Even if I did miss that someone posted that Jason knew the brother of the investigating officer, the implication is that the officer lied on the stand in his official capacity. That's pretty serious ... so the prosecution, instead of questioning him in court, made the implication through the suspect's mother. If the prosecution was prepared to stand behind accusing the officer of dishonesty and absence of moral intergrity, the prosecution should have had the decency to accuse the man to his face while he was testifying.
I cannot overlook this because the prosecution was reading someone's facebook page and learned new information ... so they ran with it ... and implied that an officer was dishonest. That seems to be the rumor. The officer deserved an opportunity to respond to allegations of that nature. If the prosecution missed their chance, that's their problem and the oficer should not have had his reputation placed in question. That's how I see it and that's unfortunate for the officer.
Introducing evidence about the car accident but excluding the investigating officer, hearing a day after he testified that his brother knew Jason ... doesn't work for me. Why wasn't he introduced at the same time as the theory about the accident? We know it's not because his brother knew Jason.