Tag Archives: Willmott

Jodi In Chains

29 Replies

Here is a play by play of what happened in court today via Twitter:

From ‘@WildAboutTrial’:

-In the courtroom at the Jodi Arias trial. Many of the usual faces are here in the spectator section. Media is rather thin. I see Tara Kelley and some other jurors in the gallery. Nurmi and Willmott just went back into chambers. Jodi Arias is not in the courtroom yet. Juan is here…Det. Flores just arrived. Just to remind everyone, this will not be live streamed and most of the hearing will be held in chambers and sealed. Jodi just came in wearing her gray prison striped outfit with salmon socks. Jodi Arias was just escorted back by the well armed sheriff’s deputies. She is in chambers now. These guys are scary looking.

@Chriswnews: Never seen a Jodi Arias escort like this. Arias walked to chambers her shackles making a racket. Arrives in chains surrounded by what appears to be an MCSO SWAT team.

@WildAboutTrial: Willmott just bolted out of chambers and smiled at Flores and Juan, she is getting something from her desk and heading back in. No sign of Travis’ family, just supporters.

@chriswnews: Was told Travis Alexander aunt the only family member expected in the gallery. Sis Samantha to attend via phone. Family civil attorney here.

@WildAboutTrial: Looks like other attorneys here for other trials. Nurmi, Willmott and Jodi Arias are still back in chambers. Flores and Juan continue to semi-reclinate and laugh while they chat. The courtroom is full of chatter. Flores and Juan were just summoned back into chambers. Everyone is coming out of chambers. Jodi Arias has full umbrella bangs and makes a clanking noise as she walks. She went to her room.

@maryellenabc15: Jodi Arias is walked back through court to her holding cell…she is shackled, handcuffed and in jail stripes. Jail SWAT is guarding her.

@WildAboutTrial: The armed sheriff seems to be clearing Jodi Arias’ table. She is brought out now and is sitting down. There are 4 fully armed sheriff deputies here to keep an eye on Jodi Arias. These are some serious deputies. Wow. Jodi Arias is sitting with the DP mitigation specialist whispering. Sheriffs haven’t left her side. Jodi Arias did not seem to have a smile on her face, looked rather tired. Attorneys are back. Judges Stephens is present and addressing the court now. Court is deferring the ruling on the motion to delay the trial until July 18. The hearing is over.

@tarakelley320: Seeing Jodi in shackles was totally worth being at the courthouse today!!!

Motion To Deny Moving Trial To 1/2014

4 Replies

According to ABC15.com’s Corey Rangel, the prosecution has filed a motion asking the judge to deny the motion for a delay filed by the defense. They defense had said they needed time to find other witnesses to stand up for Jodi (they have had 5 years) and that they had scheduling conflicts. Martinez responded: ““Neither reason warrants a continuance of the proceedings until the first part of next year.” For more here’s the link:

Arias Trial Moved To January?

48 Replies

According to court documents (thank you, NancyB for the link!) the defense has filed a motion to move the trial to January 2014. They site that Jodi wants to find witnesses to stand up for her, the conflicts in dates with both Nurmi and Willmott and the fact that Willmott has 5 other cases coming up, four in August. Here is the link to the document:

http://media2.abc15.com/html/pdf/ariasmotion.pdf …

Transcript re: Sex Tape

1 Reply

Here are some of the more interesting points from this transcript. (The link to the entire transcript is at the bottom). (Thanks, NancyB!)

1. Here’s one thing we can all be thankful for: According to a comment by Willmott on page 12 there were 2 other recordings that weren’t played in court- they were Jodi singing.

 

2. Regarding the penis and breast pictures from her phone, (p. 6) Martinez: said: “Quite frankly I don’t think he (the expert witness) can distinguish those, to whose penis those are or whose breasts those are.” As we know now those pictures were allowed into the trial.

 

3. The bulk of this transcript is about the argument that what is in the tape will be asserted as fact. The defense argues it is not, but if you recall the trial all the fantasies Travis described in that tape were actually presented as fact- like the 12 year old comment, which was actually Travis describing Jodi’s voice sounding like a 12 year old, and the ‘tie you to a tree…’ comment- was said over and over and over again by both Nurmi and Willmott as if it was a fact. Here is the way the defense actually said they would present this evidence:

On page 6 is the first time Willmott asserts: “None of it (the sex tape) is for the truth of the matter asserted, we’re talking about the particular statements. So the statement that he’s going to come and stick it up wherever is not for the truth of whether he was actually going to do that. They’re not assertions.” On page 10 Martinez makes the comment: “In terms of the sexual knowledge, they’re offering it for the truth of the matter asserted. And their experts rely on it as truthful. Also they are being offered as to how Travis broke down Jodi’s boundaries sexually.”

On page 11- Willmott says: “So as it was with the ‘3 hole wonder’ conversation, we’re not putting it in evidence to prove or disprove that Ms. Arias was a quote, unquote ‘3 hole wonder.’ On page 12 Martinez continues to argue that the tape is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. That regarding the things said on the tape ‘that’s what they want to do.’ Martinez goes on to say: “I don’t see how they can then make the argument later on and say, well, none of this was true. Their argument would then have to be, they never had anal intercourse. They never did any of that.” On page 13 Nurmi says that while Travis said those things “We’re not attempting to prove that he was going to do those things.” On page 14 Nurmi reiterates: “…we’re not using it to prove that he was going to actually do the things on the tape.”

Martinez then goes into the testimony of Dr. Samuels and how he asserts that Travis was ‘the only individual who had anal sex with the defendant. And this is proof of that. It is offered for the truth of the matter. Willmott counters with ‘Dr. Samuels is not considering whether  or not Travis was actually going to take Ms. Arias to the forest or whether he did take Ms. Arias to the forest.”

On page 17 Martinez Says Travis wasn’t going past her boundaries. “No he’s not. What he’s doing is he’s responding to her. And so it is being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. He’s not the aggressor, she is.” Both Wilmott and Nurmi respond: “That’s all for cross.” Martinez argues who can he cross? Ms. Arias or Travis? “Neither of which I have access to.” Willmott suggests he cross the doctors. Martinez: “I don’t want to cross the doctors. I want to cross the declarants which is what the rule is designed to allow me to do.”

Next (page 19) Martinez says Travis did not know he was being recorded. He and Nurmi argue the point.

“She (Jodi) can introduce it when she takes the stand.” On page 22 Nurmi says: “This is distinct form of self defense. And how he treated her is germane to that and not hearsay, not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted.”

Finally the judge decides she will have to listen to the tape to see whether or not it should be admitted.

4. Other arguments from the defense as to why the tape should be admitted were:

– On page 9 Nurmi argues the tape goes to ‘The way he treated her’, …degrades her opinion’ – showing a pattern of abuse.

– Willmott adds it ‘goes to his sexual knowledge.’

– On page14 Nurmi claims this is proof that while he was calling her a stalker he was having phone sex with her.

Link to entire transcript: http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0607arias-sex-tape-proceeding.pdf Thanks again, NancyB!

Arias Trial Transcripts

11 Replies

We are finally getting a glimpse of what was going on behind the scenes in the courtroom. During the testimony of Alyce LaViolette, Willmott was trying to get in an example of Travis telling Jodi he was going to kill himself and Martinez said: ““But the thing is that if Ms. Willmott and I were married, I certainly would say I F’g want to kill myself. That doesn’t mean I want to kill myself. It just means there’s a bad relationship and I want you to leave me alone.” (From an article by Michael Kiefer: http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/20130605arias-trial-transcripts-juror-questions-unsealed.html?nclick_check=1z).

In a released transcript during an argument regarding hearsay evidence Martinez tells Willmott: “…maybe you ought to go back to law school.” Nurmi asks the judge to admonish Martinez for his statement about wanting to kill himself if married to Willmott and for the crack about going back to law school. The judge responds: “Council, I know some of this is tongue and cheek, some of it is just the stress of the trial, but let’s try to be as professional as possible when we have these bench conferences.” (Link to transcript: http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/arias-april4-transcript-excerpt.pdf).

Thanks to NancyB for these links!

Arias Trial Date Changed?

15 Replies

According to azcentral.com Jennifer Willmott, one of Arias’ defense attorneys has  a conflict with the trial start date of July 18. This means it is likely the date will be pushed back. The Maricopa County Attorney, Bill Montgomery has stated: “Right now we are preparing for for trial…it would be irresponsible not to prepare, regardless of what final decisions are made.” Earlier Montgomery said that he would be willing to discuss options with the defense attorneys regarding resolving this case: “If they were to make an offer of resolution, I think I have an ethical responsibility to consider that.”

Final Closing Arguments

2 Replies

Willmott

  1. “People are far better than their very worst deed.” Each of you has to make your own decision. Does her life have value? You were asked if when you gave her 1st degree murder if you could still give her life. The state doesn’t require an execution for 1st degree.
  2. The burden is not beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond the preponderance of the evidence. We have to prove the mitigators are more true than not true.
  3. Each juror can choose a different mitigator. You don’t have to agree to find a reason to find value in her life, to find a reason to punish her with life in prison. Stand by your decision. You don’t have to explain it to anyone else.
  4. The state’s case is all about lies and manipulation. That somehow lying equals the death penalty. That’s not even a crime. Not even an aggravating factor.
  5. Mitigators are reasons to believe there’s something of value. Not excuses for what she did. You already convicted her for that. Are the mitigators substantial to call for life in prison? Mitigators are separate from the crime. They don’t have to be connected. Life in prison is appropriate.
  6. As an example- anyone under 30 I don’t believe should get the death penalty. If sufficient for you then that’s your vote.
  7. There was good and bad before (Travis). The trajectory of her life changed.
  8. Good things of value:

–       She was 27 when she killed Travis with no prior criminal record. We’re not talking about lying. She’s not like a criminal who commits a crime, 1, 2, 3 times. She has none. A reason to show mercy- life in prison instead of executed.

–       A good friend. People care about her. Darryl – 4 years he loved and trusted her with his son. Her friends were shocked – they didn’t expect this to happen, like Leslie Uty who said she was ‘sweet.’ Ryan Burns said that people enjoyed her, she got along well. What does it matter considering what she did to Travis? The state wants to paint her as a one-dimensional character. So it’s easier for you to execute. She’s not. She has made so many people happy in her life. The Freemans took trips with her and Travis. Enjoyed spending time with her. Had dinner and treated her like family, like a sister.

–       Her family has been here day in and day out. They are here for her now. She asked you to consider them.

–       Her value- she tried to improve her life; make the best of it. Gus said she was the utmost professional and worked hard. Darryl and her had a house together. If given the chance she will continue to improve. She’s already donated her hair 3 times. She doesn’t have to do that. She has goals. Teaching Spanish, reading and writing. She’s an amazing poet and artist and excellent writer. She wants to use these talents and dedicate them to domestic violence. This is for behind bars- not to get out.

        9.  She didn’t know she was capable of such violence. We need   to ask why? She could have been a famous artist, a saleswoman an attorney sitting next to me. What changed the trajectory of her life?

      10.  When she was a little girl her and Carl felt the love from her Mom. She treated her scrapes and read to her. They grew apart. Angela was born and things changed. They were no longer getting along. She couldn’t do anything right. She was grounded for inexplicable reasons. Everything changed for Jodi. She watched how her Dad treated her Mom- yelled, ridiculed. She learned that language. And loyalty- you stay no matter what.

      11. Her Psych. Testing-she had low self-esteem, almost no ego. Depression from when a teen. When she met Travis in 2006 she was vulnerable. She wanted a family; kids. Darryl didn’t. She thought he (Travis) was perfect. She was impressed by the executive banquet. Later when he wanted oral she gave it to him – didn’t want to lose him. He sends missionaries. She converts. She put him on a pedestal, she trusted him and loved him. She also saw the other side of him. Whether you believe the domestic violence – we know he was verbally abusive. Hateful one day and loving the next. ‘Corrupted carcass’, ‘worst thing that ever happened to me’ then ‘you’re beautiful inside and out.’ If he was sitting next to me the prosecutor would be using the same hateful words against him.

      12. Jodi lied- told herself a lie about her relationship with Travis. No person wants to be treated like that and called those names. It’s not an excuse to kill Travis. It is absolutely not and you have already convicted her. But abuse is a mitigating factor. Look at her solid relationship with Darryl- and they’re still friends. What changed the trajectory? Verbal abuse is not an excuse for what she did. She handled it the only way she knew how- she lied to herself, the detective, friends, the media, Travis’ family. It doesn’t diminish the abuse. She was once a happy, bubbly little girl, nose in a book. She will be haunted for what she did to Travis’ family, to Travis and to her family. 

13.  What’s so tragic is if either had sought help none of us may never have been here. The trajectory.

14.  Dr. Demarte said she had Bi-Polar Disorder. From a child her feelings weren’t validated. Cut bond with parents, was immature. Prone to violent outbursts- is that what happened? She can’t choose to have a personality disorder. Dr. Samuels also said she had one. Her BPD is not an excuse for what she did to Travis. But a reason substantial for life in prison. Another reason to be merciful.

15.  There’s so much mitigators in this case you can find to be merciful, to get life in prison and not execution. She has just one aggravating factor.

16. Strong mitigator is no criminal history. Jodi took Travis away but two wrongs don’t make a right. Her life still has value and you have a choice. (She quotes someone) ”…all life is worth saving and mercy is (best) attribute.” Her life is worth saving and despite her worst day she still has value. Sentence her to eternal life in prison.

 

Martinez:

  1. “To his family Travis will be forever young.” You’ve seen many photos of him from a child to older. But to his family he’ll be 30 for the rest of his life.
  2. They have tried to remember his life (pic of him smiling) with a twinkle in his eye. But they also told you they couldn’t forget what happened on June 4th, that he suffered immense physical pain, emotional distress and it was especially cruel. It hurt- was painful. And you shouldn’t forget what you saw in (pic of slit throat). An especially cruel crime. Take that back with you.
  3. The mitigators- you are not investigators. Find the facts. Don’t go out on a limb. You could say: ‘Well he’s dead so he’ll never suffer cancer- she saved him from that’- that’s an extreme example. You are not an advocate.
  4. The rest of her life in prison- on your questionairre it explained what it was – she’s eligible for release in 25 calendar years. Consider that.
  5. The 8 factors you looked at- an artist- she showed you pictures- Frank Sinatra, Elvis…so she has a skill, she’s entitled to get an easier path? All it is is a skill. Don’t give her preferential treatment. Not a mitigator.
  6. 27 years old. The age of majority is 18- people got to war at 18. She’s 9 years past that. A great relationship with Darryl. She enjoyed life. Had loving parents when growing up. Was employed, intelligent, had love affairs; a vast array of life experiences. Not a mitigator. If 16 0r 55 you could make the same argument. She had lived a full life. She’s 32 now but Travis is 30. Still. And the person responsible stood before you in court and asked you to look at that- only 27.
  7. Her pics of yesterdays, growing up. He has no more pics. What she will miss- nephew, Christmas with her photo, how’s that a mitigator when you look at the violence on Travis?
  8. No priors, never done this before. When people kill in this fashion they are arrested so they won’t do it again. Without laws there would be anarchy. She sat in the witness chair, took an oath, looked you in the eyes and lied to you. The gas cans- that’s perjury. Just because she’s not convicted doesn’t mean she hasn’t engaged in crime. Lied to the police- that’s a crime. They want you to just look past that. There is a criminal history. Not a mitigator.
  9. A good friend- friendship means you know the person better than most. Leslie said she never thought she would do something like this- but her friendship with Leslie was based on a lie. ‘When we have kids they will play together’? A friendship? When lying?
  10. Ryan – I guess it’s a friendship when you adjust someone, but he’s ‘full of crap.’ She lied to him. A good friend? Not a mitigator.
  11. Most of all this has come from her mouth. When the truth fails she’ll come up with a lie. A mitigator is proved by the preponderance of the evidence. The friend who couldn’t be here, judging from her credibility <Sidebar> The Womack issue raised by the defense- consider her credibility to assess id there is a good friend out there.
  12. Lacks support from family and then talks out the other side of her mouth. Well they’ve been here throughout the trial. The August peeping incident she called her father and he supported her. She spoke of her brother in glowing terms. It hasn’t been proven.
  13. Abuse and neglect as child and adult. When she was a child she liked to play the victim. Manipulative. There’s no records of any abuse. The 911 call with Bobby- no corroboration. There’s no abuse.
  14. Making the best of life/improving- she’s just going through life. Don’t most want to improve their life? She’s doing the bare minimum.
  15. None of these are mitigators. Jury instructions tell you what to do. If all find no mitigators it’s mandatory. A lack of connection may impact quality or strength so an artist? What does that have to do the crime? 27? How does that affect the crime? The horrific nature of the killing? No priors, though we know she has committed crimes- it doesn’t have anything to do with the crime. Same with friends and family. They don’t have a connection to the killing = no weight.
  16. Engage in analysis like the 1st (and 2nd) phase. Look at the facts and the law, then apply. The mitigators (if there are any) must be sufficiently substantial for leniency. Nothing presented here is a mitigating circumstance, but if 1 or 2 are possible mtitigators is it sufficient when you look at what this individual did? Travis will be forever 30. (Pic) That’s as old as he is going to get. No mitigators- even if you find some they’re not substantial for leniency. You have a duty. Do the right thing, the difficult thing. The only thing you can do is to return a verdict of death. Thank you.

Willmott

  1. A single question- Do you kill her? She has done something very bad and you have convicted her of that. The question is now do you kill her?
  2. Does she have value? Something you believe is worth saving her life? Living her life in prison? After 25 years parole- you are not supposed to consider that. The last time someone was paroled was eons <Objection, sustained>
  3. The lack of criminal history does matter. The entitlement because she’s an artist is false. Quite the opposite – she’s fighting for her life. Is it worth keeping her around to provide some type of value in this world? Criminal history- she doesn’t have any. We know she’s lied and manipulated- not a capital offense. You don’t sentence to death because she lied.
  4. The friendships were not based on lies. Several years with Darryl. Shows something happened; changed the trajectory, what she could have been.
  5. Family support- they’re here. Not when she needed them. Bi-Polar disorder- a lack of bonding. That little girl needed someone. A reason to be merciful and give life in prison.
  6. She plays the victim- one statement form someone who knew her from 1st– 5th grade.
  7. Doing the bare minimum- no value- what all of us do. She has something to give to this world.
  8. It’s an awful thing that she did and Travis’ family is suffering. But with your conviction- now they get some peace. It speaks to what she did- it is what it is. Before you is: do you kill her for the one horrible thing she did? Or can you see there’s a reason for her to live? She has value, and love from her family. She won’t be living with them or us but in prison. Can she contribute to this world? I’m asking you to find mercy. These mitigating factors are a reason. I’m asking you to give her life in prison.
  9. The judge gives final instructions. The jury goes into deliberations.

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- 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.

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!