Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think it was foolish. I think the defense is aiming to win from the sympathies of the women jurors, however few there may end up being.
The death penalty is definitely off the table. It'll may be ruled 2nd degree murder, a non-premeditated killing is which the death of the victim was a distinct possibility. Possibly, depending on how successful the prosecution cross goes, or doesn't go, the jury may feel sorry for her and she'll get hit with Voluntary Manslaughter, or Heat of Passion. This also depends on how well she explains the 'gun' or lack thereof one. The defense cannot ignore the gun issue.
Thanks again for the report. I look forward to looking at it when I have time. And maybe it doesn't matter in Australia, but in the U.S. there is a huge difference between DSM - IV and DSM- IVR. Samuels is using DSM-IVR as his source of info.
MSR
I think you are right. If it doesn't matter why did they bring that reversed version on the market? Just to print the same to get money or to me it sounds more that some items were either wrong or additional info was provided that made it important to bring a new version on the market.
Btw the expert makes himself look like a fool when he can't fid his notes, made so many errors and just filled out stuff Jodi was supose to fill out and he just copied it with pencil while it could have been done by pen/ink so the machine could read it better which to me and JM looks like the expert had another reason to do so.
I think you are right. If it doesn't matter why did they bring that reversed version on the market? Just to print the same to get money or to me it sounds more that some items were either wrong or additional info was provided that made it important to bring a new version on the market.
Btw the expert makes himself look like a fool when he can't fid his notes, made so many errors and just filled out stuff Jodi was supose to fill out and he just copied it with pencil while it could have been done by pen/ink so the machine could read it better which to me and JM looks like the expert had another reason to do so.
He didn't date anything either and that is just wrong.
The Prosecutor is not the type man to get my vote in his demeanor....I haven't liked his questioning style at all, and said so very early in this thread. I think questioning in such a blatant hostile manner turns jurors off and can lose you the case. Things may not be as they seem, but this Pros. sullies the testimony that might win him the case.....and makes folks feel sorry for Jodi. He will not get his verdict. Just my opinions.
Very interesting thread overall IMO
He knows exactly what he's doing. His track record says it all. The prosecutor doesn't have to be liked by the jury, he just has to get his points across and show Jodi for what she is. The questions from the jury make it obvious that they don't buy what she's selling and that her stories don't add up. She will be convicted of murder in the first degree.
MtnStatesResident You may have answered your own question, if you are correct (in your quoted statement below) as to why the Dr. didn't do the testing prior to testing for PTSD
""Can a psychopath fake an assessment?" and the answer, if the psychologist was honest, would have to be a big "YES". An honest psychologist would have subjected her to a psychopathy checklist and a personality test before even bothering with PTSD or any other anxiety disorder given the nature of the crime. The most salient, if not the defining feature of psychopathy is the ability to lie and manipulate, assessment procedures are useless against them because they just use the information they glean from the process to be more convincing liars".
My guess is since the Dr. was hired by the defense to prove that Jodi has PTSD...That was the goal of his testing. The first thing they taught us in Research Methods and Statistical Analysis is to know who hired the researcher....Statistics can and often do lie. So, if the goal was to document PTSD, the Dr. did his job.
The Prosecutor is not the type man to get my vote in his demeanor....I haven't liked his questioning style at all, and said so very early in this thread. I think questioning in such a blatant hostile manner turns jurors off and can lose you the case. Things may not be as they seem, but this Pros. sullies the testimony that might win him the case.....and makes folks feel sorry for Jodi. He will not get his verdict. Just my opinions.
Very interesting thread overall IMO
Thanks Jan
I totally agree, especially on hand scored "tests" that stats can be twisted to show what the person paying the expert wants. If an expert can't do that, odds are s/he may not have that job for long.
Interesting point if Samuels was hired strictly to prove PTSD, per his criteria, he did complete his job. I wonder if he has ever looked online for the various PTSD tests?
I, too, think this is a very interesting thread with different viewpoints and knowledge. I learn so much and want to learn more. I still wish someone who knows the rules of evidence etc. in court could clarify some of those questions.
I don't think I would enjoy being on the witness stand having Juan Martinez grill me about an assessment, then again I keep my notes and other information a little closer than home. That being said, Martinez apparently is striking some areas in Samuels that are generating even more jury questions.
I'm about ready to write a post for "guesses or bets" of when this marathon will be over.
I have to give some MAJOR props to the jury and alternates - 18 of them. They are getting an overwhelming $12.00/day. Yet, they are all still there. IMPRESSIVE to me! If I had to pick those I admire the most in court, those 18 people get my vote.
Thanks again for the report. I look forward to looking at it when I have time. And maybe it doesn't matter in Australia, but in the U.S. there is a huge difference between DSM - IV and DSM- IVR. Samuels is using DSM-IVR as his source of info.
MSR
No, it is the DSM-IV-TR which is a text revision, not reverse as someone else said. Clearly people here are not really understanding what is being said. A text revision is just that, it has revised SOME of the language in SOME of definitions. The DCM-IV is the latest (until May this year) fully revised version and the text revision is virtually the same. As I said, the Doctor stated that he had a carry around revised version in case of any criteria change of which there were NONE in the category he was using. I don't know why this isn't sinking in. It is not different here in Australia, it is exactly the same in the use of the DSM. I use DSM as a shorthand, that does not mean I am referring to the first version (I can't believe I have to clarify that).
Please read this link and you might understand a little better
Once again you have not formatted your reply correctly making it difficult to address all of your points. It's not really that hard to do and would make life a lot easier.
Implying that I need to finish school to understand how this works is incredibly insulting. I am on the last two subjects of a psychology degree. What are your qualifications in this area? You can't even get the name of the book right.
The ME's comments are part of his testimony which you can find on Youtube.
I'm not going to have another rant about Martinez, I have made my feelings clear. Again this is not a difference between our countries this is just a matter of observation. I don't believe that he has to be liked but I do believe that he has to be honest and he is being far from it but people seem to be too blinded by their feelings about the murder to see just how bad he really is.
You seem to be more interested in agreeing with Martinez then actually checking what the truth is. I also really dislike that I am being put in the position of defending this Doctor when I believe that his diagnosis was incorrect.
I should have known better than to even post here.
MtnStatesResident You may have answered your own question, if you are correct (in your quoted statement below) as to why the Dr. didn't do the testing prior to testing for PTSD
""Can a psychopath fake an assessment?" and the answer, if the psychologist was honest, would have to be a big "YES". An honest psychologist would have subjected her to a psychopathy checklist and a personality test before even bothering with PTSD or any other anxiety disorder given the nature of the crime. The most salient, if not the defining feature of psychopathy is the ability to lie and manipulate, assessment procedures are useless against them because they just use the information they glean from the process to be more convincing liars".
My guess is since the Dr. was hired by the defense to prove that Jodi has PTSD...That was the goal of his testing. The first thing they taught us in Research Methods and Statistical Analysis is to know who hired the researcher....Statistics can and often do lie. So, if the goal was to document PTSD, the Dr. did his job.
The Prosecutor is not the type man to get my vote in his demeanor....I haven't liked his questioning style at all, and said so very early in this thread. I think questioning in such a blatant hostile manner turns jurors off and can lose you the case. Things may not be as they seem, but this Pros. sullies the testimony that might win him the case.....and makes folks feel sorry for Jodi. He will not get his verdict. Just my opinions.
Very interesting thread overall IMO
You have actually quoted me here. An easy mistake I guess with the bad formatting.
Statistics in psychology are used in a different way and it is way too complicated to try and explain here especially when people don't seem willing to try and understand the most basic facts. This is why you need a lot of training to understand it. The statistical analysis of tests is a major part of the scoring, that is why raw scores are not as important as the final analysis. Generally because they fall in a range of scores that mean something in the wider population. I can't really explain further without having to go into a whole lot of technical jargon which nobody here is even going to bother trying to understand.
I agree with you about Martinez and I think this is something that his fans seem unwilling to contemplate. A lot of the people who dislike him are people who want Miss Arias to be found guilty and are worried that he is losing the case with his attitude.
(If you can't see the print, click on the image to make it bigger.)
…
It's a boot print. This was done in WET blood, so the detectives couldn't have accidentally contaminated the crime scene by walking in it, the blood would have been dried by then. I couldn't get a forensic report.
Juan already stated Jodi wore socks, and the photograph shows a bare foot.
Zach Billings also stated that he did the laundry on Sat.June 7, then when asked again he changed it to Wed June 4.
In a follow-up interview he then stated he wasn’t positive, but he thought he'd done the laundry on Tues. June 3 morning… but went on to say the clothing found in the washing machine was either TA’s or Enrique’s because TA “would never wash his whites with colors”.
Zach Billing's rented a car the day Travis was killed. When questioned he said his car was broken.
He knows a lot more than he’s letting on.
Why would there only be one foot print on the bloody floor?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
