We have ALaV, matron who teaches grown men to heel. We also have the prosecutor's Yes or No format, which allows him to guide the questioning and block her prodigious answers and there is no way she is going to conform. After all, she wrote a book on how to perform as a forensic expert witness. She would be letting down the side, violating her own tenets and yielding to a Mister.
The worst dead end she backed down yesterday was full of stalkers. All kinds. In court, she and Martinez had agreed on the definition of stalking, a term drawn from the imposing architecture of The Great Curriculum. Harassing, following, intimidating, pestering, peeping, intruding &/or inflicting repeated unwanted communications, threatening. But yesterday, she was asked to consider stalking in relation to the defendant's behavior. Gorp! Suddenly, ALaV began twice to insist that stalking means to instill FEAR. She never finished the interruption. However, confronted with testimony that Travis was indeed fearful of the defendant's stalking, she baldly refused to believe that evidence. Now she had not only backed over her own foot, she knew not where to look. It was now conspicuously apparent that she credits information that supports her client as abused, violently abused and discredits any and all contradictory evidence. She has fallen in a heap at the bottom of a cul de sac, at the mercy of the great variety of stalkers who grace our midst.
