I heard the bullshit too!

(03-18-2013, 08:15 PM)username Wrote: I heard the bullshit too!

Bullshit, it is! It just keeps getting worse for Samuels.

He's just been forced to admit that his whole evaluation of Jodi was based on her answering the test questions in accordance with her "ninjas did it" story. PTSD. Pffft. Garbage in, garbage out.

"Well, maybe I should have re-administered the test" (according to her current story), says Samuels.

He looks so bumbling and ridiculous due to not only his administration of the test, but his entire evaluation. All based on known lies.

This defense expert is really helping the prosecution, imo.

I wish this cross examination of Samuels would just wrap.

Imo, Martinez could've stopped yesterday and possibly have been in a better place than he is now. Samuels and his PTSD evaluation were completely discredited yesterday; leave the jury with that and don't open more doors for the re-direct. Today just sounds like blah, blah, blah.

Maybe I just don't understand the prosecution's strategy for dragging this guy out. He's been proven to be a quack. His evaluation has been proven to be shit. Move on...

Edit: I had forgotten about the "disassociative amnesia" crap, ironically. I see where Martinez is going with this part of his cross. He needs to completely discredit that diagnosis too.

Martinez remains bothersome, to me.

I agree. He should wrap and shelve this.

However . . .

I was pleased he was able to have Samuels admit he used a diagnostic that is indicated for individuals currently receiving psychiatric treatment.

Samuels was forced to admit that Jodi was NOT receiving psychiatric treatment when he administered this "test".

Samuels' questionnaire was less than 200 questions and specifically for individuals currently receiving treatment.

Martinez argued that the MMPI at almost 600 questions was better suited, as Arias was not receiving psychiatric treatment and the alleged goal was to identify potential psychological ills prompting her behavioral pathology.

Martinez's point: "You fucked-up by administering the wrong test to render an evaluation to accurately diagnose any condition(s) and determine appropriate treatment. Your results ain't shit. "

(03-19-2013, 05:31 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: Martinez remains bothersome, to me.

Martinez's point: "You fucked-up by administering the wrong test to render an evaluation to accurately diagnose any condition(s) and determine appropriate treatment. Your results ain't shit. "

Martinez bothers me in some regards too, but he did score points regarding the test applicability, for sure.

Samuels is just a terrible witness. His demeanor is pretty good, imo, but he's like an amiable used car salesman. Smiling personably while spinning his pitch in any manner it takes to con you into buying his freshly spray-painted clunker.

The test he used, the way he administered the test, the way he scored the test, the falsities upon which the questions were answered and scored, the inappropriate therapeutic approach he took with the client... I can't see anything that he did that can be considered professional or valid.

I don't always feel that way about defense expert witnesses; some of them (less now than in the past) are sharp as tacks and can turn a case, all i's dotted and t's crossed, whether their tailoring their evaluations to fit the defendant's story or not. Samuels's tailoring is so 'effin transparent and disorganized that it's just laughable. He looks much better when Wilmott is questioning him, but way too much damage done on all of the key points for Samuels to help Jodi Arias in any way, imo.

Wonder why they put him ahead of the abuse expert. I feel like Samuels's testimony has been all over the map with the various amnesias, acute stress, low self esteem, PTSD... Even if it were better presented, his testimony only attempts to explain why Jodi's such a damn liar who supposedly has foggy memories. It only addresses what she did after the murder.

I presume the abuse expert is going to testify that all of Jodi's alleged previous abuse, especially at the hands of Travis, is what led to her being in such mortal fear as to butcher and shoot him. I'd have put the abuse expert on the stand first if I were the defense team.

P.s. Hearing Samuels reference the "pedophilia incident" today made think even less of him (which is less than zero).

I think the defense is doing the best she can with a very shitty situation. I've only listened sporadically, but I think she made a point with regards to testing someone against those that have been diagnosed with a condition vs. those that haven't. You have to have a bar so it makes sense to say these people have met the criteria for PTSD, do you measure up?

The other thing that seemed reasonable was when she faulted Martinez for quoting from some article that the Dr. hadn't seen and knew nothing about.

Still, he looks baaaaaaaaad. And now he's so nervous about screwing up he keeps referring to his notes again and again.

(03-19-2013, 08:11 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Samuels's tailoring is so 'effin transparent and disorganized that it's just laughable.

I feel like Samuels's testimony has been all over the map with the various amnesias, acute stress, low self esteem, PTSD...

P.s. Hearing Samuels reference the "pedophilia incident" today made think even less of him (which is less than zero).

I'll be curious as to the jurors' questions.

I loved your description of Samuels being ". . . like an amiable used car salesman. Smiling personably while spinning his pitch in any manner it takes to con you into buying his freshly spray-painted clunker." It was spot-on and brilliant!

$250 an hour when he was meeting with Arias . . . I wonder what he pockets while on the stand?

Honestly, I've found myself losing interest here. The fucking thing will not end. Now we'll have jury questions, and then another round of lawyer questions. Then another witness? Fuck....bring on the closing arguments!

As tedious as it may seem, I think Martinez is doing the right thing. He's beating the jury in to submission.

Seriously, no stone unturned. Better that than a Casey Anthony fiasco.

Regarding Martinez . . .

I've always believed that prepared lawyers win cases. I would hope that in preparing for trial, the prosecution consulted a forensic psychiatrist to assist them in developing a style to successfully question Arias.

FFS - They've had years to witness this psycho and prepare for trial.

Arias repeatedly claims she has memory problems when feeling attacked; including yelling by the prosecutor.

Samuels, too, agreed this causes her to have memory problems.

However . . .

During Martinez's aggressive and confrontational style, she demonstrates remarkable recollection to his questions and illustrates his semantic flaws after he protests her evasive and unresponsive demeanor.

If he was utilizing this particular style to demonstrate that Arias is fully capable of remembering minutiae while under stress, then it is genius.

Unfortunately, I think it's his typical procedural persona and NOT genius.

Too bad . . . I believe it would be an effective point to make during closing.

As to Samuels being called before the "abuse" expert, I believe the defense feels this is the stronger of the two and wants an abused woman as the last image in the jurors' minds before deliberation.

(03-20-2013, 11:47 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: Regarding Martinez . . .

During Martinez's aggressive and confrontational style, she demonstrates remarkable recollection to his questions and illustrates his semantic flaws after he protests her evasive and unresponsive demeanor.

If he was utilizing this particular style to demonstrate that Arias is fully capable of remembering minutiae while under stress, then it is genius.

Unfortunately, I think it's his typical procedural persona and NOT genius.

Too bad . . . I believe it would be an effective point to make during closing.

Good points. I've been wondering if Martinez was employing his aggressive over and under and roundabout style when he questioned Arias in order to fluster the sociopath and put a wrench in her ability to quickly develop and spew a new lie. At first, I assumed that must be so. But, he does seem to be using the same style with all witnesses.

Martinez got a lot of admissions out of the sociopath; I don't think he would have gotten so much if he'd followed a linear script or line of questioning. If he did in fact adjust his style intentionally and it's not just his standard M.O. (and he's able to make the jury aware of it), I agree that it's genius. Either way, I think overall he's been effective so far.

(03-20-2013, 11:47 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: As to Samuels being called before the "abuse" expert, I believe the defense feels this is the stronger of the two and wants an abused woman as the last image in the jurors' minds before deliberation.

Makes sense; they'd definitely want to end testimony with as strong/credible a witness as possible - credibility is their biggest challenge to overcome with Arias. The abuse expert must be something; Samuels is one tough act to follow!

Last night, I heard one of the talking heads mention that battered woman syndrome isn't recognized as a legal medical/psych condition. Did a little reading; "low self esteem" was a buzz phrase in the literature describing battered woman syndrome. Could be that the defense also figured Samuels would come across convincingly regarding his low self esteem observations and diagnosis of PTSD (a legitimate/recognized medical condition) and put him up first to pre-bolster their stronger abuse expert.

I think I'm gonna miss the jury questions today; was hoping they'd have gotten to them yesterday. This is the first trial that I've followed with jury questions - one of the most interesting and revealing aspects of the trial so far. Curious as to what the jurors have in store for the Doc.

(03-20-2013, 12:24 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Could be that the defense also figured Samuels would come across convincingly regarding his low self esteem observations and diagnosis of PTSD (a legitimate/recognized medical condition) and put him up first to pre-bolster their stronger abuse expert.

Yup.

Priming the pump.

(03-20-2013, 12:47 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: Priming the pump.

I feel like there is a hidden sexual meaning in that.

ABC15 reports that Arias' legal fees have cost $838,000 so far, according to Cari Gerchick, Maricopa County Communications Director. Since the alleged murderer is represented by public defenders, tax payers are on the hook for the cost

Casey Anthony was a bargain.

Jesus, looking at that ABC15 cost estimate to date, this trial is probably gonna exceed $1 million. Outrageous. Wonder if they paid Samuels and the lawyers for the full day due to the unforeseen vomit fiasco. Probably.

Sounds like I didn't miss much today. Samuels's sticking to his diagnosis, because surely the feelings associated with escaping a home intrusion unscathed and being forced to stab/shoot/slash to death someone you claim to love must be the same. Quack, quack, quack...

This recap from today's testimony just made me laugh:
The psychologist also told jurors Arias did not want all the sex.“Well, for her, the relationship hadn't gone on for very long, and they were at some friend's house and, according to her story, he came into her room during the night and unclothed her and had oral sex with her,” Dr. Samuels said.

“At the time, her self-esteem was very low. The proceeding gap between his accomplishments and status in the community and hers was very great. She went along with it because she felt this was something he wanted. And in order to maintain the relationship with someone she respected, she went along with the oral sex,” Dr. Samuels explained to jurors.
Read more: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_pho...z2O8hW3dfl

Makes perfect sense. Attracting a successful, respectable, and popular person will obviously lower one's self esteem. And, there's just no way in hell a woman would agree to being orally pleasured by a man simply because she enjoys it and him. Being so sexually meek and all, the inability to just say NO! (probably attributable to that "freeze response" espoused by Team Arias) must've been excruciatingly painful for Jodi.

Kid: Yep, this trial is crawling along, 2 ¹⁄₂ months and lots more to go. Maybe there will be a verdict by end of April?

This is the post of the day for Team Jodi.

“I’m so sick of seeing Travis’s friends on Nancy Grace talking about what a great guy Travis was and paint him out to be this holier than thou saint. That dirt bag was a sexual deviant! Travis’s friends talk about the “lies” Jodi tells about him, saying shes trying to slander him…no one needs to slander the scum bag, we all heard him say with his own mouth how he had sexual fantasies about 12 year old girls! After that comment alone, he deserves what he got…not to mention the nerve of Travis to act like he can fool an all-knowing God by lying to Jodi and telling her anal and oral sex are not sins. Believe me, Travis is in hell paying the penalty for his sexual perversions. Hey Alexander family and friends, quit acting like Travis was a good guy, he was a disgusting wicked sodomite who had perverse fantasies about little underage girls. He got exactly what he deserved! Stay strong Jodi, don’t let the hypocritical idiots get you down! — Sean“

Yeah, telling a grown woman who's masturbating and cooing dirty talk in a little girl voice that she sounds like a 12 year old girl having her first orgasm should be punishable by death!

Still a little worried that just one such gullible empty-headed dipshit may have made it into the jury pool.
Hoping today's jury questions for Samuels are indicative of complete disbelief in his bullshit diagnosis.

ADD: Just heard there are over 100 questions for Samuels. Shit.

It strikes me as this case drones on and on, that the jury is going to get overwhelmed and pull an OJ.

Too much information and rehashing might break their fragile little brains, and what should have been an open and shut case will get convoluted.

(03-21-2013, 12:17 PM)Jimbone Wrote: It strikes me as this case drones on and on, that the jury is going to get overwhelmed and pull an OJ.

Too much information and rehashing might break their fragile little brains, and what should have been an open and shut case will get convoluted.

You're making me nervous! The thought of Arias beating the premeditated murder charge is too much. Even the possibility of her getting convicted of lesser charges with any chance of ever walking free again is disturbing.

But, there were a lot of questions for Arias after her testimony too; most of the questions seemed to indicate that the jury was astute and not buying what she was peddling.

Anxious to hear today's questions and hope they reflect the same seeming disbelief in Samuels's testimony as well.

I do like the fact that the jurors get to ask questions after each witness testifies in Az. Hopefully, that makes deliberation more efficient than having to wait until the end and go over what every witness said over months of testimony and guess at what they may have meant on some key issues.

Questions are being asked and answered:

How can we be sure that your diagnosis in not based on lies from Arias?

Did you or anyone else use hypnosis to recover her memory?

Do you believe that the memories during the fight/flight ever existed?

Are there other professionals in the field who hold other views than yours or are is there 100% agreement?

Some great questions so far . . .

Acute Distress Reaction can be diagnosed within 2 months however, you didn't see her until 6 months after the event?

Can you be sure that Jodi is not lying to you about the events?

Are the memories on June 4 supressed or non-existent?

These folks were paying attention!

It's almost as if we have our own HoTD in the box.

Do think it is possible to fool professionals into believing they have ASD and PTSD? Hahaha! He's rambling and justifying his diagnosis instead of answering "Yes" or "No".

Can you tell if someone is telling the truth or lying?

Are the suicide statements and the comments about Travis considered positive statements?

Did you ask leading or direct questions while interviewing Arias?

Note: These questions are not verbatim.

I liked one of the first questions about "flight or fight". Samuels answered that "flight" is the first instinct, IIRC.

It would have been much easier and safer for Arias to run outta the house that day if she had actually been under attack as she described.

Samuels is using a lot of qualifiers today, "almost certainly", "essentially", "fairly confident"... The Doc needs to work as an expert witness in the future. Like he says, practicing his trade doesn't pay nearly as well (and it's a lot more work) than evaluating and testifying.

Some of these questions still make me fear that there's at least one jury member who's waffling or buying the defense story. Most strike me as reflecting doubt in Samuels's diagnosis and credibility.

Hoping cross is scathing and finished up today.

Haha. Bad hair-cut trauma equivalent to Global Transient Amnesia question.