Jurors Don’t Seem To Trust Dr. Samuels

Many of the jury questions were very negative about both Jodi and Dr. Samuels. Their questions showed that they were skeptical trust meabout Jodi’s story and the doctor’s conclusions. They don’t trust Jodi and they don’t seem to trust Dr. Samuels.  They thought that he was “fond” of her. They see him as being biased.

They also noticed that he was unorganized, made many errors and didn’t seem credible. They don’t understand how he could come to a conclusion about her diagnosis when she has been lying. The PDS test was unreliable because it wasn’t administered again after he learned that she was lying, a fact duly noted by the jury. It’s also unreliable because he couldn’t keep his notes straight about the test, he filled out the scoring sheets when Jodi should have filled them out, he had different scores for the same test, none of which is indicative of a believable or reliable diagnosis.

Jodi’s defense team couldn’t have left court today feeling good about the jury questions. The questions were very much oriented towards the prosecutor’s version of events. Some of the most damning questions included (along with summaries of Dr. Samuel’s answers):

Q. Is there a diagnosis for selective amnesia?


Q. Would you continue to evaluate someone who is not being honest with you?


Q. Why didn’t you re-administer the test once Jodi admitted to killing Travis?

It did not matter what Jodi said, his diagnosis would not have changed.

Q. It seems 25 to 30 hours is very inadequate to evaluate someone who has killed another person, especially in such a traumatic way that Ms. Arias did and to diagnose her with PTSD. Wouldn’t you agree that this amount of time was inadequate to accurately evaluate and diagnose Ms. Arias?

No not at all, typical evaluations last 6 to 7 hours. Anything beyond that would change the nature of the relationship.

Q. Referring to Jodi’s diagnosis of PTSD, when did you catch the errors on your report?

November or December.

Q. Do you feel those were big errors?

“Well they weren’t great errors but it didn’t change the outcome of the report.”

Q. You said on redirect that Ms. Arias remembers the beginning of the attack and then the end of the attack therefore she would have a memory of the events after the attack ended such as cleaning up the scene, deleting photos from the camera, putting the gun in the car, and so forth, correct?


Q. Can the acute stress occur if someone plans to kill versus defending themselves when in danger?

Possible but not probable.

Q. Do you often make mistakes in your reports when you do evaluations?


Q. You seem to have several issues with omitting or forgetting to include information. Do you think that it is important to have an accurate and complete report for a trial like this?


Q. Why didn’t you complete a new PDS test after Jodi changed her killing story if her answers were based on an intruder story. How can you say with certainty that she has PTSD if her answers are fictitious?

Didn’t think there’d be a change in the numerical scoring.

Q. Do you consider yourself an impartial third party in this case?

I try to be all times.

Q. Do you always develop such a fond relationship with the individuals you evaluate?

I wouldn’t characterize our relationship as being fond. I’m an impartial evaluator.

Q. Do you still think it was appropriate to purchase a gift for Jodi while evaluating her or do you feel you stepped over an ethical boundary?

No; I am a compassionate person. I have done this with other clients I have evaluated.

Q. Isn’t it fair to say that you are not 100% sure that Jodi suffered from acute stress?

That’s correct.

Q. When a patient or client changes the story, misrepresents or does not necessarily tell the truth to you does it raise a red flag?

Yes it always raises a red flag but… Jodi could’ve been in denial… and may have had dissociative identity disorder, which used to be called multiple personality disorder but later I disregarded that diagnosis.

Q. Sending a self-help book does not seem that it would ensure the success of an evaluation but would help to ensure the success of therapy. Would you concur?

Never really answered the question.

Q. You said on redirect that if someone is making up a story their story tends to be consistent. Is that correct?


Q. If so then if Ms. Arias is making up a story currently wouldn’t it make sense that her story is consistent?


12 thoughts on “Jurors Don’t Seem To Trust Dr. Samuels

  1. It was refreshing to see that the jury didn’t fall for, what the defense was hoping to be, a likeable grandfatherly type or a witness.

    Also, I’ve heard that The Prosecution has a forensic Psychologist on his list. Do you know if this is true or no. If so do you think he will call her? Your article “Jodi Arias Trial: How “expert” Was Dr. Samuels’ Expert Testimony?” is a perfect breakdown of where I think the prosecution’s strategy should go, but he may not need it.

    Do you agree?

  2. I think the good doctor sealed her fate with his so called evaluation.

    Samuels comes across as unethical, disorganized and sloppy in all areas.

    Martinez was supberb at showing the jury the evaluation is null and void. She doesn’t suffer from PTD. Sociopaths don’t suffer remorse, guilt or sorrow.

    I don’t know how Samuels could have witnessed her shaking after describing the barrier that was between them during the visits.

    Samuels couldn’t remember the rehearsals. So I think when JM asked him, “Sir, do you have problems with your memory” he was right on target.

    Thank you for the post. It was helpful to see all the jurors questions lumped where we can see clearly that they don’t trust RS either.

    • I appreciate you taking the time to write and read my site. JM is a prosecutor like I’ve never seen before. I loved it when it had the dictionary defintion of compassionate just a little while after the doctor described himself in that manner. Proved he was biased with his own words. Dr. KR

      • I agree completely, JM is like no prosecutor I’ve ever seen. I also though it was an excellent moment when he entered the Webster’s definition of ‘compassionate’ into evidence. I’m glad he’s around to speak for those who can’t. I found his style to be aggressive at first (and, it is, let’s be honest), but once I saw how focused and on-target he in the subjects and questions he addresses in court, it made sense. He knows his stuff, does his homework, and wastes no time. It’s almost poetic to see someone so vested in their profession.
        First time here, and I’m loving the intelligent writing,and well thought out opinions – thank you!

  3. I was researching Ryan Burns testimony and he says Aria was only planning on staying at his house for 1day. He also says it takes about 12 hours to drive from LA ( where she was to visit the friends newborn) and West Jordan, Utah. Who would drive for 12 hours to spend one day somewhere? The whole trip makes no sense … The amount of actual driving time it takes to go 3,000 miles is hours and hours and hours. Literally days! Her entire trip makes no sense. No one would drive for that amount of miles to spend literally hours with each person she stopped to visit! The prosecutor needs to map out how many miles in between each stop how many hours each trip would take and how long she visited people for bc it woke prove the trip does not make sense!

    • This is a great point that may have been overlooked. Perhaps it is because so many aspects of her story don’t make sense that there is no time to get to all of her many lies. Appreciate your comment. Thanks for reading the site. Dr. KR

  4. Juan Martinez is the most efficient prosecutor, in many years of court watching, I have seen. He never seems to refer to notes but just rattles off questions which always seem to have a logical goal to them.
    it is quite fascinating to watch him in action.
    Am I correct in my observations of his extraordinary organisation – or have I just been watching at the right times?
    Thank you for your interesting website

    • Thank you for your comments. I agree with your observation, about JM being the “most efficient prosecutor.” I have never seen anyone like him. He also does not seem to have help. There are no other lawyers at this table, only Det. Flores. I loved it when he came up with that dictionary defintion of compassionate, just a few hours after Dr. Samuels mentioned it on the stand. Remarkable. Dr. KR

    • Any time spent watching Juan Martinez is the right time. The lone DA is a pitbull for truth and justice! He passionately dances back & forth across the floor to his own rhythm as he cross examins charlatans (Samuels) and murderous liars! when they try to explain away their lies he never lets them get away with it.

      When Jodi tried to force her pity party on us by stating Travis’s closet was “small like the cell I live in”. JM turned and walked towards her yelling “Did I ask you where you lived? Did you think I want to know where you live?” Hah! the shock on her face was priceless.

      Some tv pundits have denigrated Martinez, claiming he’s unfocused, acts too angry and is alienating himself to the jury. Some said he took Jodi’s combative semantics too personal. uh you think? damn right he took them personal he is the voice of Travis Alexander and his family.

      And to the tv pundits who are all defense attorney’s guess what? When Juan Martinez gets up to cross the whole courtroom perks up. Even the jurors sit up and pick up their pen and pads. I seriously doubt he’s alienated a single one.
      Justice for Travis.

Leave a Comment