Day 33:" My purpose was to diagnose Campbell as mentally retarded"

Dr. Greenspan - Continued
JUROR- Does an IQ test score for effort? I can't answer that with a yes or no answer. LANE: Are there tests that have embedded features to score effort? Yes there are, more so personality test then IQ tests. Dr. Greenspan gave an effort test in conjunction with the SSSQ test. The IQ test he gave didn't have a built in component for effort. Effort test are designed to see if the subject is putting in their best effort. Psychologists then can decide if the person is malingering or not. (Malingering is not putting in enough effort to test to your ability, then you test lower) There are disputes over "effort" test and those that are cognitively impaired. JUROR: Are you other IQ tests for people that aren't biased? It isn't IQ that other people are raters, its Adaptive behavior tests. Dr. Greenspan said that is why he used 8 raters including teachers and friends. The scores were consistent show that didn't show bias to him. He did discount Campbell's half sister because she rated all zeros. There were 2 other teachers that were tested that weren't put on the chart he showed. They were Cobbley and Savage. Savage rated him as a 17 yr old, and rated him outside the mental retardation range, so Dr. Greenspan thought of her as an outlier and discounted her test. JUROR: When did you listen to Campbell's testimony? Dr. Greenspan listened to a CD a week ago, and listened to more yesterday. He listened to about 30-45 mins worth of testimony. LANE: Is your testimony based on 30 mins of testimony? For his articulation, vocab and syntax it was the testimony and other jailhouse conversations. Campbell sounded different in jailhouse interviews, more animated and loud. What about an interview with District Attorney Jim Hammer in 1998? I don't recall much about that interview. Dr. Greenspan is suppose to testify about Campbell's testimony. Last week i thought he spoke softly. Might it been a good idea to listen to the Hammer interview? Possibly but i don't remember it well. My preparation for this appearance was about 7-10 hours. Dr. Greenspan said "my purpose in 2008 was to diagnose Campbell as mentally retarded". 90% of the information he received was un-needed. Dr. Greenspan preparation was for Campbell diagnoses and testimony. Dr. Greenspan looked at reports from other experts, his reports, transcripts, tapes, and conversations with the defense. Dr. Greenspan book has a statement about adaptive behavior tests that says " results from the tests are a methodologically muddle". Dr. Greenspan said that one reason the tests are getting better is "because of me". It could be a possible overstatement that results are a methodological muddle. Chapter 11 in book "Mental retardation in the real world why AAMP isn't there yet?". It says if numbers are based on muddle (results from Vineland & ABASA tests) then all we have is a pseudo-science. Dr. Greenspan said he wrote that statement. Pseudo-science is considered to be without scientific foundation. JUROR: Does standard error go both ways? Yes it does JUROR: Are all the questions about age of 10yrs 6 months for that rater? No some questions are about other age ranges but most are based on that age given. LANE: There are other tests that can determine if there is a disorder possibly along with mental retardation. To assess someone completely wouldn't you want to know if the person has another disorder? It wouldn't be proper for him to diagnose developmental disorders. He isn't qualified to opine about psychiatric disorders. DEFENSE: There was no evidence anyone diagnosed Campbell with anti-social disorder. Dr. Greenspan misspoke earlier, he never saw police reports in this case. Campbell's current functioning is better today because he is in jail and that is a very structured environment. MMR do better in structured environments. Ms. Harris was a library aide. She said Campbell was in 4-5th grade and couldn't write his name legibly. She taught Campbell reading, library skills, media skills, writing skills, and research skills. She thought Campbell was impaired, and that was consistent with her scores she gave. Eric Barbary rated Campbell writing skills poorly. Dr. Greenspan thinks Barbary "probably" saw him do homework and saw him in the home environment. His rating was consistent with all records. Investigations led Dr. Greenspan to think Huffman and Underwood were qualified as raters. The investigations done by all doctors in this case were full and complete. Dr. Greenspan gave an efforts test to Campbell, and it showed good effort. There was no evidence that Campbell didn't give good effort or malingered. Dr. Greenspan took clinical judgement into account for his rating of effort. Ms. Savage rated Campbell outside of mental retardation range, but Dr. Greenspan said it still showed impairments. The interview with Hammer wasn't in a court room, and the case was dismissed (earlier he couldn't remember the case). Psychologist are required to use test by the "Red Book". Is the diagnoses of Campbell as MMR pseudo-science? Absolutely not. There was nothing raised by the prosecution that would alter his opinion.(really?! probably cuz he is being paid by the defense). JUROR: IQ tests score effort? Not directly. JUROR? Did anyone prep or tutor Campbell for these tests? No, it would be improper. JUROR: Were scores too consistent? No, You usually see some scattered scores but in this case they were really consistent it makes Dr. Greenspan more confident(or is so consistent for a reason). JUROR: Was Campbell first diagnosed in 1997 with onset in 1988? It was done by social security. JUROR: What does MMR mean? They never develop beyond 6th grade level without supports. JUROR: How do you determine if someone is lying & how do you compensate? There are malingering tests, clinical judgement is used to compensate. JUROR: When was the Vineland test administered? 2008. JUROR: Dr. Greenspan read the letter Campbell wrote? Yes. JUROR: Can tests be tricked? Yes, this is why malingering tests are given. JUROR: Do drugs affect the tests? Yes. DEFENSE: There was no mention of drug use by Campbell while taking tests. LANE: Ms. Harris said Campbell had trouble writing his name? That was her testimony. How long was her contact with Campbell? It was disputed how much contact she had, and when the contact took place. Her first age range was 9yr 6 mon, her second age range was 11yr 3mon. Dr. Greenspan made a mistake and that is why he gave her two tests with two age ranges. Ms. Harris thinks she had contact during that 9yr time so it wouldn't be a surprise if he couldn't write his name at that grade level. Ms. Harris also only had 20mins of contact a day with Campbell. The manuals don't allow for people to rate if they only have 20 mins of 1-on-1 contact, so it would be inappropriate to use her as a rater. Asking people to remember 20 years ago isn't an accurate way to rate someone. It is an open discussion about using these tests retrospectively. Does open discussion mean you can't tell the jury with scientific certainty that the tests work? I relied on what I used. The malingering test used with Campbell was the Dot Counting test. It showed good memory. Didn't the score show that Campbell was on the "cusp" of good effort and malingering? Dr. Greenspan said yes, but he didn't believe Campbell was malingering. How come you remember more about the Hammer interview better with Mr. Souza? Dr. Greenspan said he should have answered Mr. Souza with "I'm not sure". Campbell talked louder when he was talking to a girl. The volume depends on the context of the conversation and that shows MMR. Dr. Greenspan doesn't know if anyone else prepped Campbell for these tests. Was Huffman a suitable rater? Yes. Did he know writing levels? No he didn't. Did he go to the same high school as Campbell? No he didn't. Since he didn't know writing skill, that means he couldn't answer questions on about 1/3 of the tests. The same was for Mr. Underwood. Dr. Greenspan says he never questioned their suitability because they hung out with Campbell and knew he was slow. Its an art to decide who is a good rater. DEFENSE: AAMR tells you to use adaptive behavior tests in this case. LANE: Where in the "Red Book" does it say anything about retrospective use of these tests for adaptive behavior? It doesn't, and these tests aren't normed or standardized for retrospective use.

Maria Aguraristi - dating Janee Gilmore brother
She has dated Janee Gilmore's brother for 9 years and they have a child together. She got into a disagreement with Janee. She told Sgt. Ramirez she received 5 voicemail messages and 15 text messages after the disagreement. One text said something like "next time i see you i will take your head off". Maria called 311 to report it as a nuisance. The messages were over about a month, and when Maria told Janee she reported it to the police they stopped. Janee never acted on the threats, and Maria wasn't too scared. DEFENSE: Maria would have called 911 if she was truly afraid. This is the first time an argument got this heated. No police officer ever investigated. Maria recently started talking to Janee again. Maria didn't think it was a big deal. They have been friends for about 15 years now. LANE: Janee knows Maria is testifying. JUROR: How many times did she mention decapitation? Only once. JUROR: Why did your receive threats? It was a disagreement with Janee over her baby daddy and how he takes care of his kid.

Gina Hardesty- Public safety dispatcher
She is the custodian of records for the dispatch department. She was able to search back to 2001 and look for a call that Lacey Drake said she made. She can look up calls by specific words, names or street names. Their system was upgraded in June 2004. The phone records are recorded, and if there is a need for an officer to go out another record is made. Words looked up were: Lacey, Lacy, Commercial, Commercial Street, Fontana, EB Ward, and Homicide. These didn't bring up any results from a call from Lacey Drake. DEFENSE: They searched 311, 911 and the 7 digit non-emergency phone calls. She didn't look for words : Rodney, McNeary, Sic, Sic-loc. JUROR: How many times have you searched for a single record? She has probably done it 10 times. JUROR: How often do you find it? Often. JUROR: Did you search her other names? No. LANE: It is always possible there is no call to find. With her 13 years experience she thinks the call never existed.

Sgt. Ramirez
Sally Graver said that he told Ofc. Barg not to talk to her? He wouldn't do that. He always tells witnesses it is their decision if they want to talk to investigators on either side. They don't have to talk if they don't want to. The defense attorney's have asked Sgt. Ramirez for assistance in tracking down witnesses. Even yesterday they asked for his help. They never asked for his help to contact Ofc. Barg. Sally never called him either. Maria Aguaristi said she was scared because Janee had come by before with another person. She sounded different when she talked to him then she sounded today. Maria wanted to document the threats. Maria called 311 because she didn't think it was an immediate threat. Maria was concerned that Janee might show up with someone else and start trouble. DEFENSE: Maria never felt Janee would actually cut her head off. Sgt. Ramirez asked Sally why she didn't ask him for help. Sgt. Ramirez didn't know that Sally had contacted Ofc. Barg so much. LANE: Sgt Ramirez was unaware of the attempts to contact Ofc. Barg. Sally said she wasn't asked to contact Sgt. Ramirez by Souza to contact Ofc. Barg.

That's it for this week. Next week will probably have only 1-2 witnesses and then closing arguments. I will keep you all posted.