There was some heated testimony in the courtroom today, as prosecutor Juan Martinez continued to cross examine defense "expert" Dr. Richard Samuels about his examination and diagnosis of murder defendant Jodi Arias. Martinez picked up right where he left off yesterday, firing questions at Samuels and bringing several very important factors to light. After hearing the answers to some of the questions he was asked, I am shocked that this doctor qualifies to be an expert witness. I've always been against paid expert witnesses and have been very vocal about the issues that come with someone who is essentially paid to say what they are needed to say. To me, that equals corruption of the legal system.
This isn't true in all cases or circumstances, but things are coming to light during Samuels cross that seriously bring his own ethics back to the forefront for good reason. Yesterday, Martinez got Samuels to admit that there was information that came to light about Jodi Arias and what she was telling him that was false - yet he failed to alter the results of the examination he prepared, nor did he add an addendum to memorialize the new information. How can we trust a report to be accurate if it's based on a client who is lying? It cannot be trusted, pure and simple. We've come to expect Jodi Arias to tell self-serving lies, but we should never have to doubt whether a doctor is telling the truth, or omitting facts that would render a diagnosis as faulty. This happened in this case.
Today, Juan Martinez discussed some additional inconsistencies in Jodi Arias's statements to Dr. Samuels. For example, during one of their sessions, Arias told Samuels that Travis's computer had numerous photos of women's breasts on it. Juan Martinez asked him if he looked at any of the forensic reports that were done on Travis Alexander's computer, to verify there were in fact photos of women's breasts. Dr. Samuels answered "no". Martinez asked him why he didn't feel it was important to verify this and the doctor said he believed it to be "irrelevant" and "not important". Irrelevant,not important, really? Martinez drilled on, asking him why it would not be relevant to know if a person you are assessing is telling you the truth. The doctor didn't seem to know how to answer that question.
Another inconsistency found in the report by Martinez is that Jodi Arias told Dr. Samuels that Travis Alexander was the only man she had engaged in anal sex with. Even the viewing public knows that is not true, but the good doctor didn't do any fact checking there either. She also told Samuels that performing oral sex on Travis made her "uncomfortable", not true - according to her direct and cross examination testimony. Didn't this doctor refer to any reports at all to verify what Arias was telling him? How can he possibly prepare a true and accurate report on Jodi Arias without performing at least some due diligence?
Doesn't this doctor have a duty to prepare a report that is as accurate and factual as possible? He IS testifying in court. How can inconsistencies in her statements NOT be important? Dr. Samuels said if Arias had lied about something relevant, it would be important to know she was telling the truth. Martinez to Dr. Samuels: "so what you are saying is that if somebody lied to you 40 or 50 times about things you considered to be "irrelevant", that would be just fine with you? Dr. Samuels to Martinez: No, that's not what I'm saying. To my knowledge these are the only inconsistencies in her story.
Keep in mind, Dr. Samuels gave the jury his opinion and report or assessment of Jodi Arias based on answers she gave while she was still telling the two armed intruder story! He had already written his report by the time he was notified of this, so instead of actually re testing Arias, he simply added an addendum to the report. Why didn't he follow the same procedure once he found out there were other inconsistencies (the anal and oral sex issues)? At the very least, he could've added another addendum or even amend the entire report. Why? Because the defense was paying him to have a favorable opinion of Jodi Arias, and he didn't want to bite the hand that was feeding him. It's already been rumored that he plans on writing a book about his experience in this case - he needs to have continued access to Ms. Arias and the defense team to get the information he will need to pen the book.
This is blatantly unethical, pure and simple. His entire report should be invalidated and his testimony should be struck from the trial records and transcripts. He knows better. When Juan Martinez was asking him why he chose to ignore the new information about Arias's statements about anal and oral sex (and the "breast photos"), Samuels again said he felt it was irrelevant and it was a clinical judgement call on his part. There were more inconsistencies - Arias told Samuels that the shower photo shoot was Travis's idea, not hers. Martinez asked him if he viewed the interrogation video between Det. Flores and Jodi Arias where she was adamant that she had to talk him into the photo shoot, and he admitted he hadn't reviewed it.
Juan Martinez played parts of an audio file containing a conversation between himself and Dr. Samuels. At one point, Dr. Samuels begins to tell Martinez that Arias told him that on 6/4/08, Travis caught up with Jodi in the closet and grabbed onto her sweater....what sweater? This is the first I've heard about any sweater being worn or discussed. And the final straw was this - this "expert witness", a doctor who was hired to interview and compile a report t be presented in a court of law DID NOT bring the actual "set" of questions that he used to test Arias. His explanation? "It's not necessary". He said that he uses several sets of test questions, and instead of making a copy for the client/patient file, he doesn't feel it's important to do so - is he THAT cheap, or does he not want the prosecutor to have a copy of these test questions and any notes?
Something isn't right with this doctor and his report. He and Martinez were hostile towards each other, even more so than the Arias vs. Martinez arguments we witnessed. Martinez has really wiped the floor with this doctor and his unprofessional handling of this assessment. How could he walk into the courtroom without copies of these documents? How could he ignore and omit critical information that came to light, and pointed to a lying client/patient? How can this happen in a court of law?
This all happened before the lunch break. Can only imagine what will happen after lunch. It's not looking good for this expert witness. So very unprofessional with such a high profile case. It's hard to describe!