Mark R. Weaver calls out Fabian for not following and even went against the DSM diagnosis criteria
Special Prosecutor Mark R. Weaver https://www.communicationscounsel.com/weaver-bio and http://www.politicscounsel.com/our-firm and https://www.isaacwiles.com/professional/mark-r-weaver/ 1 hour 47 min 1 sec https://youtu.be/0jnndclBzPM?t=6363 Weaver Makes Fabian describe what the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders then points out that Fabian tries to discourage and limit the use of the term anti-social-personality disorder in "an attempt to civilize the defendant" even having an article about it published in 2003. 1 hour 47 min 5 sec https://youtu.be/0jnndclBzPM?t=6425 Fabian admits these words of mental health diagnosis can be used prejudicially. He wrote his article "a long time ago" but he is not running from this diagnosis Weaver interestingly points out that no one actually reads these articles of intellectual word salad published in obscure magazines other than to say some someone was published
1 hour 48 min 23 sec https://youtu.be/0jnndclBzPM?t=6503 Weaver shows the list of diagnoses that Fabian tagged Grate with. It was a list of ten diagnoses. Weaver goes through the list one at a time to show Fabian tag grate with each diagnosis even though Grate's symptoms did not match with at was stated in the DSM. Many of the diagnoses Fabian tagged Grate with went directly against the DSM By tagging grate with conflicting diagnoses where the DSM specially states no person can have together ever in their life. Example Fabian tags Grate with persistent depressive disorder and bi-polar even though the DSM states no person can be diagnosed with both. Fabian even admitted at 1 hour 51 min 1 sec https://youtu.be/0jnndclBzPM?t=6661 That it could take a year to definitively. understand a person's diagnosis a year, not a pre-trial evaluation or two or four. Yet Fabian tags me with ADHD after only meeting with him for an hour. Sure sounds like Fabian admitted to malpractice especially when Fabian admits, It's very difficult to be exactly right so basically admitting most of his diagnoses are BS. At 1 hour 31 min 23 sec https://youtu.be/0jnndclBzPM?t=6683 Weaver once again emphasized the DSM specifically. Weaver asks Fabian directly does he diagnose Grate have a persistent depression disorder listed in his report 1 hour 51 min 43 sec https://youtu.be/0jnndclBzPM?t=6703 Fabian says more so persistent depression disorder and ADHD which Weaver says that ADHD needs to be addressed separately. This also shows Fabian's bias against ADHD. 1 hour 51 min 6 sec https://youtu.be/0jnndclBzPM?t=6726 Weaver points out the Fabian contradicted himself again in this where Fabian claimed that Grate was likely experiences more hypomanic episodes. 1 hour 52 min 24 sec https://youtu.be/0jnndclBzPM?t=6744 Weaver states that Fabian tagged Grate with conflicting diagnoses can cannot be laid on the same person in their life after Fabian admits that it's unclear about hypomanic episodes even though Fabian predicted them in his report.
1 hour 53 min 58 sec https://youtu.be/0jnndclBzPM?t=6838 When Weaver tried to get Fabian to state what part of the DSM he used for "Other specified trauma and stressor related disorder" and stated Fabian added in the report "parens complex trama"
Weaver cited two sections of the DSM, Fabian however responded, Yes that's my putting in complex trauma it's not in the DSM. Yeah he literally made up the diagnosis out of thin air. Weaver then makes a point that Fabian creates a "three paragraph definition" of that term but makes no specific findings of how this applies to Grate. Weaver calls out that Fabian tagged Grate with "Specified Complex Trauma" but made no specific findings. Fabian claims that he disagrees where he created 81 pages documenting complex trauma. 1 hour 54 min 52 sec https://youtu.be/0jnndclBzPM?t=6892
Weaver states that DSM 30989 and DSM 3099 states that Fabian had to make specific certain findings right from the DSM and put it in your diagnosis in order to say that you reach the punchline of that Fabian then responds with his typical stumbling word salad stating "he has a lot of hours and won't agree on that"
Picking apart another one of Fabian's fraudulent diagnosis's at 1 hour 55 min 32 sec Weaver https://youtu.be/0jnndclBzPM?t=6932 quotes a specific section of the DSM 315, Fabian responded, I don't have it memorized, Weaver responded I would not expect you too. Weaver just exposed once again Fabian has poor knowledge at best of the DSM and doesn't reference the DSM when handing down mental health diagnoses. Weaver continues that the DSM required psychologists to review school reports before making a specific classroom leaning disorder as stated in page 37. Weaver asks Fabian did he review any school reports before making the diagnosis? Fabian responded, I think they were destroyed or burned. Weaver then stated, so the answer no. Meaning this was a false diagnosis because the DSM specifically states that academic records need to be review and no amount of psychological testing of Fabian's protesting of "spitting hairs" can change that.
This is outright malpractice and what is questioned a lot in this narrative is no longer when hasn't John Matthew Fabian's license been pulled, it should be why was it (granted by multiple States) in the first place.
Part 2 of concludes at 1 hour 56 min 13 sec https://youtu.be/0jnndclBzPM?t=6973 where Weaver picks apart the "traumatic brain injury" where Fabian puts in his report that Grate claimed he had brain damage from when he slid into a bird bath when he was 6 and hit his head with a hammer neither time he went to the hospital, meaning other than Grate claiming it happened, there is no other record, nor does it seem that Grate endured any more head trauma than any average American Youth. The video concludes with Fabian making a bunch of excuses and Weaver asking to approach the Judges desk.
VIDEO 3
16 min 52 sec on video 3 Fabian admits that mental health professionals do not agree on the diagnostic standards of the DSM https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1012 stating, that the agreement between professionals is not "extraordinary high"
What Fabian just admitted is that the DSM is the only thing that is suppose to legitimize psychology yet no one follows it. That psychologists tag people with diagnoses based on their own opinion literally vs a standardized diagnostic criteria which is varies as much as say someone likes a certain color. Fabian states psychologists only use the DSM as a "guide"
17 min 50 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1070 Weavercalls out Fabian for stating brain damage caused by suspect running into a bird bath and hitting head with hammer at age 5 or 6 and not establishing a baseline/benchmark of his brain before the supposed damage.
18 min 27 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1107 Fabian says, we don't live in a perfect world and there is no baseline data from the suspect Weaver reiterates that the DSM outlines that baseline data is required for a diagnosis . Fabian responds rudely stating that data was "unavailable ." 19 min 14 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1154 Weaver points out that there is no medical reported evidence of brain trauma. This leads to the suspect lying about the brain trauma and Fabian fabricating a diagnosis entirely based on that lie.
19 min 44 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1184 Weaver dives into Grates ADHD diagnosis. Weaver asked Fabian is ADHD what people who can't sit still in the classroom get tagged with it. Fabian acknowledges yes. Weaver then asks, Is this what teachers back in the day call ants in the pants? Fabian responds, yeah that is a good way of putting it. That's Fabian's response, he is having pilots medicals revoked for something he admits to as ants in the pants. 20 min 5 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1205 Weaver then gets Fabian to admit he tagged Grate with ADHD because he couldn't sit still. 20 min 18 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1218 Weaver stated that Grate however was never formally diagnosed qith ADHD, to which Fabian fumbles through his notes and says at 20 min :31 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1231 "I have to look at my notes here, I believe what you were saying." This is similar to Drummond V Houk where Fabian's testimony was labeled suspect where Fabian visually shows has no idea what he tagged Grate with, or his past diagnoses history. He compiled this report, possibly using templates that does not reflect reality and without realizing it, admitted to malpractice on the stand.
20 min 51 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1251 Weaver asks, Doesn't the DSM person require the person diagnosing ADHD to list exact symptoms and when they occurred over a time frame. Fabian tied to sidestep the question by stating, ADHD is a developmental disorder and I could not do that with Shawn because I didn't see him... Weaver interrupts seeing through this sidestep stating to Fabian to be responsive to his question, isn't it true the DSM say you must find that to diagnose ADHD? Fabian responded that it's assessed and evaluated in childhood. Weaver stated that according to the DSM the initial diagnoses had to take place before the age of 12.
21 min 44 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1304
Weaver stated according to the DSM Fabian could not diagnosis the suspect with ADHD, Fabian said he tagged Grate with the diagnosis based on family report and claims, the current psychological testing is consistent. Weaver stated that Fabian tagged the suspect with ADHD 30 years later with second hand reports which Fabian than admits to as correct.
22 min 13 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1333 Weaver stated, with no diagnosis we're just you made a kind of after the back diagnosis and that's why it's in the report is that fair? Fabian responded after an awkward pause, No. Weaver once again asks Fabian did he make the diagnosis after childhood? to which Fabian claims, this is not fair but then admits that the ADHD diagnosis is not correct and then backpaddled claiming it was based on self reporting and testing results of working memory. further stating that it, raised concerns enough for me to diagnose that and if it's called unspecified or other specified neurodevelopmental disorder traits of ADHD I won't argue with you on that you.
Once again Fabian admitted he didn't follow the DSM and tagged Grate with ADHD Jim Crow Style for the sake of it regardless if it fits the diagnosis criteria or not and instead uses ADHD as a catch all. With pilots he doesn't even take testimony from anyone who knows them, let alone their flight instructors and claims to base his results on tests of working memory performance. I offered a comprehensive list and Fabian refused to see it. Weaver then dives into Fabian's shoddy at best interpretation of the test results.
23 min 1 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1381 Weaver points out that Fabian's own tests showed suspect was testing normal and did not have ADHD according to the test results. 23 min 12 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1392 Fabian acknowledges these are the results, Weaver then reiterates, Normal means someone without ADHD for that particular test. 23 min 19 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1399 then tries to sidestep the question again and starts over talking Weaver when asks repeatedly, is that a yes or no and only stops when the judge states that Fabian answers the question. Fabian has the look of a dog after getting disciplined for destroying furniture. Then Fabians asked for the question before snapping to the answer that Grate did test in the normal range. Weaver asked, and normal for that test means the person does not have ADHD? Fabian paused then answered, Shawn did not endorse significant symptoms of ADHD
23 min 45 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1420 Weaver points on Fabian's own report on another of the tests that stated Grate missed the threshold of clinical diagnosis base on the authors instruction yet Fabian diagnosed him anyway and Fabian responded no tests are required to diagnose for ADHD. Weaver then asked, What does misting the threshold mean other than he doesn't have it? Fabian responded, That is one test of attention, the DSM-5 doesn't require any tests to assess for ADHD
So Fabian essentially said it doesn't matter what the test results state I'm still tagging you with ADHD because the DSM lets me based on opinion only
So someone can claim someone has ADHD, the DSM-5 has no testing requirement to tag someone with ADHD but good luck trying to get rid of that tag even though the threshold to be tagged with ADHD is so low by the FAA, it's non-existent. Guilty until proven innocent, try to prove you don't have it. Once again not all pilots have to go through this hell which is a clear violation of The 14 Amendment equal protection clause. This is also just one example that the field of psychology is an incubator of malpractice.
24 min 25 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1465 Weaver says Grate scores on the Connors test were average because Fabian listed the scores as average four different times and Weaver then followed up with the question, Doesn't average mean no ADHD? which Fabian responds "there's symptoms and inconstant response times" Then claimed there was, potentially processing speed issues. This is exactly what Fabian claimed to me over the phone, inconsistent conflicting results but I'll tag you as "cognitively slow" Inconsistent is anything but definitive but apparently not in John Matthew Fabian's dictionary.
This was not the only case where Fabian was called out for scoring and interpreting the tests wrong. In USA V ANTUN LEWIS https://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohnd/files/LewisOrder.pdf
USA V Antun Lewis
Clinton Appointed Judge Solomon Oliver presiding. regarding the use of the death penalty. Ultimately Lewis was sentenced to 35 years due to Soloman siding with defense that Lewis was retarded.
However many interesting points were laid out in the case law. and yes this fits Fabians MO, person he's writing a report on is broken brained. Disagrees with the government assessment, says that the person he examines only has skills of a 12 year old (his MO) then claims that the person is so broken brained an ADHD diagnosis isn't enough page 28. https://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohnd/files/LewisOrder.pdf
Dr. Fabian stated that a school’s severe handicap placement looks at the student’s behavior and not necessarily the underlying causes of the behavior. Id. Further, Dr. Fabian disagreed with Dr. Askenazi’s diagnosis of ADHD because ADHD could not account solely for Defendant’s global cognitive and adaptive impairments. (Id. at 936.) Dr. Fabian determined that Defendant’s deficits in numerous academic areas coupled with Defendant’s low IQ showed that Defendant possessed low functioning intelligence, not just a learning disability.
Page 34
The Government questions the validity of Dr. Fabian’s SIB-R test results and argues that Dr. Fabian did not properly consider or record the time frame by which the third-party respondents were to consider Defendant’s adaptive skills
Consistent with the Governments view of Fabian's shoddy work in US V Hernandez along with the cases out of Ohio, State V Grate, State V Hale, Drummond V Houk
It gets better further down page 34
Further, the Government contends that Dr. Fabian did not determine whether the respondents were guessing on the questions, whether the questions reflected situations Defendant was likely to encounter (i.e., whether a question regarding sewing capabilities is relevant to the assessment if Defendant never had to sew), and whether Dr. Fabian considered potential bias from respondents.
then
On cross-examination, the Government noted the potential inconsistency between the AAIDD and the SIB-R Manual. (Tr., p. 1045.) Dr. Fabian admitted that he did not ask the respondents whether they guessed or not on a particular question but stated that a retrospective assessment of intellectual disability requires a clinician to analyze all the available data, including adaptive behavior instruments. (Id. at 1045-46.) He further admitted that for several questions that reflected situations that Defendant was unlikely to encounter, he did not ask the -35- respondents whether they had an opportunity to observe Defendant in this encounter. (Id. at 1050- 51.)
page 35
Finally, the Government asserts that Dr. Fabian’s test results were not properly scored because Dr. Fabian used the wrong SIB-R norms when calculating Defendant’s scores. (Tr., pp. 1064-65.) The SIB-R, as with other standardized instruments, have set norms that correspond with a particular age group. As Dr. Greenspan testified, these different norms correspond with age because “there are certain things you would expect a 25-year-old to be able to do that you would not necessarily expect of a 16-year-old.” (Id. at 1252.) Dr. Fabian testified that he assessed the SIB-R scores with norms of a 26-year-old. (Id. at 176.) Dr. Fabian admitted that he should have assessed Defendant’s scores with the norms of a 21-year-old, the age at which the respondents assessed Defendant’s adaptive skills. (Id.) Dr. Fabian testified that he did not know how the norms would have differed between the age groups of 21 and 26, but that it was possible that Defendant’s actual broad independent score is higher. (Id. at 178.)
further down 35.
While the court will not consider Defendant’s scores of 59 definitive evidence of Defendant’s significant limitations in adaptive behavior, the score does illustrate that Defendant possesses deficits in his adaptive skills. Notably, both Defendant’s SIB-R scores from different respondents are consistent and both scores are approximately 11 points lower than the score needed to show significant adaptive limitations. Because the AAIDD advises clinicians to use adaptive behavioral instruments to measure adaptive skills, and no other expert, other than Dr. Fabian, followed this practice, the court will take into account Defendant’s SIB-R scores.
Yet the Judge sided with Fabian's arguments. That should be something to be pointed out, many judges side with Fabian but of all the cases I was able to dig up, no jury sided with him.
Returning to the cross examination of Fabian during OHIO V GRATE
25 min 4 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1503 pointing out to the court Fabian's list of diagnoses, We are down to our last two. Weaver points out "cannabis use disorder" is an overblown term and asked Fabian, Would the average person call this dude who likes to smoke pot a lot disorder. Fabian responds, If it interferes with their life functioning I would agree. So once again Fabian admitted if someone smoked weed a handful of times in their whole life and was not addicted, then that person should not be tagged with cannabis use disorder. This blew Fabian's reefer madness argument out of the water. Weaver says Fabian didn't list if it was mild moderate or severe, Fabian claims he put the report he listed mild claiming it was later in the report. Judging by how thorough Weaver has been in the case, he would not have missed this as an oversight, meaning once again Fabian lied on the stand. It should also be pointed out judging by Weavers Twitter Profile, he's a based Republican but doesn't think smoking a couple joints in your life is an issue.
26 min 30 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1590 Weaver claimed Fabian's last diagnosis of "other specified personality disorders" was a lazy catchall calling it a junk drawer. 26 min 40 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1600 Fabian responds, that was an easy way to conceptualize this... yes.
26 min 45 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1605 Weaver points out that none of these traits on their own lead to someone being a violent killer, and Fabian reluctantly agrees, Weaver then asks Fabian does he agree that people with those traits live perfectly normal law abiding lives. Fabian shifts in his chair and says, I've.... that's speculative. Weaver asks him to speculate asking for Fabian's "expert opinion" since he's suppose to know more than anyone else in the courtroom. and asks Fabian why most people with those symptoms of only the last diagnosis not commit murders. Fabian claims the junk drawer diagnosis is commonly seen in cases of murder but he cannot predict if someone has these symptoms that leads to this type of crime.
So how is anymore valid to claim someone that was tagged with ADHD is more than likely to be involved in a plane crash even though the NTSB data says otherwise https://sites.google.com/site/no2cog/supporting-evidence/ntsb-data-shows-pilots-with-adhd-are-statically-unlikely-to-cause-accidents
27 min 32 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1652 Weaver gets Fabian to admit he's not an advocate for Grate, but that Fabian worked very closely for advocates for other suspects in the past and that he tears Fabian apart for his 2009 article in Forensic Psychology Practice used by lawyers as a playbook to deflect blame to lesson the sentencing for their clients. at 28 min 24 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1704 when Weaver asked Fabian did he write this Fabian responded, I assume I did.
Fabian claims it's for psychologists not lawyers, (telling psychologists to act like lawyers?) to which Weaver quoted the article that says the psychologist must portray the defendant having a poor hand in life. Fabian flippantly responds, If it's true for the jury to hear and its up to them to decide. Fabian was forced by the California Supreme Court to retract the part about developing sympathy in the juries eyes.
It is shown how quickly Fabian's throwing a bunch of diagnoses against the wall that not only does John Mathew Fabian not follow the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel or DSM, His diagnosis actually go against what is prescribed in the DSM, especially with his tagging of ADHD on Shawn Grate.