trial day 46: the defense continues its case in chief #138

[ToothPickle Sticks]

Somebody smack this witness! :facepalm:

 

[websurfer]

the FOG is rolling in must be catchy hmmm??

 

[scorpio24]

If she only testified in one or two, wouldn't those STICK OUT in her mind?!?

 

[askeptikalhippo]

 

[BelMal11]

Finally a real come-uppance for Alyce.

I hope all her elementary friends and supporters are there to witness this in person!!:floorlaugh:

 

[Weebles]

 

[HarvestMoon]

Where there's smoke, there's a burning pantsuit.

ALV exposed... :liar::liar::liar::liar::liar::liar::liar::liar:

The jury can see that lies are no big deal to ALV.

Standard operating procedure with this 'expert'.

"pantsuit" :floorlaugh:

 

[Southern_Meadow]

Is Willmott gonna have a chance to do another re-direct after Juan is finished like she did with Samuels? I hope not. Me thinks this is one doodle that can't be un-did, Homeskillet.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I can't stand when she says "Mr. Martinez" Grrrrr

The jury knows it is said as a putdown because she never refers to Willmott as Ms. Willmott.:furious:

 

[JustMeDeb]

Is it me, or does it seem at times Wilmott forgets the jury is there listening?

 

[Juli]

Who is ALV trying to protect? As an unbiased witness, she should have no problem answering yes or no and let the chips fall where they may. Her insistence on expanding on answers in an attempt to "justify" every damaging piece of evidence against JA is so glaring that I'm surprised the jury isn't breaking out their sunglasses.

 

[Davia18]

Man o man is this cool. Go ask Alyce. If she did a competent job. :giggle:

I don't understand why she was willing to testify, the only thing I can think is for the money so she would have a nice retirement. I believe we have exceeded $30,000 already.

 

[wenwe4]

you indicated JA suffered from abuse . . . same certainty with regard to your question regarding number of men you testified on behalf
I testified in family law I am not . .
judge non-responsive

same type of certainty for both answers
absolutely not
did you not take that question seriously?
I took it seriously . . I should have said I don't remember . . .over 29 years . . I don't remember because I don't have my CV in front of me

criminal case testimony knowing it was only a report .. isn't that misrepresentation?
I do not remember if I testified . . .I still don't know if I have testified in one . . it would be more accurate if I would have said I know I have in family law cases

testify on behalf of a man only wrote a report
objection - sustained

issues in this case - you resolved them relying on your education
my experience
your education played no part
you don't have a doctorate correct
objection -beyond the scope
approach

 

[rose222]

How dare she come in and slander Travis! JM is furious and so are we!

 

[KMouse]

So in 29 years ALV never testified for a man but once she wrote a report and was never asked to testify.

Did I get that right?

 

[Sleuth5]

I'm sure there's a pattern in here somewhere...

 

[Nellie Nelson]

Juan asks ALV if her certainty that Ja was the victim of DV the same as her previouscertainty that she testified in criminal court for 2 men.

Alyce is now saying she should have said she didn't remember.

Also she reminds us again, that in 29 years she has only, perhaps, testified once, maybe, on behalf of a man. Anywhere.

 

[Schuby]

She's lying right now. I remember the look on her face as she thought about her answer to that question. She was skerred. She knew the answer would discredit her.

 

[gauntlet]

I title this picture "Non verbal communication"

 

[Truth Detector]

Man o man is this cool. Go ask Alyce. If she did a competent job. :giggle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WANNqr-vcx0