Tag Archives: Travis Alexander

Juan Martinez Closing Argument-Part 1

3 Replies

This is a not a transcript I have paraphrased. Please try to watch as the dripping sarcasm and tone of Mr. Martinez’s voice are important. I will post in 3 parts.

  1. Main themes: JA is a manipulator, a liar and nothing is her fault.
  2. She looked at the jurors and lied directly to them (re: gas cans).
  3. Relationships- She manipulates the facts. She moved in with Bobby (who cheated) and I was so good (sarcasm) and lived in a trailer (never mind I was skipping school). She hits the backspace button to read his private e-mails (not her fault there isn’t better security on the computers in the library) just as she did with Travis. She immediately went to Bobby and confronted him.
  4. This individual killed Travis and even after stabbing him over and over and slashing his throat and even after shooting him she will not let him rest in peace. Now she uses lies.
  5. She staged the scene for the police.
  6. She uses the media, craves the limelight. She autographed her manifesto for when famous. Said: ‘No jury will convict me.’ Now let’s bask in the light of the truth. See who she really is. A manipulator. She wants to play the victim even though there’s no abuse. Her own e-mail said she was destructive.
  7. After Bobby she got with Matt. It’s not her fault she’s a good worker, a waitress and someone comes in and tells her things (what she wants you to believe just like with the Travis’ story, it repeats because she’s lying. She’s trying to manipulate you.
  8. Derryl- not her fault he doesn’t want to marry or have more kids. How can it be her fault that people have free will? She looks for someone else. Those Mormon boys are a good catch- family values, successful and to Travis’s misfortune he was that boy. Wanted a Mormon, a child- perfect catch.
  9. He (Travis) was so sexually interested in her (not her fault the word ‘No’ is not in her lexicon). She was thinking ‘No’- at least that’s what she told you. Never communicated to him. Manipulates and pretends to be the victim. She can’t point the finger enough that Travis was a bad Mormon. Why not leave if he is so bad? You are Mormon too.

10. She converted and had classes/met with missionaries. Not her fault they didn’t tell her (Law of Chastity). Travis is the bad guy- he said it was ok. In conceivable- she’s in the same situation. She wants your sympathy.

11. This relationship was long distance. She couldn’t reach out and shot him in the face. She stalked him and showed up unannounced.

12. They weren’t mutually exclusive so it’s ok to send texts to other women. But it’s ok after his Memorial to talk to a guy on the airplane and get a phone number. After all, the guy she was with up and died after she stabbed, slit throat and shot him.

13. Travis did see her and have sex. They are trying to shock you. He does what others do behind closed doors and he doesn’t want people to know.

14. On Feb. 14 she talks about her violent tendencies. One of the things she doesn’t talk about is receiving the package. It’s 4:30 – 5 pm (if mail is slow in Palm Desert) and there’s no mention of Spiderman underwear, no ‘Thank you’ for the chocolates, no such delivery. It can’t be verified- but she will make things up. She forgot about the e-mail. With the truth you don’t have to remember nothing.’ She can’t show the undies…she threw them away.

15. When she came over in Feb. she was ‘happy.’ Why did she have to go through his computer and hit ‘back-space?’ It’s not her fault, it’s his fault he has contact with men and women and how dare he attempt to spend New Year’s Eve with someone- he should be in a hut somewhere.

16. They are on vacation. She goes through his phone. One of the things she liked about him was he was social. There’s no names of anyone having sexual contact with him at that time. So that justified it, this person with borderline- so that’s it. We’re gonna break up (and she’s oozing through those fake tears on the stand) – yeah, I’m really hurt but let’s go on vacation anyway. She wants to curb his free will. But she’s not letting him go that easy. She moves close to him after the break-up. The stalking begins. Well, before she did the phone and the computer the first day they were officially boyfriend – girlfriend. There was stalking behavior from the beginning.

17. She’s in Mesa. Why is she here? He’s so persuasive he talked her into it. She just can’t say ‘No.’ According to her he asked her. When here rather than dating and being social she begins to be more attentive, perhaps then she’ll be the only one.

18. August 2007 she goes to his house unannounced. Peeps in the windows. By the light of the TV (now the light of truth) she sees them kissing. That is the end of the world. So what? He’s entitled to do it. The lights are off and he’s moved on. She could’ve left or never come in the first place. She’s so upset- sees the bra unhooked…so what is she? The Mormon conscious? She wants to manipulate your perception. Ruin his reputation. She comes back the next day (they are broken up) it’s ok to peep but she wants an explanation. What explanation did he ever owe her at that point?

19. The first domestic violence (DV) event she didn’t write because she’s a nice person. Or the Law of Attraction. You lie. It’s ok to lie to your journal- you’re lying to yourself. She’s making it up. There’s no corroboration of any incident.

20. Exploitive sex. She regaled us with these intimate details but she’s ‘uncomfortable?’ In the texts she’s the one requesting the sexual acts. ‘If you’re good…’ They were both in it. He never forced her to do anything. It’s an attempt to manipulate you.

21. The physical violence ‘wasn’t so bad’ so she didn’t write. No one knows, sees, no police calls – had a similar situation with Bobby and after calling 911 they didn’t come out. Justification. No 911 calls. Because it never happened. Everything in this case points to it did not happen. No medical records.

22. March 2008 she’s leaving and he hits her. In journal he ‘didn’t want me to leave’ and ‘gave me 3 tender kisses.’ Kissing is domestic violence. Then an apologist like Alyce LaViolette says: ’those words don’t mean what they say.’ Law of Attraction- it means just the opposite.

23. Jan. 22- DV – no corroboration. Says in journal ‘nothing noteworthy has happened.’ You are being asked to make a leap.

24. April 2008 another DV incident. She doesn’t tell anyone. She was very specific as to 4 of them. If telling the truth you don’t need to remember nothing. ’She told Dr. Karp there were 10, 15, 20 incidents of DV at that point for PTSD. What’s true? None of it is true. She’s manipulating the evidence. Karp said she had PTSD based on these DV acts. Not actually an attempt to manipulate- they are lies!

25. She moves and it’s like a ray of sunshine for Travis. When she was here she came over unannounced, broke into accounts and hid behind his Christmas tree.

26. May 10th– the sex tape. It’s very important to hear how she deals with him. He doesn’t know he’s being recorded. He can’t listen to it so what’s the benefit? Yes, he said some things, it was a private conversation between he and her even though they were broken up and she had stalked. He enjoys the sexual contact. She introduced him to certain things and opened his eyes sexually. What’s wrong is one is recording it. You can listen, draw your own conclusions. She kept it.

27. May 19 2008 Travis i-m’s Regan that he’s ‘extremely afraid of Jodi because of her stalking behavior. He has less than a month to live. He knows what’s going on between them. Alyce said it wasn’t true. She can read minds from the past and know what Travis is thinking. No- Jodi is manipulating. It says: ‘Jodi-read this.’

28. It was pre-meditated-who would know better than him? The peeping, tires, ring stolen, Christmas tree.

29. May 26. Well, he’s mean to her. That’s correct- he’s extremely afraid when those names are called. ‘I’m nothing more than a dildo with a heartbeat’ that’s how she made him feel. He feels derogatory to himself. She manipulates with sex. May 26 he tells her. She apologizes to him and all is supposed to be forgiven. He’s had enough. “I don’t want your apology, I want you to understand what I think of you. He’s afraid and he does think she’s evil. And look at the next words- how prophetic: ‘You are the worst thing that has ever happened to me.’ Any doubt that’s the truth? Do we need to look at pictures of his slashed throat? His frog-like crumpled up state in the shower- bullet in the temple? Yes he’s angry over everything she’s done to him. Like she‘s manipulated you with the gas cans- she lied. Then he says ‘you are a sociopath’ that expresses his feelings. ‘You only cry for yourself- you saw her cry on the witness stand. She never expected to get caught!  ‘You have never cared about me…you have betrayed me.’ He believes she has done something horrific. He’s done with her. ‘You’re sick and you have scammed me.’ Are you going to allow her to scam you- buy the lies?

30. May 28 (2 short days after) there’s a plan. No doubt she’s intelligent. She could buy a gun but in California there’s a waiting period. She indicated it. Knows her grandfather has guns. Begins the actual steps to Mesa to kill Travis. There’s no other explanation- she stole it, a very small gun ‘looks like a toy.’ The burglary was strange- they went through four rooms talking one thing from each room. Didn’t take money, left the large guns – rifle. Burglars don’t do that. The burglar is Jodi Arias sitting right there (points) and she needs a gun that can’t be traced. She began to take these steps after the text where he had had enough of her.

Arias Trial- Jury Instructions 5/2

4 Replies

This is not a transcript, I have paraphrased.

  1. The jurors get a copy of the instructions. These will be returned and shredded at the end.2. Apply the facts. These are rules you should use. Get what actually happened from evidence in court. Verdict should not be based on sympathy or prejudice. Consider all instructions.
  2. The openings and closings are not evidence.
  3. A stipulation can be accepted/rejected.
  4. Disregard sustained/stricken testimony.
  5. The state has the burden beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt-firmly convinced. There are few things we know with absolute certainty. If convinced of guilty find her guilty. If benefit of doubt find not guilty.
  6. Ignore statements of law enforcement if coerced.
  7. Don’t consider the punishment.
  8. Defense doesn’t have to provide any evidence.
  9. You can believe all/part or none of testimony based on what’s seen, heard, memory and quality of memory. Consider manner, motive and bias.

10. Use common sense and experience.

11. Evidence can be direct or circumstantial.

12. Expert should be judged like other witnesses.

13. Evidence of other acts are present. To establish motive plan, not character.

14. Witness if police same as any other witness.

15. Defendant’s testimony same as any other witness.

16. Don’t need motive.

17. 1st Degree:

–       Defendant caused the death.

–       Defendant intended/knew would kill another human being, reflected on that thought before killing. Reflection time may be short.

18. 2nd Degree:

–       If cannot agree on 1st.

–       Proof of intentional death.

–       Intentionally knew would injure /result in death.

–       Extreme indifference to human life- reckless.

–       Doesn’t require pre-meditation.

–       If you have a reasonable doubt about 1st vs. 2nd degree.

19. Sudden quarrel/Heat of passion

–     Adequate provocation.

–     Words aren’t adequate.

–     There must be no cooling off period.

–     Sudden quarrel-provoked.

Must find guilty of Manslaughter.

20. 1st  Degree-felony murder

–       Committed burglary.

–       Caused death in course of burglary/ or in flight.

–       Intentionally did something to culminate if the offense.

–       Entered unlawfully.

–       Did so to commit felony.

–       Objective to engage in that conduct.

–       Not necessary to be unanimous in both 1st –Pre-med and 1st –felony. If not the jurors must write the numbers on the verdict form.

21. Justified/Self Defense

–       A reasonable person would believe deadly force necessary.

–       Defendant use no more force than necessary to a reasonable person.

–       Only to protect against deadly physical force.

–       When the danger ends you stop.

–       Justified if reasonable person would believe they would have been dead.

–       Legal right to be there.

–       Not engaged in unlawful act.

–       State has burden defendant didn’t act with justification.

–       Consider-type of relationship, length, frequency (contact), and length of time.

Arias trial 5/1 part 3- with Jury Q & A

2 Replies

Jury Questions (paraphrased)

1.  How do you feel events such as incarceration…can affect the tests?”     MMPI- increase paranoia, depression, anxiety. No effect on MMCI (long term traits).

2.  Could an individual score differently after a traumatic experience like killing someone than before?      Depends on tests. Trauma inventories- yes, definitely. Personality tests- yes, can be impacted…depression.

3.  Discuss high/low scales on validity page of the MMPI. (He goes through and most are normal). Exaggerating is elevated- distress/cry for help.

4. OK for old version of test / old version of DSM?     DSM gives criteria for diagnosis. Like a guide. Not good to use outdated one.

5.  Changes between TSI 1 and TSI 2?    26 new or rewritten questions, 6 rewritten or taken out.

6.  PDS valid if lying about the event?     If lied…yes that’s important. If this didn’t do it and it’s made up then where did it come from? Why occurring?   Showing PTSD? Evaluator needs to find out.

7.  Lack of hemorrhage (blood) = lack of injury to the brain?   I assume gun shot is after death…depends on how far after…maybe not as much.

8.  A gun shot at a short distance wouldn’t drop a person?   Depends on caliber.  Even shot gun didn’t incapacitate…usually if through the side it will.

9.  If you get no compensation for this case…any organizations you are involved in?     Yes, the Institute will bill for services. 70-80 hours so far, $85-250 an hour, total $13,000 – $14,000. A small part of our budget.

10.  Regarding lying on the tests?    Validity tests detect these people.

11.  Possible to manipulate the four tests?    I could probably…you can go on the internet for the MMPI, tell how to fake it. Not possible with a battery of tests.

12.  If Dr. Demarte had additional evidence to support BPD would you see it in her report?   Yes.   Did she include this?    A little bit…most were from after meeting Travis. Has to have a pattern over years.

13.  Criminal act (?) cause anxiety?     If close by.   Considering years in jail?    I didn’t evaluate her- not my role.  (Not sure I got these right).

14. Did you know you were evaluating Jodi Arias.   I knew they were (the tests) Jodi’s.

15. Had you heard of the case?    No.              I was basically given the tests. I didn’t know the details.

16. Can bullets travel (again I missed part)? Yes, if it hits something it can.

17.If there is…(I missed)  answer: I could not.

18. Something about the summary scales…?    I was informed by the defense that she did not know they existed. Not using it is one thing, not knowing about it is another. Also using it to diagnose BPD…there’s entire books written on the MMPI…

Follow up, JW:

  1. DSM tr didn’t have different criteria for PTSD.
  2. PDS still had a trauma it matters but doesn’t make it invalid.
  3. TSI tests were similar over years.
  4. If she had/has BPD how do you explain all the trauma?
  5. Bullets aren’t his specialty but it would have had to go through sinuses and deflect through motor strips. Also the membrane is intact.

JM is up:

  1. He goes through and asserts that her pattern of consistency in tests is LYING! They argue over whether ‘exaggerate’ means ‘lie’. JM says so if the prosecutor says he’s 6 feet tall…Dr: “It’s likely both.” They argue some more.
  2. PDS test is based on a lie. Does it call into question the validity of the test?  “Correct.”
  3. MMPI info- says valid, but maybe exaggerated?
  4. The different DSM books come out around every 10 years. Dr. Demarte gave the TSI 1 when the TSI 2 had been out for 6 months.
  5. He didn’t know Dr. Samuels indicated to look at a possible personality disorder.
  6. They argue over what he had said about Dr, Demarte being unqualified. It was partly due to what the defense lawyers told him.
  7. He is getting his salary for today as well as the Institute getting paid.
  8. He no longer treats patients. He consults. JM implies he testifies mostly and he denies it.
  9. The Dr. has only worked with 2 projectiles in the head. JM points out that is less in terms of experience to the one who conducts autopsies. He agrees.

JM calls Dr Horn, the ME back up:

  1. Autopsy photos back.  Not a lot of blood in skull=bled out/deceased. He draws the path of the bullet (a direct line). The brain was too decomposed to find the trajectory. If last wound it did nothing, if 1st then he would have collapsed within 1-2 seconds.
  2. JW on cross: It would take seconds for blood to drain from the system. Though the brain was like pudding he could still get slices. There was no wound track. He is not familiar with research about people with frontal lobe injuries being ok. Never in his experience.
  3. Juror Question (HLN cut off the beginning- I got something like Are they deceased when you do the autopsy? “I hope so.”
  4. JM –Gun shot immediately incapacitating? ‘If he was alive.” And if dead that would explain the lack of blood.
  5. JW-This is your opinion? Yes- my training and experience.
  6. Jury question about the intact membrane—he looks at his report and says it was a typo.
  7. JM re: the perforation- he says there would have had to have been as it sits right where the bone was tore apart.
  8. JW – You reviewed your report- Yes. You know this case is serious? Yes. You made a mistake?  Yes.
  9. JM brings in Dr. Jill Hayes she does mostly forensics psychology.  Bachelors in 1990 from Armstrong State College. Augusta State=Masters 1992. Took a year off study- worked in testing. Then Louisiana State U. 1998=PhD. Was on faculty at LSU-asst. Prof. Licensed 1999. Became Associate Prof- was with for 8 years. See patients, research, admin…Katrina hit- LSU under water so came to Az. Now mostly forensic, still sees some people and police officers. Testified 75 times, 50/50 defense /prosecution.

10. She is familiar with the TSI test. It requires a trauma. She has not reviewed the PDS test in this case. Question #14 –the trauma. If it is a lie –that would give you concern. If the premise behind it is a lie it calls into question everything else. If symptoms are based on a lie how valid?   Of course the test would be invalid. If you know something is a lie how do you know what is the truth.

11. Floating profile- almost 8 in elevated range. Who coined it- a person named ‘Strong’ and it meant that they are experiencing arousal, overwhelmed and applied to BPD. JM shows her JA’s profile.  An outdated term… a little, but still researched and used. JM: Dr. Gatchell said it is no longer valid…Dr. Hayes: With all due respect I would disagree…he has done more research and changed the name for his purpose with spinal patients. It still was associated with BPD patients.

12. TSI –Measures trauma. Are you incompetent if you use the TSI 1 after TSI 2 available? No…some wait for additional research to see if the new test works. The peer reviewed literature doesn’t suggest that either…there is no standard. Includes summary scales – it can. Requires summary scales.  The hand scoring = there is no spot for summary scores. I contacted the publisher and asked…and it wasn’t a requirement. You can just look at the 10 scales.

13. MMPI-Use for BPD? It’s helpful but need other pieces of the puzzle. You can’t just look at a few tests and come up with a diagnosis, you need to evaluate, interview…JM- Would you need to give any test before you gave this one? <Objection> To determine level of reading ability? You have to insure they can understand it. In this case WRAT 4. In this case was it to get more money? In this case it would only take 5 minutes.

14. JW-Can’t you just give them something to read? No- you won’t have any normed opinion- JA was at 12th grade level. If she had read through thousands of pages of Journal and texts and she can read/write, and IQ of 112…isn’t that enough to say she can read at a 5th grade level. “Well it’s 6th-8th grade level…if she had not done that she would have been criticized for not doing it. She only did reading recognition. I would have done it.” MMPI not used to diagnose. For personality and psychopathology. MCMI normed against known psych. disorders. More research done with regard to personality disorders actually on the MMPI. I would give both. If just one I would choose the MMPI as it’s better researched. MCMI is great for helping determine characteristics but MMPI is research based as well. Scoring and summaries on the TSI. Best to use updated tests? You will know it’s coming out.  Dr. H: Generally the research before is done by the people who own the test so they have a lot to gain. Also a wealth of research on the old test. Because she didn’t have it is that a good reason? It sounds crass but these tests can get costly. JW- You had to call somebody to check if summary scales were required? On this case- yes. JW: There are instructions on how to score summary scales? Dr: Not on the hand-scored test.

15. JW- Floating Profiles and Dr. Gatchell. ‘Formerly known as the floating profile’ because he works with pain management. It’s called a ‘disability profile’ with his patients. Many had BPD also. Didn’t review the PDS. JW-If lied about how the trauma occurred but there was still a trauma. Dr: If they only lied that once how do you know if they’re telling the truth? If trauma was a bear/no tiger- does that invalidate the rest of the test. Dr: I would be very concerned. When this is self-report and the initial event was a lie then how do you know the symptoms stemming from that are true? The symptoms could still be there whether tiger or bear…with proof. Need to also look for more evidence.

16. If your not sure about the PDS test and PTSD can you give other tests? ‘Definitely.’ You can’t then ignore the tests given.

17. She has done 4 Death Penalty cases in last 4 years or so. For prosecution in all those.

18. License in 1999- so four years. She has had previous experience, pratice means you have a license…I wouldn’t.

19. JM back up.  Tiger vs. Bear…Gopher?  Difficult to continue? Yes if no physical symptoms confirms they lie. If event didn’t occur how it was stated then symptoms may not be true.

20. Floating profiles- out the window? No, author is clear- he never said don’t use Floating…State rests.

Court resumes tomorrow at 9.

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

Leave a reply

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…)

Leave a reply

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.

Dr. Geffner has a book on Amazon…good luck with that!

5 Replies

What follows are five reviews I am reposting (thanks, Amazon) one which has some new, disturbing info about the Dr.

 

liar #2 steps up to the plate!, April 24, 2013

By 

Becky – See all my reviews

This review is from: Identifying and Treating Sex Offenders: Current Approaches, Research, and Techniques (Journal of Child Sexual Abuse Monographic “Separates”) (Paperback)

How sad that you are willing to ruin your career just to lie for a murderer, same as your friend Laviolette. So sad for true victims of DV.

 

Please look very, very closely at Robert Geffner, April 23, 2013

By 

Bradley Hall (London United Kingdom) – See all my reviews

This review is from: Identifying and Treating Sex Offenders: Current Approaches, Research, and Techniques (Journal of Child Sexual Abuse Monographic “Separates”) (Paperback)

I believe everyone should read this book, and every book by Geffner, and closely examine the entire body of work and entire career of Geffner and of all of his close collaborators. I believe that what we will find will open our eyes.

In the footnotes on Page 13 of the Summary Judgment in favor of plaintiffs in Morris vs. Dearborne:

“17. The child was made to play a game where she was given points for circling the words “f* *k” and “p*n*s;” however, she was never able to do so without prompting. Additionally, Goforth asked the child to draw “lick p*n*s” and “f* *k” and even asked the child to “show [her] how to f* *k.” These counseling sessions took place under the supervision of GEFFNER, through CTPS.

 

Trina – See all my reviews

This review is from: Identifying and Treating Sex Offenders: Current Approaches, Research, and Techniques (Journal of Child Sexual Abuse Monographic “Separates”) (Paperback)

You sir,and I use that term loosely, are nothing more than a PROVEN hired gun. Your co-hort Alyce, clearly failed at her attempt to convince anyone, much less a jury, that the defendant has been a victim of domestic violence and is really nothing more than a cold blooded murdered, so now you’re going to throw your hat in the ring, try to cash in on some of the money the tax payers of Arizona are dishing out, and it’s just plain disgusting. You are a hypocrite, willing to put your name on something you know nothing about. How many hours did YOU spend with the killer? 60, 80? More? How did your testimony work for Mrs. O’Rourke? Oh, that’s right, you never even interviewed the ex-husband. You took what was obviously, a very sick woman’s word for what she said happened and you were called out by every judge and every courtroom you entered because you are in fact, a hired gun. You’ll say whatever the highest bidder asks you to say and you’ve been found out. Good luck. You’re going to need it. Perhaps your time would be better spent buying Jodi some self-help books, or magazines that she can try to sneak out of prison with her sick notes written in them. You are GROSS!

 

1.0 out of 5 stars HOW COULD ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND EVEN CONSIDER READING THIS BOOK?, April 26, 2013

By 

Lori D. Raia – See all my reviews

This review is from: Identifying and Treating Sex Offenders: Current Approaches, Research, and Techniques (Journal of Child Sexual Abuse Monographic “Separates”) (Paperback)

I have not read this book, nor would I ever even consider doing so. Any “Dr.” in their right mind who would aid in a Death Penalty Murder Trial such as the one Dr. Geffner is about to lend himself to, has no merit or intelligence in my opinion. Jodi Arias is a pathological liar and cold-blooded murderer, and how you could think otherwise is beyond me. I guess people would do almost anything for the almighty buck. So sad.

 

1.0 out of 5 stars LaViolette’s Cohort Conveniently Republishes & Testifies April 22, 2013

By susan ann westphal

Format:Kindle Edition

What is with these greedy authors republishing their overpriced, outdated books to coincide with their biased testimony in high profile trials? If they were testifying to help CONVICT Domestic Violence perpetrators instead of helping them towards acquittal, they’d be more credible, reputable & revered. If Geffner & LaViolette are so hungry for DV perpetrators to study & counsel, they should contribute to their incarcerations and then go visit them in prison. Or, maybe they WANT more victims just to validate their own existence and ensure job security for themselves?? Pathetic!

 

State to call another witness?

4 Replies

As you may know by now the defense wants their last witness, Dr. Robert Geffner, to rebut the testimony of Dr. Demarte regarding Borderline Personality Disorder. Now it has been confirmed that the defense wants Dr. Geffner to also rebut Dr. Horn, the ME’s testimony about the shot to the head. Just now I got a tweet from Jeff Gold, esq. about the state’s 17th supplemental witness list. They want Dr. Jill Hayes, PhD to rebut Dr. Geffner. This is really getting interesting!

Here’s a link to a bio of Dr. Jill Hayes:

http://hayespsychology.com/about/

What’s Wrong With Dr. Geffner?

70 Replies

Though Dr. Geffner has some pretty hefty credentials he also has some serious issues having been impeached in some court cases. Check it out:

1.  His background is impressive, he is the Founder and President of the Family Violence and Sexual Assault Institute in San Diego, California. He has been a researcher and consultant for 28 years and has presented over 450 key note speeches.

2.  Now the bad news- for him: (This info is from a comment made by ‘Nancy B’ on the ‘My Crime Time’ blog). Regarding the Case of Cyndie O’Rourke v. James O’Rourke the court found Dr. Geffner to be nothing more than a ‘hired gun’ for the Mother in this case. This was a divorce/custody case where the Father prevailed. Apparently the MMPI test found ‘maladaptive personality traits’ in the Mother and Dr. Geffner challenged the use of the MMPI test and even went on to recommend that the Mother file ethics complaints against the other mental health professionals in the case.He felt he was the expert and the others were out of their expertise.  (Nancy B. shares a link for info. on the ‘My Crime Time’ blog). This indicates to me he will most likely imply the MMPI test is not valid in this case and Dr. Demarte doesn’t have the credentials that he does and her opinion is therefore inadequate.

3.  Dr. Geffner testified that he no longer treats patients but devotes all his time to consulting work related to his specialty. He has been an expert witness in a number of cases in different jurisdictions. Though he has testified in a great number of cases he stated that he did not remember very much about the facts of those cases.

4. In a Texas case; Clark v. Collins, 956 F.2d 68 (5th Circuit 1992) the court found that Dr. Geffner’s affidavit lacked credibility, in part because it was based on hearsay information supplied by the defendant’s attorney with no independent verification. (Sound like any defense attorneys we know who believe everything their client says?)

5. The court also excluded the Dr.’s testimony in Hawaii v. French, 129 P.3d 581 (Hawaii 2006) involving allegations of child sexual abuse.

6. In State v. Supulvado, 655 So.2d 623 (La. App. 1995) the court limited most of his testimony as he relied mostly on the information supplied by the defendant and he testified about effects of brain damage on emotional functioning though he is not a medical doctor.

7. So I dug a little more and found this:

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). “[C]ounsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment. Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. at 2066.

22 The state trial court found that Dr. Geffner’s affidavit lacked credibility for three reasons: (1) the evaluation, which makes conclusions as to Clark’s conduct in 1987, was conducted five years later, in 1992; (2) Dr. Geffner did not review the court records or a transcript of the trial testimony; and (3) Dr. Geffner relied upon records from Clark’s childhood in Pennsylvania, with no records since 1976, and upon hearsay information supplied by Clark’s attorneys, with no independent verification of the information, and interviews with Clark. The state court further found that, even if credible, Dr. Geffner’s affidavit does not support a conclusion that Clark was either incompetent or insane at the time of the murders, or that he did not act deliberately within the meaning of the first special issue.

8. Oh, and did I mention he was an editor for Alyce LaViolette?

Should be a field day for Mr. Martinez!

Arias Trial 4/25

3 Replies

Rebuttal- Martinez

  1. Dr. Horn, the Medical Examiner is up. If the gunshot was first it would have been immediately incapacitating. Travis could have gone a step or two and then lost consciousness in seconds. JM shows many of the autopsy pics including the throat slash. The Dr. says after the shot there would be no holding onto someone, no attempt to defend, no grabbing at the knife or raising of his hands (his hands have defensive wounds), no crawling away, no walking to the sink, and no walking down the hallway.
  2. Willmott establishes the Dr. has done over 6000 autopsies, many gun shot wounds. A 25 caliber gun is not that powerful, the bullet didn’t exit as it was stopped by bone. Also he was shot from a few feet away- so even less force. She gets him to say it wasn’t immediately fatal- but was immediately incapacitating. A shot to the face can make you bleed through the nose. She tries to get the Dr. to say he told Detective Flores that the bullet would not have been immediately incapacitating. He doesn’t recall saying that. She points out he did say something to that effect in testimony- he admits he did but immediately corrected in the very next statement. Willmott tries to get him to say there was no injury to the brain and he says that you can’t see it because of decomp but that it is ‘simple geometry’ the path the bullet took. The knife wound to the vena cava is from below- Willmott points out- so from someone shorter.

 

Jury Questions: (paraphrased)

1.  If shot and bleeding from the nose and mouth wouldn’t there be blood on the bathroom floor?    Yes.

2.  Could you be mistaken that Travis could still ambulate (after the shot)?   No.

3.  Is there any way Travis could have still moved well?     If the bullet had not passed through his brain.

4.  How do you know he was still alive when his throat was cut?    The amount of hemorrhage requires a beating heart.

5.  How many cases have you had with a 25 caliber gun?   At least 100-200.

 

Martinez:

1.  If the bullet was the first wound would it be immediately incapacitating?   Yes.

2.  Is there any situation where a bullet goes through the frontal lobe and you are ambulatory for several minutes?    Only if you were already walking and took a step or two.

3.  If you are shot and already on the ground could you get up and walk around?   No.

 

Willmott:

1.  If still alive when the knife wound was made there would be quite a bit of blood in the hallway?   Yes, an injury of some kind happened there.

2.  The gunshot went from right downwards to the cheek?   It could be deflected.

3.  With the neck wound within seconds he would not be able to hold up his head?   Yes.

4.  After the neck wound he would have been lying flat?  Depends on where they are (he gives example of if in a chair they might stay up).

 

***According to Chris Stark on Twitter the judge has excused juror #8.  He is described as the ‘Dad’ type with a goatee who took lots of notes. Jurors are asked to be back on Wednesday, May 1 at 9.  We expect the Defense surrebuttal witness Dr. Robert Geffner that day. He is an editor for Alyce DeLaviolette and works in domestic violence. Vinnie Politan just tweeted they brought a bomb sniffing dog in today! 

Arias trial 4/24

Leave a reply
  1. The hearings this morning were closed. The defense has made motions to keep out several prosecution witnesses. My previous post (on mixedbagblog.wordpress.com) has this info.
  2. The judge goes over the schedule: Tomorrow starts at 9:30 and goes for ‘a little while.’ The next court day will be Wednesday, May 1 starting at 9 and going ‘until we finish.’ Final jury instructions will be Thursday, May 2 and closing arguments will be Thursday and Friday. The case will then go to the jury.  (Arizona juries do not deliberate over the weekend.)
  3. JM starts by playing the DVD where JA is in Travis’ lap. This time it’s the longer version- you can see her sit up. There is no sound.
  4. Robert Brown- Mesa Computer Forensics detective. There are 3 photos of JA with dark brown hair shown from her helio phone dated June 3, 2008. JM also shows a previous picture with her blonde hair- I saw no date. The Walmart receipt was after these photos. Nurmi questions the time of the photos- Brown says the phone records where it is taken at the time taken.
  5. Det. Flores is up. He brings in many photos of Travis’s shelving from the closet (where the gun supposedly was). He set these up in March 2013. The shelf is 7 feet tall. He proves the shelves were ‘floating’ on 4 pins. One exhibit (which the live feed didn’t show) describes his hand pushing the shelf down. JM asks if there was any nudity in the “Harder Faster Stronger” video- Flores says: “No.” Nurmi asks if he measured every shelf. (He didn’t – he actually says: “There was no need” and Nurmi says: “Did I ask you if there was a need?”) He asks Flores about JA’s high IQ (?) then he says over and over  while pointing out different shelves- ‘JA didn’t say the gun was here?’ Flores: “No.”
  6. Nurmi asks Flores if the Hughes said Travis was ‘addicted to Jodi’ –JM objects. (Sustained). Nurmi asks if Flores said in his interview with 48hrs that ‘something provoked Ms. Arias at the end’ –JM objects and there is a recess. Nurmi asks if he investigated how the shelf would react to weight as it is resting on dividers- Flores: “No, I did not.”

 

Jury Questions and Answers: (paraphrased)

1.  Any record of a gun owned by Travis?    No.

2.  Any significance to measuring every shelf?    No.

3.  Any shoes out of place when you arrived on the scene?   Nothing appeared out of place.

4.  Did Travis’ roommates ever own a gun?    No, they did not.

5.  What’s the width of the end shelf unit where the gun was?     Shelves were 36-38” long, 16” deep and ¾” wide.

6.  Jodi said she helped Travis put things in the attic- did you find anything?    No.

7.  Was the attic capable of storing boxes?    There are just beams…maybe if light.

8.  Can you tell was anything ever stored in the attic?    No.

9.  Where’s the entrance to the attic?    Closet. 

10.  Jodi’s weight, height, shoe size?    Don’t know shoe, height 5’5”-5’6”, weight 115-120.

11.  Are the pins round the entire length?    Yes.

12. Were there any signs of a gun at Travis’ house?    None whatsoever.

13.  Any empty boxes/containers in Travis’ closet for gun?    No.

14.  If JA stood with arms straight up did you measure how tall to her fingertips?   No I did not.

 

No follow up by Martinez.

Nurmi goes over:

  1. Arizona doesn’t require guns to be registered.
  2. Shelves free float and go back in place.
  3. The attic has more than just the entrance in Travis’ closet.
  4. He asks Flores if someone told him there was nothing stored in the attic. Flores- ‘yes.’ Nurmi then says something like: ‘you know because someone told you…just like Dr. Horn.’ (He is referencing that Flores misunderstood the Dr. when he said that the gunshot was last).

 

  1. JA’s grandma, the one she was living with at the time of the killing is in court today.

Court is in recess until tomorrow at 9:30.