If this ALV testimony is going to consist of nothing but generic "all I can say is that this action (or lack of action) is consistent with a battered woman" statements, perhaps the entire cross-examination could consist of:
"Ma'am, if a woman exhibits some occasional minor physical injury that might seem normal at first glance, that would be consistent with what a battered woman might exhibit, right?"
"Yes."
"And if a woman never documents via pictures or a diary or any other means that an injury was caused by her partner, that would be consistent with what a battered woman might do, right?"
"Yes."
"Because she wants to hide it, right?"
"Right."
"Right. And similarly if there was no separate contemporaneous evidence whatsoever to indicate an injury was inflicted by her partner, that would also be consistent with a battered woman, right?"
"Yes."
"And if anyone asked her whether an injury was a result of her spouse and she vehemently denied that it was, that would be consistent with a battered woman hiding this, right?"
"Yes."
"And if a woman never indicated to a friend or a doctor that she suffered any sort of injury or abuse from her partner, then for the same reason of hiding it that would be consistent with what a battered woman might do, right?"
"Yes."
"And in fact if a woman denies to anyone who might ask that she has been subjected to physical or emotional abuse by her partner, that would be consistent with a battered woman too, right?"
"Yes."
"And so all of these things I just described are consistent with the actions or the lack of actions of a battered woman, right?"
"Yes."
"Well ma'am, I hope you never talk to my wife, because all those things describe her."
"Objection!!!"
"Sustained."
'No further questions."
"May we approach, your honor?"
If she doesn't get 1st degree, there is no justice imo
