- The defense rests.
- JM rebuttal: he calls Dr. Janine Demarte. JM goes over her credentials (she has a PhD, is a Clinical Psychologist, can adminster/score tests, does evaluations and therapy, has been a Director in a Behavioral Agency, oversaw and trained others, has testified in courts).
- They go over evaluation vs. therapy. Evals are not biased, therapy you develop a closeness, you treat them.
- JM establishes it is not good to go in with a hypothesis – you need to be open to all alternatives.
- An evaluator does not ‘go behind the words’ they use objective data. (They can’t say words mean something other then what’s written – so for instance when JA says: “Nothing noteworthy happened” in her journal she should be taken at her word).
- Law of Attraction has caused problems with patients as life is both positive and negative. Belief in this Law causes disappointment.
- JD says over 40 hours for Clinical Interview is ‘Extreme.’ (She’s actually never heard of it before.) She says the Clinical should be 1-4 hours. After that it becomes ‘therapeutic.’
- JD says it seems odd that anyone would walk in and start by apologizing. (Like AL did.) She says it would give the impression you feel bad for them and therefore not objective. Also mentions you should not feel compassion (like Dr. S. did.) That is bias and results would not be accurate.
- She did 12 hours Clinical interview, which she admits is a lot (still not 44!) She also did testing. JM asks if after done she went back (to see JA, like the others) she did not- you only go back for more data…it’s not ethical. Regarding gifts- like books- she says that is inappropriate and could influence the results of tests.
10. The 12 hours of Clinical went over JA’s history re: Medical, social, educational, childhood vs. adult, relationship with Travis, sexual experience, testing.
11. Apparently there was another person who tested JA- a Cheryl who she apparently JA claimed there was significantly more abuse than just the 4 incidents she told everyone else. Cheryl said JA had PTSD.
12. JD gave JA the ‘TSI’ (Trauma symptom inventory) twice- once for her current state and the other for when she was with Travis. There were slight differences.
13. It is Not Protocol to ask the questions and then transfer the data off a legal pad to an answer sheet on the PDS (what Dr. S. did).
14. Referring to the wrong trauma (the lie JA told about intruders) on the test invalidates the test. JD says that here is ‘other evidence that she lied on the test.’ (It is stricken.)
15. Regarding Dr. S. re-scoring a test 3 times-she says that you would only do that if you did not score it properly or if you were trying to manipulate the data.
16. JA’s score on the PTSD test of 69 does not meet the threshold (of 75) for PTSD.
17. The MCMI test is for clinically ill patients. (Not to test someone from the general population.) JD would NOT use the MCMI for this case.
18. AL’s approach was subjective- there was no testing and no report done. Makes it very difficult to verify her data/conclusion.
19. JA’s changing stories should have raised a red flag.
20. AL said Travis wasn’t afraid even though he said he was- that is not what clinical interview do- change meaning. This is subjective and unreliable and not appropriate in a forensic evaluation.
21. Before giving JA test she took and passed a reading test. (The WRAT.)
22. Next she gave JA the WAIS (Intelligence test) that measure 4 domains- 1-verbal comprehension, 2-perceptual reasoning –puzzles 3-working memory/short term (she did well here) 4- processing speed. Her IQ was above average: 119. She scored 136 in domain #1 (very high)
23. She gave JA the MMPI which is normed against the general population. MMPI helps determine personality traits which develop from childhood through adulthood. There are 2 categories- axis 1 (transient traits) and axis 2 (long lasting personality disorders). You would never read the questions and fill in the bubbles yourself- the client does. It consists of 567 true/false questions. It includes a validity scale. For axis 2 there are 10 types of disorders. If you score more than 65 you it’s worth looking at. Typically there are 1-2, maybe even 3 scores above 65. JA had 7 out of 10! (Lots of psychopathology present). She looked at the top 2-3 and identified: Aggressiveness, hostility, defensiveness, but these individuals do a good job of not displaying this to others. They anger when they feel wronged or someone is hurting them. They are prone to violent outbursts and externalize blame- the other person ‘deserved it’; it’s ‘not my fault.’
- Those with several over 65 can be called a ‘floating profile,’ common in Borderline Personality Disorder.
- JD gave her the WAIS also because she seemed immature. (She sited JA’s mug shot looking like a high school yearbook photo and her parents saying she seemed ‘happy as hell’ when visiting her in jail.
- JD diagnosed her with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) . She says it’s a lot like being a teen; immaturity, instability in relationships, emotions, identity, manipulation.
- JM and JD go through the criteria for BPD in the DSM 4 TR and qualify with examples:
– Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment. JA moved to Mesa after the breakup. She overstepped boundaries by hacking into e-m’s and facebook. She was intrusive- spying on people.
– Unstable, intense interpersonal relationships. JA would idealize then despise boyfriends. Also a tendency to go from boyfriend to boyfriend. Describe the men in her journals overly sweetly- idealizes them despite what might be going on- adolescent.
– Identity differences. JA’s sense of identity shifts depending on who she’s around. With Derryl she changed her hair and car to be like the ex-wife. She lived differently depending on which boyfriend- in a tent with Matt, more mature with Derryl, professional with Travis.
– Impulsivity. She doesn’t qualify.
– Suicidal behavior and ideation. JA wrote about consistently in her journal since 1995.
– Affective instability. JA was described by boyfriends as shifting emotions fast. Also would be happy and upset in the same journal entry. Parents also described this since young.
– Chronic feelings of emptiness. JA showed prolonged feelings of emptiness despite emotional turmoil since adolescence.
– Inappropriate intense anger. JM brings in an e-mail to Travis where JA admits she has intense, inappropriate anger.
– Transient stress/ paranoia. Did not find.
– (They throw in here that she does not agree with Dr. Samuel’s findings)
– Back to the ‘anger’ e-m mentioned above. JA says: “…you know the secret…my anger is very destructive…I’ve kicked holes in walls, kicked down doors, broken windows…I strive every day to be the better person…” (JM adds that JA wrote that on Valentines day- there is no mention of a gift with Spiderman undies).
- JM asks if she agrees with Samuels on PTSD she does not.
- JD Wrote a report which she typed and reviewed.
- JM brings out Dr. S.’s first statement with his PTSD requirements- they do not meet the criteria.
- JD says if the PTSD is based on a trauma that is made up it is not valid
- JD says because Carp based PTSD on the many abuses (that no one else heard of) it doesn’t apply.
10. They go through the PTSD criteria.
- She did have a trauma- the killing.
B. JA never indicated re-living the trauma. Regarding JA thinking about the actual trauma- JD says she thought about it, but not to the extent of PTSD
C. She didn’t avoid the trauma- went to the Memorial, sent iris’.
D. Not sleeping well due to jail doesn’t qualify. No one saw a startle response.
She only met one criteria- a trauma due to the killing. So no PTSD.
11. JD says no fight or flight as she deleted photos and cleaned up- requires organization and planning. The brain doesn’t work like that. There may be some short term memory loss, but not as long as JA reports.
12. JD worked in research re: DV for 1 and 1/2 years. Evaluated, provided therapy, worked with perps and the children. Worked in prisons – group therapy in sexual crimes and assaults.
13. She does not believe JA was battered – Travis didn’t control her money or tell, her who she could see/talk to. She didn’t have medical problems or a bad body/self image.
JW on cross:
- She goes over JD’s CV. She does manage to get her to admit having ‘some compassion’ for those she evaluates, but it doesn’t affect her eval.’s.
- She lists tests she uses.
- Goes through different jobs.
- She didn’t know LaViolette. JW adds LaViolette got her Masters in 1980.
- JD does say those involved in sex crimes tend to minimize. But she does not agree that they keep it secret from family and friends. JD says they tend to know, for example if you’re a pedophile that you like activities that involve children, tend to have child porn on computer and may have been arrested.
Court begins at 9:30 tomorrow.