. THE TESTS:  JM goes through all the test answers and points out they were all based on her lie about the intruders killing Travis.  The Doc says it is still based on trauma.  JM asks if he is speculating and he says (eventually) that he is. The test the Doc gave is the MCMI which is supposed to be used for psych patients in therapy, not the general population.  Still her rating on the test was 69 and the cut off for determining any diagnosis is 75 points, implicating she does not score high enough for PTSD on this test.  The Doc says you cannot base it on one number but JM points out that that is the number indicated on her test. (JM implies he should have given her the MMPI test which is used for the diagnosis of the general population as well as others). JM reads from something stating the MCMI test should not be used as an assessment in a court case.  The Doc asks what JM is reading from and JM answers something like: “You understand I ask the questions ?” Doc: “Yes.”

Afternoon Session:

Dr. Samuels cross cont.

  1. JM agues with S over the use of the MCMI test as it is for psyc patients, not general population.  S disagrees.
  2. JM goes into a hypothetical about a cop and a knife/shooting and the chart S drew regarding amnesia.  They argue about whether the cop (with amnesia) would remember anything at the time of the amnesia.  S is not concrete on this.
  3. They argue about whether she is assertive. JM reminds the Doc that he never spoke to her friends or family.  What he says is based on JA and her Journals. JM also brings up in her Journal about how when she says she is not sure about ‘that boy’ she was referring to what she says directly after about his feelings towards families.
  4. S can’t recall what events (pedo and broken finger) happened before she        wrote ‘nothing worth writing about’ in her journal.
  5. The Doc’s original report on her qualifications for PTSD in the DSM are actually missing some requirements. JM asks him if this does not fit the diagnosis for PTSD and he says: “Correct.”

JW (defense) & Dr. S:

  1. She basically is trying to clear up the “Typos” from the report just mentioned.  He now has a new worksheet which adds several more of the requirements to qualify JA for PTSD.
  2. They go over the amnesia including his drawing.
  3. She tries to qualify his use of the MCMI.
  4. JW asks why he does not use a recording.  S explains that patients are more forthright without it.
  5. The Doc says Anal sex has nothing to do with his diagnosis.
  6. JM implies the pictures of breasts could have been on another computer.
  7. S explains that he often gives out self help books.
  8. S repeats JA is not assertive.
  9. They go over the day of the murder.  JW has the Doc repeat 3 times the scenario according to JA and his notes.  There are 2 new things- Travis pulling on a sweater and her running down the hall after shooting him.

Trial begins tomorrow at 1.