Arias defense psychologist refuses to go down 'Slime Alley'

Posted: Updated:
PHOENIX (3TV/CBS 5) - Sexuality, spirituality and plenty of secrets. For the first time since the jury reached a verdict in the retrial of Jodi Arias, we're hearing the testimony from one clinical psychologist who specializes in twisted sexual behavior.

Dr. L.C. Miccio-Fonseca didn't portray Travis Alexander as an evil person, but rather as someone conflicted and leading a double life. "Perhaps the one that took the lead, in the daytime, was the spiritual Mr. Alexander, was the man who really wanted to do right. And in the evening time, it was T-dog," Miccio-Fonseca said.

Travis by day and T-Dog by night. Psychologist Miccio-Fonseca testified she believed Alexander bounced between being sexually deviant with Arias, yet when friends were around, he appeared committed to his religious convictions.

"The evidence is in text messages; in emails. As difficult as it is to realize that, to deal with that reality, he did, he had, like, a double life."

According to Miccio-Fonseca, Alexander's sexual deviancy included interest in minors, both boys and girls. Arias claimed not only did she walk in on him looking at an image of a young boy, but Alexander also compared Arias to a 12-year-old girl"

"It pauses me, I want to take a look at this and I want to see if there are other indicators because he's referencing a minor. Normally men don't make comments about, you sound like a pre-teen. He provides, according to her, some explanation about, that he was a victim of abuse, that having sex with women makes him more normal."

By the end of her testimony for the defense, the psychologist summed up the Arias and Alexander relationship as consensual but "explorative."

"They both pushed the boundaries. He was more the initiator of that, you can see that in the things that he talks about, particularly in this conversation. It was all about making legitimate porn, taking different kind of angles, different kind of shots."

Yet prosecutor Juan Martinez was not buying it. He began his cross examination trying to discredit Miccio-Fonseca. "You seem to be having trouble with your memory. Do you have a problem with your memory?"

To which Miccio-Fonseca responded: "I don't believe that I have trouble with my memory, Mr. Martinez. It's just that the questions that you're asking are somewhat not very clear, and I don't want to be distracted by those antics. I want to stay focused on what I'm here for. I don't want to go down slime highway here."

"Are you refusing? Yes or no?" Martinez asked.

FONSECA: "I'm trying to respond, Mr. Martinez. If you could just step back a little bit and let me finish my responses, and allow me to respond."

Prosecutor Martinez then attempted to poke holes in Miccio-Fonseca's testimony, by suggesting Arias was the one manipulating Alexander.

MARTINEZ: But if the etiology of the suffering in silence from when she was growing up, what you are now telling us is that it skipped over the Bobby Juarez relationship, skipped over the Mathew McCartney relationship, skipped over the Daryl Brewer relationship and somehow cropped up in the Travis Alexander relationship, right?
NURMI: "Objection, mis-characterizes her testimony yet again."
JUDGE STEPHENS: "Overruled, you may answer."
FONSECA: "No I don't think there was anything that was skipped over. I think there were probably some elements of that but it was more pronounced with Mr. Alexander."

FONSECA: "The suffering in silence was more related to Ms. Arias' relationship with Alexander, not her relationship with all the other men she's purported to have."

Yet the fireworks simmered by the end of the showdown between the psychologist and prosecution, as Miccio-Fonseca tried to get the last word during defense attorney Nurmi's rebuttal.

NURMI: "During Mr. Martinez's questioning, do you recall using the term Slime Alley?"
FONSECA: "I did."
NURMI: "Could you describe for us what you meant by Slime Alley?"
FONSECA: "Well, misrepresentation of what the professional is here to do. The implication that I'm being unethical. That, to me, is slimy. We're trying to deal with a case that's very difficult. Trying to throw the mud to hurt someone's reputation. In my experience, I have not had that experience in the courtroom testimony in the 30-35 years, I've never seen anything like that."
MARTINEZ: "Objection. Relevance, beyond the scope of the question."