Tag Archives: tests.

Arias Trial 5/1 part 2 (includes JM’s cross)

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He cites not knowing about summary scales, the TSI 1 instead of the TSI 2, the TSI to diagnose BPD, floating profiles (outdated).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 3rd 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.

Arias Trial 5/1- Morning (I will add another post later…)

Willmot direct of Dr. Geffner

  1. They go over his education. MA at San Jose State, Doctorate at U.C. Santa Cruz.
  2. His credentials…licenses (in Ca and Tx) . President and founder of Alliant International University (there are several campuses, he works in San Diego). He’s done research, training, testing. He is on salary and I think it was implied he is not getting paid for his testimony. He has 2 Diplomates (specialization…less than 1% of psych.’s have 2 Diplomates).
  3. Forensic work- for 30 years, over 200 cases; civil and criminal. Near 100 Death Penalty cases.
  4. No record of disciplinary actions against him and no valid complaints.
  5. He reviewed all tests, and rescored 2. He did not meet with JA. He read other psych. reports but not general trial info. like police reports.
  6. They go into tests and validity scales. JA passed all the validity scales. On the Milan (MCMI) she purposely tried to answer in socially desirable ways. On the MMPI she may have answered a little more negatively.
  7. You should not use any one test for a diagnosis.
  8. ‘Floating profile’ doesn’t exist.
  9. MMPI designed for personality traits, not diagnosis (including BPD and PTSD).

10. JW gives hypothesis – asking if JA is aggressive, defensive, hostile, and holding in emotions. He goes through her scores relating to these and they are in the norm or below on the MMPI.

11. JA does show elevated symptoms of PTSD on this test (even though he just said you are not supposed to use this to diagnose). They site her elevated anxiety, low self-esteem, submissiveness, and low self-image, trauma – her highest.

12. MMCI- is best for personality disorders. JA had high anxiety and PTSD scores. Her score on BPD was low/below average.

13. TSI his staff ran through the computer. 7/10 scales were elevated. He says the facts of the trauma don’t matter, just the impact/symptoms. Apparently Dr. Demarte said there were no summary scales and there actually are (JW is happy to point out). He says that Demarte’s asking JA to take the test and reply for a year and a half earlier is ‘not ideal.’ Also the newest version of the test should always be used. They go through the list of criteria (like we have done before several times) including anxiety and trauma. On the latest test her top score was dysfunctional sexual behavior. The symptoms are: “Consistent with PTSD.”

14. The TSI does not test for BPD, but a few of the symptoms do overlap. People can have more than one disorder. You cannot diagnose BPD after the trauma as it has to have been a pattern of issues since adolescence.

15. JW asks did the PDS test meet the criteria for PTSD? Dr: ”Yes, maam.”

16. JW: If (JA) was assaulted and her life threatened would it matter who assaulted her? Dr: “No- the focus is on the reaction to the event.” JW: If it’s a tiger vs. a bear? Dr: “Either way they suffered a trauma.”

17. Adverse childhood traumas increase the odds of being victimized again if untreated.

18. The Dr. says that there was no need to give JA the IQ test as it is not used to diagnose. The only reason (besides cognitive functioning) to give it would be to determine retardation or a learning disability…or to increase your fees.

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 testes and reports mostly by Demarte.

Jodi Arias Trial 3/19 summary

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.