Tag Archives: trial

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.

 

Why Wash the Camera?

7 Replies

One thing I feel compelled to address- the camera. I keep reading on the internet people saying that JA accidentally washed the camera. I don’t think so. In my opinion she took great delight in washing Travis’ brand new camera that he bought for the Cancun trip. If you recall she said on the stand that she was careful to stay a few feet away from the shower so the camera wouldn’t get wet. This proves she thought getting it wet would ruin it. I’ll bet at first she thought to just delete the incriminating photos, then after trying to clean the scene she grabbed the towels and clothes and then thought to wash it. I can just see her grinning as she is pouring bleach over his brand new toy and then turning on the machine. She wanted to destroy it just like she destroyed him.

Finished- 4/18 summary (with juror questions)

8 Replies

(#18 continued)

-Identity: JA changes the way she looks; implants, hair color, to fit in. Changed religion in 2 months after meeting Travis.

-Suicidal Ideation-In her journals.

-Instability: She has quick changes in emotions-all her men saw this.

-Emptiness: She told JD she often felt this way.

-Intense anger: Breaking door and windows, In journal she says she has hate inside of her. Though 1 anger score was los 2 others were high.

       19.  Travis was angry in the e-mail because she had invaded his boundaries and       lied.

      20.  JM asks if JA was a victim of abuse. JD says there was no pattern of abuse.

 

Juror Questions:

1.  How many forensic cases have you worked on?   I’ve been working on them for several years.
2.  How many times have you testified ?   3 times.
3.  How many cases involved abuse?     In my general practice it’s common to have abuse involved. For forensic cases I’ll need a second to think…
4.  Hypothetically if a person suffered PTSD from a bear attack while hiking would you throw out their PDS test if they lied and said it was a tiger?     Yes- those would be different events. A lot of time with PTSD is there are triggering events that remind them of the trauma so a bear and a tiger would look different, smell different, act different. The subsequent symptoms would be associated with those variables.
5.  Would the person be answering the question the same whether they called the animal a bear or a tiger?     They would be answering it very different.
6.  Do you believe absolutely that it is possible to remain purely unbiased in an evaluation once compassion creeps in?    I do think it’s possible to remain unbiased.
7.  What types of people are at risk for having Borderline Personality Disorder?    Anyone’s at risk but there’s a higher rate in individuals who have been exposed to trauma and neglect in their lifetime. One of the things that’s often talked about is this idea of constantly being invalidated by family members. For example if a child gets hurt and is crying, an example of invalidation is a parent saying: “you’re not hurt, you’re fine” They’re invalidating their feelings. That increases the chances of developing BPD if it happens frequently throughout their childhood.
8.  Do you feel ‘mark my words no jury will convict me’ is part of borderline personality disorder especially since she is smiling when she says it?     That’s a sign of immaturity that I talked about before. These kinds of immature statements are often seen in people with BPD.
9.  Wouldn’t taking the camera rather than leaving it show more organizational thinking capability?    Both are an example of organizational thinking, just different types of organization with the goal being to hide the evidence.
10.   When asked by the defense about efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment you stated you had other examples for this category that did not involve Travis. Can you share those examples?
Throughout her diary she used the word abandon ‘I feel abandoned’ She made that comment at least a couple times with other boyfriends. They would cheat on her and she would continue in that relationship and subsequently befriend them despite being treated in that kind of way.
11.   Do you think trying to delete photos and washing the camera as an attempt to destroy evidence?   Yes, it gives the impressions that she was trying to destroy evidence.
12.   If you had not seen pictures proving the evidence was recovered from the camera, would you have viewed this as an effective attempt to destroy evidence?
Yes, my knowledge of cameras is that it would be destroyed if you put it in water.
13.  In your opinion is it normal for a person who is incarcerated to be depressed and have anxiety?    Yes, I’ve worked with many individuals who have been incarcerated. It’s not something unusual.
14.  Do you consider Arias shooting; stabbing and slitting Alexander’s throat a traumatic event?    It depends on how Jodi reacted it to it. If she had this horror and fear associated with it then yes, I would consider it being associated with PTSD.
15.  Why didn’t you re-administer all the tests that the previous experts had given?    I felt like the tests that I gave answered the questions I needed.
16.  Do you know what the differences are between the TSI1 vs TSI2?   There’s a slight difference but I’m not that familiar with it
17.  Regarding the PDS answer sheet, do you know whose handwriting is on it?     No, I would have to assume…
18.  Do you see any issues with Dr. Samuels filling out the answer sheet and possibly summarizing?     Yes, the only time that should happen is if there’s an impairment  (physical handicap) that prevents the person from filling it out themselves. .
19.  Does it cause concern that the written answers appear to be answered by someone who is familiar with psychological verbiage and not layman’s verbiage?
Yes, that’s very concerning.

 

JM is up:

  1. He asks how many forensic cases she has worked on- JD: around 75.

JW is up:

  1. JW says staying in relationships with cheaters could just be low self esteem.
  2. Anxiety and depression could be jail is not uncommon. JA still scored high on those when she did the TSI for before jail.
  3. They go over why JD didn’t use the newer version of the TSI- her workplace had not purchased it. She has only done the TSI one other time since.
  4. JW gets JD to admit if the data is transferred correctly it may be okay to hand write the answers and transfer them to the answer sheet.

Arias Trial -4/18

Leave a reply

Today was a long one- here is what I have so far:

Willmott vs. Demarte:

  1. They agree that Fight/Flight mode is to survive and some memory can be affected. Also that if memories aren’t encoded they won’t come back- JD says that it’s rare. JD points out JA has no issues with encoding memory now (she claims that brain can be damaged with prolonged memory loss and though JA claims a long memory loss she shows no signs). Also gross motor skills can still function.
  2. They argue over who deleted the photos from June 4. JM objects when JW keeps saying ‘…when Travis ‘attacked’ Jodi. JW implies that since JA is a photographer she could delete photos easily. JD contends that choosing  which photos to delete is different. JW says she has no knowledge of whether JA deleted all photos or choose photos.
  3. Regarding cleaning the crime scene- JW says JA didn’t do a very good job.
  4. JW claims leaving the camera there with evidence of JA being present shows she didn’t plan/organize this. JD says yes she did as she tried to destroy the camera by putting it through a cycle. JW claims there is no mention it went through a cycle.
  5. JD claimed JA’s memory seemed worse since talking to Dr. Samuels. JW says it’s just she didn’t get as much info as Dr. S. because she didn’t spend as much time with JA.
  6. JD finds it ‘unbelievable’ that JA ‘saw blood on her hands and thought something bad had happened.’ JA told her that she ‘knew she had killed Travis.’ They argue this point until JD concedes, somewhat, that her opinion is subjective.
  7. JW lists several tests given by Dr. Karp to determine if JA was a battered woman. JD did not give any ‘battered women’ tests to JA. JW and JD agree that battered women tend to minimize.
  8. They go through the Borderline Personality Disorder examples given by JD. JW says there has to be evidence of BPD before June 4…JD agrees.
  9. BPD point 1-Avoiding abandonment. JW points out that though JA did move to Mesa after the breakup they had never stopped talking and had taken trips and had sex together later. JD says JA crossed boundaries by looking at Travis’ texts and Facebook without his permission. JW says they exchanged their passwords.

10. BDP 2: Unstable relationships. JW says she moved out as a teen and had just 4 relationships since. JD points out she went from boyfriend to boyfriend (and her childhood friend indicated the same), and she had 10 different restaurant jobs as well as other jobs. JW makes the mistake of having her confirm that – and she does, along with the 10 restaurant jobs she worked as a receptionist at a spa and also as a childcare giver. JW points out she was with Brewer for 4 years and Matt for 2 showing stability.

11. BPD 3: Self image conflict. Joined the Mormon church quickly. JW says that Travis sent missionaries to her house until she converted.

12. BPD 5 (she didn’t qualify for #4): Suicidal ideation. JD says it occurs a lot in her journals. JW says there was no actual plan to commit suicide. JD says the idea was there, also friends and parents indicated the same.

13. BPD 6: Instability. Happy to sad in the same journal entry (JW-just one data point).

14. BPD 7: Emptiness. JA described feelings of emptiness to JD (another data point). JW says this was after June 4.

15. BPD 8: Anger. JW asks about any pattern of physical abuse and JD brings up that she kicked her Mom. JW says they were arguing (and JA was a teen). JD says her Mom had just made a neutral comment. JD also indicates the family said JA had internal anger through most of her life and that people described her as ‘irritable’ and ‘upset.’ JW says people also described JA as kind, loving and happy. They go over the e-m from yesterday where JA says she kicked in door, etc. JW points out that e-m started with her being compassionate about Travis. Asked if JD ever spoke to JA about this e-m she says she didn’t as she had already done the interview.

16. The MMPI test scores twice as a protocol.

17. JW brings up not going behind the words and enters the e-m from Travis to the Hughes’. Travis felt fondly for JA and said: “They don’t get more honest than Jodi.” Then the May 26th e-m (Travis and JA) JW points out all the names he calls her and how it is character assassination. JD points out that there is a pattern of bad language within the texts but there are only a handful of these types of texts and they were a response to her. They argue over whether this is a pattern of abuse. Asking about getting info behind the word- JD says she can’t ask Travis as he is no longer here. JW says other ways to confirm.

Afternoon Session

  1. JW wants to clarify:

-The 10 different restaurants were over 15 years. JD says no, it was 8 years; they were after she worked at her father’s restaurant.

– Mom said JA mentioned suicide after June 4. JD says it’s part of the pattern.

-She doesn’t go from boyfriend to boyfriend as she was single for months after Matt. JD says that is not what she told her.*

-She tried to move on by joining LDS linkup. JD didn’t know.

-Travis called her names starting with ‘skank’ in Jan. 2007…abusive? JD says no, just ‘what he called her.’

-JD is not a DV expert. JD says she meant there is no license for DV. She does have a Clinical Psych. license and a lot of experience in DV.

-Jan. journal entry- after he broke finger- ‘nothing to report’ data point? JD: “Yes.” JW also mentions: “Cannot marry him…there’s something off…”

        2.  MMPI test results are valid. Anything over 65 is clinically significant. JA scored 65 on depression. JD says she doesn’t interpret the scales JW wants to discuss. JW does anyhow-JA’s low-positive-emotions were a 70. JD says she doesn’t use as not enough research backing these scales.

       3.  MMPI content scales (JD does use). Anxiety=76. Depression=elevated. Bizarrementation (bizarre thoughts)=elevated. JW says these are often associated with trauma? JD: “Among other things.” Anti-social personality=below avg. (average). Low self esteem-broken into 2 categories: 1. Self Doubt (Identity)=68 2. Submissiveness=60. Anger=avg. Anger subscales (JD says this is an inappropriate use of the MMPI) Explosive/Irritability=normal.

4.  MMPI supplementary scales. Anxiety=elevated. Repression=above norm. Ego strength=below norm. Dominance=below norm. PTSD=77. Overcontrolled/Hostility=below norm. JW asks if there is a pattern of anxiety and low self esteem and JD says ‘anxiety-yes.’ Self doubt means a poor sense of self and submissiveness is still below clinical. JW- she has depression and anxiety- JD –yes. JW – all associated with Battered Women’s Syndrome. JD still argues these are not the scales she uses. JW goes on…anxiety, depression and low self esteem are all part of PTSD? JD- Some symptoms in PTSD and some in other disorders. They’re not always depressed or have low self esteem. They argue. JD is trying to point out you do analyze the low scores, only clinically valid scores.

 

Martinez is up:

  1. JD doesn’t walk in with compassion. Presents cross ethical guidelines. Staring with an apology seems biased. When biased you tend to skew things your way.
  2. The e-m to the Hughes’ where Travis says Jodi is honest- was before they were even boyfriend/girlfriend. The nasty e-m in May was at the end.
  3. JM tries to get in points regarding the stalking. JD recalls JA going into his Facebook, stealing his ring, deleting his e-m’s.
  4. JD explains that there is no license for a DV or PTSD expert- the only license for those disorders are Clinical Psych.’s and she is one. Mentions that Lenore Walker’s 6 points (to determine a battered woman) are still valid. JD says JA does not fit the criteria.
  5. Regarding experiences to avoid memories JA wrote about Travis in journal, went to Memorial, drove by his house.
  6. All Psych.’s charge for forensic testimony.
  7. JD didn’t list everything on her CV- it would be too long and she doesn’t have time.
  8. JD’s TSI was consistent with Dr. Karp’s. JD felt it was difficult to determine the specific traumas.
  9. JM asks if you would have anxiety and depression in jail. JD says: “Yes.”

10. TSI test during relationship with Travis. JA had anxiety and depression. JD mentions she felt that when with Juarez. Also both are indicative of PTSD and BPD. JD says that having a lot of elevations on the TSI indicates BPD.

11. JA’s stressors included thoughts, the crime, working with family and attorneys. She also had stress over the conflict between sex and her religion. General emotional stress is common in BPD.

12. JD says the MCMI is normed against clinical patients. Therefore the sensitivity is lower…both for PTSD and BPD.

13. Dr. Samuels got a disorder on the MCMI axis 2…’personality disorder otherwise not specified’ suggesting problematic personality traits.

14. Because the trauma sited on JA’s PDS was untruthful it is completely invalidated according to JD. (Including all the subsequent symptoms.

15. JD explains that most psych.’s don’t use certain scales on the MMPI test as they don’t have empirical support (no research backing it). The 3 scales she did use support BPD. Though the PTSD score was elevated it does not speak to a specific trauma- more ‘feeling out of control.’

16. Regarding the nasty texts- JD felt these were infrequent and happened when he felt lied to, betrayed <Objection> she knows this because Travis accuses her of lying. He reacted. They has many day to day texts that have no language like this.

17. The ‘something’s off with that boy’ comment goes on to say JA didn’t like a joke he made about spending time with family and JA ‘abhors’ that.

18. They go through the list of criteria for BPD and how it applies to JA (again).

-Avoid abandonment: hiding behind a Christmas tree at Travis’. Showing up unannounced repeatedly. (In previous relationships as well).

-Unstable relationships

-Idealize/devalue: JA says ‘something is wrong with that boy’ and ‘Travis is awesome’ in the same journal entry. JD says after Travis’ Memorial JA got the phone number from a guy on the plane and called him when she got home!

More tomorrow!

Arias Trial Summary 4/15

2 Replies

Hearing Motions (no jury present)

  1. Grace Wong from In Session takes the stand. She is asked about whether she recognizes the faces of the jurors – she does. They show the story with JM taking pics and signing one autograph. She did not see any jurors present.
  2. Next up is Bryan Neumeister- a video/audio expert. Nurmi goes through his credentials. They bring up the picture of Travis’ face in the shower. He has enlarged it so that he claims he can see JA standing with both hands on the camera a few feet away (and no knife). The picture has lines drawn in by Neumeister to make the image clearer. He says it looks better in his lab. JM says he sees a dog and the picture is subjective. Nurmi claims it proves JA was telling the truth. JM doesn’t want the pic with the lines drawn in – let the jurors figure it out. He says it is unreliable. Judge will rule on later.
  3. Next issue- Nurmi brings up Prosecutorial Misconduct. Claims JM has bullied witnesses and deprived JA of a fair trial. He says it’s a cumulative issue, including the Fan Club. He refers to JM as: “The Great one.” JM says it was 1 incident out of view of jury. He says Nurmi wants to connect that with the social media. JM points out Wong saw nothing and they are just wasting the courts time, everyone except the defense who gets more money (implied). Judge rejects the motion as it didn’t affect the jury.
  4. Next issue- Nurmi claims that JM attacked LaViolette and bullied Dr. Samuels (also called Dr. Samuels ‘Mr. Samuels’ – degrading him). He plays a tape from closed proceedings where JM and Samuels go at it over the new exhibits- the Power Point, the Instrumental vs. Expressive (pre-med vs. not pre-med), the Time magazine article and the Brain pic. Things heat up when Dr. S. says: “… even a blind person can run the bases.” You can hear the attornies and Dr. Samuels arguing loudly. Nurmi asserts JM was intimidating the witness. JM states the proceedings were not in front of the jury and the judge was present at these proceedings. He also says LaViolette had a reason to be upset because of what was revealed. He points to the fact the Defense brought all this new evidence in the eve of the trial- no disclosure, a clear violation. He says the defense was arguing the loudest in the tape. There was no impact on their testimony. JM states the attempt to make the state responsible for the media (which they have no control of) is ridiculous when JA is actually ‘fanning the flames’ by being on Twitter through Donovan B. She is breaking the courts rule and discussing the case- even putting down the Prosecutor (his height). He wants her to desist. Nurmi says JM is trying to take the focus off himself by pointing the finger at the defendant. Twitter ‘doesn’t change the game.’ The Judge says: “There is a fine line between zealous advocacy and unethical conduct.” She says both were outside of the presence of the jury and no evidence was affected. There is no basis for a mistrial. She states: “The prosecutor was not in any way outside the bounds of proper behavior.” Regarding the Tweets from jail- Nurmi wants proof, a motion in writing and sites freedom of speech. JM doesn’t want to investigate this as he might be called intimidating again. The judge says it is a matter for the Sheriff.

Afternoon Session:

  1. There is a closed-door hearing being held with Alyce LaViolette. I am guessing it has to do with her approaching Samantha, Travis’ sister. Apparently after trashing Travis, Alyce went up to Sam and said something like: “It’s not personal.”  I am now getting rumors that this could also be about perjury. Also- Chris Stark tweets that: “Alyce to testify about discussing her testimony – rule break –in chamber today 1:15.” That is news to me. It is 2:25 as I write this.
  2. 3:14- The jury comes in. The Judge tells them that there is a stipulation: That when the picture of Travis that was taken in the shower at 5:29:20 (his face) JA was not holding a knife or gun. The jury is then dismissed and court recessed for the day.

***Update*** The Hearings coming up

2 Replies

Info from Chris Stark off of Twitter (thanks) who read the most recent mistrial filings indicates the following:

1.  Nurmi is still trying to get a mistrial for ‘Prosecutorial Misconduct.’ He will bring in the film footage of Martinez signing autographs. HLN producer Grace Wong is being brought in (it is assumed) to talk about the claim that Jean Cazares saw Martinez signing autographs for fans in front of a juror (Jean didn’t say that- she actually testified that she DIDN’T see any jurors doing that).

2. Alyce is being brought back in on either Monday or Tuesday to face charges that she approached Sam (Travis’ sister) after testifying last week. Rumors say that after tearing up Travis’ reputation she had the nerve to go up to Sam and say: “It’s not personal.” This is a huge mistake as it is against the rights of the victims family to be approached like that. Should make for an interesting start to the week.