Quote:
Originally Posted by yorkietalkjilly  Juan Martinez does have a way of even making a highly seemingly credible expert witness like LaViolette vulnerable on the stand and he is making it very clear she fell hook, line 'n sinker for Arias' story. He's slowly making is fairly apparent that LaViolette thinks of Arias as if she were one of her private patients and not someone on trial for life that she needed to assess as to her credibility, psychological state now and at the time of the crime and testify as to her conclusions. I cannot see from the testimony of hers that I've heard that she ever even considered that Travis could have been a victim of a "Fatal Attraction" type situation - with a far worse ending than the movie. She doesn't seem to have any ability to ever look at the relationship between the two as anything but Alexander in the role of male-abuser - period. I thought JM would use a different method of handling Alyce LaViolette than the last expert but he's just bulldogging right ahead relentlessly exposing this lady's seeming bias. I'll have to admit I'm grudginly admiring that! He treats her like the for-hire witness she's turning out to be. But if she just once or twice would ever see any of the issues from Alexander's point of view, she might seem more open-minded and fair to me but she never ever seems to give any credence to anything Travis Alexander typed, said or reportedly said that doesn't pigeon-hole him only one way - the aggressor and the abuser. I would think a so-called psychologist would be more center-of-the-road and consider that her current client might be presenting her with a very one-sided view of any relationship, particularly if that client's life could be at risk unless they can successfully impress a single juror that the client was the "real" victim in this situation; and that largely achievable through that same psychologist's court testimony. But she always sees every issue discussed from only Arias' POV and I think to be more credible she would need to tailor her assessments with slightly less defense prejudice. That extreme prejudice is very hard to accept and still see her as a totally professional and clinical expert, able to equitably assess any situation from all sides. She's coming off as just what she really is - a bought-and-paid-for defense witness whose job it is to further sell Arias' story to that one juror that could be leaning Arias' way. I wonder if she ever admits to herself at home at night that she could have been expertly lied to, hoodwinked and circle-talked, too?
When I see an expert witness for the defense on the stand, I fall hard for those that are clever enough to appear clinical and cold and rigidly impartial. Those that can come off that way, though they may be a soul-less sold-out shill and putting 3 kids through Harvard on their defense-testimony dollars, really do impress me the most - even when I can see right through them.  |
I wonder this too. Sometimes I think she took the case because she believes that domestic violence is such an important subject, and she can teach the country all about it, even if she loses the case.