Interview with Dr. Dave, the Handsome Malibu Doctor

LAist: Even though you lost your case against UCLA, you won the case brought against you, so are you satisfied with the overall results of yesterday's events?

Dr. Martorano: I can't say I am satisfied. I think the Jury did the best that they could with the information at hand, and the wording of the law. Some critical information was excluded from the case, including that Dr. Krell had filed her other lawsuit, and other false claims she made and later retracted, the nature of which I am not sure I can legally disclose at this time. I was happy to the extent that the verdict clears my name. I don't lie, and I didn't lie then. The jury didn't believe Dr. Krell. I was surprised to read she felt "vindicated" after losing a slander verdict and learning that jurors, including Mr. Domenech, thought she lied. Apparently, she continues to be more concerned with not getting in trouble than with the perception that she committed perjury.

According to the Times, UCLA's lawyer, Alan Zuckerman tried to paint you as having a narcissistic personality disorder, going as far as listing nine points of the behavior and showing how you met all of them. What did you think of his attempt to discredit you in that way?

Actually, he skipped over two of the nine, and the board he presented did not actually say narcissistic personality disorder, it just said narcissistic, it also left off the explanation as to the nature of how the criteria must be met. I think it was a desperate act, but probably effective. The word narcissism appeared once in my analyst's notes, it was actually quoting me, looking at my own narcissism. We all have it. In response to your question, I would have preferred if the trial had stuck to the facts of the case. Alan's a great lawyer, and did quite a job on this case. He knew the facts of the case. As a society, we tolerate lawyers looking past the truth, and confining themselves to the argument at hand. I think that's unfortunate.

The Times said that your own personal psychiatrist said that you were "addicted" to having women fall in love with you. Isn't there doctor-patient confidentiality? Do you feel betrayed by your psychiatrist for saying that about you?

I don't think my psychiatrist said that, I never heard him give testimony to that effect during trial, I told [the LA Times staff writer of the piece,] Jessica Garrison to look into it, cause it appeared to be a misquote. It was something Krell's lawyer said at the closing argument. But if my psychiatrist had said that, I wouldn't care, there are worse things to be addicted to.

Is it common for psychiatrists to divulge their opinions about their patients?

Only with their patient's consent, which I gladly gave. I have nothing to hide.

How did your lawyers respond to Garrard's theory that Dr. Krell wouldn't have given you oral sex outside of her apartment "because a 35-year-old physician would obviously choose to go to her apartment rather than stay in the car"?

Well, since the jury, denied her claim of slander, 12-0 and there were 4 women and 8 men I would say that no one there bought into that or any of Mr. Garrard's other ludicrous suggestions. Which included claiming the Jury shouldn't believe me because, on one occasion I didn't remember where my ejaculate ended up. He quoted evolutionary biology and elaborated that we are programmed from birth to keep track of such things. Do you? Also, he stated that it was a physical impossibility to climb from the front of an Audi A4 to the back, and wanted to introduce evidence from an accident reconstruction expert proving his point. The judge didn't allow it, but my wife and I prepared by filming ourselves doing just that (climbing into the back seat of a 2003 Audi A4.)

If the trial was pretty much about you and Dr. Krell's relationship, why did other women have to testify about their sex life using code names in order to protect themselves?

Dr. Krell's attorneys subpoenaed the other women. I still don't understand what it had to do with the case, it was a tactic to distract. They were very uncomfortable, and I felt bad that they were there at all. I didn't subpoena any ex-girlfriends. All of the witnesses who testified on my behalf volunteered.

Is UCLA's Neuropsychiatric Institute a crazy place, ironically, in the wake of all the lawsuits being brought involving Dr. Krell, yourself, and others?

No, it's not a crazy place, most psychiatrists are a little offbeat. The press has really honed in on the salacious aspects of this case, but for me, it was really about being called a liar, and losing a position that would have given me a real head start on opening my psychiatric practice. Dr. Fawzy, the executive director decided to remove me from my position based on a rumor, that's ridiculous! And it didn't seem fair. Furthermore, as I testified, even though we were having an affair, no one else wanted or applied for the job, and no one took it after I left.

Also, it was never about getting her to admit we had sex. In fact, my wife has been ruthlessly teasing me throughout trial and she has feels Dr. Krell is "terminally ugly," having Krell admit to an affair was not a "feather in my cap." Even a juror approached me after trial and seemed perplexed as to why I had ever wanted a relationship with her. I don't remember exactly what he said, but it seemed that he didn't find her attractive either. Even I had to wonder what the hell I was thinking after I saw her in the courtroom. I can't say I find her even the least bit attractive, and am in fact repelled. My wife does an incredible imitation of her, and I have to beg her to stop. I find it that disturbing.