(03-21-2013, 02:34 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: 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.

It's his (as you beautifully described) used car salesman style of answering that worries me.

"Yes. It's a piece of shit but at this price you'd hate yourself it you let this one go. I'd hate to see that happen to a decent person like you!"

I've been waiting for more "Why Fight instead of Flight" questions.

^Me too; "why not flight?". I'm relieved that the jury is essentially asking that question and hope it continues to be asked in different ways. Good sign.

This question bothered me:

Juror Question: During trauma, can a pacifist become violent?
Samuels: It is not a choice, the brain is almost on autopilot; a person instinctually reacts.

P.s. surprised me that Samuels has said a couple of times that PTSD is not a get-out-of-jail-free-card. I don't understand why an expert defense witness would ever choose that phrasing on the stand, but I'm certainly not objecting!

(03-21-2013, 03:10 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: P.s. surprised me that Samuels has said a couple of times that PTSD is not a get-out-of-jail-free-card. I don't understand why an expert defense witness would ever choose that phrasing on the stand, but I'm certainly not objecting!

I believe he's trying to emphasize his diagnosis was a benign and clinical statement rather than being identified as a bought and paid for witness.

My guess: The defense believed he was giving the impression that this was a purchased excuse rather than objective science.

(03-21-2013, 03:21 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(03-21-2013, 03:10 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: P.s. surprised me that Samuels has said a couple of times that PTSD is not a get-out-of-jail-free-card. I don't understand why an expert defense witness would ever choose that phrasing on the stand, but I'm certainly not objecting!

I believe he's trying to emphasize his diagnosis was a benign and clinical statement rather than being identified as a bought and paid for witness.

My guess: The defense believed he was giving the impression that this was a purchased excuse rather than objective science.

I bet you're right; that's the only thing that makes sense and Samuels was indeed coming across as nothing more than a diagnosis with a price tag.

Using that particular phrasing in attempt to counteract that image seems ignorant to me. If any jurors are tending to believe that the PTSD diagnosis is valid, the defense is reminding them that it doesn't excuse or mitigate any criminal actions. Expecting Martinez to exploit the hell out of that during his cross.

(03-21-2013, 03:31 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Using that particular phrasing in attempt to counteract that image seems ignorant to me.

Expecting Martinez to exploit the hell out of that during his cross.

Yay!

Bunch 'o fight or flight questions!

And the 30% of criminals claiming amnesia . . . why don't the other 70% experience an acute stress reaction with subsequent loss of memory?

Every day I keep shuffling . . . blaimed Martinez's voracity for his explanation in failing to reissue the PTSD test.

I hope you're listening to this!

Again with the "stopped doing this because the insurance wouldn't pay."

Whore!

Right with you, Tiki. Good questions and good signs this afternoon!

Happy to see the jurors asking question that reflect doubt about Samuels's contention that Jodi suffers from low self-esteem. Nothing in her actions supports that diagnosis, quite the contrary, imo.

If the jury considers Jodi to possess normal or high self-esteem, that quashes one of the symptoms Samuel's cited as going towards PTSD. It also works against what the abuse expert is expected to contend - that Jodi was an abused/battered woman (low self-esteem is high on the battered woman symptom checklist).

JUROR QUESTION: Why do you think Arias had low self esteem during her relationship with Alexander?
Samuels answered that it is his opinion based upon things that she told him and what he read in her journals.

JUROR QUESTION: Isn't low self esteem normal?
Samuels answered that it is common, but it isn't normal; it's a serious condition and should be treated because it holds people back from achieving great things.

Ah, my favorite question so far:

JUROR QUESTION: Regarding the fight/flight response by Jodi on June 4, was there ever any discussion between you and Jodi regarding her response and why she did not flee from the bedroom?
Samuels answered that, according to what Jodi told him, she tried to flee and when that was unsuccessful she went into fight mode.

I guess trying to flee = rolling on the ground, getting up, and heading into enclosed areas to further the alleged confrontation.

The jury seems to have the same less clinical definition as do I = run away from the source of alleged danger and get the hell outta dodge.

Oh fucking give me a break!

Now it's some sort of Muscle Memory that negatively prevented her from fleeing?

A one-time "traumatic, but not too traumatic" experience imprints FIGHT instead of flight. But not traumatic or fearful enough to forget the incident.

Camera in the washer . . . hmmmm . . . wonder how it got there?

Camera tossed on the bed, gathered sheets and tossed in washer to remove UV visable fluids for testing. "Now where did I put that damned camera?"

No way was the camera being left in the washer an action associated with trauma-driven irrational thought.

I agree; she screwed up during her very rational attempt to rid the scene of all evidence pointing back to her. That camera was on the bed when she undressed it and threw the bedding in the washing machine.

If she was irrational and not thinking about leaving incriminating evidence behind, she wouldn't have deleted the nude photos right after the murder.

Water-proof sim cards, Jodi's albatross...

One of the early juror questions today asked if Samuels makes lots of mistakes in his work. He answered "no".

How many blatant significant mistakes has he been shown to have made in this very high-profile death penalty case? I've lost track.

Now he doesn't know if he has Jodi's original answer sheet. That's a critical document to support the validity of the testing and scoring processes. Hell, he visited Jodi 12 times and gave her a simple cheap-ass test. If he was on the up and up, there's no sensible reason he didn't retest her, not only because her story had changed, but also to ensure that he had proper documentation to support his evaluation.

$250 an hour for a less than half-ass job; the more holes in his work, the more probing required, the more $$ he racks up. Reward for incompetence. Samuels is an 'effin disgrace and insult to the court, imo.

Today's jury questions were good. More Samuels on Monday; at least he'll be under cross-examination.

Here's Samuels' website:

I'm not a whore . . . I'm an expert!

I was hoping to find credentials or training supporting his PTSD and Dissociative Amnesia diagnosis.

Maybe you can find it within the tab: Curriculum Vitae

(03-22-2013, 12:10 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: Here's Samuels' website:

I'm not a whore . . . I'm an expert!

I was hoping to find credentials or training supporting his PTSD and Dissociative Amnesia diagnosis.

Maybe you can find it within the tab: Curriculum Vitae

I think his education and training is strong on paper, and he highlighted his experience with police officers in regards to PTSD.

I just disagree with his contention (spiel) that his experience diagnosing officers who were forced to defend their lives in the line of duty in any way correlates to Jodi Arias's situation, even if she were telling the truth with her latest version of events. Nothing about the wounds to Travis Alexander's body suggests she was acting in self defense. Nothing about Jodi Arias's actions or physical condition suggest she was fighting or defending her life.

Samuels is lazy and he sold out; he'll deliver any desired diagnosis for a price, imo. Plus, he's sloppy and unprofessional in the process. He should be bringing his professional A game in this case. Maybe he is; scary.

I don't know how anyone can be diagnosed with Disassociative Amnesia if they benefit from such a diagnosis. Absolutely impossible to differentiate it from lies, imo. No problem for Samuels to make that diagnosis for a confirmed pathological liar though. No problem for 30% of murderers to claim it either. That could be Samuels next target market; he's now nationally recognized as a selective fog expert...

P.s. Glad he didn't pursue working under his gynecology degree. "Now, where did I leave that cervical scraper?"

(03-22-2013, 12:41 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I think his education and training is strong on paper, and he highlighted his experience with police officers in regards to PTSD.

I'm surprised that not ONE of his "MOST RECENT SPECIALIZED TRAINING" listings addressed PTSD or Dissociative Amnesia.

Isn't PTSD his alleged area of expertise?

And the fact his last "training" was in 2005 doesn't scream up-to-date when talking about "current" brain research and theory.

I wonder how Webster defines "Recent"?

(03-22-2013, 01:08 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: I wonder how Webster defines "Recent"?

"In a time immediately before the present".

(03-22-2013, 01:08 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(03-22-2013, 12:41 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I think his education and training is strong on paper, and he highlighted his experience with police officers in regards to PTSD.

I'm surprised that not ONE of his "MOST RECENT SPECIALIZED TRAINING" listings addressed PTSD or Dissociative Amnesia.

Isn't PTSD his alleged area of expertise?

And the fact his last "training" was in 2005 doesn't scream up-to-date when talking about "current" brain research and theory.

I wonder how Webster defines "Recent"?

You probably know more about "expert" qualifications than I do.

"Forensic Psychologist" covers such a wide spectrum, I'm not sure if PTSD and Dissociative Amnesia have separate qualifications or not. I would completely expect to see some recent and specific training in those areas no matter what though. Good catch; nothing specific in his training records whatsoever.

I didn't even look at the dates of his training. 8 years is a very long time since his last training credential/course. No surprising. It's obvious that he does the minimal work at a premium price. He's a total quack.

Okay.

I'll give him credit for the January 2013 Time magazine article.

Quality male bathroom reading material.

(03-22-2013, 01:45 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: Okay.

I'll give him credit for the January 2013 Time magazine article.

Quality male bathroom reading material.

That Time article being cited as an important part of his research still cracks me up. Short, vague, applicable to only police officers and military, and published just before the trial. You're generous!

I give him a small point for knowing how to use PowerPoint. And half a point for reading all of Jodi's happy journal entries over a 3 year period.

I wonder how the abuse expert is feeling right about now. That's gonna be a hard sell, even if she's a real pro.

(03-22-2013, 01:57 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I wonder how the abuse expert is feeling right about now.

My guess: Like she's in for a beating.

Here's a snippet from a piece run on local TV this morning.

"I think the questions, in large point, are demonstrating the open, overt disdain for the doctor and his testimony," said Phoenix attorney Julio Laboy, who has been following the trial from the beginning. "I don't' think those submitting the questions think very much of him."

Laboy pointed out that Samuels based his assessments solely on information provided by Arias.

"He had collateral sources to rely on," Laboy said. "He could have interviewed people who know Travis and know Jodi, but he didn't do that."


Video and Story Here

They also discuss Martinez's style, too.

Is there one juror who doesn't understand "reasonable doubt" and who is also turned off by Martinez? That possibility, covered in the article, really worries me. Baez's victory on behalf of his guilty-as-sin client did a serious number on me.

If the jury hangs or Jodi Arias walks because a juror(s) views Martinez as a bully and likes Willmott, or has any misplaced empathy for the supposedly mistreated Jodi, it will be an almost impossible pill to swallow. Based on the evidence and confession in this case, the chances of that happening are very slim, imo. But, I've learned that a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence against a defendant can be lost and disregarded in favor of a bigger mountain of unsubstantiated bullshit by the defense. I hope the jury is more analytical in this case; their questions appear to indicate so. But, it just takes one...

Here's a snip from a jewel of a post over at the Jodi groupie site; good for a laugh.

March 22, 2013 at 11:34 am

Believe me, still today in much of Arizona, had Alexander said that to a woman and she shot him, cut him into little pieces and ate his liver the charge wouldn’t be much more than Misdemeanor Homicide at most.

In Utah too, perhaps especially in Utah, but in a lot of the West, were Arias from an old LDS family and the victim an out-of-state, eight-dollar-an-hour non-Mormon – say, Jewish, Moslem, or (gulp) Godless, and he treated her the way he did, a deputy sheriff would have gone over and shot him.

Gotta be a troll, or not.

(03-22-2013, 02:00 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(03-22-2013, 01:57 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I wonder how the abuse expert is feeling right about now.

My guess: Like she's in for a beating.

Hahaha!


Carry on.