Afternoon Session

1. JW goes back to his credentials- what National Organizations he is affiliated with.
2. JW asks if he knows anyone from this case- he know Alyce DeLaviolette. They are colleagues. They do not work together.
3. In this case he did not discuss testimony with anyone. He just went over the tests and reports mostly by Demarte and Samuels.
4. She goes into some of the cases he has had prior problems with and they are mostly in the appellate stage when he has been through with the case. There was nothing unethical. Some testimony was struck.
5. He is a Diplomate in Neuropsychology so he’s trained in brain function. He has seen 3 projectile frontal lobe injuries that did not incapacitate. He reviewed the ME’s report and since the membrane around the brain was not damaged he does not se how the brain could be affected. JW says the ME even said there was ‘No apparent injury to the brain.’ (This is news to me!) He also says the motor strips would have had to have been affected to lose motor control and they are too far back.
6. The Dr. says he did not diagnose this case, he focused on records- not enough info to diagnose. He says Dr. Demarte doesn’t have adequate training/understanding of the tests. He cites not knowing about summary scales, the TSI 1 instead of the TSI 2, the TSI to diagnose BPD, floating profiles (outdated). He does say JA has consistent anxiety and trauma over the years.

 

J. Martinez is up:

1.  JM gets out a judge called him a ‘hired gun’ and it was at trial level—not appellate. That judge found his testimony ‘without merit.’ In the O’Rourke case the Dr. gave an opinion without speaking to the father (in a child custody case). In the Clark case he ‘lacked credibility.’ (See these cases cited in my earlier blog ‘What’s Wrong With Dr. Geffner.’) JM accused him of making things up. The Dr. admitted some was based on hearsay. In Hawaii some of his testimony was excluded.

2.  He admits knowing Alyce and co-editing her book.

3.  He does get his salary while in Arizona. JM says he will still show up to court and make things up.

4.  He’s been on the case since Nov. 2012, and then it was dropped until he came back 2 weeks ago.

5. They argue over the floating profile. The guy who came up with the test actually said in an article that the floating profile is frequently an axis 2 personality disorder, and that is most often BPD. The Dr. says it has been re-labeled. They argue over whether you can use the MMPI to diagnose BPD.

6.  There were signs of possible malingering and over-reporting on the test. They go over all of the elevated scales (we have done this at least 4 times- they are in an earlier post).  The most interesting ones elevated are ‘psychopathic deviant’ and ‘schizophrenic.’  <<Break>>

7.  JM cites a study where they took 61 people with BPD took the test and they had the same profile as JA. The Dr. does not agree.

8.  They go into the TSI tests. They argue because Dr. Demarte didn’t do the summary scales (which are, after all just summaries). JM implies if you’re smart enough you don’t need the summaries…you can do it yourself. They are not required (Dr. agrees). He doesn’t know how he knows she didn’t know about the summary scales. (I am losing it…) JM ends with: You need a summary? The Dr. starts to answer and says: “No…” and JM cuts him off with: “Thank You.” 

9. They are talking about the TSI being for trauma and the MMPI for personality. The Dr. starts to get into the area of the questions regarding sexual disfunction: # of partners, unprotected sex….

10.  Dr. Brier (sp) identified 89% of BPD patients with the TSI test- and he developed the test. Goes against what the Dr. said. The Dr. does not want to back down he says it is not for diagnosing.

11. JM asks how many times he’s gone inside a brain and looked at it?  ‘Zero.’

Ever do/been at an autopsy?  ‘No.’

12. PDS test has no validity scales. Is it important that you’re truthful about the trauma? ‘It is of importance.’ The Dr. says he only fills out forms for the impaired. If filled out with no trauma still valid? ‘It would be questionable.’ Is sitting and talking to take this test a red flag?  ‘Yes.’

13. JM shows photos of skull injury. The Dr. has nit seen these. Asks if he can tell the trajectory…he can’t. His opinion is based on ME’s report and his background. JM asks: “To understand you would go to an expert?”  “Yes.”

 

JW is up:

1. She goes over the court cases…he testified against the judges ‘friends’ and there were complaints about the judge who retired after the case. In the Clark case his affidavit was limited due to time. The 3^rd case he was told he had excellent credentials.
2. The money made today goes to the institute.
3. ‘Floating profiles’ is not used , it has to do with pain.
4. You don’t diagnose with the MMPI. BPD and PTSD have some similarities.
5. The malingering could be a ‘cry for help.’
6. The high schizophrenia could be alienation or lack of ego. The psychopathic deviant could be impulsivity. The MCMI would be a better test.
7. The Brier article is old (2-3yrs) and is about chronic pain.
8. He is relying on the ME’s report. The membrane is intact so how could brain be affected?
9. On the PDS she could have exaggerated but she didn’t.

10. ME said where the bullet entered and stopped. It’s possible it didn’t go through the brain.